Tomahawk Block V

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
955
Reaction score
589
The wings look slightly swept and the tail fins seem truncated to three. There is also what looks like a chine in the center of the forward dome.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,797
Reaction score
2,180

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,934
Reaction score
858
heck if these IVs and Vs have their own power source why not consider hard/soft kill DEW of intercepting msles threatening the Tomahawk.

sounds like these Hypers are going to need to be fired from close in...ie semi submersible optionally manned smaller craft.
 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
884
Reaction score
710
Too smol for meaningful power generation. unfortunately.

Any serious effort to bring defensive system to the missile would need increased size and engine ratings. e.g What Russian did to their massive anti ship missiles. One example was sandbox (P-500 bazalt and P-1000 Vulkan) These carries its own ECM suite.

The best can be done maybe carriage of small decoys.
 

timmymagic

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
82
Reaction score
141
Too smol for meaningful power generation. unfortunately.

Any serious effort to bring defensive system to the missile would need increased size and engine ratings. e.g What Russian did to their massive anti ship missiles. One example was sandbox (P-500 bazalt and P-1000 Vulkan) These carries its own ECM suite.

The best can be done maybe carriage of small decoys.

If Spear-EW can carry an effective EW suite a Tomahawk can fit one in, in addition to its main payload.
 

dumpster4

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
23
Reaction score
23
Too smol for meaningful power generation. unfortunately.

Any serious effort to bring defensive system to the missile would need increased size and engine ratings. e.g What Russian did to their massive anti ship missiles. One example was sandbox (P-500 bazalt and P-1000 Vulkan) These carries its own ECM suite.

The best can be done maybe carriage of small decoys.

If Spear-EW can carry an effective EW suite a Tomahawk can fit one in, in addition to its main payload.
You mean like "Have Rust" for Tomahawks?

 

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
884
Reaction score
710
If Spear-EW can carry an effective EW suite a Tomahawk can fit one in, in addition to its main payload.

Well that depends on the definition of "effective". SPEAR EW is basically the payload is the EW device itself so it will act like MALD.

Tomahawk well.. I wonder. how much electrical power can be made available from the Engine. Or whether space can be made for it.

Let's say a terrain bounce deception jamming. One would need some form of ESM and antenna + transmitter for it. Or one could forgo the ESM we can assume the Enemy Radar SAM can be located and tracked real time from 3rd party and downlinked via the same Satcom antenna tomahawk use.

That left us with the transmitter. Potential radar SAM's are something like X-band maybe or even mm Wave. So one would need some form of array. with some size so it can be steerable electronically. This can add space requirement. as some part of the skin needs to be replaced with one with radome property.

and the power requirement. Since terrain bounce are deceptive. then it may not need the same amount of power a noise jammer needs. One can perhaps get away with 100-200 Watt of emitted power. If this is supplied from say a solid state device it the power requirement (assuming 33% PAE A-class for linearity of the signal) Would be about 303 to 606 Watt. the supporting electronics may add about 20% more so 60 to 121 Watt. So in total the electrical power requirement would be about 363 to 727 Watt.

The generator in case if its dedicated would weigh about 0.5-0.6 Kg or maybe adding 1 Kg at most. but again, can space be made. Otherwise a new generator would be needed.

So basically it might have to be a new build, instead of retrofitting.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
955
Reaction score
589
Too smol for meaningful power generation. unfortunately.

Any serious effort to bring defensive system to the missile would need increased size and engine ratings. e.g What Russian did to their massive anti ship missiles. One example was sandbox (P-500 bazalt and P-1000 Vulkan) These carries its own ECM suite.

The best can be done maybe carriage of small decoys.
I find that hard to believe. If MALD-J can be an emitter and if CHAMP can be based on an AGM-86, it seems to me BGM-109 could support some kind of useful emission. That said, I doubt the USN wants to waste its launch tubes with anything soft kill related. At most I'd only expect them to field their own version of CHAMP in very limited numbers.

EDIT: I misunderstood; the discussion seems to be concerning using self defense jammers and not a dedicated jamming platform. I still think that could be managed given that things like MALD are an order of magnitude smaller in launch weight, though fuel or warhead would probably have to be sacrificed.
 
Last edited:

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
955
Reaction score
589
Hardening and ECM are mentioned at 2:50 in video in OP.
They don't give details; I read ECM in that context to actually be ECCM, not necessarily active emissions. I suspect if you are willing to trade warhead weight for defensive measures it wouldn't be difficult to have a deception emitter and a warhead at the same time - TacToms aren't Russian sized weapons but they are 1500kg with a third of that being warhead in the previous models. I'm not sure what the new warhead consists of; if it was more in the 500lb class that would be more than enough space for some high band ECM emitters that might provide some margin of local defense.
 

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
611
Reaction score
338
Hardening and ECM are mentioned at 2:50 in video in OP.
They don't give details; I read ECM in that context to actually be ECCM, not necessarily active emissions. I suspect if you are willing to trade warhead weight for defensive measures it wouldn't be difficult to have a deception emitter and a warhead at the same time - TacToms aren't Russian sized weapons but they are 1500kg with a third of that being warhead in the previous models. I'm not sure what the new warhead consists of; if it was more in the 500lb class that would be more than enough space for some high band ECM emitters that might provide some margin of local defense.
ECCM wouldn't make it harder to find and target with radar as stated near 3:00 mark.
 

Similar threads

Top