US Navy ordered the development of the Tomahawk Block IV rocket in the version of the RCC

51
The U.S. Navy has resumed work on a marine version of the Tomahawk Block IV rocket. As transmits "Warspot" referring to the portal navaltoday.com, the US Navy ordered Raytheon to develop an anti-ship modification of the Tomahawk missile.

US Navy ordered the development of the Tomahawk Block IV rocket in the version of the RCC




The U.S. Navy intends to receive an anti-ship modification of the Tomahawk Block IV missile in the future. As part of its creation, the company Raytheon received 349 million dollars, which should equip the rocket with a new type of multi-mode guidance system, as well as conduct testing of prototypes. The first serial samples of the new anti-ship missiles based on Tomahawk Block IV in the US Navy are planning to receive by the 2023 year.

Raytheon unveiled the latest sea-based Tomahawk R / UGM-2018 Block IV cruise missile at the Euronaval-109 naval saloon in Paris last year. According to the developers, a number of innovations are integrated in the indicated version of the rocket, including the possibility of hitting both stationary ground and moving sea targets. In addition, thanks to the equipment of the munition with a two-way transmission line, the missile was able to re-target in flight.

According to Raytheon, the Block IV variant has a length of 5,5 m (with a launch accelerator - 6,2 m), Diameter - 51,8 cm. Rocket weight - 1315,4 kg, (with an 1587,6 accelerator kg). Wing span - 2,7 m. Flight range - 1600 km (according to other sources - 1800 km). The weight of the warhead is 454 kg.

Earlier in the US, it was announced that the development of Tomahawk Block IV rockets was suspended due to the high cost of the program, however, back in 2017 it became known that the new rocket was created and successfully tested.
  • Raytheon
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

51 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -4
    30 August 2019 15: 50
    Let's see what happens in the end.
  2. 0
    30 August 2019 15: 52
    Integrated a number of innovations, including the possibility of destruction of both stationary ground and moving marine objects.
    And what is the achievement. RCCs have long been able to shoot at ground targets, at least in our fleet. Like in Syria, from coastal missile systems for bearded men in the desert, naughty .. request PS I could be wrong, but it seems that Moscow (or the Varangian) was the main weapon ..
    1. +2
      30 August 2019 16: 39
      And what is the achievement
      Well, perhaps in versatility. In principle, the anti-ship missile version of the "ax" already existed (it seems to be too lazy to look for accurate data up to 500 km range), but they refused from it, they considered that there were enough "harpoons". Now we decided to try again on the new element base: retargeting in flight is a good feature; almost half a ton of warheads is also a serious argument (130kg of "harpoon" look pale here); a long arm again (I think you can fire them at 400-500 km).
      Actually, I think so that it's in the "hat" ... namely. Potential customers looked at our "Club" / "caliber" and balked, they say, "I want this" so that both the ships and the infrastructure in the depths and vaasche ... Well, then the predatory grin of the market. once the customers "ask" - you have to comply, otherwise you will not see the age of babos. In general, I'm not even sure that both options are one rocket, rather like our "caliber" there will be an option for the coast with a range of 1600-1800 km and ~ 500 km of anti-ship missiles, but perhaps this will be implemented somehow programmatically or with minimal movements such as replacing some block, but considering the factory "packaging" is unlikely, and in the MK-41, especially in the filling of the UR, you will not rustle, so it's more likely 2e than 1na. In general, everything new is well forgotten old. hi
    2. 0
      30 August 2019 17: 20
      In the range - 1600-1800 km.

      No one has such anti-ship missiles; our Caliber in the anti-ship version flies 400 km.

      Now NATO destroyers and frigates using such a missile will be able to hit surface ships at a range of 1600-1800 km, before they could only harpoons for 260 km.
      1. 0
        30 August 2019 17: 27
        Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
        Now NATO destroyers and frigates using such a missile will be able to hit surface ships at a distance of 1600-1800 km

        will not be able to. The ax is subsonic, how long will it fly for 1600 km? Couple of hours? The target ship has long left the square, and the rocket will fly to an empty place. The range of subsonic anti-ship missiles for this reason cannot exceed 400-500 km.
        1. +1
          30 August 2019 21: 53
          Quote: Gregory_45
          Quote: Ratmir_Ryazan
          Now NATO destroyers and frigates using such a missile will be able to hit surface ships at a distance of 1600-1800 km

          will not be able to. The ax is subsonic, how long will it fly for 1600 km? Couple of hours? The target ship has long left the square, and the rocket will fly to an empty place. The range of subsonic anti-ship missiles for this reason cannot exceed 400-500 km.


          New Ax with satellite data link ...
          And a target search system by zones. He can take up to 300 km with all sorts of snakes in search of a "magic order" - if the retargeting information is not transmitted to him during the flight.
          And it can come via satellite from other satellites (such as RTR and species reconnaissance) and from AWACS aircraft, etc.
          1. 0
            31 August 2019 08: 41
            Quote: SovAr238A
            And a target search system by zones. He can up to 300 km with all sorts of snakes in search of a "wicked order"

            in this case, the rocket must have a target identification system. To meet exactly with the ship with which it was supposed, and not with some fishing schooner, accidentally found in the search area. In fact, it will be necessary to put systems similar to those used in LRASM on a rocket? Then what is the trick of the PKR Tomahawk? According to the price tag, he will immediately catch up with LRASM, having no advantages over it.
      2. 0
        1 September 2019 20: 44
        They won’t be able to, TTX are given for conventional Tomahawk block 4, it only hits the ground. It’s just sawing anti-ship missiles. At the moment, 2/3 of the American destroyers are completely without anti-ship missiles, Harpoons were only on older versions.
    3. +2
      30 August 2019 17: 25
      Quote: KVU-NSVD
      And what is the achievement

      in that they will shoot at sea moving targets. While the Tomahawks use the standard UVP Mk41. Those. American ships, instead of the obsolete light Harpoons, which also do not differ in range (such as 280 km if sclerosis does not fail) and solid warheads, will receive quite long-range RCC (I think its range will be limited to 400-450 km) with a half-ton warhead. Under which, in addition, you do not need to seriously remake the ships (there is already a launcher)
  3. -16
    30 August 2019 16: 02
    Hmm ... the rogues from the states made the next fix.
    Take the rocket of the 80s ... screw a new head to it and put it into service.
    There will be the best RCC in the world, which Fedych will announce to us.
    1. +6
      30 August 2019 16: 55
      You shouldn’t be so. This rocket at one time overtook time and had no analogues in the whole world. The potential for modernization is huge. There are also many carriers. And with proper modernization, Axes will serve for a long time. Pisi. So then the analogue of the Ax named Caliber we entered service not so long ago wink
      1. -2
        30 August 2019 17: 29
        This rocket at one time overtook time and had no analogues in the whole world.

        It had analogues in the form of the SLCM Grenade, the Kyrgyz Republic complex of ground-based relief and X-55 ALCM in service with the USSR.
        So then the analogue of the Ax named Caliber we entered service not so long ago

        Not true. Back in the 80s, the USSR was armed with analogues in the form of SLCM Grenade, KVBB X-55, and the ground-based KR complex Relief.
        There are also many carriers.

        If we consider that about 4 thousand Tomahawks were released, of which about 2300-2400 were used, it turns out that the USA has about 1500-1600 Tomahawk weapons in service.
        The Tomahawk SLCM was first used in Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Since then, in wars and armed conflicts in which the U.S. Navy took part, the rocket was launched more than 2,3 thousand times. In particular, approximately 200 Tomahawks were deployed in Operation Desert Storm in 1991 and approximately 800 were launched during Operation Freedom of Iraq in 2003. About 200 more “Tomahawks” were launched during attacks on Libya in 2011.

        In the USA, the ceremony of transferring the fourth thousand Tomahawk sea-based cruise missiles from the day they were put into service by the Raytheon Corporation took place. The jubilee delivery fell on the SLCM version, the Block IV version.

        But there are means of combating the Tomahawks, which, among other things, has shown experience in intercepting them in Syria.
        The most terrible enemy for missiles of this type, American analysts emphasize, has been and remains anti-aircraft missile systems of high fire performance. Raytheon Corporation has significantly reduced the radar visibility of its missile lately, but the firm’s specialists amicably refuse to talk about any details and indicators in this area.

        https://m.gazeta.ru/army/2017/08/23/10854470.shtml
        1. 0
          30 August 2019 18: 27
          Do not believe the whole source. Shirokorad very well expressed himself in his book the instrument of the fleet. According to his version of the USSR, for a long time he could not create an analogue of the Ax until one of the American missiles flew to Cuba during testing. Then our specialists met her. Only then did analogues appear. What you listed were not one way or another. Plus, Caliber has become massive. That is, full-fledged cr for mass use hi
          1. 0
            30 August 2019 21: 16
            Unfortunately, even the Caliber could not be brought up to the level of the Tomagavkoov.
            In the last section, the Caliber has guidance on the radar seeker, that is, it is limitedly suitable for firing at ground targets
            The ax has an optical one.
        2. 0
          31 August 2019 08: 50
          Quote: Sky Strike fighter
          It had analogues in the form of the SLCM Grenade, the Kyrgyz Republic complex of ground-based relief and X-55 ALCM in service with the USSR.

          SLCM Tomahawk began to be developed at 1971, adopted by 1983.

          SLCM Grenade was developed as a response to the American Tomahawk, the work was started by KB "Novator" by the decision of the military-industrial complex under the USSR Council of Ministers No. 282 dated June 19, 1975. It was put into service in 1984. this is KS-122 - a kind of analogue of the Tomahawk, and not vice versa.

          X-55 - an analogue of the American ALCM and domestic grenade, but aviation-based.

          Whatever one may do, the Americans were pioneers in creating high-precision long-range cruise missiles, while creating all subsequent products they were guided to a greater extent by the Tomahawk, which became a classic of the genre. Even the Russian Caliber is also an analogue of the overseas Tomahawk.
          1. KCA
            -1
            1 September 2019 22: 32
            I’m not an expert on CR, but here you farted into a puddle, the X-55 has nothing in common with the "Granat", well, just completely, if just the wings are sliding, here I have a Yak-52, and Vasya has an F-22, Well, both planes are similar, I am a hero, can I be compared with Vasya? Do both have planes?
            1. KCA
              -1
              1 September 2019 22: 59
              Citizen, please tell me what the X-55 is the same as the Tomahawk of any series, go enlighten the brain with haloperidol
              1. KCA
                -1
                2 September 2019 11: 46
                The citizen did not answer what the development of the "Tomahawk", "Granat" SMKB "Novator" and the "KRVB" X-55, the development of the OMCB "Raduga", the first in the USA, the second in the Urals, the third in the Moscow region
    2. KCA
      -4
      30 August 2019 18: 23
      Aha, well, just like our "Caliber", they took "Pomegranate" from the 80s ...
      1. KCA
        -1
        1 September 2019 22: 24
        I’m looking at the cons, in fact, we’re not talking about them, someone has data that the entire line of the “Caliber” missile defense system does not repeat the entire line of the “Granat” missile systems, naturally modernized, look at the performance characteristics and tasks, nothing in the tasks has changed, they have changed the rockets themselves, the GOS and so on, but if you look, then 6 types of "Garnet" are replaced by 5 (so far) types of "Caliber", well, "Onyx" is added, and, somewhere, "Zircon"
  4. 0
    30 August 2019 16: 03
    Right now it turns out that this one will be ready in 2 weeks.
  5. +6
    30 August 2019 16: 03
    Quote: Nycomed
    Let's see what happens in the end.

