Tomahawk Block IV/V cruise missile

[Josh_TN]

I don't think that MST as a recon asset is too likely, because area search eats up range really fast. Also, one of the mentioned improvements in MST is changes to the inertial measurement unit to handle terminal maneuvers, so presumably it can do a weave or spiral to avoid CIWS. Since regular Block Vs won't have that, they would be less effective against ship targets with any sort of terminal defenses.

PRH - Passive Radar Homing?

Passive RF detection/geolocation would work over very long ranges, were the MST so equipped. LRASM uses this as a mid course guidance tool (and supposedly also defense avoidance). If we're just talking about active radar homing then that is more of a terminal homing method and I agree, not particularly useful in terms of an area search for a target that doesn't have an existing track. But something like LRASM's arrangement should allow the missile to be used as an offboard sensor - the video release implies both a LOS datalink and a satellite datalink, and the missile itself geolocating "pop up" air defenses and targets. I would think that means that the target location(s) could be fed back to shore.

 

[TomS]

PRH - Passive Radar Homing?

Yeah, sorry.

Passive RF detection/geolocation would work over very long ranges, were the MST so equipped. LRASM uses this as a mid course guidance tool (and supposedly also defense avoidance). If we're just talking about active radar homing then that is more of a terminal homing method and I agree, not particularly useful in terms of an area search for a target that doesn't have an existing track. But something like LRASM's arrangement should allow the missile to be used as an offboard sensor - the video release implies both a LOS datalink and a satellite datalink, and the missile itself geolocating "pop up" air defenses and targets. I would think that means that the target location(s) could be fed back to shore.

At some point, the goal is for every sensor to be a node in the grid, so sure, that's possible.

 

[CIC-TAO]

Yep, that one works.

Back to Tomahawk, there's an intriguing tidbit on Seaforces (https://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/BGM-109-Tomahawk.htm)



This is probably just sloppy writing, but it hints at an interesting possibility, using active radar not as a search sensor but just as a target discriminator. Go active for "one ping only" in the endgame to make sure you haven't fallen for a decoy (a patrol ship fitted with emitters simulating an aircraft carrier, for example) but otherwise run quiet with passive radar homing.

I also have a question:
Many sources mention tomahawk Block IV can perform BDA (Battle Damage Assessment), however the Block IV does not appear to have any sensors to capture imagery or video
We know only Blk Va have seeker.

 

[Josh_TN]

I also have a question:
Many sources mention tomahawk Block IV can perform BDA (Battle Damage Assessment), however the Block IV does not appear to have any sensors to capture imagery or video
We know only Blk Va have seeker.

Blk IV has an IIR sensor in the nose that remains covered until the terminal phase. Stormshadow does the same. I’ve not been able to find a picture of the sensor exposed but cutaways depict it.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Why use a long distance / range Tomahawk if your tgt must be in radar range?
Maybe in range of a Stealth UAV?

I think it's so that you can load one kind of Tomahawk and use it for whatever targets you get, either ships or bunkers or whatever.

It also potentially gives the option of sending the Tomahawks around to the far side of a target ship, to complicate defense planning.

 

[Forest Green]

Why use a long distance / range Tomahawk if your tgt must be in radar range?
Maybe in range of a Stealth UAV?

You can send the missile mid-course updates via data link.

 

[Josh_TN]

Why use a long distance / range Tomahawk if your tgt must be in radar range?
Maybe in range of a Stealth UAV?

Stealth UAV, carrier launched aircraft, IUSS acoustic track, satellite surveillance…there are numerous off-board sensors that could provide targets and target updates. The thousand mile range provides a huge amount of stand-off for the launching platform.

As an exercise, pull up a map and draw a thousand mile circle centered on the Taiwan straight. You’ll notice this includes parts of South Korean and Japanese coasts as well as a large amount of the Philippines. Anything inside this circle can fire a tomahawk at a naval target participating in a landing or blockade of Taiwan, and their fire can potentially be stacked together to arrive at the same time. Closer units fire later or alternatively their missiles simply loiter and wait for weapons fired at longer range to close in. That long range also translates into ~2 hours of endurance. A ship under imminent threat might fire off its missiles to a way point where they simply loiter for an hour until the strike coordinator ashore found an appropriate target track to feed them. The firing ship wouldn’t need to survive in this scenario.

 

[Josh_TN]

It’s worth noting that the USMC and Army are adopting tomahawks as well, and that these potentially could be coordinated or handed off to whatever strike organization mechanisms the USN employs, software or human.

 

[zjz]

https://news.usni.org/2020/01/22/entire-navy-tomahawk-missile-arsenal-will-upgrade-to-block-v
The link above summarises the Block V re-certification program ....

