Tomahawk - a new problem or not?
In my lifetime, this is not the first or second coming of the "Axe", around which noise and hubbub begin. And if forty years ago the word "Tomahawk", applicable to the winged rocket, evoked very peculiar feelings, then over time the brightness faded. Radars became more selective, anti-missiles smarter and more accurate, and most importantly - faster and less expensive.
And the "Axe"... Well, it's a classic on par with the AKM, T-72 and B-52. So let's pay tribute by going through its difficult path, and then analyze how much of a threat this missile poses to us today.
History
The distant year of 1972. At that time, the US (apparently they had cross-pollinated with Khrushchev) had impressive land- and submarine-based missiles, the Titan, Atlas, and Minuteman. But for some reason, they didn’t pay due attention to cruise missiles, as if they would destroy the whole world anyway.
However, the USSR had a different point of view, and therefore, when the Union developed such products as Termit, Bazalt and Metel, overseas they realized that they urgently needed to catch up.
Moreover, the power of Soviet cruise missiles was demonstrated by the Indians during the Third Indo-Pakistani War in 1971.
Then, during Operation Trident, three Indian missile boats of Soviet design (Project 206 Moskit) wreaked havoc on Pakistani the fleet in Karachi, sinking two destroyers and a minesweeper of the Pakistan Navy and annihilating a transport with ammunition. The remaining missiles (2 of 12) were sent to the port structure, causing large fires at the local oil storage facility. Three days later, the attack on Karachi was repeated by one boat, 4 missiles of which created a real Gomorrah: two tankers were sunk (Panamanian and Pakistani), and the tanker from Panama detonated and damaged 2 more ships, a British dry cargo ship was sunk and as a result, 12 of the 34 port oil storage facilities burned. The port was extinguished for a week.
In general, the effectiveness of Soviet cruise missiles turned out to be off the charts.
Therefore, in the same year of 1971, very urgently and secretly, the leadership of the US Navy initiated work on the creation of a strategic cruise missile with an underwater launch.
Two options were considered: a heavy cruise missile with an underwater launch from ballistic missile silos and a flight range of over 5 km, and a lighter option, launched from 000-mm torpedo tubes and with a range of up to 533 km.
The second option won because there were not enough carriers for the first: five George Washington-class submarines and five Etienne Allen-class submarines, which were already being decommissioned by that time. And a missile that could be launched from the torpedo tube of almost any submarine - this was more to the liking of the US Navy admirals. And June 2, 1972 can safely be considered the birthday of the Tomahawk.
The missiles were launched through torpedo tubes of submarines with a caliber of 533 mm or more and from surface ships from inclined launchers of the ABL type (Mk 143) and vertical launch installations Mk 41 (some types of nuclear submarines are also equipped with these vertical launch installations).
The BGM-109G missiles were launched from ground-based TEL launch containers, but following the conclusion of the 1987 Treaty between the USSR and the USA on the Elimination of Medium- and Short-Range Missiles, they were removed from service and destroyed by 1991.
This is in response to the fact that (as some optimists claim) the Tomahawk is a purely sea-based missile. In reality, the Topor is a completely universal thing and it doesn't care at all where it launches from.
Tomahawk BGM-109 is available in two modifications:
- tactical, which is designed to deliver missile strikes against surface ships;
- strategic for the destruction of ground targets.
The flight characteristics and design of the missiles of both models are identical, and the only difference between them is that they have different warheads.
The missile's warhead weighs 340 kg. The number of warhead variants is quite diverse: cluster, semi-armor-piercing, high-explosive, high-explosive fragmentation, penetrating, and so on.
W80. Nuclear warhead with a yield of 5 to 200 kilotons.
W84. Nuclear warhead with a yield of 5 to 150 kilotons.
WDU-25/B. Semi-armor-piercing warhead, also used on the AGM-12 Bullpup missile.
WDU-36/B. High-explosive fragmentation warhead weighing 340 kg.
Cassette. 166 combined-action combat elements BLU-97/B CEB, 1,5 kg each, in 24 cassettes.
WDU-43/B. Penetrating/concrete-piercing warhead
The "Axe" can attack according to several algorithms: with a steep dive, with an explosion while flying over the target horizontally, and simply sticking in from a horizontal flight. This complicates counteraction to the enemy and makes it easier to hit each specific target.
