Tomahawk Block IV/V cruise missile

Maybe if you quoted the whole statement, it would make more sense.

If you need a single effector on a single target and enemy air defense is negligible, then sure, 2 TLAM is perfect. That isn't what I denied, though.

If you need many effects on target, something like 30-40 TLAM, then it is vastly cheaper to run a B-1B full of JDAM to target. Also easy to shoot down, but the enemy IADS in this scenario is down. If their IADS is not degraded, then we're talking about a different scenario.


What scenario are we even talking about? You seem to be throwing everything at the wall at once. IADS is too degraded to shoot down Tomahawk, IADS is fine; the enemy has a huge number of targets, the enemy only needs to be serviced by a single missile. Is this a tactical problem where the slow responsiveness of a bomber or multirole fighter is a handicap, or is the Tomahawk flying from the very edge of its range? Pick a lane and we can actually discuss the relative usefulness of TLAM and other systems.
I'm saying that the idea of there being no place for subsonic cruise missiles is ridiculous. And pretty much every military who can build them would seem to agree. Certainly the US military does.
 
I'd expect ~1% of stockpiled missiles to fail without any intervention anyway. So two out of a few hundred is par for the course.

I would actually expect much higher failure rates, at least for bkl IV. Blk Vs are mostly rebuilds but with a lot of the electronics replaced and the other parts recertified.
 
This is needlessly aggressive.

I said "supersonic terminal stage" and I did not imply it would be a cheaper missile. A supersonic terminal dive onto target would burn more fuel, but not by much--the cruise would still be subsonic and fuel efficient, while the terminal approach would speed up to complicate missile defense. This is a known technique in anti ship missiles, I don't see why it couldn't apply to cruise missiles.

There is still a big range penalty for a terminal super sonic sprint. Using YJ-18 as an example, it weighs if anything more than tomahawk and its stack is longer, but has nothing like the range. I would expect there is a financial cost as well to having an extra rocket motor.

Subsonic missiles probably struggle somewhat against targets with good short range/point defenses, like for instance ships. But against most targets the advantages largely outweigh the disadvantages. Ideally both supersonic and subsonic weapons are available, though the U.S. has rarely pursued the latter. HACM will fill that role shortly for the USAF; the USN probably will not see a high speed anti surface missile until the early 2030s (whatever comes out of the restarted HALO program).

ETA: there are of course various HARM versions, but those are much shorter ranged.
 
Last edited:
Older tomahawks probably use some kind of Y code anti jam receiver; the upgrades I presume use M code. Additionally I think the new Blk V has two separate satellite antenna in two different frequency bands for software defined radios.
 
There is still a big range penalty for a terminal super sonic sprint. Using YJ-18 as an example, it weighs if anything more than tomahawk and its stack is longer, but has nothing like the range. I would expect there is a financial cost as well to having an extra rocket motor.

Subsonic missiles probably struggle somewhat against targets with good short range/point defenses, like for instance ships. But against most targets the advantages largely outweigh the disadvantages. Ideally both supersonic and subsonic weapons are available, though the U.S. has rarely pursued the latter. HACM will fill that role shortly for the USAF; the USN probably will not see a high speed anti surface missile until the early 2030s (whatever comes out of the restarted HALO program).

ETA: there are of course various HARM versions, but those are much shorter ranged.
There’s also SM6 for a USN anti-surface missile, and they seem quite happy with that capability for the time being. It’s got a 500ish km range against surface targets and it’s a 2000 lb lofted missile coming in at Mach 3.5 - it’s not anything to scoff at.
 
When this iran war/conflict or SMO eventually blows, its gonna be a huge intelligence goldmine for russia and china.

Most of these weapons have been encountered in the wild before. Outside some novel cyber/ECM techniques I doubt anything new is being applied to Iran. Tomahawk is practically the DoD’s business card; they leave them everywhere.
 
Most of these weapons have been encountered in the wild before. Outside some novel cyber/ECM techniques I doubt anything new is being applied to Iran. Tomahawk is practically the DoD’s business card; they leave them everywhere.
thats true, But its not only the tomahawks participating. There is also that chinese research ship thats outside the gulf of oman rn so it could be because of this too
 
I said "supersonic terminal stage" and I did not imply it would be a cheaper missile. A supersonic terminal dive onto target would burn more fuel, but not by much--the cruise would still be subsonic and fuel efficient, while the terminal approach would speed up to complicate missile defense. This is a known technique in anti ship missiles, I don't see why it couldn't apply to cruise missiles.
Well, its perfectly possible, just... costly. You either need missile with the engine & wings capable of both subsonic cruise and supersonic dash, or supersonic missile being a payload of subsonic one.
 
Well, its perfectly possible, just... costly. You either need missile with the engine & wings capable of both subsonic cruise and supersonic dash, or supersonic missile being a payload of subsonic one.

The Russians have developed such an AShM IIRC.
 
The Russians have developed such an AShM IIRC.
Yes, 3M45-AE, of "Kalibr" family. According to official data, it cruise subsonically in sea-skimming mode, and near the target - after rising over the horizon in about 20 km - the forward section detaches & make supersonic dash using solid-fuel rocket.
 
I just realized something about the recently announced Tomahawk production increase.

We don't actually know how the contract is structured and what this "1,000 per year" number really signifies. From the press release:
RTX will increase annual production of Tomahawks to more than 1,000

Will RTX build a new final assembly hall to reach this number? Is this the EOQ, below which the USG will pay penalties? Is this the MSR?

Here's what's interesting: the current Tomahawk 1-8-5 rate is listed as 250 per year. The max is listed as 600, which is likely bottlenecked by subcomponent suppliers. What production rate is this line theoretically able to run if we ignore subcomponent bottlenecks? Scaling up from 1-8-5 to 3-8-7, we get:

1050 per year.

I wonder if the agreement doesn't capitalize Raytheon with more production facilities, but instead goes toward removing subcomponent bottlenecks. Perhaps Raytheon will just run the line 24/7 to reach that "more than 1,000" annual number.

If so, contractual penalties on the USG for not meeting the required annual procurement could be low, as Raytheon is not building all-new facilities and tooling, except for any bottlenecked components. This would also make it easy for a future USG to slash procurement as the penalties wouldn't be exorbitant.
 
I wonder if the agreement doesn't capitalize Raytheon with more production facilities, but instead goes toward removing subcomponent bottlenecks. Perhaps Raytheon will just run the line 24/7 to reach that "more than 1,000" annual number.
I think you are right on the money with this. The tier 2 and below suppliers are the ones that will actually limit the rate and where the investment needs to go.
 
https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/04/us-germany-tomahawks-missiles-cancel-00950284
Pentagon likely to cancel missile sale to Germany over fears of Russia

The Pentagon is expected to cancel a plan to send Tomahawk missiles to Germany partly because officials are concerned Russia will view it as an escalation, a startling reversal of a long-planned agreement with one of America’s biggest allies.

U.S. officials fear Moscow will retaliate if the Trump administration follows through on the effort to deploy precision missiles in the middle of the continent, according to two European officials and one American official. But any decision not to deliver them would yank back a deal made during the Biden administration and leave Berlin without defenses German leaders say they desperately need.

The move is part of a wider American retrenchment from the NATO alliance — including canceled deployments of thousands of U.S. troops to Germany and plans to pull back certain assets — as the U.S. upends the close-knit partnerships that cemented the relationship for generations.

Europe “can step up now and in the near term,” Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, NATO’s top commander and the head of U.S. forces in Europe, told military leaders this week. America, he said, will “refocus” equipment and forces elsewhere.

American officials, even if primarily fearful of Russia’s reaction, likely are also worried about the shrinking U.S. weapons stockpile. The U.S. churned through thousands of Tomahawk and Patriot missiles in the first weeks of the Iran war. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Congress last month that it will take “months and years” to replace the munitions spent in the military conflict.

The likely Tomahawk reversal is particularly unsettling for German officials, who are rushing to modernize their atrophied force to serve as a bulwark against Russian aggression. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said last month that he did not expect the U.S. would station Tomahawk missiles in Germany due to limited availability of the cruise missiles, which can travel over 1,000 miles.

“The Americans don’t have enough for themselves right now,” he told German public television.
[...]
“We submitted an official request to the Americans a year and a half ago to import — that is, to purchase — Tomahawk missiles,” German defense minister Boris Pistorius told German public television last month. “We are still awaiting a response. But to be honest, given the current state of the world, I don’t have much hope in that regard.”

Pistorius expressed interest in buying America’s Typhon ground-based missile system, which launches Tomahawks, on a Washington visit last July with Hegseth, according to the Germany defense ministry. But he has not received an update.


German officials have been exploring European alternatives to fill the long-range precision-strike gap. The debate in Berlin is less about any single weapons system than about how quickly Germany can acquire the ability to hold targets at a distance — whether through off-the-shelf purchases, expanded production with allies or longer-term European development.

Drones and cheaper systems may help, but German defense planners do not see them as a one-for-one replacement for Tomahawk-class missiles. German officials are worried more broadly that the U.S. pullback will force Europe to close military gaps faster than its defense industry can deliver.
 
The Pentagon is expected to cancel a plan to send Tomahawk missiles to Germany partly because officials are concerned Russia will view it as an escalation, a startling reversal of a long-planned agreement with one of America’s biggest allies.

This is self-defeating paranoid bullshit as Russia is already escalating on its' own, this is a sign of weakness and Putin only respects strength, this is the worst possible decision to make.
 
This is self-defeating paranoid bullshit as Russia is already escalating on its' own, this is a sign of weakness and Putin only respects strength, this is the worst possible decision to make.

Consider that the people making this decision like Putin.
 
This is self-defeating paranoid bullshit as Russia is already escalating on its' own, this is a sign of weakness and Putin only respects strength, this is the worst possible decision to make.

It's also utterly daft commercially as Germany will now just move on to one of the myriad of European long range systems that are on the way....
 
If that is a concern - the issue then shifts to a bad design.
Well that's not true at all. If it were a bad design they wouldn't care who saw it. More like, "is the target important enough to warrant risking this tech falling into the other guy's hands".
 
Raytheon to boost Tomahawk production under new $22.9B deal
https://defence-blog.com/raytheon-to-boost-tomahawk-production-under-new-22-9b-deal/
  • Raytheon won a $22.9 billion, seven-year Navy contract to accelerate Tomahawk cruise missile production under the Arsenal of Freedom initiative.
  • The deal supports a planned ramp to more than 1,000 Tomahawk missiles annually, following framework agreements signed with the Department of War in February.
RTX has previously said Tomahawk production stood at roughly 60 missiles per year for U.S. forces before the February framework agreements, which would put the planned ramp at more than 15 times that rate. The February deals also covered increased production of AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, to at least 1,900 per year, and the SM-3 and SM-6 interceptor families.
 
23 billion seems like a lot, even for a 1000/yr production increase. That would buy you 7,000-8000 missiles At today’s price, and presumably the advantage of a seven year buy commitment is dropping the per unit price. Half that contract money must be going to other things, especially since it will take years for them to reach that goal.
 
Half that contract money must be going to other things,

Perhaps to paying for new production jigs and tooling for new production lines plus setting up the needed supply chains to support those production lines?
 
Perhaps to paying for new production jigs and tooling for new production lines plus setting up the needed supply chains to support those production lines?

Yes, and new employees, etc, but it seems like a lot of money even for that.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom