Land-attack Tomahawk missile (TLAM) altered for anti-ship role

[CougarKing]

Is it really that different from the old TASM version retired in the 1990s?

From: Business Insider

Here's video of the US Navy testing a 'game-changing' new missile

The US Navy has successfully altered a Raytheon Tomahawk land-attack missile (TLAM) to be able to hit a moving target at sea, USNI News reports.

In a Jan. 27 test off of San Nicolas Island, California, the Navy launched a TLAM that was guided into a moving maritime target through directions given by a Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet flying overhead. TLAMs are capable of changing their direction mid-course.

< Edited >

TLAMs are already used for land-attack missions against static targets. By converting TLAMs into missiles capable of penetrating thickly armored vessels at sea, the Navy plugs a serious gap in its weapons capabilities. According to USNI News, TLAMs that have been converted into anti-ship missiles could be used aboard the Navy's newer guided-missile destroyers, which cannot use the service's antiquated RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missile.

The new converted TLAMs would have a range of almost 1,000 nautical miles, allowing the US to maintain a considerable edge over rival naval powers. One of China's most threatening new military advancements is its development of its own advanced anti-ship cruise missiles. However, these missiles would have just half the range of a converted TLAM.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Are ships,thickly armoured?  The one of ours I took a tour on certainly wasn't.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The only ships nowadays that can be considered as heavily armoured are aircraft carriers, very large cruisers (such as the ones Russia still has a few of) and probably some amphibious assault ships, but in their case more likely simply as a result of the thickness of steel needed for such large vessels.

Moreover, I don't know what use you would have to waste long range tomahawk missiles on surface ships. If the ships are that far from you, they are not a menace, and if you need to guide the missile to it, then you need to keep the spotter aircraft in view/range of that ship for quite a long time (unless I am missing something the Tomahawk cruise missile is a subsonic missile).

 

[Rifleman62]

Remember this:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030507084432/http://navynews.co.uk/falklands/stories/8202040301.asp

In a well-documented incident during the Falklands War, a Royal Marine attacked an Argentinian corvette (ARA Guerrico) using a Carl Gustav

 

[CougarKing]

. If the ships are that far from you, they are not a menace

Don't the Russian Kirov class cruisers have the SS-N-19 Shipwreck missile, which have a comparable range to the Tomahawk? Isn't that missile type then a threat?

???

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Actually, the Kirov's carry 20 P-700 "Granit" missiles, which are derivatives of the SS-N-19 (the SS indicating submarine launched missile). But with only the Velikyiy and Nakimov still in service and both fairly old (and usually only one in service at the time, the other one being in refit), it is a insignificantly limited threat that does not warrant the expenditure of resources to counter.

Moreover, the Granit is supersonic (2.5 times speed of sound actually), unlike the Tomahawk which is sub-sonic, but gives the Russians the very same problem as everyone else: "mid-course" guidance. You cannot lob these things at their maximum range in the general direction of where you think your opponents are located. They are not like homing torpedoes that can run search patterns until they hear their target and then move accordingly. The final guidance capability is fine tuning only and therefore you have to be able to get the missiles pretty close to your intended target to start with. That is one of the reasons (Russia's lack of capability to effectively seek out targets that far away from their ships, except by submarines) that it was believed that those missiles would only be used at mush shorter range.   

 

[winnipegoo7]

...Moreover, I don't know what use you would have to waste long range tomahawk missiles on surface ships. If the ships are that far from you, they are not a menace, and if you need to guide the missile to it, then you need to keep the spotter aircraft in view/range of that ship for quite a long time (unless I am missing something the Tomahawk cruise missile is a subsonic missile).

Why would you want to destroy your enemy before they can engage you? I hope that was a joke. The goal is obviously to destroy your enemy before they can destroy you - it’s a fundamental principle of warfare. I would also argue that a couple of Tomahawks are a relatively cheap price to pay for the destruction of an enemy warship.

If you had read the article you would know that the Americans are developing long range ASM (anti-ship missiles) because the Chinese are. And yes, you are missing something, this Tomahawk variant is equipped with new sensors that enable the missile to be “fired and forgotten”. This is a major advance in naval warfare technology.


SMA, the TLAM ASM or BLK IV is very different that the old TASM. I’m only an amateur in the field of anti-ship missiles, but I think I can explain this.