 

[Scott Kenny]

In the first video you can hear voices talking about multiple "units". I think they were "talking around" using the word "bomb". I would guess getting hit by a 2000lb JDAM would be similar to taking a 16 inch battleship shell. The picture below is from the Naval Yard museum in Washington and shows the result of a 16 inch shell impacting a 26 inch thick steel armor plate. That's just the penetration energy of a hardened steel tip at the front end of a 2700 pound projectile. I'm not sure how the terminal velocity compares to an air drop from 20,000 ft.

Consolidated response:

I'd be amazed if even a BLU-109 could do that.

The WW2 Grand Slam and Tallboy bombs could break Mach 1 on the way down, so a properly shaped bomb could definitely reach cannon shell impact velocities if dropped from far enough up.

This suggests active (MMW) and passive for Block IV, not sure about V.

https://web.archive.org/web/2014021...avy-wants-its-tomahawks-to-bust-more-bunkers/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d11XhvlImsU

Is that a stealth chine on the nose?!?

 

[Josh_TN]

Is that a stealth chine on the nose?!?

Yes, Blk IV has RCS reduction features.

 

[Forest Green]

Looks like it yes.

 

[zjz]

Is that a stealth chine on the nose?!?

IIRC, the design was to improve hydrodynamic feature to make it better sail through the underwater phase .... I may be wrong though .....

 

[zjz]

IIRC, the design was to improve hydrodynamic feature to make it better sail through the underwater phase .... I may be wrong though .....

I stand corrected, it was for RCS reduction ....

https://aviation.stackexchange.com/...-some-tomahawk-missiles-nose-duck-nose-shaped

 

[Forest Green]

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/10/japanese-defmin-seeks-deal-to-speed-up-tomahawk-buy-from-us/

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1794474730625368335

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1794474730625368335

 

[Forest Green]

https://armyrecognition.com/news/na...hokai-with-tomahawk-missile-launch-capability

 

[Scott Kenny]

https://armyrecognition.com/news/na...hokai-with-tomahawk-missile-launch-capability

The Japanese MSDF can say "It's a really big antiship missile, that just so happens to have a secondary land attack ability. We're buying it as an antiship missile."

To deal with the Article 9 whiners.

 

[Forest Green]

https://www.twz.com/sea/australian-navy-fires-tomahawk-cruise-missile-for-the-first-time

 

[Josh_TN]

Presumably Aus and Japanese tomahawks are new builds? As opposed to USN Blk V which is an upgrade kit and recertification of blk IV?

 

[Forest Green]

https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...-strike-tomahawks-wants-missiles-asap-despite

 

[Josh_TN]

https://insidedefense.com/daily-new...-strike-tomahawks-wants-missiles-asap-despite

I am not a subscriber…just briefly, would these be new builds or kit modifications of existing blk IVs like the current blk V? I think there are only around ~2000 existing TacToms, so I would assume new production necessary. MST/blk Va purchases to date have been rather anemic, though I presume basic blk V has some inherent anti ship capabilities even if it falls short of MST. If nothing else a good IIR sensor should allow it to be a re-targetable super NSM.

 

[zjz]

IIRC, the mid-life upgrade for Blk 4 to 5/a/b has been ongoing for a while now .... so the money for the upgrades should have been budgeted for in previous fiscal years ......

I bet the reported numbers are new builds, with some going to foreign sales ...... good time to buy more now that there is economy of scale ....

 

[Scott Kenny]

I mean, any given carrier group packs about 150 Tomahawks (12 groups but assume two are in shipyard and unloaded), 50 fast attacks carry at least a dozen each, and the four SSGNs each pack 150, so the total inventory loaded onboard ships runs at least 2700, plus however many you want to keep in storage for reloading. I know I'd want at least one full reload per ship just for minimum stockpiles, and in times of increasing tension I'd want more than that.

 

[Forest Green]

https://www.twz.com/air/dutch-navy-fires-first-tomahawk-as-long-range-strike-plans-take-shape

 

[Forest Green]

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/04/us-approves-possible-tomahawk-fms-to-the-netherlands/

 

[Josh_TN]

I mean, any given carrier group packs about 150 Tomahawks (12 groups but assume two are in shipyard and unloaded), 50 fast attacks carry at least a dozen each, and the four SSGNs each pack 150, so the total inventory loaded onboard ships runs at least 2700, plus however many you want to keep in storage for reloading. I know I'd want at least one full reload per ship just for minimum stockpiles, and in times of increasing tension I'd want more than that.

Only the ships/boats at sea actually need to be carrying. The SSGNs also usually carry lighter loads and instead wear dry deck shelters; I think it’s 112.

I’m pretty sure I read once that the blk 4 inventory was 2000 but I cannot find any references to current levels now.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Only the ships/boats at sea actually need to be carrying.

Which is 8 carrier groups out of 12. 4 at sea and 4 getting ready to be at sea doing workups, so I'd assume they are fully loaded as well.

Same 2/3rds estimate would apply to subs.

The SSGNs also usually carry lighter loads and instead wear dry deck shelters; I think it’s 112.

Fair, I wasn't sure how often the GNs were carrying DDS. (Loss of the ASDS was tragic)

I’m pretty sure I read once that the blk 4 inventory was 2000 but I cannot find any references to current levels now.

I'm still assuming "a full load for all ships plus at least one full reload" minimum.

 

[Josh_TN]

I was under the impression that only 2-3 CSGs were on station usually, with 1-2 doing work ups and quals at any time, with ship and sub sortie rates similar (outside Ohios).

I would not assume that the USN actually planned far enough ahead to have the kind of inventory you mention; isn’t the VLASROC inventory a few hundred with the small pool of weapons constantly cross decked?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I was under the impression that only 2-3 CSGs were on station usually, with 1-2 doing work ups and quals at any time, with ship and sub sortie rates similar (outside Ohios).

The USN has 12 carriers.

4 at sea, 4 in shipyard, 4 in workups. (and technically, one carrier more or less always around Japan. One is homeported there, and all the others rotate through for port visits when the Japan-based carrier is deployed.)

Same rule applies to anything but SSBNs.

I would not assume that the USN actually planned far enough ahead to have the kind of inventory you mention; isn’t the VLASROC inventory a few hundred with the small pool of weapons constantly cross decked?

Ships only carry ~6x VLAs each.

74x DDG51s in service times 6 weapons each is only 450 weapons, but let's drop to 50 ships at sea or in workups which makes 300 on ship. Plus they're basically not being expended like Tomahawks or Standards are, so you might get away with ~500 total in inventory.

 

[Forest Green]

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...nsiders-tomahawk-cruise-missiles-procurement/

 

[WatcherZero]

Netherlands has cancelled plans to acquire Tomahawks for its submarines due to the cost of restarting production lines for the torpedo launched version and the long expected delivery timeline, they had a ring round to see if anyone else was interested in joining them on a joint order but didn't find any takers (UK is refurbishing its existing stocks rather than acquiring new while the US has withdrawn theirs from service). The Netherlands will now likely go with the MBDA MdCN (torpedo launched Storm Shadow) instead.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...-abandons-tomahawk-integration-in-submarines/

 

[zjz]

Netherlands has cancelled plans to acquire Tomahawks for its submarines due to the cost of restarting production lines for the torpedo launched version and the long expected delivery timeline, they had a ring round to see if anyone else was interested in joining them on a joint order but didn't find any takers (UK is refurbishing its existing stocks rather than acquiring new while the US has withdrawn theirs from service). The Netherlands will now likely go with the MBDA MdCN (torpedo launched Storm Shadow) instead.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...-abandons-tomahawk-integration-in-submarines/

This means that the USN submarines are launching Tomahawks through VLS and not TTL?

If there are no more new builds for TTL, means that only VLS is supported in the future?

 

[Grey Havoc]

This means that the USN submarines are launching Tomahawks through VLS and not TTL?

If there are no more new builds for TTL, means that only VLS is supported in the future?

Yes, does seem rather short sighted at best.

 

[Josh_TN]

Yes, does seem rather short sighted at best.

Every U.S. boat has a VLS anyway except the three seawolfs, which are pretty much all special operations boats now.

Launching four will not do much and reloading and shooting again seems like a good way to lose a boat. It sucks for the rest of NATO though.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This means that the USN submarines are launching Tomahawks through VLS and not TTL?

If there are no more new builds for TTL, means that only VLS is supported in the future?

correct.

Yes, does seem rather short sighted at best.

Why? Every boat in the fleet has VLS. Well, except for the Seawolfs, but they're the West Coast Projects boats not really combat boats (only 2 of those actively deploying, anyways).

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1936602097446740324

View: https://x.com/Osinttechnical/status/1936602097446740324

 

[zjz]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1942980473527136672

View: https://x.com/USN_Submariner/status/1942980473527136672

 

[Forest Green]

https://www.twz.com/news-features/massive-change-in-trumps-stance-on-russia-emerging

The latest indication of a reversal in Trump’s position came on Friday after reports emerged that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky asked Trump for Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles (TLAMs) during a meeting Tuesday between the two on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly meeting. Axios reported that Zelensky said Trump had a positive reaction to his request for an unnamed long-range cruise missile.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1972297232197296173

https://twitter.com/x/status/1972287071147495635

View: https://x.com/UKikaski/status/1972287071147495635

https://twitter.com/x/status/1972287114860499067

View: https://x.com/UKikaski/status/1972287114860499067

 

[Forest Green]

First Japanese Destroyer Heads To U.S. For Tomahawk Missile Modifications​

https://www.twz.com/air/first-japanese-destroyer-heads-to-u-s-for-tomahawk-missile-modifications