Tomahawk Block IV/V cruise missile

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...uy-of-837-anti-ship-tomahawk-missile-seekers/
The U.S. Navy class justification and approval published last week authorized the procurement of 837 Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST) seekers from Raytheon Missiles and Defense through FY2028, with the J&A including follow-on support and additional capabilities now in the pipeline for the Block V Tomahawk family of missiles that include modifications to field the missiles on U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps ground-based launchers.
 
I do not see how the U.S. would have any capacity to sell tomahawk without using existing USN inventory. There are no units just lying around AFAIK, unless there are some blk3 that have not been de mil’d.
 
Josh_TN said:
I do not see how the U.S. would have any capacity to sell tomahawk without using existing USN inventory. There are no units just lying around AFAIK, unless there are some blk3 that have not been de mil’d.
Click to expand...
Raytheon in the process of producing a batch of 39 Block IV to V upgrades for FMS, of which at least 24 were sub-launched variants for the RN. That leaves 15 for either the UK or another user - possibly the Netherlands, which wants the VLS version for the AWSF frigates by 2028. Either might not be averse to letting the Ukraine jump the queue, though they'd need to be reconfigured for surface launch.

It's still ultimately coming out of US inventory, but if they're already allocated to FMS then the hit isn't unexpected.

https://fw-mag.com/shownews/325/tomahawk-block-v-program-progresses-for-both-us-navy-and-uk
 
DWG said:
Raytheon in the process of producing a batch of 39 Block IV to V upgrades for FMS, of which at least 24 were sub-launched variants for the RN. That leaves 15 for either the UK or another user - possibly the Netherlands, which wants the VLS version for the AWSF frigates by 2028. Either might not be averse to letting the Ukraine jump the queue, though they'd need to be reconfigured for surface launch.

It's still ultimately coming out of US inventory, but if they're already allocated to FMS then the hit isn't unexpected.

https://fw-mag.com/shownews/325/tomahawk-block-v-program-progresses-for-both-us-navy-and-uk
Click to expand...

That’s not a meaningful amount of ordnance. The ERAM program apparently intends to deliver 800+ over the next year; that seems far more relevant.
 
Josh_TN said:
I do not see how the U.S. would have any capacity to sell tomahawk without using existing USN inventory.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that the rate of production can be increased to accommodate such a foreign sale however what would likely hold up Ukraine getting any Tomahawks is the lack of a suitable mobile ground-based launcher. Something will have to be designed, built and tested then put into production.

Josh_TN said:
unless there are some blk3 that have not been de mil’d.
Click to expand...

As far as I know the Block-IIIs that weren't expended have all been upgraded to Block-IV.
 
NMaude said:
however what would likely hold up Ukraine getting any Tomahawks is the lack of a suitable mobile ground-based launcher. Something will have to be designed, built and tested then put into production.
Click to expand...

The Mk 70 launcher exists and is in at least low-rate production already.
 
TomS said:
The Mk 70 launcher exists and is in at least low-rate production already.
Click to expand...

True but as someone else pointed out it is large and not very mobile, perhaps what the Ukrainians need to something similar to the new developed USMC Tomahawk ground launcher (It carries a single Tomahawk packed inside a Strike-length Mk-41 VLS cell, clearly a micro Mk-41 launcher).
 
NMaude said:
True but as someone else pointed out it is large and not very mobile, perhaps what the Ukrainians need to something similar to the new developed USMC Tomahawk ground launcher (It carries a single Tomahawk packed inside a Strike-length Mk-41 VLS cell, clearly a micro Mk-41 launcher).
Click to expand...
Long Range Fires was cancelled back in June, which would potentially free up the delivered USMC LRF launchers for Ukrainian use.
 
NMaude said:
True but as someone else pointed out it is large and not very mobile, perhaps what the Ukrainians need to something similar to the new developed USMC Tomahawk ground launcher (It carries a single Tomahawk packed inside a Strike-length Mk-41 VLS cell, clearly a micro Mk-41 launcher).
Click to expand...

It's road mobile, which is fine for Ukraine, which doesn't need to deploy it across an ocean and has a reasonably intact road network in its rear areas.

The Marines have abandoned the single Tomahawk launcher. The Army is now showing interest, probably because the Mk 70 is hard to airlift.
 

Interesting. And none of these look like they have to be uncrewed, except the Light version.

I do think it's odd that the article highlights the JR3 as a payload. That's just a new training round, nothing operational.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In regards to a ground-launch unit for the BGM-109 aside from the above mentioned US ground-launchers that the Ukrainians could provide a ground-launcher in the form of a modified Hrim-2 ground-launcher.