The TASM used a Harpoon ASM seeker (radar.) To attack a ship with the TASM (or Harpoon) one would locate the target ship (by radar, ESM, visual sighting, satellites, … any way that gives a geographical position), this information would be given to the missile. The missile would be launched, fly to the target area using its inertial navigation system, turn on its seeker and begin searching for a target. Notice that I said a target. In the time it would take for a TASM to fly to its maximum range the position of the target ship could have changed and other ships could have entered the target area. This means that when the missile arrives in the target area it doesn’t know where the target ship is and would have to search for it. Since the Harpoon seeker is ‘dumb’ it’s going to attack the first target it finds (or run out of fuel if it finds no target.) This first target might be the target you wanted to attack or it could be any other object that looks like a ship to the seeker. This greatly increases the potential for engaging the wrong target.

The BLK IV is fitted with two important sensors. One sensor will detect specific radar emissions from the intended target (in simple terms a radar detector.) The other sensor is a millimeter wave (MMW) radar. The MMW allows the missile to identify specific targets (Ie. It will be able to distinguish between classes of ship.) So this missile will be used much like the TASM. When the target is located that position will be given to the missile (but this missile will also be ‘told’ what radar emissions to ‘look’ for and what the target ‘looks’ like.) The missile will launch and use GPS to go towards the target area. On the way there it will use the ‘radar detector’ to search for the target ship’s emissions and it will update its course accordingly. When it gets close to the target it will turn on its MMW radar and use this to positively identify the target. It will then attack the target (likely using the MMW radar to attack specific vulnerable points on the target vessel - watch the LRASM video, it demonstrates this.)

So the big difference is going to be target discrimination. The TASM and the Harpoon will fly to a target area and attack any target present (it doesn’t matter if that target is friendly, enemy, neutral, or a decoy, it will attack anything.) The BLK IV is more advanced and will give itself midcourse updates to the target (if it detects target radar emissions) and will then attack only specific targets. Additionally, it appears that this missile can receive midcourse updates from a variety of sources.

The biggest flaw of the BLK IV is going to be that it is subsonic. This means that it will be easier for the enemy to shoot down and will allow more time for the enemy to deploy decoys and countermeasures. The BLK IV has been described as a stopgap replacement until the Long Rang Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) is developed.

Block 4 video: http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/08/back-to-future-targeting-new-tasm.html
Check out the LRASM video. It’s pretty cool. http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/LRASM.html

 

[daftandbarmy]

Remember this:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030507084432/http://navynews.co.uk/falklands/stories/8202040301.asp

In a well-documented incident during the Falklands War, a Royal Marine attacked an Argentinian corvette (ARA Guerrico) using a Carl Gustav

And that's largely because the British were/are too cheap to invest in things like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fWIiP4p0zQ

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

My comments in yellow.

Why would you want to destroy your enemy before they can engage you? I hope that was a joke. The goal is obviously to destroy your enemy before they can destroy you - it’s a fundamental principle of warfare.
Not necessarily so for Navies. When Beatty put to sea for the Battle of Jutland, his primary objective was NOT TO LOSE the fleet, which by its sole existence was keeping the German fleet at bay. When you escort a convoy, your objective is NOT the destruction of submarines, but the safe and timely arrival of your convoy, etc. I would also argue that a couple of Tomahawks are a relatively cheap price to pay for the destruction of an enemy warship.

If you had read the article you would know that the Americans are developing long range ASM (anti-ship missiles) because the Chinese are. And yes, you are missing something, this Tomahawk variant is equipped with new sensors that enable the missile to be “fired and forgotten”. This is a major advance in naval warfare technology.
The Block IV Tomahawk are NOT a fire and forget weapon (which the Harpoon is BTW). I quote here from the very article you cite, look at the underlined portion - it means you need someone or something at the target to keep you updated and update the position to the missile (obviously SOF are for land attack only, manned ISR means a maritime patrol aircraft, and drone is self-explanatory):

"As seen in Raytheon's recently released concept video above, the new "TASM" will use advanced targeting features including ESM and an Active Electronically Scanned Millimeter wave radar seeker.  More important is the two-way UHF SATCOM data link which will allow for cueing and updated tracking of targets in conjunction with naval drones, manned ISR, or SOF during the missile's long flight.  These improvements will mitigate some of the challenges in firing the missiles over-the-horizon, especially against targets in crowded litoral seas."


SMA, the TLAM ASM or BLK IV is very different that the old TASM. I’m only an amateur in the field of anti-ship missiles, but I think I can explain this.