When moving towards a target, the Tomahawk flies at the maximum permissible low altitude, following the terrain, so until recently it was very difficult for ground-based radar detection systems to spot the missile. Also, the BGM-109's "invisibility" is aided by its streamlined shape, devoid of protruding elements and radio-contrasting details.
However, today radars and their crews, willy-nilly, have learned to look “under themselves”, as the current situation with the use of UAVs required. UAVs- Kamikazes have an even smaller signature and heat trace than cruise missiles, and also fly at very low altitudes, which makes them very difficult to detect. However, new times have given rise to new combat techniques, such as the multi-altitude placement of air defense missile systems, when one is placed 20-30 meters higher than the other and "looks" in the "forward-downward" direction, tracking drones flying at low altitudes.
By the way, where it is not possible to place the SAM system in the natural folds of the terrain, in some areas they simply piled up huge mountains of sand and drove the Pantsirs or Tors on top. Sorry, I will not provide a photo for obvious reasons, but in our region this is quite common. And, considering that in three years the Ukrainian Armed Forces have achieved practically no great success in our region, the scheme works.
However, the "Axe" has its own trump card: TERCOM. The system, which was already on the first modification of the missile, Terrain Contour Matching is a relief-metric type guidance system that "leads" the missile in an autonomous mode and does not need outside control. Accordingly, in this position it is useless to influence the missile by means EW, with the possible exception of the "Krasukha", which under certain conditions can simply burn out all the electronics. If the radio altimeter readings start to "goof", then the rocket will go according to the barometric altimeter readings, which cannot be jammed.
The Tomahawk currently has several systems used for guidance that make up TAINS, the Targeting Inertial Radar Correlated Guidance System.
1. The already mentioned AN/DPW-23 TERCOM relief measurement system. In flight, the missile scans the terrain with its sensors and a radio altimeter along the course and compares it with the information stored in the missile database. This allows it to move at a low altitude, skirting the folds of the terrain and, most importantly, gives the missile greater autonomy and reduces the enemy's chances of knocking the missile off course.
The only drawback of TERCOM is that this system is not very effective on relatively flat terrain: steppes, deserts, tundra, etc., where optical sensors have nothing to "catch on to". But here other systems come to the rescue.
2. P-1000/RPU. An inertial guidance system consisting of its own computer, a barometric altimeter, and an inertial platform consisting of three laser gyroscopes for measuring the angular deviations of the missile and three accelerometers for determining the accelerations of deviations along three axes.
The latest modifications of the missiles use an inertial guidance system, which uses a fiber optic gyroscope.
Pure mathematics: the rocket's onboard computer simply calculates the entire path according to the data, then compares it with the maps and in the required area transfers control to more precise systems.
3. DSMAC optical-electronic system. It was created and applied in 1986 and has undergone a number of upgrades to date. DSMAC (Digital Scene Matching Area Correlator) is a system of electronic-optical correlation of the missile flight trajectory, based on data from a digital camera. This subsystem starts working at the final stage of the flight after the last correction according to TAINS and operates as follows: the camera takes pictures of the terrain, and then the computer compares them with the reference pictures in its memory. And depending on the degree of coincidence, a correction is made.
In the 90s, DSMAC was radically modernized; the system received a xenon flash for operation in poor weather conditions, and the camera became a thermal imaging camera.
4. NAVSTAR, 5-channel satellite navigation receiver. Everything is clear here, where there is no electronic warfare, the route correction can be made using satellite signals.
When the Tomahawk approaches the target area, after all the corrections made by the previous systems, the final trajectory guidance systems come into play.
AN/DSQ-28. An active radar homing head operating at frequencies of 10-20 GHz. The same homing head is currently used on the Harpoon anti-ship missile, which once again confirms its capabilities and effectiveness.
Digital map correction systems have undergone a considerable improvement: first there was the AN/DXQ-1 optical-electronic system, which was replaced by the DSMAC IIA, and the latest modifications of missiles are equipped with the DSMAC IV.
These systems provide a very decent CEP, 5-10 meters during a flight of 1 km. The only question is the number of the most detailed digital maps of the area over which the missile will fly. But this is no longer a question for the missile itself, but for the relevant special services, which must ensure the filming.