960px-Sapsan_%28missile_system%29.jpg
 
Could work, the tubes are plenty large enough to hold a Tomahawk canister. You'd need to develop a way of securing it in place and the I/O interface though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I probably did not bother posting here for reasons of getting political, but over on tanknet I have maintained for a couple of weeks since this idea first came to light 1). There are not enough available to be sold/donated in meaningful numbers without drawing down USN stocks exactly when more long range weapons are desired in the pacific and 2). This is probably a negotiation tactic and not a serious administration policy.

The ERAM program seems far, far more likely to actually generate a new and useful capability, both in terms politics and realistical production numbers.
 
Josh_TN said:
I probably did not bother posting here for reasons of getting political, but over on tanknet I have maintained for a couple of weeks since this idea first came to light 1). There are not enough available to be sold/donated in meaningful numbers without drawing down USN stocks exactly when more long range weapons are desired in the pacific and 2). This is probably a negotiation tactic and not a serious administration policy.

The ERAM program seems far, far more likely to actually generate a new and useful capability, both in terms politics and realistical production numbers.
Click to expand...
You're forgeting that the thousands of Tomahawks in the stockpile have a use by date, after which you have to pay for decommissioning anyway, may as well let Ukraine decommission them somwhere useful. E.g. since the '80s they've produced about 9,000 and 2,700 have been decommissioned. Use them and increase production.
 
Last edited:
No Tomahawk would be going in Ukraine, at least in the near term. Short of Russia managing a miracle in some of the salients around Pokrovsk. All existing Ukrainian long range OWAs can do the job just fine, using mass to compensate.

Did people forgot how long it took ATACMs to start getting in, and that's like 1/5 of Tomahawk's range?
 
yeetmahboi said:
No Tomahawk would be going in Ukraine, at least in the near term. Short of Russia managing a miracle in some of the salients around Pokrovsk. All existing Ukrainian long range OWAs can do the job just fine, using mass to compensate.

Did people forgot how long it took ATACMs to start getting in, and that's like 1/5 of Tomahawk's range?
Click to expand...

All it will take is for Trump to be made aware that Putin is playing him like a fiddle, again.

Forest Green said:
You're forgeting that the thousands of Tomahawks in the stockpile have a use by date, after which you have to pay for decommissioning anyway, may as well let Ukraine decommission them somwhere useful. E.g. since the '80s they've produced about 9,000 and 2,700 have been decommissioned
Click to expand...

There is this which needs to be pointed out to Trump and:

Forest Green said:
Use them and increase production.
Click to expand...

Point out to Trump this is an opportunity to make more money.
 
Forest Green said:
You're forgeting that the thousands of Tomahawks in the stockpile have a use by date, after which you have to pay for decommissioning anyway, may as well let Ukraine decommission them somwhere useful. E.g. since the '80s they've produced about 9,000 and 2,700 have been decommissioned. Use them and increase production.
Click to expand...

Blk 3 maybe; all blk 4s are feed stock for blk 5. They get refurbished and recertified as they hit their sell by date, and all USN blk 5 are upgrade kits, not new missiles.
 
Josh_TN said:
Blk 3 maybe; all blk 4s are feed stock for blk 5. They get refurbished and recertified as they hit their sell by date, and all USN blk 5 are upgrade kits, not new missiles.
Click to expand...
So use the Block 3s and production needs increasing in the current climate anyway, the annual rate should be the monthly rate, it's pathetic and insufficient to deter aggressors.
 
Forest Green said:
So use the Block 3s and production needs increasing in the current climate anyway, the annual rate should be the monthly rate, it's pathetic and insufficient to deter aggressors.
Click to expand...

No idea if blk3 exists still. Production is <100 a year with ~400 slated for Japan, ~200 for the Dutch, and some for the Army. The USN already has what it deems is enough (2000-4000?) and is buying blk5 as upgrade to its existing fleet. For them, the bigger problem is reloading, not total inventory. I doubt production can be increased without a lot of money and a lot of time.
 
Josh_TN said:
No idea if blk3 exists still. Production is <100 a year with ~400 slated for Japan, ~200 for the Dutch, and some for the Army. The USN already has what it deems is enough (2000-4000?) and is buying blk5 as upgrade to its existing fleet. For them, the bigger problem is reloading, not total inventory. I doubt production can be increased without a lot of money and a lot of time.
Click to expand...
The missiles are less than $2m each and the defense budget is ~$900bn, 50/month would only be about 0.13% of that, and it's required to support the Mid-Range Fires launchers if nothing else.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom