American destroyer tested new version of Block V cruise missile Tomahawk

The US Navy has tested the latest Block V version of the Tomahawk cruise missile from a warship. According to Naval News, the tests were deemed successful.

Tests of the Tomahawk Block V cruise missile were carried out from the USS Chafee (DDG 90) destroyer of the Arleigh Burke type on December 1 of this year, but this was reported much later. The launch took place at the Barking Sands Offshore Range in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Hawaii. Details of the launch were not disclosed, however, in the message fleet it is said that the missile will become the "long arm" of the US Navy, significantly expanding their capabilities.

According to Naval News, the new version of the missile will again be able to hit surface moving targets at sea, just like the first versions of the Tomahawk. In the early 2000s, this version of the rocket was discontinued.

In the spring of this year, the Pentagon signed another contract with Raytheon for the production and modernization of the Tomahawk cruise missiles. The $ 641,3 million agreement includes the production of new Tomahawk Block V missiles, as well as the modernization of the previously produced Block IV missiles. At the same time, 90 million dollars have been allocated for the production of 147,9 new missiles, the rest will be spent on modernization.

The main difference of the Block V version is the new aiming head, which allows you to hit moving surface targets. Service life of "Tomahawks" after renovation - 15 years.

Comments

[Volder]

The topic is not fully disclosed. At what range was the rocket launched? What is the range and speed of the rocket provided for by the terms of reference (TTX)? We'll have to google and look for information myself. Recently, there have been some incomplete news on VO :(

[Lex_is]

Indeed, some kind of disorder!
You are at this address:

1200 Navy Pentagon, Washington DC 20350-1200

write a claim.
Why did they give so little information? People are worried.

[_Ugene_]

these characteristics have not changed, everything is as it was

The main difference between the Block V version is the new aiming head, which allows you to hit moving surface targets

An anti-ship missile made of it was made with the possibility of retargeting in flight

[voyaka uh]

She was taught:
move in zigzags for more likely target detection,
in case of a miss, turn around and go for the "second run".
Disadvantage of Tomahawk: It is not stealth. And subsonic.
AWACS aircraft and helicopters detect it and can transmit
data on enemy carrier-based fighters.

[ancient]

Quote: voyaka uh

Disadvantage of Tomahawk: It is not stealth. And subsonic.

But there are a lot of them ... and there are a lot of carriers ... ... the density of the salvo is such ... that any air defense can ... "sew up".
In the conditions of the active use of electronic warfare equipment ... "not stealth" ... does not play a "dominant role", but in terms of speed ...... there will not be enough fighters to find them all, catch up and .. "waste ta-ta "(ammunition for the guns ... but ... not rubber"

Quote: voyaka uh

AWACS aircraft and helicopters detect it and can transmit
data on enemy carrier-based fighters.

The only thing left is to get hold of all these airplanes and AWACS helicopters in the required quantities .. well, and "carriers" of carrier-based fighters.

[Interlocutor]

But there are a lot of them ... and there are a lot of carriers ... ... the density of the salvo is such ... that any air defense can ... "sew up"

That's right. but ...... carriers would still have time to dump. It's one thing to drive an army in slippers, it's another to drive any other ...

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Interlocutor

But there are a lot of them ... and there are a lot of carriers ... ... the density of the salvo is such ... that any air defense can ... "sew up"

That's right. but ...... carriers would still have time to dump. It's one thing to drive an army in slippers, it's another to drive any other ...

with the launch range of the Ax in the region of a thousand kilometers, the carrier can be scared with little

[Lex_is]

Especially when you consider that carriers do not go one by one and the number of Tomogavs they have on board.

[kventinasd]

Quote: Gregory_45

with the launch range of the Ax in the region of a thousand kilometers, the carrier can be scared with little

Yes ? Can you scare Mig 31 with daggers?

[Lex_is]

In splendid isolation - no.

[kventinasd]

Quote: Lex_is

In splendid isolation - no.

Can you tell me what is the range of the AUG and Mig31K aviation?

[SovAr238A]

Quote: kventinasd

Quote: Lex_is

In splendid isolation - no.

Can you tell me what is the range of the AUG and Mig31K aviation?