    Well, in principle, "Harpoon" has long been in need of replacement. And here the anti-ship missile will have a warhead twice as heavy as on the "Harpoon"

    Quote: KVU-NSVD
    And what is the achievement.

    And no one says that this is an achievement. They just make a multipurpose missile capable of performing the functions of both an operational-tactical missile and an anti-ship missile. It is possible that if the range remains the same, then this option will replace all the Tomahawk variants currently in service.
    1. 0
      30 August 2019 16: 11
      It is possible that if the range remains the same, then this option will replace all the Tomahawk variants currently in service.

      But what about Block 5?
      In November 2018, the US Navy officially approved the Block V designation ("five") for new modifications of the Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile, which will be obtained as a result of the ongoing modernization program of the existing Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles. All previously manufactured Block IV missiles of the US Armed Forces are supposed to be converted into Block V missiles

      The upgrade of Tomahawk Block IV missiles to the Block V variant will be carried out by their manufacturer Raytheon Corporation in two versions. Block Va index (designation RGM-109E / UGM-109E) will receive cruise missiles convertible into the Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST) version, equipped with a new multi-channel guidance system for the possibility of hitting surface targets.

      Block Vb index (designation RGM-109M / UGM-109M) will receive missiles that retain their primary purpose for hitting ground targets and are equipped with a new penetrating warhead of the Joint Multiple Effects Warhead System (JMEWS), which also has increased high-explosive capabilities. JMEWS combines a cumulative precharge with a penetrating warhead. Due to the programmable single-purpose fuse, an air or ground (non-penetrating) detonation of the warhead can also be provided.

      https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3527146.html
    2. 0
      30 August 2019 17: 22
      Why change all Tomahawks?

      It will be like ours, and in the anti-ship version and for work on land.

      So more rational.
    3. 0
      30 August 2019 17: 28
      Quote: Old26
      They simply make a multi-purpose missile capable of performing the functions of both an operational-tactical missile and anti-ship missiles.

      not this way. There will be Tomahawk in the version of the cruise missile, and Tomahawk in the version of the RCC. Same as Caliber
      1. -1
        30 August 2019 19: 24
        Quote: Gregory_45
        There will be Tomahawk in the version of the cruise missile, and Tomahawk in the version of the RCC.

        Correctly understood that, in your opinion, the Tomahawk in the version of the RCC will be wingless?
        1. -2
          30 August 2019 21: 58
          Quote: Captain Pushkin
          Quote: Gregory_45
          There will be Tomahawk in the version of the cruise missile, and Tomahawk in the version of the RCC.

          Correctly understood that, in your opinion, the Tomahawk in the version of the RCC will be wingless?


          Is that the kind of you you troll for?
          Well, maybe among your first-year student fraternity, this is your attempt at trolling and may have limited success. but on the military portal it’s zilch.
          The phrase "cruise missile" in the minds of Soviet people since the 80s has been firmly associated with the Tomahawk tactical cruise missiles.
          It's the same. like a jeep. copier, diapers, etc.
          so you couldn’t summarize and troll.
          1. 0
            30 August 2019 22: 42
            Gregory_45 (Gregory) Today, 17:28
            [quote = Old26
            They simply make a multi-purpose missile capable of performing the functions of both an operational-tactical missile and an anti-ship missile. [/ Quote]
            [quote = Grigory_45 Not so. There will be Tomahawk in the version of the cruise missile, and Tomahawk in the version of the RCC. [/ Quote]
            Quote: SovAr238A
            Is that the kind of you you troll for?

            He didn’t troll, but simply hinted to Gregory that he had made an incorrect clarification to the correct comment, more competent than he was a man.
            If a rocket has wings that create aerodynamic lift, then it is a cruise missile. The type of target hit has nothing to do with it.
            1. -1
              31 August 2019 09: 09
              Quote: Captain Pushkin
              he simply hinted to Gregory that he made an incorrect clarification to the correct comment, more competent than he is a man.

