US Marine Corps Armed with Land-Based KR Tomahawk

US Marine Corps Armed with Land-Based KR Tomahawk

The US Marine Corps plans to adopt and deploy coastal mobile missile systems equipped with land-based Tomahawk cruise missiles. As stated by the Commander of the Commission, General David Berger, the systems will be deployed as anti-ship missiles.


In an official letter sent to the US Senate Armed Services Committee on March 5, 2020, US Marines ordered 48 Tomahawk missiles for use in coastal anti-ship missile systems.

The U.S. Navy and Raytheon are developing a new anti-ship modification of the Tomahawk missile, called the Maritime Strike Tomahawk (Tomahawk Block Va, designation RGM-109E / UGM-109E), which should be capable of, in addition to hitting ground targets, also hit naval targets by equipping new new multi-channel guidance system. The MST's official maximum firing range is 900 nautical miles (1670 km), although Raytheon described it as a “1000 mile missile.”

It was planned that for the U.S. Navy, the Tomahawk Block Va MST missiles will be converted from Tomahawk Block IV missiles with the beginning of full-scale deliveries of missile upgrade kits for the Block Va variant in 2023. However, now for the planned coastal complexes of the US Marine Corps, we are talking about a new production of MST missiles. Presumably, the US Marine Corps will begin to receive MST missiles also from 2023.

According to the bmpd blog, plans to equip the U.S. Marine Corps with land mobile missile systems with the Tomahawk missile launcher are a disguised step towards deploying the significant potential of ground-based medium-range cruise missiles previously prohibited by the INF Treaty. A mobile ground-based missile system developed for the US Marine Corps can be easily retrofitted with Tomahawk missiles of any necessary modification and be adopted by other types of US armed forces.
Photos used:
Scott Howe / U.S. Department of Defense
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

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

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Nikolay Ivanov_5 7 March 2020 10: 39 New
    • 3
    • 4
    -1
    All that their hands itch, how to start an arms race.
    1. Victor_B 7 March 2020 11: 29 New
      • 3
      • 3
      0
      Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5
      All that their hands itch, how to start an arms race.

      In fact, there is no return to the agreement on the INF Treaty ...
      Well, our KR Iskanders will also fly further, followed by the Iskanders BR.
    2. Nikolay Ivanov_5 7 March 2020 18: 10 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Zaminusovali. I can’t believe that most people want war. request
      1. SovAr238A 9 March 2020 17: 31 New
        • 1
        • 4
        -3
        Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5
        Zaminusovali. I can’t believe that most people want war. request


        They paused you because at first they trumpeted around the world about Iskaders and Iskanders with Caliber in the form of the second step, and these were not Americans ...

        and now, 3 years after our loud statements, you accuse the Americans of starting an arms race and want a war ...
        1. Nikolay Ivanov_5 9 March 2020 17: 43 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          The arms race was launched by the Americans with the breakdown of all treaties.
          1. SovAr238A 9 March 2020 17: 44 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5
            The arms race was launched by the Americans with the breakdown of all treaties.


            Those. when we showed the whole world a weapon that violated all agreements - is this not a violation of the agreement ???
            1. Nikolay Ivanov_5 9 March 2020 17: 45 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              How fast you are ...
              1. SovAr238A 9 March 2020 17: 48 New
                • 1
                • 2
                -1
                Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5
                How fast you are ...


                That's just what you are stubborn about - not to notice the logs in your eye ...

                But trying to blame your nonsense on another - as you can see - you are not given at all ...
                For they are not smart ...

                I could even say more ...
                1. Nikolay Ivanov_5 9 March 2020 18: 01 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Where do liars like you come from?

                  You have a high-likly style of behavior, unfoundedly accusing Moscow of some misconduct, do not give any arguments or even elementary examples to confirm your words.

                  And at the expense of the mind about you, there is a proverb "The head is from the ward, but the mind is not enough."
                  1. SovAr238A 9 March 2020 18: 06 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5
                    Where do liars like you come from?

                    You have a high-likly style of behavior, unfoundedly accusing Moscow of some misconduct, do not give any arguments or even elementary examples to confirm your words.

                    And at the expense of the mind about you, there is a proverb "The head is from the ward, but the mind is not enough."


                    Just look at the dates of announcements and reports about the new versions of the Iskanders and the dates of American statements about the exit from the DRMSD

                    That's all.

                    And do not write so much nonsense that you write here.