And in 2004, the US Army received a modification of the Tactical Tomahawk. This missile stands out from its predecessors with a couple of innovations: the ability to cover distances of up to 2 km and retarget at any of the targets programmed into its program right during the flight.
This became possible due to the command guidance of the missile to the target by using a television subsystem. With telecontrol, the operator observes the target until it is hit using a camera in the nose of the missile and adjusts the flight trajectory by manually aligning the target image with the missile's aiming mark. If during the missile's flight it is discovered that the target assigned to it for hitting has been destroyed by other means of destruction, then according to the operator's commands the missile will be re-aimed at other coordinates.
Of course, all this only works if there is a stable communication channel. Nowadays, it is not difficult to organize this via satellites, but once one person has organized it, another will find a way to block this channel.
Just a few words about homing heads and their development prospects
The homing heads are used in the final part of the missile's flight, for the most accurate and effective target destruction. To date, quite a lot of different homing heads have been developed: thermal imaging, television, light-contrast, infrared and laser. By the method of guidance - homing or telecontrol.
But there are also more modern systems: combined or complex homing heads, which are built on the basis of a set of radar and non-radar (magnetometric, television, inertial, etc.) sensors. It is these systems that provide high accuracy of destruction coupled with a minimum CEP, which can reach 3 meters.
From this we can conclude that the further direction of modernization of cruise missiles, including the descendants of the Tomahawk, will be associated with the creation of high-precision and interference-resistant electronic equipment that ensures reliable reception of flight correction signals and control commands.
And we will remember this conclusion and return to it when we talk about methods of countering Tomahawks.
Now it is worth evaluating those modifications of the “Axe” that could suddenly hypothetically (yes, that’s right) end up there, with our opponents, in Ukraine.
RGM/UGM-109A. This is a pioneer, so to speak. The original modification with an inertial control system with a TERCOM correction system. A W-80 nuclear warhead with a warhead yield of 5 to 200 kilotons. The missile's range exceeded 2500 km. It was intended for placement on surface ships (RGM) in ABL launchers, and on submarines (UGM modification), for launch through a standard 533-mm torpedo tube. This cannot end up in Ukraine under any circumstances.
RGM/UGM-109B Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile/TASM. A conventional anti-ship missile. Structurally, it is a Tomahawk, on which the TERCOM system, useless when flying over the sea, was replaced by the ARGSN of the Harpoon anti-ship missile. And the result is a missile with a very decent range (450 km), carrying a semi-armor-piercing warhead weighing 450 kg. Ukraine will not get this either, because there are no carriers for it.
RGM/UGM-109C Tomahawk (TLAM-C). This is a non-nuclear missile for hitting targets on land. Since the high-explosive part was much heavier than the nuclear part, the flight range dropped to 1 km. It was here that the AN/DXQ-600 DSMAC optical-electronic target recognition system first appeared.
RGM/UGM-109D. Modification with a cluster warhead, including 166 BLU-97/B CEB submunitions. This is a missile for hitting large area targets such as railway junctions and airfields. It had the shortest flight range of 870 km due to the very large and heavy warhead.
RGM/UGM-109E Tactical Tomahawk. Tactical support missile for troops. Cheaper due to the use of lighter materials and a cheaper Williams F415-WR-400/402 engine. It was here that the option of retargeting the missile to another object from the target list appeared, a satellite TV camera, which allows the operator to assess the state of the target as the missile approaches it and decide whether to continue the attack or retarget.
And these are sea-based missiles. Do they pose a threat to Russia? Purely theoretically. Yes, the US has a lot of carriers. 61 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers (can carry 56 missiles), 3 or 4 Ticonderoga-class cruisers (64 missiles each), 4 Ohio-class nuclear submarines (154 missiles each) – in general, there are no problems with where the Americans can launch Tomahawks at someone. The question is who, and how this someone will react to this in terms of interception and destruction, because one missile costs an average of $1,45 million. Yes, the US stockpiles of all modifications of Tomahawks are estimated at at least 5 thousand pieces, but…
Whatever happens, Kyiv will not get these missiles simply because they will have to be supplied with ships. And the Europeans cannot afford such luxury. Well, Trump can only give Zele a handkerchief for free, nothing more. The rest is for money.
