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

lastdingo said:
Maybe, I last saw the article years ago. I remember prominent propfans & cylindrical fuselage.
Click to expand...
I have seen some AIAA papers on these .... unable to tell you which exact papers as I do not have AIAA access anymore .....
 
Brickmuppet said:
Is there any more info on the rationale for the Multiple Nuke Warhead? Was it supposed to work like Project Pluto and pop them out over multiple widely separated targets, or was this just a nuclear cluster-bomb to maximize blast/burn effects?
Click to expand...
The image looks like individual bombs to drop, but I'd say 50/50 as to whether it's dropping them on separate targets or around one.

Actually, now that I think about it, I suspect that the answer is "either/or". There's some missions you want to cook a target evenly with multiple warheads in a circle, the old MRV concept, and there's some where you need to hit multiple targets.
 
Brickmuppet said:
Is there any more info on the rationale for the Multiple Nuke Warhead? Was it supposed to work like Project Pluto and pop them out over multiple widely separated targets, or was this just a nuclear cluster-bomb to maximize blast/burn effects?
Click to expand...

It was an ASW weapon, so my presumption is that they planned to lay a pattern of nuclear depth charges around a high-value target (probably an SSBN). After the first one went off, you wouldn't be hearing anything from the target area for quite a while, so I can't imagine the extra warheads were for reattack, just increasing the coverage area of a single attack.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
It was an ASW weapon, so my presumption is that they planned to lay a pattern of nuclear depth charges around a high-value target (probably an SSBN). After the first one went off, you wouldn't be hearing anything from the target area for quite a while, so I can't imagine the extra warheads were for reattack, just increasing the coverage area of a single attack.
Click to expand...
I'm sure there's a fun optimisation problem for someone in whether one big NDB is more or less effective than several small ones. Variables to consider being the collapse depth of the submarine, its depth of operation, and the degree of positional uncertainty - presumably in three dimensions.
 
Yellow Palace said:
I'm sure there's a fun optimisation problem for someone in whether one big NDB is more or less effective than several small ones. Variables to consider being the collapse depth of the submarine, its depth of operation, and the degree of positional uncertainty - presumably in three dimensions.
Click to expand...
Then you need to factor in the Size to yield ratios and those effectiveness.

Mind the US did design and field several small size nuclear bombs with yields of around 2kt, and the average Nuke Depth Charge had 10kt. The small warheads were for Tube Artillery usage so I imagine you could boost tge yeild decently to get 5 to 10kt for max effectiveness in a multilayer circle around the conteact.
 
Firefinder said:
Then you need to factor in the Size to yield ratios and those effectiveness.

Mind the US did design and field several small size nuclear bombs with yields of around 2kt, and the average Nuke Depth Charge had 10kt. The small warheads were for Tube Artillery usage so I imagine you could boost tge yeild decently to get 5 to 10kt for max effectiveness in a multilayer circle around the conteact.
Click to expand...
The US used 50 and 250kt NDCs. 50 in the Mk57 and ASROC, 250 in SUBROC.
 
Tomahawk Engine/Air-Frame Compatibility Testing
R. C. Lowry, J. B. Eckmann

Tomahawk engine/air-frame compatibility tests at the Naval Air Propulsion Center (NAPC), Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC), and in captive carry flight tests are discussed. A chronological history of these tests examines the test objectives, test configurations, and results. An emphasis on the two most recent ground tests at NAPC and AEDC is given with the tests compared in terms of repeatability of results. In the process, the major parameters effecting engine surge in the Tomahawk Cruise Missile are identified and quantified.

 
Last edited:
FYI, another new stack of pictures showing AGM/BGM-109 Tomahawk during its early development were uploaded at the SDASM Flickr archive today. :cool:
Today just one appetiser.
https://flic.kr/p/2qRraWy
View: https://flic.kr/p/2qRraWy

At first sight, this presentation slide reminds me of the M28/M29 Davy Crockett Weapon System. o_O;)
 
The supersonic sprint version of Tomahawk makes me wonder why there haven't been more cruise or anti-ship missiles designed around that general concept (subsonic with supersonic sprint in terminal phase). As far as I know the only such missile in operational service is one variant of the Kalibr (SS-N-27 Sizzler).
 
Colonial-Marine said:
The supersonic sprint version of Tomahawk makes me wonder why there haven't been more cruise or anti-ship missiles designed around that general concept (subsonic with supersonic sprint in terminal phase). As far as I know the only such missile in operational service is one variant of the Kalibr (SS-N-27 Sizzler).
Click to expand...
I think it really only makes sense in terms of an antiship missile. Very few ground targets are as well protected as a ship, and most ground targets have much shorter lines of sight which gives a subsonic cruise missile about as much warning as a last-30km-sprint supersonic missile.
 
I suppose the US chose the path of using multiple Harpoons to harrass a ship from multiple directions as compared to one missile to engage a ship with the slow cruise-fast terminal stage strategy ...... saturating air defenses is much preferred and deemed to have a better hit success than to using only one super-duper missile .....
 
zjz said:
I suppose the US chose the path of using multiple Harpoons to harrass a ship from multiple directions as compared to one missile to engage a ship with the slow cruise-fast terminal stage strategy ...... saturating air defenses is much preferred and deemed to have a better hit success than to using only one super-duper missile .....
Click to expand...
Remember, Kalibr is a generation after the Harpoon, didn't enter service until the 1990s.
 
zjz said:
I suppose the US chose the path of using multiple Harpoons to harrass a ship from multiple directions as compared to one missile to engage a ship with the slow cruise-fast terminal stage strategy ...... saturating air defenses is much preferred and deemed to have a better hit success than to using only one super-duper missile .....
Click to expand...

Recall that Harpoon was originally designed, and programmed, to make a terminal pop-up and dive into Echo and Juliett SSG/SSGNs. So a supersonic terminal phase wasn't required - no CIWS or SHORAD to defeat, a d it would have made the terminal guidance onto a small target even more difficult.

When Harpoon became generalised into an anti-shipping weapon it just became SOP to multi-launch them to compensate for its subsonic terminal phase. Not so much 'choosing', I think, rather than adapting.
 
fightingirish said:
FYI, another new stack of pictures showing AGM/BGM-109 Tomahawk during its early development and testing were uploaded at the SDASM Flickr archive today.
But today no appetisers, since IMHO no interesting new pictures were uploaded this time.
Click to expand...
Most of the pictures are not tagged with the proper description, but they are pretty historical content in my opinion .....

Someone should do a blog or website to archive all these .... would love a historical context to add on to the developmental story of Tomahawk ....
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom