@sferrin (don’t want to requote everything and I’m on a phone):
Tomahawk may have been scored as tactical but their top yield option was strategic-ish, their guidance system was only good for static targets, and their flight time was such that they were useless against anything that would relocate. Any modern version would likely have all those liabilities.
I don’t know where you are getting “hundreds” of missiles from unless you intend to fill all SSGNs completely with nukes. Even that wouldn’t be hundreds on station at any one time or place.
Neither Russia nor China have any significant capability to hunt US SSBNs, so there already are hundreds of warheads neither can deal with.
I’m unclear what your point was in regards to Oscars and Backfires in this context.
In summary, sub launched cruise missiles seem like a waste of development money and VLS tubes to me. We’ll agree to disagree on the issue.
Tomahawk may have been scored as tactical but their top yield option was strategic-ish, their guidance system was only good for static targets, and their flight time was such that they were useless against anything that would relocate. Any modern version would likely have all those liabilities.
I don’t know where you are getting “hundreds” of missiles from unless you intend to fill all SSGNs completely with nukes. Even that wouldn’t be hundreds on station at any one time or place.
Neither Russia nor China have any significant capability to hunt US SSBNs, so there already are hundreds of warheads neither can deal with.
I’m unclear what your point was in regards to Oscars and Backfires in this context.
In summary, sub launched cruise missiles seem like a waste of development money and VLS tubes to me. We’ll agree to disagree on the issue.