              You just decided to troll, and it's stupid. Are you in the mantle, judge, to decide who is right and who is not? Moreover, we made our assumptions. What are mine based on? On available information in the open press, incl. and on this article. The Pentagon did not order a universal missile, but the Tomahawk version in the form of RCC - this is the time. The second - to make a universal missile (at least for now) - is unprofitable, due to the differences in the purpose of the missiles, and, as a consequence, in their structural appearance. There is no need for a subsonic rocket to fly over the sea for two hours, and SLCMs have a sophisticated guidance system to hit a target that will not go anywhere and its coordinates are known. Range is more important for KBS. Missiles must have a different type of warhead. Because of this, with great probability, there will be two versions of missiles, which I wrote about.
              And more:
              Block Va Index (designation RGM-109E / UGM-109E) get cruise missilesconvertible to Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST) variant, equipped with a new multi-channel guidance system for the possibility of hitting surface targets.

              Block Vb Index (designation RGM-109M / UGM-109M) will receive missiles that retain the main purpose for hitting ground targets


              If you have constructive objections - object. And don't act like a fifth grader.
              1. -1
                31 August 2019 10: 55
                [quote = Grigory_45] If you have constructive objections - object. [/ quote]

                Are you apparently a senior citizen? So, do you have free time? Try to understand what is written to you before scattering the minuses.

                [quote] If a rocket has wings that create aerodynamic lift, then it is a cruise missile. The type of target hit has nothing to do with it. [Quote]

                Do you understand this? Any objections? I didn’t write anything else to you. Why did you write? Because you made an incorrect comment on the correct comment. Quotes below.
                Quote: Old26
                They simply make a multi-purpose missile capable of performing the functions of both an operational-tactical missile and an anti-ship missile .. [quote]
                . [quote = Grigory_45] is not so. There will be Tomahawk in the version of the cruise missile, and Tomahawk in the version of the RCC. Same as Caliber. [Quote]

                Write (if you want) what you want, answer, sorry, I won’t.
                1. 0
                  31 August 2019 10: 58
                  Quote: Captain Pushkin
                  I will not answer, sorry

                  and the first time was not worth it. For completely out of topic. And absolutely stupid "remarks".
        2. 0
          30 August 2019 22: 06
          Quote: Captain Pushkin
          Correctly understood that, in your opinion, the Tomahawk in the version of the RCC will be wingless?

          You perfectly understood what you had in mind. What will be SLCM for hitting stationary targets with known coordinates (essentially known as the Tomahawk today), and there will be a version of anti-ship missile systems for hitting marine moving targets.

          The attempt to hurt and amuse (you probably thought you were very witty?) Failed. Are you offended by something? Otherwise, how to explain this behavior?
    4. -1
      31 August 2019 08: 57
      Quote: Old26
      They simply make a multi-purpose missile capable of performing the functions of both an operational-tactical missile and an anti-ship missile

      let me disagree. It is unprofitable to combine the functions of missile defense and missile defense in one missile. Missiles have different guidance systems and different targets. There is no need for the KR to carry the GOS, its guidance system, when shooting at stationary targets with known coordinates, can be simpler, easier, due to which - you can either take more fuel and fly a greater distance, or carry a heavier warhead.
      For RCC, a range of 1600 km is not very relevant (given the subsonic speed of the rocket), but it needs a GOS and a powerful warhead.
      I am sure that there will be two versions of the missile - namely, the SLCM (up to 1600 km in conventional equipment), and precisely the anti-ship missile (with a range of up to 450-500 km). Same as Caliber (3M14 and 3M54 missiles)
  6. +3
    30 August 2019 16: 24
    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    But what about Block 5?