The TASM used a Harpoon ASM seeker (radar.) To attack a ship with the TASM (or Harpoon) one would locate the target ship (by radar, ESM, visual sighting, satellites, … any way that gives a geographical position), this information would be given to the missile. The exact same thing is required for the Tomahawk The missile would be launched, fly to the target area using its inertial navigation system, turn on its seeker and begin searching for a target. Notice that I said a target. In the time it would take for a TASM to fly to its maximum range the position of the target ship could have changed and other ships could have entered the target area. This means that when the missile arrives in the target area it doesn’t know where the target ship is and would have to search for it. Since the Harpoon seeker is ‘dumb’ it’s going to attack the first target it finds (or run out of fuel if it finds no target.) This first target might be the target you wanted to attack or it could be any other object that looks like a ship to the seeker. This greatly increases the potential for engaging the wrong target.

The BLK IV is fitted with two important sensors. One sensor will detect specific radar emissions from the intended target (in simple terms a radar detector.)First of all, it would not detect them until it is reasonably close to the target. Tomahawk is a cruise missile. It doesn't fly at 20,000 meters, but rather 20,000 millimetres (20 meters in other words) and so, might (but not necessarily) detect Air Search radar's in the last 200-250 Nm from the target - assuming the target is using its radars (we have only known about radar detection and its counter - radar silence - for the last 60 years or so). Also, the radar info you give the missile can only be for a radar type, not a specific set. So there may be 2, 3, 4, ten ships in the target area with the same radar set and then you still don't know which one is which. The other sensor is a millimeter wave (MMW) radar. The MMW allows the missile to identify specific targets (Ie. It will be able to distinguish between classes of ship.) No, it doesn't. The MMW will give you a greater certainty of which ship is your target, but far from a certainty unless you happen to be in an area where your intended target, say an amphib, is clearly distinguishable in size from the other ships around, such as bunch of corvettes. If you happen in an area with an amphib, two container ships, one tanker and three cruisers, your MMW will still have a hard time distinguishing, and if the Container ships and tanker are civilian and the military target is running radar silent, you could be in deep trouble.So this missile will be used much like the TASM. When the target is located that position will be given to the missile (but this missile will also be ‘told’ what radar emissions to ‘look’ for and what the target ‘looks’ like.) The missile will launch and use GPS to go towards the target area. On the way there it will use the ‘radar detector’ to search for the target ship’s emissions and it will update its course accordingly. When it gets close to the target it will turn on its MMW radar and use this to positively identify the target. It will then attack the target (likely using the MMW radar to attack specific vulnerable points on the target vessel - watch the LRASM video, it demonstrates this.)

So the big difference is going to be target discrimination. The TASM and the Harpoon will fly to a target area and attack any target present (it doesn’t matter if that target is friendly, enemy, neutral, or a decoy, it will attack anything.) The BLK IV is more advanced and will give itself midcourse updates to the target (if it detects target radar emissions) Again, your own parenthesis contradicts your position: the Block IV will not give itself mid course guidance. It MAY do so if, and only if it can detect the specific info it is looking for with its ESM. Think of the following scenario: You send your missile to get an amphibious North-Korean ship using a Chinese Type 348 radar. one hundred miles closer to you and forty miles off course to the target, a sole Type 052C destroyer of the Chinese Navy is on exercise, painting with its own type 348 radar. What do you think will happen?and will then attack only specific targets. Additionally, it appears that this missile can receive midcourse updates from a variety of sources.
Let me quote that part of your article I quoted above one more time. This time, the portion I underline clearly indicates that these extra sensors you talk about "mitigate" the difficulties in final guidance to intended target. That means they are reduced, not eliminated:
"As seen in Raytheon's recently released concept video above, the new "TASM" will use advanced targeting features including ESM and an Active Electronically Scanned Millimeter wave radar seeker.  More important is the two-way UHF SATCOM data link which will allow for cueing and updated tracking of targets in conjunction with naval drones, manned ISR, or SOF during the missile's long flight.  These improvements will mitigate some of the challenges in firing the missiles over-the-horizon, especially against targets in crowded litoral seas.

This may be OK in an all out war, but in the more likely scenario of war at sea for the foreseeable future, the importance of not missing your proper target (i.e. no collateral damage) means that CO's will not want to use this weapon at its longer rang unless they are absolutely sure it will hit right - which means eyes on target in final, by airplane or drone. And these if they have to loiter for a while by the target, are target themselves.

The biggest flaw of the BLK IV is going to be that it is subsonic. This means that it will be easier for the enemy to shoot down and will allow more time for the enemy to deploy decoys and countermeasures. The BLK IV has been described as a stopgap replacement until the Long Rang Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM) is developed.

Block 4 video: http://www.informationdissemination.net/2012/08/back-to-future-targeting-new-tasm.html
Check out the LRASM video. It’s pretty cool. http://www.lockheedmartin.ca/us/products/LRASM.html