Can you tell me who will give target designation for the MiG-31K at a distance of over 2000 km?
Have you ever seen the viewing angle of the GOS anti-ship missile system and the range of its operation?
Moreover, with a scale of 1000-2000 km?

Think a little with your head if you really want to know more about the issue you are writing about ...

[kventinasd]

Quote: SovAr238A

Have you ever seen the viewing angle of the GOS anti-ship missile system and the range of its operation?

And you must have seen!

Quote: SovAr238A

Think a little with your head if you really want to know more about the issue you are writing about ...

And how is target designation going for Vanguards, Petrel, Calibers, whose range is even higher?

[Lex_is]

And how is target designation for Vanguards, Petrel, Calibers, whose range is even higher

How long have we had Vanguards with Petrel and steel anti-ship missiles and have the 3M-54K learned how to fly at 2000 km?

[SovAr238A]

Quote: kventinasd

Quote: SovAr238A

Have you ever seen the viewing angle of the GOS anti-ship missile system and the range of its operation?

And you must have seen!

Quote: SovAr238A

Think a little with your head if you really want to know more about the issue you are writing about ...

And how is target designation going for Vanguards, Petrel, Calibers, whose range is even higher?

Your text shows your complete profanity ...

[kventinasd]

Quote: SovAr238A

Your text shows your complete profanity ...

If you were born without brains, then you yourself are to blame. Read about modern optoelectronic and inertial guidance systems that work great even in the absence of global positioning. Or is everything on AWACS so obsessed? Now industrial drones are being made capable of moving with high accuracy without any glonass and gps, let alone military developments. Although it is useless to explain this to you, you still will not finish.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: kventinasd

Quote: SovAr238A

Your text shows your complete profanity ...

If you were born without brains, then you yourself are to blame. Read about modern optoelectronic and inertial guidance systems that work great even in the absence of global positioning. Or is everything on AWACS so obsessed? Now industrial drones are being made capable of moving with high accuracy without any glonass and gps, let alone military developments. Although it is useless to explain this to you, you still will not finish.

Well, tell us how the systems of independent correlation and correction of cruise missiles over the sea surface without Glonass and GPS will work ...

tell me how ...

Well, it's easy for me to understand. what do you really know besides chanting silly mantras ...
And food for military development ...

[kventinasd]

Quote: SovAr238A

Well, tell us how the systems of independent correlation and correction of cruise missiles over the sea surface without Glonass and GPS will work ...

Over the sea surface - no way! How do you jam GPS signals for cruise missiles on the high seas or practically in the stratosphere for Daggers? Let me remind you that on the final flight path, GPS positioning is no longer so important, whether it be land or ocean.

[Volder]

Quote: SovAr238A

Can you tell me who will give target designation for the MiG-31K at a distance of over 2000 km?

The target acquisition range for the GOS is at least 300 km. That is, high target designation accuracy is not important, it is enough to know the approximate area of ​​the enemy's location.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Volder

Target acquisition range for the seeker - at least 300 km

)))) cool)) For information: even for such a large missile as "Onyx", the target capture range of the seeker is about 50 km, from an altitude of more than 10 km.
Can you tell me where such a miracle of electronics was made, with a range of three hundred versts?

[Volder]

Quote: Gregory_45

even for such a large missile as the Onyx, the target acquisition range of the seeker is about 50 km, from an altitude of more than 10 km.
Can you tell me where such a miracle of electronics was made, with a range of three hundred versts?

For air-launched missiles, as a rule, the seeker is always more powerful. Speaking about the target acquisition range, I meant the Kh-32 anti-ship missile. A new anti-jamming seeker is installed there.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Volder

For aircraft-based missiles, as a rule, the seeker is always more powerful.

why on earth? It depends on the capabilities of the onboard power system and the antenna diameter.

Quote: Volder

Speaking about the target acquisition range, I meant the Kh-32 anti-ship missile

yes, they indicate the detection range of a large surface ship of the order of 300 km, the capture range will be somewhat lower, but also very decent. But this is rather an exception to the rule. The rocket is very large, the diameter of the antenna array in it is about 800 mm - more than on some fighters.
What GOS is on the Dagger - I personally do not know. It is known that the optical and radar "heads" developed for the Iskander missiles have a capture range of 20-50 km.