    And this is the Tomahawk Block V. At the first stage, an upgrade will be carried out, when Block IV missiles will be brought to the Block V level (in the period 2020-2022, at least more than one and a half hundred Block IV missiles will be upgraded to the Block V level, currently in service. The Block Va index will receive an anti-ship version of this missile, and the Block Vb index - missiles for firing along the coast
  7. +3
    30 August 2019 16: 55
    Quote: AdtskiPaPa
    And what is the achievement
    Well, perhaps in versatility. In principle, the anti-ship missile version of the "ax" already existed (it seems to be too lazy to look for accurate data up to 500 km range), but they refused from it, they considered that there were enough "harpoons". Now we decided to try again on the new element base: retargeting in flight is a good feature; almost half a ton of warheads is also a serious argument (130kg of "harpoon" look pale here); a long arm again (I think you can fire them at 400-500 km).

    It is a question of universality now, although it is not clear whether they have achieved full universality, especially in terms of warheads. It is unclear whether the same JMEWS warhead or something else will be installed on the control panel.

    Quote: AdtskiPaPa
    Actually, I think so that it's in the "hat" ... namely. potential customers looked at our "Club" / "caliber" and balked, they say, "I want this" so that both the ships and the infrastructure in the depths and even more ...

    Here, rather, we did the same as they did, namely in the same type-size we created a family of missiles. But we have not yet reached such universality. The same long-range missile 3M14 is not capable of hitting surface ships due to the fact that it has a completely different guidance system. The Americans, on the other hand, are now trying to create a "universal" one, although I repeat, I do not think that the BG of the ground version will be installed on the anti-ship version.

    Quote: AdtskiPaPa
    In general, I'm not even sure that both options are one missile, rather like our "caliber" there will be an option for the coast with a range of 1600-1800 km and ~ 500 km of anti-ship missiles, but perhaps this will be implemented somehow programmatically or with minimal movements such as replacing some block, but considering the factory "packaging" is unlikely, and in the MK-41, especially in the filling of the UR, you will not rustle, so it's more likely 2e than 1na. In general, everything new is well forgotten old.

    No one is sure of this yet. Too little information
    1. 0
      30 August 2019 21: 23
      3M14 long-range missile is not capable of hitting surface ships due to the fact that it has a completely different guidance system.

      Both options are of the same type, with radar seeker.
      Nlwyt tomahawks have a combination, old optics
  8. +2
    30 August 2019 19: 04
    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    It had analogues in the form of the SLCM Grenade, the Kyrgyz Republic complex of ground-based relief and X-55 ALCM in service with the USSR.

    You are not quite right, Maxim. The fact is that all of the above cruise missiles - Granat, Relief, Kh-55 were exclusively with nuclear warheads. And we had no analogues of the American line of "Tomahawks". Moreover, according to the agreements, nuclear ship weapons were removed from ships and submarines. As a result, we were left without cruise missiles on ships ...

    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    If we consider that about 4 thousand Tomahawks were released, of which about 2300-2400 were used, it turns out that the USA has about 1500-1600 Tomahawk weapons in service.

    No, over 7300 Tomahawk missiles have been fired. About 1732-2400 units were used. That is, there are now about 5000 missiles in stock ...
    1. -1
      30 August 2019 19: 32
      No, over 7300 Tomahawk missiles have been fired. About 1732-2400 units were used. That is, there are now about 5000 missiles in stock ...

      Where does this information come from? If you can share the source.
    2. -2
      30 August 2019 19: 39
      In the USA, the ceremony of transferring the fourth thousand Tomahawk sea-based cruise missiles from the day they were put into service by the Raytheon Corporation took place. The jubilee delivery fell on the SLCM version, the Block IV version.
      The above information is from 2017.
      No, more than 7300 Tomahawk missiles have been fired.

      How did the Americans release another 3 Tomahawks in 000 years?
  9. +2
    30 August 2019 20: 23
    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    Where does this information come from? If you can share the source.

    Well, I'm not ready to say for sure now. Easier to look at Wikipedia material on "Tomahawk". And not only in the Russian, but also in the English version. The numbers are there. And most often the numbers are quite accurate.
  10. +3
    30 August 2019 20: 24
    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    In the USA, the ceremony of transferring the fourth thousand Tomahawk sea-based cruise missiles from the day they were put into service by the Raytheon Corporation took place. The jubilee delivery fell on the SLCM version, the Block IV version.
    The above information is from 2017.

    Well before that, it was not the Reiton EMNIP company that released
    1. +1
      30 August 2019 22: 10
      Quote: Old26
      Quote: Sky Strike fighter
      In the USA, the ceremony of transferring the fourth thousand Tomahawk sea-based cruise missiles from the day they were put into service by the Raytheon Corporation took place. The jubilee delivery fell on the SLCM version, the Block IV version.
      The above information is from 2017.

      Well before that, it was not the Reiton EMNIP company that released


      Of course, it was Conwayre as part of General Dynamics ...
    2. -2
      31 August 2019 08: 54
      Well before that, it was not the Reiton EMNIP company that released

      Of course, it was Conwayre as part of General Dynamics ...

      The old Tomahawks issued by GeneralDinemix have long been written off a long time ago, so that in reality the US is armed with no more than 1500-1600 Tomahawks issued by Rayton.
  11. -1
    30 August 2019 23: 27
    They did not write about the network centric of the rocket. It can be induced not only by a shooter, but also by an external, other plane or ship.
  12. 0
    31 August 2019 00: 26
    Now there are several varieties of Tomahawks.
    The differences are only in the guidance and control system. Work on stationary purposes.
    1) The simplest "budget" option. Equipped with GPS receiver and astronavigation only.
    Hitting large buildings. The Russian analogue is Caliber.
    2) "Exact" option. Equipped with GOS with IR video. This attacked an air base in Syria.
    Hits in the middle of the roofs of the fighter silos.
    3) The exact option with satellite control all along the way.
    These were fired from three seas (to test the system) the institute complex in Damascus.
  13. 0
    31 August 2019 03: 07
    In December 2018, they adopted the new LRASM anti-ship missile with a range of about 900 km, I don’t understand why they also need the anti-ship tomahawk, apparently they just want a universal missile.
    1. -1
      31 August 2019 08: 37
      Quote: Karaul14
      In December 2018 they adopted the new LRASM anti-ship missile with a range of about 900 km, I don’t understand why they also need the anti-ship tomahawk

      universal Tomahawk will not work, different ranges and different guidance systems in the version of anti-ship missiles and SLCMs. Maybe the point is that LRASM, although much "smarter" and technically more perfect, is much more expensive? As far as I remember, a price tag of $ 3 million was announced for it, while the Tomahawk costs about 1,2 million.I believe that although the LRASM t has the ability to launch from the Mk41, it will primarily become an aviation weapon
  14. 0
    31 August 2019 11: 04
    Quote: Captain Pushkin
    Try to understand what is written to you before scattering the minuses

    minuses here only you (and a couple of inadequate ones) are scattered
  15. +2
    31 August 2019 15: 25
    Quote: Gregory_45
    let me disagree. It is unprofitable to combine the functions of missile defense and missile defense in one missile. Missiles have different guidance systems and different targets. There is no need for the KR to carry the GOS, its guidance system, when shooting at stationary targets with known coordinates, can be simpler, easier, due to which - you can either take more fuel and fly a greater distance, or carry a heavier warhead.
    For RCC, a range of 1600 km is not very relevant (given the subsonic speed of the rocket), but it needs a GOS and a powerful warhead.

    Gregory! The fact that it is not profitable to combine functions - no questions arise. A "highly specialized" product is always simpler than a "universal" one.
    I still believe that they are trying to create a universal missile, which in its modifications will differ only in the warhead. As for the guidance system, the last "delights" of the Americans in this direction boil down to the fact that the missile can be re-aimed from one target to another if the GOS "sees" it. that the primary target has been hit. And now the Americans, as far as I know, do not have a very "acute" question - whether it is a stationary target or a mobile one.

    Therefore, I do not think there will be a clear division - this is the anti-ship missile system, and this is the "tactical Tomahawk". The "body" will be the same. Most likely, the guidance system, too, and the difference will be only in the warhead, which can be replaced.
    The range of 1600 km for the anti-ship missile system can of course be considered excessive, if you do not focus on all these "delights". And the situation may be as follows.
    The American destroyer John Smith, on external target designation from the Hawkeye, fires a salvo in a group of enemy ships. His task is to hit, for example, "Abu Bakar" DVDKD (or, if you want, "Xian Mew") laughing The distance between the ships is about 450 km (I hope you understand that the numbers and names are very arbitrary). So. the destroyer fired a volley of 8 anti-ship Tomahawks. After 15 minutes of flight, information comes from the AWACS aircraft that the enemy's airborne artillery attack has been sunk. What to do? Turn on the missile self-destruct system?
    The first "trick" of the Americans is that the missile can be re-aimed at an alternate (spare) target. For example, an enemy supply transport, which at this moment is located at a distance of 150 km from target number 1 (already destroyed). The missile's range reserve of 1600 km, initially considered excessive for the anti-ship missile system, will here help to hit another target, remote from the first. This is one option
    Second option. Or the second "trick" of the Americans with regard to their CDs is the possibility of patrolling the CDs in anticipation of a target. Here, the "power reserve" of 1600 km is by no means superfluous
  16. +3
    31 August 2019 16: 00
    Quote: Sky Strike fighter
    The old Tomahawks issued by GeneralDinemix have long been written off a long time ago, so that in reality the US is armed with no more than 1500-1600 Tomahawks issued by Rayton.

    It is very difficult, Maxim, to talk about how much has been written off and how much has not. Yet Tomahawks are not solid rocket-propelled rockets that can age and be retired. It's still a rocket with a turbojet engine, albeit a short-life one. What can "go bad" there. to write off old "axes"? Moreover, in fact, each of the variants was modernized, the Model 109C was gradually modernized from the Block II variant to the Block IIA variant, and then to the Block-III. The 109D was gradually modernized from the Block II variant to the Block IIB variant, and then to the Block-III. The 109E model was upgraded to the 109H variant, and then to the Block-IV.
    If we talk about the total number of released "tomahawks", and according to some sources it is more than 7300, then if we subtract from this the consumed "axes" in various conflicts, plus add 109A, 109G missiles (and this is another 800 pieces) and 109B (how many I have no data), then in any case the total number will be more than 1500-1600 which you are talking about. IMHO, the number is closer to 4000 units. Since we do not take into account additional orders (contracts) intended to compensate for the loss of "tomahawks" in conflicts
    The latest contract from April 2018 (completion date - August 2020) provides for the release of an additional 100 missiles of the 109E Block-IV model.

    Quote: Karaul14
    In December 2018, they adopted the new LRASM anti-ship missile with a range of about 900 km, I don’t understand why they also need the anti-ship tomahawk, apparently they just want a universal missile.

    This is primarily an air-based missile ...
  17. 0
    1 September 2019 10: 03
    Quote: Gregory_45
    Quote: SovAr238A
    And a target search system by zones. He can up to 300 km with all sorts of snakes in search of a "wicked order"

    in this case, the rocket must have a target identification system. To meet exactly with the ship with which it was supposed, and not with some fishing schooner, accidentally found in the search area. In fact, it will be necessary to put systems similar to those used in LRASM on a rocket? Then what is the trick of the PKR Tomahawk? According to the price tag, he will immediately catch up with LRASM, having no advantages over it.

    They introduce tricky things in terms of target identification - in particular, a missile can be aimed at radars and other radiation sources. They want to install optics as on lrasm, but apparently only if they manage to do it cheaply.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"