                    Dates compare, stupid ...
                    1. Nikolay Ivanov_5 9 March 2020 18: 54 New
                      • 0
                      • 0
                      0
                      You yourself are not smart and write nonsense here

                      https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Договор_о_ликвидации_ракет_средней_и_меньшей_дальности
                      1. SovAr238A 9 March 2020 21: 00 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Quote: Nikolai Ivanov_5
                        You yourself are not smart and write nonsense here

                        https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Договор_о_ликвидации_ракет_средней_и_меньшей_дальности



                        You don’t understand, but you’re trying to stupidly troll ...

                        Read about products 9M728, 9M729 (and at the same time find the actual differences from ZM-14 in them)

                        The 9M729 cut, allegedly shown in the pictures, has an extremely huge compartment with electronics for briefing our MO. Part of the rocket with a diameter of 514 mm and a length of almost 2 meters packed with electronic components with a couple of processors is for a radio altimeter and ANN unit and a signal receiver of a global positioning system.
                        This does not happen. There are not many fools in the world ...

                        All over the world, electronics does not take more than half a meter in such KR.
                        The NU radar can take 0.7 meters, but it then costs elsewhere in an almost 8 meter rocket.

                        Our Defense Ministry deceived only a gullible people at a briefing.
                        Anyone who has ever seen a rocket alive is no longer deceived.

                        And in what years it was ...
                        And how many years have the Americans demanded from ours — the destruction of both the rocket and the carriers.
                        And the law demanded by agreement.

                        And it turns out that all the Iskanders would have to be destroyed.

                        You are in Iskander 2007 for Club (MAKS-2007) and Iskander 9P701 for 9M729 - will you find many differences? In addition to the reduced ammunition, which is easy to return to the "right amount" ???
                      2. Nikolay Ivanov_5 9 March 2020 21: 35 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Even if you accept that the Iskander complex is a violation of the INF Treaty, you still see violations of only one side and you do not see the violation of the agreement by the Americans.
                      3. maratkoRuEkb 19 March 2020 13: 11 New
                        • 0
                        • 1
                        -1
                        https://ria.ru/20190819/1557650257.html и вот https://ria.ru/20191216/1562368482.html?rcmd_alg=&rcmd_id=1562368482 вот новость
                        we read in it, the United States withdrew from the treaty at the end of 2018, and already at the end of 2019 they are testing a medium-range missile.
                        It is impossible to design, manufacture and test a missile for a year, which means that it’s in your eyes the fact that the United States has developed and manufactured weapons that violate the treaty for many years.
                        Plus Aegis ground installations from which you can run tomahawks (take a look at their range yourself)
                        Plus, US target missiles that fly beyond 500km are good long-range targets.
                        so there is no need here for Lala about the fact that the Russian Federation violated the INF Treaty, if you would have stomped from here the flight train.
  • Mountain shooter 7 March 2020 10: 41 New
    • 4
    • 12
    -8
    Low-flying subsonic ... Will the satellite take its target? And if you break the connection with the satellite? Yes, and not enough 48 missiles for several thousand kilometers of coastline, is not it?
    1. Jack O'Neill 7 March 2020 10: 47 New
      • 4
      • 6
      -2
      Will the satellite take it to the target? And if you break the connection with the satellite?

      That will not change anything. wink
      1. sabakina 7 March 2020 11: 02 New
        • 4
        • 6
        -2
        A pack of Belomora fly? wink
      2. Mountain shooter 7 March 2020 11: 09 New
        • 7
        • 8
        -1
        Quote: Jack O'Neill

        That will not change anything.

        Still not getting anywhere?
    2. Zaurbek 7 March 2020 11: 04 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      They can do a lot of things ... satellites, Poseidon, Avax, etc.
    3. donavi49 7 March 2020 11: 09 New
      • 14
      • 5
      +9
      The caliber is similar, and it is represented in every topic as a child prodigy.

      In fact, this is one class. And the last block is probably more advanced and functional in the brain than the existing Caliber rockets.

      The only thing is the two-step 3M-54, however, it resets the marching stage only after capturing the target of its own seeker. That is, at 30-40km of the final stretch.

      Why don't Americans do the same? Not necessary. They believe that any world fleet or even a likely coalition, they will be destroyed by available means, due to the overwhelming superiority of forces.
      1. voyaka uh 7 March 2020 13: 00 New
        • 8
        • 5
        +3
        Tomahawk was divided into two families: 1) cheap - only with GPS
        2) expensive - with a wound GOS, including video, scanning, target search with zigzags
        etc. "Dear" steel RCC.
        But everything else: speed, height remained the same.
    4. YOUR 7 March 2020 13: 16 New
      • 0
      • 3
      -3
      It is not clear another. There is no anti-ship option. Tomahawk. The Americans puffed for a long time, they did, but the cost of the rocket was prohibitive, and the accuracy left much to be desired. In the series did not go.
      And here is this news. Either a new missile, or they begin to fight Iranian missiles by deploying the Pzhtriot in Romania. Those. they write and declare one thing, in fact, everything is not so.
      1. Avior 7 March 2020 16: 49 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Has already. Universal, stationary
        and moving goals
        1. YOUR 8 March 2020 07: 45 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          They used to be, they just didn’t take them into service.
          But if you accept, as you say, you can write their index. It is interesting to read what a miracle it is.
          1. SovAr238A 9 March 2020 17: 42 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: YOUR
            They used to be, they just didn’t take them into service.
            But if you accept, as you say, you can write their index. It is interesting to read what a miracle it is.


            RGM-109M Block 5b - universal seeker and warhead.
      2. Zaurbek 8 March 2020 09: 00 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        They will be delivered in Australia, South Korea, Norway, and Britain. Previously, they did not have a long arm in the form of RCC.
      3. SovAr238A 9 March 2020 17: 43 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: YOUR
        It is not clear another. There is no anti-ship option. Tomahawk. The Americans puffed for a long time, they did, but the cost of the rocket was prohibitive, and the accuracy left much to be desired. In the series did not go ..


        Already gone.
        RGM-109E Block 5a, anti-ship with limited capabilities for fixed targets.
    5. SovAr238A 9 March 2020 17: 33 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Low-flying subsonic ... Will the satellite take its target? And if you break the connection with the satellite? Yes, and not enough 48 missiles for several thousand kilometers of coastline, is not it?


      The marines do not defend their coastline. She has other tasks.

      If the connection with the satellite is lost, it will calmly fly further along the ANN.
  • Pereira 7 March 2020 11: 00 New
    • 4
    • 6
    -2
    Is someone already threatening their coast? Or just sawing a budget?
    1. bessmertniy 7 March 2020 11: 14 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      They host not only on their coast. So with these Tomahawks, US Marines can well shake the US budget wink
      1. Pereira 7 March 2020 11: 20 New
        • 1
        • 8
        -7
        The budget will not be sawed weakly. Plus an increase in numbers due to the service staff. And about the coast .... Suitable for blocking the straits. Apparently, there is no longer any hope for aviation and navy.
      2. SovAr238A 9 March 2020 17: 49 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: bessmertniy
        They host not only on their coast. So with these Tomahawks, US Marines can well shake the US budget wink


        48 missiles - what is the budget?
        What are you carrying?

        Moreover, it is the modernization of existing missiles ...
  • Mytholog 7 March 2020 11: 10 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    The fact that these missiles are not for the US coast is understandable (the marines will be adopted). Interesting - where? Base cover? Southeast Asia? Japan? "Hello Kim"?
    Or all the same to Norway?
    1. Pereira 7 March 2020 11: 16 New
      • 2
      • 2
      0
      I doubt that Kim is going to attack US bases with a surface fleet.
    2. Piramidon 7 March 2020 12: 14 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Quote: Mytholog
      Interesting - where?

      Under them, half of Europe caved in. There are many accommodation options. And not necessarily on the coast. They can work on both surface and ground targets.
  • knn54 7 March 2020 11: 10 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Thanks, have already reported ...
  • GRIGORIY76 7 March 2020 11: 54 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    To us, in the year 14, they promised Pmer missiles in Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk by box, can these be put there?
    1. Piramidon 7 March 2020 14: 25 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: GRIGORIY76
      promised primer missiles

      I did not understand the reduction. Pamperskie or what? laughing
  • maidan.izrailovich 7 March 2020 11: 54 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    As stated by the Commander of the ILC, General David Berger, the systems will be deployed as anti-ship missiles.