[Volder]

Quote: Gregory_45

But this is rather an exception to the rule. The rocket is very large, the diameter of the antenna array in it is about 800 mm

Is the "Dagger" missile small compared to the Kh-32?

What GOS is on the Dagger - I personally do not know.

It must be assumed that it is no worse than on the Kh-32, and maybe even better.

It is known that the optical and radar "heads" developed for the Iskander missiles have a capture range of 20-50 km.

This is because the Iskander missiles target stationary ground targets. For "Dagger" such "heads" are not suitable.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Volder

Is the "Dagger" missile small compared to the Kh-32?

will be different, both in length and in diameter of the bow. GOS from X-22/32 will not fit into it

Quote: Volder

Iskander missiles work against stationary ground targets

missiles with INS and GPS - yes, but with the GOS - not a fact ... especially with RLGSN

Quote: Volder

For "Dagger" such "heads" are not suitable

what did the active radar 9B918 from Radar MMS do not please?

In general, as it seems, with a range of 300 km - a kind of catch. These are either values ​​in passive mode, or .. I don't even know what to think. Not being able to see the missile in an active mode to capture the target at the same distance as it is detected by a much more serious radar of the same Su-30, the energy will not be enough.
By the way, for the Su-30 max. the detection range of a surface target of the "aircraft carrier" type is declared at 250 km, and this is, I believe, with a "narrow" beam, and the diameter of the Bars antenna is 960 mm.

[Volder]

Quote: Gregory_45

will be different, both in length and in diameter of the bow. GOS from X-22/32 will not fit into it

And no one says that the "Dagger" seeker is an old seeker from the X-22.

what did the active radar 9B918 from Radar MMS do not please?

They did not please that the Iskander-M OTRK with its GOS is not capable of firing at moving surface targets.

Not being able to see the missile in an active mode to lock on a target at the same distance as it is detected by a much more serious radar of the same Su-30, the energy is not enough.

The radar on the Kh-32 rocket is better than on its carrier, the Tu-22M3. It should be assumed that the radar station on the Kinzhal missile complex has characteristics no worse (ie better). And of course there is enough energy, there is nothing to discuss here.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: Volder

They did not please that the Iskander-M OTRK with its GOS is not capable of firing at moving surface targets.

How do you know this? all the more so since there was no confirmed information on the supply of missiles with a seeker to the RF Armed Forces, all the more so about their use (even in firing practice).
But stubborn logic suggests that if there is an ARLGSN, then firing at moving targets is possible.

Quote: Volder

The radar on the Kh-32 rocket is better than on its carrier, the Tu-22M3. It should be assumed that the radar station on the Kinzhal missile complex has characteristics no worse (ie better). And of course there is enough energy, there is nothing to discuss here.

these are just your, unconfirmed words. Do not you think your "arguments" slide down to one "I said so"?
you can't even think about how it turns out that a disposable rocket has a much better seeker than an airplane, and its electrical system, of course, is much more powerful than an airplane))) tell me also what is more powerful than a ground air defense system)

[Volder]

Quote: Gregory_45

these are just your, unconfirmed words. You can't even think about how it turns out that a disposable rocket has a much better seeker than an airplane.

Sorry, I can't tell you the source from which I know this. But I can assure you that the information is reliable. I'll tell you more: in the old days, navigators of the Tu-22M sometimes quietly switched to the radar of the X-22 missile in order to see farther than the radar of the aircraft allows.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: kventinasd

Quote: Gregory_45

with the launch range of the Ax in the region of a thousand kilometers, the carrier can be scared with little

Yes ? Can you scare Mig 31 with daggers?

if you bring a guarded ship to the base airfield of these same MiGs with Daggers, then you probably can)

[Interlocutor]

with the launch range of the Ax in the region of a thousand kilometers, the carrier can be scared with little

I agree. Unless something flies in and blooms with a nuclear flower at an altitude of 10 km above the grouping of ships. Or side by side. And so yes. All others are possible from 1000 km. Only it seems to me that they can be thrown down from 300 - they will swallow them.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Interlocutor

with the launch range of the Ax in the region of a thousand kilometers, the carrier can be scared with little

I agree. Unless something flies in and blooms with a nuclear flower at an altitude of 10 km above the grouping of ships. Or side by side. And so yes. All others are possible from 1000 km. Only it seems to me that they can be thrown down from 300 - they will swallow them.