But Tomahawks are usually spoken of as surface- and submarine-launched missiles. There were attempts to launch them from an aircraft, but that's a completely different matter, because the AGM-109 TALCM (Tomahawk Air-Launched Cruise Missile), a version of the BGM-109A modified for aerial launch from a bomber aircraft, passed some of the tests, but ultimately lost the competition to the Boeing AGM-86 ALCM. The missile turned out to be too heavy, so the B-52H and F-111 were planned as carriers, which are no longer relevant as carriers.
But there are also land-based launchers, and there are mobile ones, which were developed in the interests of the Marine Corps. This entire range is created on the basis of the same vertical launch system Mk.41, and it is truly universal to the point of outrageousness. It practically does not care what it is installed on: a ship, a pontoon, a truck...
In general, the Americans have long wanted to adapt something like this for launching the "Axes" from a closer distance, but somehow they never had the time. And so, in 2019, at the test site located on San Nicolas Island, the first tests of launching the "Tomahawk" in the land-based version took place.
It seems that according to the final statements, the tests were successful, the missile hit the target at a distance of 500 km. The highlight was that for the first time, the Tomahawk was launched from a mobile ground platform. That is, without much ado, American engineers screwed one element of the Mk.41 onto a car semi-trailer. A very innovative solution, but what is, is. But it worked.
Well, the missiles were also redesigned to fit this theme.
BGM-109G Gryphon. This is a nuclear BGM-109A in a land-based version. There were no design differences, except for the use of a new W-84 thermonuclear warhead with a variable yield from 0,2 to 150 kilotons. The missile's range was about 2 km.
BGM-109 LRFL Typhoon/Tomahawk Block V. This product was demonstrated in 2023 and was a launcher for one missile based on the Oshkosh L-ATV 4 x 4 vehicle. These installations, although considered experimental, are already in full use by the US Army. The missile is capable of delivering a high-explosive or high-explosive warhead to a distance of 1 km. Yes, one vehicle of this brand can only carry one missile, but Oshkosh L-ATV has already stamped out more than 600 thousand, so there are no problems in this regard.
How dangerous is the Tomahawk for Russia (if it is dangerous) and what are the methods of counteraction?
Strengths:
- very decent range;
- a wide range of tasks that can be solved with the help of Tomahawks;
- independence of operational level commanders in matters of selecting targets and striking them;
- great strategic mobility;
- the ability to deliver massive strikes from many directions;
- the ability to quickly change the position occupied, less vulnerability to a counterattack by the enemy;
- high level of missile stealth, due to the small thermal footprint and the absence of a bright flash during launch;
- operational simplicity of the available means for delivering a missile strike, which are located in sealed metal containers and do not require regular maintenance and inspections;
- modern guidance methods that ensure effective application.
It doesn't look very good. Nothing special, just a good missile capable of performing combat missions in a variety of conditions. The downsides, to be honest, are more significant.
The weakest side of the Tomahawk is its speed. 800 km/h is very little these days. On the route, when the missile is following the INS and maps, it is more than easy to intercept it by an aircraft. Considering that the Topor cannot maneuver with high overloads, it is an easy target. Also, the Tomahawk does not have the ability to operate IR traps and other decoys, so the missile is absolutely defenseless against SAM missiles.
Shooting down a Tomahawk throughout its entire trajectory today is not a big problem for any SAM system in service with the Russian Armed Forces. The same can be said about aircraft.
But there are also EW troops. It is clear that the most effective effects of electronic suppression can be at the final stage of the trajectory, when the missile's radar homing head comes into play. Plus, suppression of television communication channels with the operator and communication channels with satellites can be no less effective than anti-missiles.
There is another option for suppressing the Tomahawk. A laser system under certain weather conditions could very effectively work against the Tomahawk's optical system, which takes pictures of the territory over which the missile flies for subsequent comparison with those stored in the processor's memory. A laser against a matrix is not the best option for a missile. But combat laser systems are still in their infancy, but laser systems are still on the path to their development.
And alas, but for old "Axe" all means Defense pose a danger, even such an old thing as the ZU-23-2, in its modification ZU-23A, which received a compact radar and the ability to operate the gunner remotely.
As for more serious anti-aircraft missile and gun systems such as Shilka, Tunguska, and Pantsir, the Tomahawk is really not a problem.
