Raytheon Studies Supersonic Tomahawk

Raytheon is looking developing a super sonic version of the venerable Tomahawk. The new missile would have the same dimentions as the old thus allowing it to be used on ships already fitted for the existing missile. ever, range may suffer going from 1000 to 500 km. Studies have shown it could cruise at Mach 2.

Given the progression of air defences it is logical that in order to remain a viable system, improvements will need to be made and this may be attractive to the Navy as it could be fitted to existing ships with little or no modification. It also may appeal to the USAF if the JASSM is canceled.

Raytheon is studying a "Supersonic Tomahawk" concept it believes could offer the U.S. Navy a quick path to fielding a comparatively high-speed conventional strike weapon.

After 18 months of company-funded concept development, Raytheon has submitted preliminary study work to the U.S. Office of Naval Research (ONR).

"We decided to look at what we could do from a Raytheon viewpoint. . . .Could you design a supersonic Tomahawk to fit . . . in the current tube," says Harry Schulte, vice president of strike weapons at Raytheon Missile Systems.
Here

[edit on 6/19/07 by FredT]

At mach 2 you would not need much in explosives to wipe out a target. Depends on what the nose of this baby is made of, but sure as hell blow a hole in a ship or tank. Take out the HE and replace with hard core that weighs 1/3..IMHO..cool stuff

TXMACHINEGUNDLR - its already configured for that type of mission. To make the most out of tomohawks, the navy uses the submunition equpped versions to drop cluster bombs on a few enemy targets, than they use the empty shell to hit another target kintetically. At mach 2 this would be more effective, however it still does not travel at the hypersonic speeds needed to penetrate modern tank armor. Its just not shaped correctly either. It would cause a helluva bang though.

A mach 2 version would be great. Put some countermeasures on it too.

The Williams turbofan is not configured to run at supersonic airflow.
New propulsion?

In terms of air defenses I don't see how this offers new capability against SAM's. Unless they have a new terrain following system capable of handling Mach 2 at 500 Ft, very doubtful. In terms of time critical targets it's a plus but range is significantly shorter. In my opinion the military should not waste precious funds on this project, it's one of those "nice to have but not necessary" capabilities.

As for the JASSM, it's a bit different than the Tomahawk, a VLO design and the JASSM-XR has significantly more range. If only Raytheon would share it's Tomahawk know how with the Lockheed team...

The B-1 is capable of Mach 1+ speeds at low level. There's no reason a Tomahawk wouldn't be either. You just have to build in a little more correction time into your TFR system.

JASSM (and ER version) will be scrapped - the system has a 50% failure (or success rate if you want) which the USAF is seriously upset about.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The B-1 is capable of Mach 1+ speeds at low level. There's no reason a Tomahawk wouldn't be either.

The B-1 is capable of dash speeds slightly above Mach 1 at low altitude but to cruise at Mach 2 and 500 FT over varying terrain is a lot more difficult and complicated. Not saying it’s impossible just that it would not be easy and it would require new avionics, testing etc... Money.

Originally posted by Harlequin
JASSM (and ER version) will be scrapped...

There is speculation the program might be terminated if the problems are not corrected. However I think eventfully Lockheed will fix the problem and the USAF will keep the missile due to the capabilities it offers.

The point I was making was that the biggest change you would have to make would be to build a quicker response time to the TFR in the missile, it could even be the same TFR used on the B-1. But the TFR system responds based on speed. The faster you're going, the sooner it responds to terrain. Really, it would be a matter of increasing the TFR range to see terrain farther ahead of the missile.

Most cruise missiles are guided in flight by the usual GPS systems and,
like low-low mission capable aircraft, fly in 'nap of the earth' mode.

Their radar systems are similar in that they interrogate the terrain ahead
but Terrain Following Radar is something of a misnomer. The system could more accurately be described as Terrain Avoidance Radar, as it is this system that alters the height of the aircraft or cruise missile.

Incidentally, flying 'in country' at a height of 500 feet, is not nap of the earth or even terrain following. That is simply low-level 'dash' flying and not very low level at that! Indeed, that height is well above the UK's flight level restrictions during training.

Supersonic cruise missiles for USN are total nonsense. What they want to do with them? The only good thing about them is that they could be used against big ships, however USN has such overhelming naval superiority that such situation when they are really needed is unlikely to happen in next 20 years. Combination of supersonic Standard missile and Harpoon is good enough.