And what will arrive?

[Volder]

Quote: Gregory_45

with the launch range of the Ax in the region of a thousand kilometers, the carrier can be scared with little

I do not think that the anti-ship Tomahawk will have the same flight range as the "terrestrial" version. Most likely - about 500 km, because the new rocket is flying not strictly in a straight line (it spends fuel on zigzags).

[_Ugene_]

AWACS aircraft and helicopters detect it and can transmit
data on enemy carrier-based fighters.

even without aircraft, AWACS for naval air defense is not a difficult target, dangerous only with a massive attack

[Grigory_45]

Quote: _Ugene_

AWACS aircraft and helicopters detect it and can transmit
data on enemy carrier-based fighters.

even without aircraft, AWACS for naval air defense is not a difficult target, dangerous only with a massive attack

own ship means will detect low-flying missiles in 20 kilometers ... and "fun" will begin ((Axes will cover this distance in a little more than a minute. So one cannot do without AWACS or a long-range radar patrol ship

[SovAr238A]

Quote: voyaka uh

She was taught:
move in zigzags for more likely target detection,
in case of a miss, turn around and go for the "second run".
Disadvantage of Tomahawk: It is not stealth. And subsonic.
AWACS aircraft and helicopters detect it and can transmit
data on enemy carrier-based fighters.

Not only...

Most importantly, the new Tomahawk received a completely new GOS and a two-way satellite channel.
Respectively.
now he can receive not just retargeting, but also:

during a salvo start and flight in a "flock" when searching and detecting one of the target's missiles or several targets, it immediately "gives information about this to the command post" and let it be shot down immediately. but the information will not be lost.
in real time, the command post can reprogram all flight missions of the remaining missiles for a coordinated strike - now this is already real in real time.

Who would not say what, but no facts actually confirming the regime of the "pack" earlier - does not exist. Except for the words of one pensioner, 80 years old. Not a single flock trial. no analysis of the components of the filling of anti-ship missiles, including Soviet ones. Everything is concluded that the "pack" regime is promising ... and the future is real for it. but it was never actually implemented.
Now it has been implemented.

And for some reason I think. that the idea was ours. but unrealized and voiced 30 years ago.
And the Americans have realized it only now. with the development of satellite communication systems.

[voyaka uh]

"but there are no facts really confirming the" pack "regime earlier." ///
----
There was one test with two cruise missiles. One was "leading"
the other is "slave". It was concluded from this one test that everything works.

[kventinasd]

Quote: SovAr238A

And for some reason I think. that the idea was ours. but unrealized and voiced 30 years ago.
And the Americans have realized it only now. with the development of satellite communication systems.

And I think you are reading the wrong manuals "Uncle Fedor"
In Onyx, this feature was implemented several decades ago.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: kventinasd

Quote: SovAr238A

And for some reason I think. that the idea was ours. but unrealized and voiced 30 years ago.
And the Americans have realized it only now. with the development of satellite communication systems.

And I think you are reading the wrong manuals "Uncle Fedor"
In Onyx, this feature was implemented several decades ago.

There was and there is nothing in onyx.

don't repeat this nonsense ..

[Grigory_45]

Quote: _Ugene_

these characteristics have not changed, everything is as it was

could have changed. There is no need for an anti-ship subsonic missile to fly 2+ thousand km, the target is still mobile, it can run away during the flight so far that you cannot find it even with the use of cunning search algorithms. In addition, the seeker is noticeably heavier and more voluminous than the standard guidance system of an "ordinary ax", and it would be desirable to have more warheads for sea targets - therefore, there should be less fuel. For the anti-ship missile version, the actual range values ​​will probably be in the 500-1000 km fork.

[ancient]

Quote: Volder

What range was the missile launched?

The data presented by the manufacturer - surface launch - range 1250-2500 km (depending on the warhead), and underwater -1000 km .... for any enemy .... "enough" for the eyes.

