AGM-109 / BGM-109 Tomahawk / Gryphon Concepts, Projects and Prototypes

sferrin said:
Tomahawk was probably a better fit for torpedo tubes and such with its round cross section.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I'm not talking about SLCM, just ALCM and MRASM.

The Navy had already selected Tomahawk as its SLCM (for both surface ships and subs) when the Joint Cruise Missile Program Office was established in 1977. (And the USAF had selected Tomahawk as GLCM).

The Air Force had tentatively selected AGM-86A for its ALCM but by 1976 they realized they needed to rework it into the B version for sufficient range. They wanted to do that sole-source or by paper competition but in 1977 OSD directed a fly-off between AGM-86B and AGM-109. This was managed by the JCMPO from July 1979 to February 1980. By March 1980, AGM-86B was tapped as the winner, and it began to transition back to Air Force management. That outcome kinda feels predetermined. There were theoretical advantages to Tomahawk (quite a few successful flights already, lower cost due to larger production runs, etc.) but the USAF went with what they already knew.

Conversely, when MRASM was proposed as a shorter-ranged cruise missile for Navy and USAF tactical aircraft, there does not appear to have been any consideration of going back to AGM-86A, they went straight to Tomahawk. Because the USN was the main driver for MRASM and they wanted the missile they already knew as well.
 
As a young kid, I saw the photograph of a A-6 carrying a Tomahawk, and was wondering how can it ever fit.... When I grew older and with access to the Internet, I finally realised it was a shortened version (MRASM) .....

I would recommend reading this book for background on cruise missiles :

www.airuniversity.af.edu

The Evolution of the Cruise Missile

Although among the newest of US weapons, the cruise missile possesses a rich conceptual and technological heritage. The author addresses this heritage and the importance of understanding it when we
www.airuniversity.af.edu
 
isayyo2 said:
Polaris SSBN conversion to SSGN

Found here: https://lynceans.org/wp-content/upl...ar-Power-1939-2018_Part-2A_USA_submarines.pdf

View attachment 696130
Click to expand...
During the Cold War, there were U.S. Navy proposals to convert and outfit the Iowa class battleships and Albany class guided-missile cruisers with Polaris missile launch tubes. If I recall correctly, the Iowa class battleships were projected to carry up to 16 Polaris SLBMs and the Albany class cruisers were planned to carry 8 Polaris SLBMs.

If those Polaris guided-missile warship conversions had been implemented, imagine later on those battleships' and cruisers' Polaris launch tubes being modified to carry the above-mentioned 5-tube Tomahawk missile modules. Each Iowa class battleship would have carried 80 Tomahawks while each Albany class cruisers would have carried 40 Tomahawks in their Polaris launch tubes.
 

Tomahawk Cruise Missile Variants / BGM/RGM/AGM-109 Tomahawk/TASM/TLAM/GCLM/MRASM

Technical Report APA-TR-2005-0702; Title:Tomahawk Cruise Missile Variants / BGM/RGM/AGM-109 Tomahawk/TASM/TLAM/GCLM/MRASM ; Abstract: Compilation of technical data, diagrams and imagery of the Tomahawk family of cruise missiles; Published: July, 2005; Updated: 2008, 2010.
www.ausairpower.net

MRASM-Variants-S.jpg
 
flateric said:
from GD World June 1991 via SDASM
Click to expand...
That is such a strange idea... I mean, I guess it makes sense, use the long range as loiter time, a Mk46 LWT is actually lighter than the unitary warhead in a Tomahawk, and the submunition dispenser is already designed. Just need sonobuoys that can fit in the submunition dispenser...

I'm guessing that these were for surface ship usage?
 
