Military Review

American "Tomahawk": Is it as good as it is painted?

17
Today "Tomahawk" is the most massive cruise missile in the world. This CD has participated in eight military conflicts around the world. From 1991 to 2017, the US Armed Forces used 2059 missiles of this type, while more than 7000 units were produced.


"Tomahawk" - very functional weapon. Aircraft, surface and submarine ships, as well as stationary launch canisters can act as a carrier of this CD. Completed with various combat units, the rocket is capable of solving a wide range of tasks, including reconnaissance.

With a number of unquestionable merits, Tomahawk is quite easily destroyed upon detection, and in fact incapable of overcoming the echeloned missile defense system. Nevertheless, the detection of a low-flying cruise missile is the most difficult task of modern air defense systems.

17 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 16 January 2018 13: 17
    +1
    smile Tomahawks cost a lot of money ... it is most advantageous to use trap targets against them ... let's say that if the SHAIRAT airfield in Syria would be equipped with inflatable airplanes and anti-aircraft batteries, a war for the US in this way would simply ruin the US economy.
    The price of one rubber penny plane compared to the cost of TOMAHAWK. what
    1. Lexus
      Lexus 16 January 2018 14: 18
      +3
      However, in Iraq, Libya and Yugoslavia, the use of the Tomahawks has paid off. hi
    2. lieutenant colonel
      lieutenant colonel 17 January 2018 12: 35
      0
      They are these Tomahawks ALREADY in warehouses in a quantitative balance of about 5000! and covered with dust. Therefore, rubber planes are more likely to go broke than the United States to dispose of its old stocks.
  2. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy 16 January 2018 16: 51
    +2
    40 years in service, so what do the “axes” do not reach in terms of stability from modern missile defense? We will also show the claim to T34 for resistance to ATGM.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 18 January 2018 09: 08
      0
      Quote: Mavrikiy
      More to T34

      Why not?
      The T-54 and T-55 are being upgraded to the current level of BTT protection.
      wink
  3. vlad007
    vlad007 16 January 2018 16: 51
    +2
    The video is very long - 29 minutes! A lot of unnecessary information, the optimal movie time 5-7 minutes. It is necessary to be able to sift out all unnecessary and leave only the most important.
    Many experts say that tomahawks are very difficult goals to counter.
  4. Olfred
    Olfred 16 January 2018 17: 43
    +3
    To author + hi It is surprising how many eGsperts begin to find fault with a guy, but he didn’t stupidly copy and paste everything, but collected information and made a video) as a whole, it’s very informative and I’d rather watch a video of this guy than the same (D) braised one ... laughing
    Yes, why something and the Americans have enough not only axes, but also carriers for them
  5. tchoni
    tchoni 16 January 2018 18: 04
    0
    Tomahawk "is a very functional weapon. Aircraft, surface and submarine ships, as well as stationary launch containers can serve as a carrier for this missile system. Being equipped with various warheads, the missile is capable of solving a wide range of tasks, including reconnaissance ones.
    Actually, Iraq HAD A DEEP ECHELONIZED AIR DEFENSE. And, one of the best armies in the world (included in the top ten)
    1. Igar
      16 January 2018 22: 20
      +1
      Only now it didn’t work practically, for almost all of the Iraqi generals were bought in advance by the Americans. There were rumors that the EW funds were supposedly working, but that was how it remained.
    2. Conserp
      Conserp 18 January 2018 14: 01
      0
      > Iraq HAD DEEP ECHELONED AIR DEFENSE.
      > And one of the best armies in the world


      Why are you lying?

      > entered the top ten

      On numbers. Like the Zulus at one time.
  6. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 16 January 2018 18: 23
    +1
    The TTX of “axes” can be easily attributed to the salvo density. Due to the large number of carriers, they can be not just “a lot”, but “very many”.
  7. lieutenant colonel
    lieutenant colonel 17 January 2018 12: 42
    +3
    The "old" Tomahawks are designed to solve issues in countries that do not have a layered missile defense ... Yes, even layered and developed, but they will simply crush the small ones with their thousands (about 5000) missiles. They fulfill their role perfectly. And their use will not ruin the American military-industrial complex, it will only free up storage space for newer products. And in general, with such an adversary as the United States it is more expensive to engage in cap-making; The tactics of using the US Armed Forces have not been repeated in any military conflict. It was always exclusive and completely unexpected for the enemy. Just recall Iraq ... - they took and bribed the generals, in Yugoslavia - another, in Libya - the third.
    1. Cynic
      Cynic 18 January 2018 09: 13
      0
      Quote: Lieutenant Colonel
      US Air Force Tactics

      maybe different, but the strategy is the same, with a failed attempt to overthrow power in the state from the inside, weaken and overthrow it from the outside as much as possible!
  8. ronnon
    ronnon 19 January 2018 13: 01
    0
    Annoying this talking head in a balaclava.
  9. Dzafdet
    Dzafdet 19 January 2018 17: 55
    0
    Quote: Lieutenant Colonel
    They are these Tomahawks ALREADY in warehouses in a quantitative balance of about 5000! and covered with dust. Therefore, rubber planes are more likely to go broke than the United States to dispose of its old stocks.

    And their fuel is degrading there. So it is not known who will go broke faster .. And besides the inflatable models there are all kinds of corner reflectors .. wassat
  10. sd68
    sd68 22 January 2018 11: 03
    0
    The favorite myth of Runet is how easy it is to bring down the Tomahawk.
    Formally, both Iraq and Yugoslavia were full of anti-aircraft weapons theoretically capable of bringing down the Tomahawk, but in practice it was possible to bring down an extremely small amount.
    1. Korax71
      Korax71 23 January 2018 16: 16
      0
      I agree. And they were shot down only because they knew the places of their passage.