Quote: Volder

the speed of the rocket is provided for by the terms of reference (TTX)

- cruising speed of 885 km / h;
- maximum flight speed in the final flight phase at certain angles of attack -
1200 km / h;
- the rocket body has a length of 6,25 m;
- wingspan 2,62 m;
- the weight of the loaded missile varied in the range of 1450-1500 kg, depending on the type of warhead;
But the most valuable thing in it is equipping with a new multi-channel guidance system for the possibility of hitting surface targets.
And also the installation of a new module of data transmission equipment Integrated Single Box Solutionchannel, which allows during the flight to perform target designation to another target and at the same time the CD can loit for several hours and instantly change course on command.
If at least 50% of the "declared" is true ... ... then with such anti-ship missiles, and even + LRASM, please note that the United States Navy does not have such a problem as ... "carriers". .. we can fuck .. ". fucking problem"

[Note]

It seems like ...

[Zorro21]

Quote: Volder

What range was the missile launched? What is the range and speed of the rocket provided for by the terms of reference (TTX)

The main thing is that they did not say the frequencies and operating modes of the new guidance head Will our REB members again have to climb on American forums instead of just looking at VO

[venik]

Quote: Volder

The topic is not fully disclosed.

==========
To you, "black on white" ..... Ugh - "white on black" wrote: "...Details of the launch not disclosed.... "

[tralflot1832]

If there are no two "zips" in the head of the rocket at launch, then this is a subsonic Tamaghawk?

[Lex_is]

Subsonic, of course, is an upgrade of Block IV with a new guidance system.

[Grigory_45]

Quote: tralflot1832

If there are no two "zips" in the head of the rocket

what do you mean? Operation of attitude motors and air intake cover reset on Onyx?

[rotmistr60]

Service life of "Tomahawks" after renovation - 15 years.

And after the expiration of the term, there will be a need to dispose of, for which it is easier to launch them on someone. If not launched earlier.

[Dmitry Vladimirovich]

Quote: rotmistr60

And after the expiration of the term, there will be a need to dispose of, for which it is easier to launch them on someone. If not launched earlier.

Moreover, every little US "victorious war" is tied to the end of the life of a batch of tomahawks.

[voyaka uh]

The problem is the same with Calibers. KR - "perishable product".
And very expensive too.
Therefore, if a military operation is started, then they are not saved.

[Gregory Charnota]

Kennedy's grandchildren will never calm down! everyone is armed
Raytheon CEO: Thomas Kennedy

[Sergey Kulikov_3]

Again, cartoons from our partners, like we will release 100500 axes and khan to everyone around, such missiles are not sent in our times. I even wonder who will be destroyed first, these ships or the country that sent the ships?

[Pavel57]

Quote: _Ugene_

these characteristics have not changed, everything is as it was

The main difference between the Block V version is the new aiming head, which allows you to hit moving surface targets

An anti-ship missile made of it was made with the possibility of retargeting in flight

All inertial guided missiles potentially have this capability.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Pavel57

Quote: _Ugene_

these characteristics have not changed, everything is as it was

The main difference between the Block V version is the new aiming head, which allows you to hit moving surface targets

An anti-ship missile made of it was made with the possibility of retargeting in flight

All inertial guided missiles potentially have this capability.

Only airborne missiles and missiles with ARGSN, in which the principle of guidance on the marching sector "INS + radio command correction" was usually used
On semi-active airborne missiles and missiles, it was by default.

But he was never on the RCC.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: voyaka uh

"but there are no facts really confirming the" pack "regime earlier." ///
----
There was one test with two cruise missiles. One was "leading"
the other is "slave". It was concluded from this one test that everything works.

Not...
This is not that.
It is simply the use of one missile raised to a great height as a "target illumination source" so that another missile could receive a signal reflected from the target while still in the radio shadow zone.


there were no two-way radio communication systems in the avionics of anti-ship missiles and changes in the flight mission.

The entire flight mission for all missiles in the world was loaded into a rocket located in the TPK before launch.
Everyone has.
Not a single rocket in the world was able to simply "shoot into milk" and then transmit "target coordinates" to it ...

[spolo]

By the way, this may be a weak point. The Iranians somehow plant enemy drones ...