Forest Green said:
Out of interest, why did they cut-down the Navy version and the GLCM?:( It doesn't seem to make sense, the SM-3 is 6.55m long, the Tomahawk booster is 0.59m, so 5.84m + a booster gives you 6.43m. Even with 5-10% added for launching the slightly bigger missile, it's still 6.49m maximum.
Click to expand...
[...]
Forest Green said:
But surely the weapon elevators manage with SM-3s?
Click to expand...
SM-3 isn't stored in aircraft carrier magazines, or launched from carrierborne aircraft, so doesn't need to be compatible with their length restrictions. Or any other carrier-specific restrictions, for that matter.

The original Navy submarine- and ship-launched missile is the same length as the Air Force GLCM. I'm guessing that the Air Force version of MRASM was actually the same length airframe, but a fairing for air carriage is included which bumps up the total length by 0.3 metres or so.

The Navy version of MRASM - AGM-109C/J/L - needed to be stored in aircraft carrier magazines and conveyed to the flight deck, which meant it needed to be compatible with their weapon lifts. It also needed to be lighter to comply with A-6 bringback weight restrictions.
 
Yellow Palace said:
[...]

SM-3 isn't stored in aircraft carrier magazines, or launched from carrierborne aircraft, so doesn't need to be compatible with their length restrictions. Or any other carrier-specific restrictions, for that matter.

The original Navy submarine- and ship-launched missile is the same length as the Air Force GLCM. I'm guessing that the Air Force version of MRASM was actually the same length airframe, but a fairing for air carriage is included which bumps up the total length by 0.3 metres or so.

The Navy version of MRASM - AGM-109C/J/L - needed to be stored in aircraft carrier magazines and conveyed to the flight deck, which meant it needed to be compatible with their weapon lifts. It also needed to be lighter to comply with A-6 bringback weight restrictions.
Click to expand...
Tomahawk isn't launched from carrier aircraft either, it's fired from destroyer VLS stacks, same place as SM-3/6??? :confused:

Oh right, you were talking about the smaller version of MRASM, I was talking about BGM-109s and why they're 5.56m and not 5.84m. I've not seen a fairing on the AGM-109, also the range is quoted at 2500km for the conventional version.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Tomahawk isn't launched from carrier aircraft either, it's fired from destroyer VLS stacks, same place as SM-3/6??? :confused:
Click to expand...
Yep, and Tomahawk came before that line of missiles was designed. It's the length it needed to be to do what the US Navy wanted it to do. GLCM was then the same length as the existing Navy missile.

The versions with different lengths are:
  • The Navy MRASM - AGM-109L - which is shorter for the reasons described.
  • The Air Force MRASM - AGM-109H/K - which is slightly longer, for reasons that aren't obvious.
A fairing of some kind for air carriage is reasonable supposition for why. It could also be a slightly longer engine section for the J402 replacing the F107, a longer payload section, or something else entirely.
 
FWIW, I suspect that 'AGM-109I' and 'AGM-109L' are actually the same missile, and that somewhere along the way someone mistook a lower-case l for an upper-case I, or vice versa. The descriptions of both missiles - a USN dual-role anti-ship and land attack missile with IIR and terrain following guidance and a unitary warhead - are pretty much the same.

Given that 'I' is usually skipped in the designation sequence, my guess is that AGM-109L is the correct designation... but of course I could be wrong! I also suspect that the AGM-109C would have seen the same shortening as the AGM-109L, and may have wound up getting a new designation. This could well have become the AGM-109J, if that wasn't a USN version with a submunition dispenser.
 
Does anyone here have any idea what the expected range for the shortened Navy AGM-109C/L versions was?
 
Found a 1984 USAF Weapons File, which includes information on various projected weapons systems, including the MRASM:

Defense Technical Information Center

apps.dtic.mil apps.dtic.mil

Projected submunitions for the MRASM included:
  • BLU-63 anti-materiel bomblets
  • BLU-97 combined effects bomblets
  • BLU-99 'ACM' anti-armour cluster munition bomblets
  • BLU-106 boosted kinetic energy penetrator
  • The Honeywell AMIS anti-materiel incendiary submunition
  • A 'Bunkered Target Munition' being developed by Lockheed
  • The Velocity Augmented Munition from Lawrence Livermore, of which 36 could be carried, which may correspond to the TAAM mentioned above
I have no idea how they thought they were going to get 28 BKEPs in a MRASM. Comparison to other cluster weapons suggests that 12 to 15 is more reasonable.

The Lawrence Livermore VAM appears to work on a similar principle to the SG.357 - shaped charge to penetrate the runway, then fire a cratering charge underneath - though differing in implementation. There's also reference to a smaller diameter version (93mm rather than 4.5 to 5 inches) in this document from 1981:
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5900174

This version is closer in size to that cited by @TomS, and 60 could be carried on a 'cruise-type missile'. By 1982, the number carried by MRASM was 'about 40', but the warhead could have a delayed action fuse:

Energy and technology review (Technical Report) | OSTI.GOV

The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information
www.osti.gov www.osti.gov
 
Yellow Palace said:
Given that 'I' is usually skipped in the designation sequence, my guess is that AGM-109L is the correct designation... but of course I could be wrong! I also suspect that the AGM-109C would have seen the same shortening as the AGM-109L, and may have wound up getting a new designation. This could well have become the AGM-109J, if that wasn't a USN version with a submunition dispenser.
Click to expand...
To confuse matters further, the 1984 USAF Weapons File (discussed here) identifies the AGM-109I as an Air Force weapon, with the full-length fuselage, IIR/DSMAC terminal homing and a WDU-25 warhead. That generally matches the normal AGM-109K description.

Curiously, the only plaform listed for either Air Force MRASM is the B-52, with twelve AGM-109H or eleven AGM-109I. The latter may be a typo, with twelve intended.
 
With the latest variant of the Tomahawk cruise-missile I wonder if the USAF and/or the USN will revisit the issue of an air-launched variant?
 
NMaude said:
With the latest variant of the Tomahawk cruise-missile I wonder if the USAF and/or the USN will revisit the issue of an air-launched variant?
Click to expand...

The increased range versions of JASSM (ER and possibly XR) seem to be fulfilling the air-launched conventional cruise missile role, and of course LRSO is in development for the nuclear role. The Tomahawk airframe probably isn't stealthy enough to merit any further development.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
With the latest variant of the Tomahawk cruise-missile I wonder if the USAF and/or the USN will revisit the issue of an air-launched variant?
Click to expand...
Unlikely. The AGM-109 program kinda died due to packaging issues for the heavy bombers. The ALCMs are a lot more volume-effective for internal carry.
 
Considering how important the Tomahawk has become to USN power projection I've got to wonder why there hasn't been a program, at least one that is public knowledge, to improve upon it with a stealthy airframe. Based off the seemingly successful use of Storm Shadow and JASSM that alone would make it significantly harder to intercept.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Considering how important the Tomahawk has become to USN power projection I've got to wonder why there hasn't been a program, at least one that is public knowledge, to improve upon it with a stealthy airframe. Based off the seemingly successful use of Storm Shadow and JASSM that alone would make it significantly harder to intercept.
Click to expand...
As I understand it the new built BVs do have a stealthize nose with some RAM bits that reduces the Foreward RCS a good bit along with some tweaks to the engine excise.

Which be enough to keep it more then competitive when you add in that the thing flys stupid low so will get loss in the ground clutter.

Big issue with Stealthing anything that wasn't is that by you are done you have a completely new system, with all that implies cost wise.

The big draw of the old Tomahawk is that the things is as cheap as you can make a weapon of its abilities allow you have a metric BUTTTON of them. And even now Stealth is not cheap.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Considering how important the Tomahawk has become to USN power projection I've got to wonder why there hasn't been a program, at least one that is public knowledge, to improve upon it with a stealthy airframe. Based off the seemingly successful use of Storm Shadow and JASSM that alone would make it significantly harder to intercept.
Click to expand...
The newest versions have a stealth chine fitted to the nose. Helps with head-on RCS at least.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom