Der Zeitgeist Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 U.S. Troops Can Now Call in Tomahawk Cruise Missiles for Close Air Support - And that’s not the old munition’s only new trick In a test on Jan. 29, a team of U.S. Marines called in an upgraded Tomahawk, called a “Block IV,” to quickly strike a nearby target—just like the Marines routinely do with their artillery, Harrier attack jets and Cobra helicopter gunships. https://medium.com/war-is-boring/u-s-marines-can-now-call-in-tomahawk-cruise-missiles-for-close-air-support-2a8aa4a64428 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Sweet! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niall78 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 (edited) Unit cost of a Tomahawk “Block IV” : $1.59 Million Can't see this getting used with any regularity as a tactical asset on the battlefield. A Hellfire missile comes in at about $110,000. A GBU-12 Paveway II at about $22,000. Edited February 13, 2015 by niall78 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Nope. Probably not. But one or two called in on a HVT spotted by a MARSOC team deep in Indian country.....yep. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niall78 Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Nope. Probably not. But one or two called in on a HVT spotted by a MARSOC team deep in Indian country.....yep. Maybe but unless the target is static time to target would be an issue as I think all Tomahawks are ship or sub mounted. So again more a strategic asset than a tactical asset. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Duchess Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 Maybe but unless the target is static time to target would be an issue as I think all Tomahawks are ship or sub mounted. So again more a strategic asset than a tactical asset. With a 1500+ NM range, you get a lot of loiter time. If tempo was high and # of strategic targets low, it wouldn't be unreasonable for multiple to be loitering in an area not far behind the FEBA waiting for targets of opportunity. That is one option being considered by Navy leadership. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 One thing against the idea is that once launched, the round must be expended even if no valid target makes an appearance. At the present time there is no way for a CM to return to base and land to fight another day. Whether they could, say, be fitted with parachutes that would open when fuel is expended or ordered shut off so as to make a relatively soft landing and recovery is not for me to say. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename Duchess Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 I wouldn't imagine these would be used in an environment that wasn't target rich or in a prolonged andccontinuous conflict. They won't retrofit existing Tomahawks with a recovery system, they'll just use them when they can guarantee someone somewhere will have a target. Tomahawk is old and the last batch has been ordered with a replacement missile starting development/procurement in 2017. Right now, the Navy cannot reload VLS at sea, so these won't be wasted. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Highly unlikely you would seee Tomahawk Cruise missiles beng used as a support weapon in a tactical fight. Yo would have more luck getting a MOAB air strike! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Once they get to the age where they'll be decommissioned if not used, it's probably cheaper to fire them on "speculative" loiter paths and have them ditch back at sea if no targets materialise than it is to pay for the decommissioning... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 It's really something I think the SOF community will get the most mileage out of. While drones are handy, they also have a pretty tell tale audio signature (think, do the Tribal regions in Pakistan get much air traffic?). It's the sort of thing that a ground observer could call within a certain window, and get the same results with no warning except for the missile's terminal phase. It's too expensive for massed battlefield use, and the reaction time is well suited to "Shiek Muhammed and Abu Abdul Mutleb are sitting down for tea and terrorism" sort of strikes, but less so "Three tanks in the open fire for effect!" If they ever do include MRLS type weapons into the game, ATACMS would be interesting purely because it has been employed in a more conventional artillery role (largely because of COIN mind you), but offers the same sort of profile that a tactical Tomahawk would. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.