And to use them against land targets? Another stupidity. The range would be too short and the missile still not fast enough to provide quick response. Instead of making supersonic missiles they should make conventional version of stealthy AGM-129.

Unfortunately Longbow, you cannot make the launch bloom of a cruise missile stealthy, that's because the launch tube is verticle with exhaust vents pointing upwards and outwards at an angle.

I do agree with you however that cruise missiles mounted on any large ship like the New Jersey or Iowa etc, are just not required, other than targetting enemy battleships and, unless I am missing the point, the USN has the largest operational fleet in the world.

As to launching against land based targets as you suggest, I personally would leave that up to the venerable B52's and their rotary cruise missile magazines.

There is not need to make launch stealthy because the launch is 99% of time hundreds of miles away from enemy - behind the horizont.

Longbow, I understand anti-ship missiles like Harpoon, Advanced Penguin and the new Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile - a stealthy, passive IR seeking cruise missile.

What I don't fully understand why the USN, the most powerful navy in the world, should have this fixated attitude about launching cruise missiles against land based targets.

Is this a significant change of tactics in that the USN now believes it will never have to fight a modern sea battle along the lines of Midway?

the us never had a need for very capable anti shipping missles.
they used planes with
missles like the harpoon instead. the soviets however didn't have aircraft carriers. hence why they have the sunburn. the us is better of designing air launched cruise missiles for the navy

Fine Tomcat ha. Completely ignore my query.

I asked if the stance taken by the USN is a change of tactics because the Pentagon believes the navy will never fight another sea battle like Midway.

Incidentally, I think the Russians used to have carriers of a sort, but they were mostly assault ships with large helicopter decks.

However, I always thought of the Kiev, Minsk, Novorossiysk, Admiral Gorshkov and the larger Admiral Kuznetsov and Varyag as being aircraft carriers.

Originally posted by fritz
I asked if the stance taken by the USN is a change of tactics because the Pentagon believes the navy will never fight another sea battle like Midway.

I don't see what you're asking here, Midway was won because of aircraft, not cruise missiles. It's one of the key battles that established the carrier as the pre dominant force in naval warfare.

AS for the Soviets, they did not really operate a huge fleet of super carriers like the US did. They mainly operated a few, what we would call, helicopter assault ships that could carry a light compliment of STOVL aircraft. They were not true carriers designed to carry out and sustain large air ops over sea or land like the Nimitz class. The Soviets also had a peculiar habit of putting a significant amount of large missiles on their carriers, something the US never did.

Thanks Westy. At least somebody responded.

As for Midway, yes indeedy the battle was largely fought from carriers, but I thought there were other more significant actions where ships fought directly with each other.

[Perhaps I was thinking of the Yamato or some other sea battle. The question Westy still stands. Is the USN now, by and large, a ground support arm for the Army or Marines?]

Is there no scenario where ship will be pitted against ship, captain against captain, each testing the other's seamanship and tactical awareness?

Do you not remember when every Admiral worth his 'salt' maneouvred his fleet to be in a position where he would be able to cross the 'T'?

The US navy will try to keep the action in aircraft range because of them being heavily based aircraft. The navies without aircraft carries will want to try to get close and do get a ship vs ship fight. The US ships wont have a advantage if the planes are out of the question except for the numbers.

And about sea launched land targetted cruise missles. That and sending aircraft from aircraft carries is all the us navy has done in recent times. As for now it looks like they will continue using theire ships like that they will try to improve on that.

I personally can see this: an air launched supersonic cruise missle from an Super hornet. Extends the range and has the flexibillity of aircraft. That should happen not supersonic surface launched tomahawks. Making those would be cheaper than designing a fully new missle though air launched missle though.

Actually it makes sense in a number of ways. Chances are it would be far cheaper to develop than a completely new system. (tooling and support systems already exist) Look at the Super Hornet. A project the Navy is happy with that came in under budget and on time. Basically a new plane for another generation at the fraction of the cost of developing a whole new plane. Plus it used most of the same support equipment as the existing F/A-18 fleet.

Why? Time to target. The Tomahawk is primarily a submarine launched weapon these days. Yes, Destroyers and Cruisers have a few, but an SSN is the primary launch vehicle for these weapons. And there are missions where time to target is critical. Plus we may have a sub on station performing ELINT and other activities with the nearest Carrier a 1000 miles away.

To me it makes some sense.