    Well, yes, yes ... believe the Anglo-Saxons, do not respect yourself.
    But in fact, there may be any kind of rocket. After all, there is no contract. There is no one to check. And since the complexes are mobile, they can be transferred to any theater.
  • Private-K 7 March 2020 12: 21 New
    • 1
    • 2
    -1
    It seems to me that the bmpd block is wrong. Warships, for the United States, as they were the best missile carrier platform, remain.
    Where will these coastal SCRCs be deployed?
    I think that the Americans discovered some new threats precisely at sea and are trying to fend them off in this way.
    I believe that this is the mid and south of the Asia-Pacific region.
    1. Grigory_45 7 March 2020 22: 24 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Private-K
      It seems to me that the bmpd block is wrong

      Have you read what is written on the blog? (i.e. read the original, and not the retelling, which the authors of the article shove on the VO?)
      Take and read. I’ll add on my own that the Navy has its own program regarding Axes - in the form of anti-ship missiles or long-range missiles with increased accuracy of hitting ground targets.
      It’s time to get used to the fact that the ILC, the Navy and the Air Force in the United States are three different kingdoms.
  • Old26 7 March 2020 12: 24 New
    • 3
    • 2
    +1
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    Low-flying subsonic ... Will the satellite take its target? And if you break the connection with the satellite? Yes, and not enough 48 missiles for several thousand kilometers of coastline, is not it?

    It is not clear why the anti-ship version is needed. A subsonic missile, which will reach the target within 2 hours - this is beyond the reasonable. Like a rocket for shooting on land - this is understandable
    1. Grigory_45 7 March 2020 21: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26
      It is not clear why the anti-ship version is needed. A subsonic missile, which will reach the target within 2 hours - this is beyond the reasonable.

      RCC version will have a shorter range - up to 500 kilometers. In this time, the flight time to the target will be no more than 35 minutes. Due to the fact that less fuel is taken on board, it is possible to install a perfect GOS (which is a priori heavier than the GPS guidance system), and a more powerful warhead. For an anti-ship subsonic missile, a range of more than 500 km is clearly unrealistic.

      Moreover, the RCC version is a rather twofold concept. I think that in this case two types of missiles are implied: the first as pure anti-ship missiles, for firing at ships, and the second for destroying ground targets (including those with limited mobility, or with high accuracy of hitting stationary or in the presence of strong interference with sides of the enemy) - a missile with a television head, which will allow you to quickly change the target of the strike, as well as direct the missile with a truly jewelry accuracy. Such a version of the Ax can fly 1,5 thousand km, carrying a reduced warhead, and the effect will be achieved by an accurate hit due to the presence of GOS
    2. SovAr238A 9 March 2020 17: 55 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Old26
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Low-flying subsonic ... Will the satellite take its target? And if you break the connection with the satellite? Yes, and not enough 48 missiles for several thousand kilometers of coastline, is not it?

      It is not clear why the anti-ship version is needed. A subsonic missile, which will reach the target within 2 hours - this is beyond the reasonable. Like a rocket for shooting on land - this is understandable


      A small amount is just in order to have in the ILC (as they like) just your piece of bridgehead defense from enemy ships.

      Capture the ILC for example a couple of islands in the Spratly archipelago.
      He will need to be defended from another landing.

      And place its missiles right there.

      That’s the whole idea with a small number of low-altitude RCCs that are unobtrusive at the USCM.
  • Old26 8 March 2020 01: 40 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    Quote: Gregory_45
    RCC version will have a shorter range - up to 500 kilometers. In this time, the flight time to the target will be no more than 35 minutes. Due to the fact that less fuel is taken on board, it is possible to install a perfect GOS (which is a priori heavier than the GPS guidance system), and a more powerful warhead. For an anti-ship subsonic missile, a range of more than 500 km is clearly unrealistic.

    Moreover, the RCC version is a rather twofold concept. I think that in this case two types of missiles are implied: the first as pure anti-ship missiles, for firing at ships, and the second for destroying ground targets (including those with limited mobility, or with high accuracy of hitting stationary or in the presence of strong interference with sides of the enemy) - a missile with a television head, which will allow you to quickly change the target of the strike, as well as direct the missile with a truly jewelry accuracy. Such a version of the Ax can fly 1,5 thousand km, carrying a reduced warhead, and the effect will be achieved by an accurate hit due to the presence of GOS

    Unfortunately, Gregory, there is no word that the RCC will be with a range of 500 km. It is written that a range of 900 miles. Whether these will be two different missiles, as in the Caliber family or not, is also not clear. Although logically it should be so
    1. SovAr238A 9 March 2020 17: 56 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: Old26

      Unfortunately, Gregory, there is no word that the RCC will be with a range of 500 km. It is written that a range of 900 miles. Whether these will be two different missiles, as in the Caliber family or not, is also not clear. Although logically it should be so


      There will be one missile, it just has a reserve of range for ensuring long barrage in the search zone.
  • Zomanus 8 March 2020 13: 24 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    I wonder what they are preparing for? Or is it the Ukrainian tactics of "Russians will attack soon"?