The trump card of the "Axe" is its mass appeal
Indeed, today it is no longer innovative, but rather a classic method to overload an air defense system with older weapons or a mass attack by drones.
But this method is good for everything today, and works especially effectively in a combined attack, when drones, cruise missiles, and ballistics are used simultaneously. That's when it's very difficult to fight back even for a good air defense system. And you don't have to go looking for examples, the Israeli "Iron Dome" turned out to be either not iron, or not quite a dome.
But there is another aspect in which the use of the Tomahawk on Russian territory seems to me to be a very dubious matter.
Let's look at who these missiles were used against. Bosnian Serbs. Iraq. Yugoslavia. Sudan. Afghanistan. Libya. Syria. Iran.
What unites all these countries? The inability to adequately respond to a blow. Countries of the second and third military worlds, incapable of either properly defending themselves or striking back. Not Russia, in general.
To assess the "Axe" flying towards our borders, it is probably worth recalling Lavrov. Last year, the Russian Foreign Minister very clearly formulated how the launch of "Tomahawks" in our direction could end for everyone.
Let's break it down like this: Tomahawk is a cruise missile, primarily a strategic one. And it may not have a nuclear warhead. All these arguments "Yes, we'll give it with conventional ones, everything will be fine" - this is in favor of the poor. They won't give it. It is possible to track the launch of the "Axe", but to recognize what it is, a conventional one or with a nuclear warhead - whose headache?
Lavrov then clearly stated: the launch of strategic cruise missiles in our direction will definitely be interpreted as an act of aggression of the highest level and in response our strategic response forces will be immediately put into combat readiness.
It makes sense, we can’t wait until the Tomahawk arrives, can we?
That is why it is customary to inform "partners" about all launches that may be perceived ambiguously. When our guys attacked terrorist bases in Syria, the Americans knew exactly how many would fly and where. When the Americans launched missiles at their own targets in Syria, our guys also knew everything. And the launch of "Oreshnik" is completely from the same opera. All so that no one in their sleep would point a finger where it shouldn't be pointed and start the Apocalypse.
And back in 2024, Lavrov made it very clear that no one would bother to figure out whether a convection Tomahawk had flown, and a non-convection one would be considered strategic with all the ensuing consequences. And this is generally logical.
Therefore, the chances that the Tomahawks will end up in the hands of a gay Ukrainian drug addict are below zero. It is difficult to say who gave what to whom as a special opinion, but there are considerations on the topic that our people very clearly conveyed to their American partners how the games with the transfer of strategic missiles to idiots can end. A global final nightmare.
The reasons why we should not be afraid of Tomahawks are not only military, but also military-political. And where there is politics, there is always room for subtle play. Russia showed the whole world the "Nut Tree". Could the US stay away from the performance on stage? Of course not. That is why it turned out to be the "Axe Dance". Everyone is happy.
In general, even after all the upgrades, which, by the way, mainly concerned the guidance systems, the Tomahawk is a missile from the middle of the last century. Yes, it has participated in many conflicts, proven itself, and was produced in huge quantities, but nevertheless, it is a missile that has more disadvantages than advantages.
The Americans themselves (the part that understands) consider the main drawback of the Tomahawk to be the very low probability of overcoming the enemy’s layered anti-missile defense system, which will include a fighter Aviation, and tactical ground-based air defense systems, and electronic countermeasure systems. Remove at least one thing from this list, and the Tomahawk will still have a chance, but if you do it all together, there will be no chance.
Back in the 80s of the last century, during joint exercises of the US Air Force and ground forces, it turned out that the army's Hawk air defense systems, which were generally more than average, easily detected and conditionally destroyed 7-8 Tomahawk missiles out of 10. I am sure that modern Buk and Tor will shoot down 10 out of 10.
Well, if, according to the Americans, at that time the MiG-25 provided 100% destruction of Tomahawks flying at the lowest altitude, then modern aircraft will be more effective.
"Tomahawk" is a very good and solid missile. With satisfactory flight and excellent range characteristics, equipped with modern guidance systems, easy to prepare and use. Perfect for use against countries that do not have modern aviation and air defense. Just a great club for the international gendarme.
Countries like Russia and China are not afraid of the Tomahawk. There is something to blunt it with.
Information