Tomahawk Block IV/V cruise missile

Arjen said:
Try opening the link at the bottom of #105, works for me.
Click to expand...

Thanks:), I can see the article now.

Something the US might want to revisit is doing an AGM-109 Tomahawk variant.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
Thanks:), I can see the article now.

Something the US might want to revisit is doing an AGM-109 Tomahawk variant.
Click to expand...
I suspect that would be drowned out by the large number of lighter but cheaper alternatives. Anduril has already ground launched their version.
 
the administration seems incredibly indecisive concerning all things Ukraine, up to and including the Tomahawk system. I personally never thought it likely the missile would be made available, but the administration seemed to keep pretending like it was a real option and then removing it again. This seems symptomatic of the administration’s entire effort in the region.
 
Josh_TN said:
the administration seems incredibly indecisive concerning all things Ukraine, up to and including the Tomahawk system
Click to expand...
Trump can't cut anything. If Ukraine collapse during his tenure its on him, and that would be another dot on his impeachment paper. If there is one of course.
At least with the current pace Ukraine might last for another presidency before they cave in.
 
Probably a mission abort or used as intel/damage assessments to relay imagery to C3 with no target left or any found at location (the missile would route away from designed target and get lost elsewhere to not compromise intel).

The sad thing is that those warheads could be re-used against coalition forces if found by nefarious actors.
 
TomcatViP said:
Probably a mission abort or used as intel/damage assessments to relay imagery to C3 with no target left or any found at location (the missile would route away from designed target and get lost elsewhere to not compromise intel).

The sad thing is that those warheads could be re-used against coalition forces if found by nefarious actors.
Click to expand...
So they should have popped up to 5000ft AGL and detonated at altitude.
 
TomcatViP said:
Probably a mission abort or used as intel/damage assessments to relay imagery to C3 with no target left or any found at location (the missile would route away from designed target and get lost elsewhere to not compromise intel).

The sad thing is that those warheads could be re-used against coalition forces if found by nefarious actors.
Click to expand...
Maybe they've been left there to tempt nefarious actors and then they explode. ;)
 
Is this thread specifically Block IV or does it include Block V? There is a separate Block V thread, but Block V stuff seems to have ended up here anyway. Re-title, merge? @seruriermarshal


Navy seeks industry help to expand Maritime Strike Tomahawk output​

Navy seeks industry help to expand Maritime Strike Tomahawk output | InsideDefense.com

The Navy is working to mitigate schedule risk as it pushes to increase production capacity for an anti-ship Tomahawk missile variant, according to a new government notice seeking industry members to contribute to the program.
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
 
zjz said:
A comprehensive write-up on the complexities and considerations on operating cruise missiles ....... people always failed to see that behind the mission success, that there is a large complex of support infrastructures .....
Click to expand...

Haven’t read it yet, but the infrastructure supporting tomahawk strikes probably rivals that of nuclear weapons. Which of course was originally what tomahawk was. The orbital infrastructure alone - mapping, communications, reconnaissance, etc. - is vast.
 
RTX is increasing Tomahawk production to 1,000 per year with a 7-year purchase agreement. Remember, we've already seen this in the FY26 defense appropriations bill, so this is now law. Seems like a pretty major increase.

Anybody have a handle on the current production rate? The USN has purchased 50-200 per year over the past decade, with the last couple of years at around 60 per year. FMS orders seem modest, with maybe another hundred per year in FMS orders.

I'm also curious to see the actual purchase rates from the DOD for all these munitions. Most of these munitions have large backlogs of FMS orders that could suck up the production.

www.rtx.com

RTX's Raytheon partners with Department of War on five landmark agreements to expand critical munition production

Up-to-seven-year deals to increase annual production of Tomahawk, AMRAAM, SM-3 Block IB, SM-3 Block IIA, SM-6TUCSON, Ariz., Feb. 4, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon, an RTX (NYSE: RTX) business, entered into five landmark framework agreements with the U.S. Department of War to significantly...
www.rtx.com www.rtx.com
 
USN buys are actually blk V upgrade kits that are installed on blk IV when they come in for inspection and recertification. They are not new missiles.
 
Last edited:
I went on a bit of a deep dive. As far as I can tell, FMS orders have typically been rather small for the Block IV Tomahawks and beyond. On the US side, production has been quite sparse in recent years.

The minimum sustainment rate is 90 per year, but in FY26 the USN only ordered 57 new TACTOMS.

The production line was making around 400 per year once it hit FRP in 2004, continuing through 2010.

From 2011 to 2017 production fluctuated but stayed somewhere north of 200 per year.

In 2018 production began tapering off because the Navy wanted to shut down the production line and have Raytheon work exclusively on recertifying and upgrading the existing Block IV stockpile. This effort was eventually designated Block V.

The Navy did not request any new-build TACTOMS for 2019, but Congress funded 90 AURs anyway, the MSR to keep the line open.

2020, 2021, 2022, small buys. Towards the end of 2022, production of the new-build Tomahawks shifted to the new Block V standard.

All of this was happening concurrently with the production of various upgrade kits for the Block IV stockpile, including an MST kit.

Block V now comes in three variants from the factory: the standard Block V TLAM, the Block Va MST (MST is designated Block Va whether new-build or recertified), and Block Vb JMEWS (multi-mode warhead with a blast frag capability). Block Vb has not yet reached IOC.

But for the last several years, procurement has been barely over that 90 per year minimum number.

"Over 1,000 AURs per year" would represent a 10x increase.

Josh_TN said:
USN buys are actor blk V upgrade kits that are installed on blk IV when they come in for inspection and recertification. They are not new missiles.
Click to expand...
The USN is indeed buying upgrade kits to convert Block IV to Block V. But in addition to this, the Navy (and the other services) do indeed buy new missiles. RTX never stopped producing new TACTOMS. Production transitioned from Block IV to Block V during FY22.
 
TLAM is just such a luxurious capability (derogatory). It is primarily used for risk-free strikes against weak nations. It is observable, it can't do much to stop itself from getting shot down, and so it isn't going to penetrate a decent IADS.

1,000 effectors per year is nothing in a real war. Ukraine would shoot a thousand per day if they had them.

Yet it costs $2.5M per, and I don't think that cost is going down any time soon. The production increase is going to require CAPEX. $2.5M per shot, $2.5B per year so we can bomb Nigeria and Yemen.
 
joshjosh said:
TLAM is just such a luxurious capability (derogatory). It is primarily used for risk-free strikes against weak nations. It is observable, it can't do much to stop itself from getting shot down, and so it isn't going to penetrate a decent IADS.

1,000 effectors per year is nothing in a real war. Ukraine would shoot a thousand per day if they had them.

Yet it costs $2.5M per, and I don't think that cost is going down any time soon. The production increase is going to require CAPEX. $2.5M per shot, $2.5B per year so we can bomb Nigeria and Yemen.
Click to expand...
Which is presumably why Ukraine didn't just ask for them just last year?

In reality turane hugging missiles are always going to be a huge pain to deal with and the tomahawks huge range allows it to go around enemy sam sites and lot of the time (or force enemy's to procure truly obscene numbers of sam systems, and if russia doesn't have enough sams for that then only china may be able to afford something like that and they aren't focused on sams to nearly that extent. )
 
Last edited:
totoro said:
That forward swept wing photo might indeed be popeye rather than tomahawk.
Notice the rear fins. It seems to feature 4 fins, rather than 3, as used by block 4 and 5.
Click to expand...
1. Why would the USN operate such missile?
2. I could not find any reference for forward swept wings on a Popeye Turbo. I've seen photos of mockups with backswept wings.
 
Cjc said:
Which is presumably why Ukraine didn't just ask for them just last year?

In reality turane hugging missiles are always going to be a huge pain to deal with and the tomahawks huge range allows it to go around enemy sam sites and lot of the time (or force enemy's to procure truly obscene numbers of sam systems, and if russia doesn't have enough sams for that then only china may be able to afford something like that and they aren't focused on sams to nearly that extent. )
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that terrain-hugging is a meaningful advantage anymore. I mean, fifty years ago the B-1 was nearly canceled as a terrain-hugging bomber because airborne radar rendered that mission obsolete. A terrain-hugging aircraft is, strictly speaking, less detectable than the alternative; but if it can still be detected 50-100km away, does that make enough of a difference? Tomahawk will probably be detected en route to target by enemy air forces, or passively detected by an acoustic network, and a lot of them will be shot down by fighters using simple heat seekers.

And Tomahawk doesn't have a supersonic terminal dive, either, so attrition will be brutal once it engages enemy point defenses. Enemy gun and missile systems at the target will be extremely effective. All of this doesn't necessarily prevent a few leakers from getting through, but it means you need to fire 200+ TLAM to get an effect on target of 20 TLAM. That is blatantly unaffordable at the current price point, I'm in agreement with joshjosh.
 
Big_Zukini said:
1. Why would the USN operate such missile?
2. I could not find any reference for forward swept wings on a Popeye Turbo. I've seen photos of mockups with backswept wings.
Click to expand...
1. well obviously the working theory then is that the photo in question of a missile in flight is NOT a USN missile but Israeli one. (despite perhaps erronously labeled images)
2. I don't think popeye mockup images are relevant to the real thing. there's like one or two photos of some design that likely dates to the late 1990s or maybe very early 2000s. It's perfectly possible there were other design iterations since then.
 
Low altitude flight is still an effective method of evasion. If nothing else, it at least postpones engagement by long range systems, and it forces those systems to be very close to the target.

Nothing with supersonic speed approaches tomahawk range, outside of far more expensive intermediate ranged ballistic missiles.

It definitely has a niche to fill, though a cheaper and easier to produce weapon is needed as well.
 
As to the forward swept wing “tomahawk”; that differs so radically from the Blk 4/5 it is hard to imagine it is in the same family.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom