AGM-109/BGM-109 Tomahawk/Gryphon

[sferrin]

Shouldn't such a thing make at least some attempt at stealth?

It would drive the cost sky high and ensure it never got built. And 90% of the targets wouldn't require it anyway. The US is even retiring it's best cruise missiles (the stealthy AGM-129) rather than convert them to conventional. Not sure why. Only thing I can come up with is the idea of handing an enemy stealth technology doesn't appeal.

 

[RyanC]

Various Tomahawk Versions, etc.

 

[RyanC]

Concept Art of AGM-109 from B-52s...

 

[RyanC]

Concept Art of AGM-109 from B-52s...

 

[RyanC]

Concept Art of AGM-109 from B-52s...

 

[RyanC]

KC-10 Fun!

 

[RyanC]

BGM-109 Gryphon Art

 

[RyanC]

Launch of a BGM-109.

 

[Tuomasn]

Thanks for posting these and the other missile images.

 

[fightingirish]

A few pictures showing a A-6 carrying and launching a Tomahawk cruise missile can be found at the San Diego Air & Space Museum on Flickr.
Link: http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss=2&w=49487266%40N07&q=A-6A&m=text

I can't tell, if the Tomahawk is an early AGM-109A or AGM-109C/H/I/J/K/L prototype later on the MRASM (Medium-Range Air-to-Surface Missile) program. The MRASM effort was cancelled in 1984.
Source: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-109.html

 

[Boxman]

Going through some of the San Diego Air & Space Museum (SDASM) photo stream on Flickr, and I came across these photos (dated 30-June-1975) concerning testing of the Tomahawk Cruise Missile. Note the "Event" described on the form says "C.M. Inflatable Inlet Tests." Presumably, "C.M." stands for "Cruise Missile". What intrigues me is the use of the description "inflatable inlet." Perhaps what the photographer meant to describe was the deployment of the Tomahawk's intake via pneumatic pressure, but if not, is anyone aware of an inflatable inlet or inlet "lip" being used/considered for the Tomahawk? You will probably want to have a look at the scanned photos in their largest resolution (full resolution images linked here).


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/7218183232/in/photostream

EDIT: For comparison and contrast, here are additional photos, from August 24,1975, documenting the filming of the test deployment of the Tomahawk's inlet (apparently, not an "inflatable" type) (link to full resolution here).
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/7218186546/in/photostream

 

[carsinamerica]

Wasn't the AGM-109 (the original strategic variant with a W-80, not the tactical MRASM) supposed to have some sort of range advantage compared to the AGM-86B? I seem to remember that. At any rate, I'm pretty sure that the B-52 could only carry six of the AGM-109s on the CSRL, as compared to eight AGM-86Bs.

Interesting picture up-threat, too, with a B-52D carrying ALCMs. I didn't know that was ever contemplated for the D/E/F series, only for the G/H models.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Greetings All -

From the Plane-A-Day site, a photo of the General Dynamics MRASM in a red, white and blue scheme. Would think this is a stage image, the inlet and flying surfaces are all deployed.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Grey Havoc]

TLAM/N IN THE NUCLEAR RESERVE FORCE:
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS (SAIC report for the DNA, 1983)

 

[fightingirish]

Robert Lynch, Father of the Tomahawk

Robert A. Lynch was the engineering director for the Navy's Tomahawk cruise missile program from 1972 to 1979. This is a recording of a talk he gave at the San Diego Air and Space Museum in the Spring of 2012.
From the archives of the San Diego Air and Space Museum http://www.sandiegoairandspace.org Please do not use for commercial purposes without permission.

This video is 58 min long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoU_CmZt2Yo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoU_CmZt2Yo

 

[Grey Havoc]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jDujPAYjwPg

(h/t C.Puffs over at MilitaryPhotos.net)

 

[sferrin]

MRASM and Tomahawk in old USN blue. (Black I guess.) There are many other pics of the latter article up on Flickr.

 

[totoro]

As per various news, older IV tomahawks will be remanufactured into block V missiles. But what's interesting is that text mention there will be three (3) variants produced. Yet I know of only two variants so far. The Va - maritime strike variant. And the Vb - the conventional warhead but with enhanced bunker busting capabilities. But that leaves one variant unaccounted for? Does anyone know what its designation is? And if it actually exists, what sort of warhead or role does it have?

 

[Moose]

The 3rd variant is actually the baseline Block V, a straight upgrade of TACTOM without either the new warhead or the MST seeker. Source, Raytheon.

 

[TomS]

But that leaves one variant unaccounted for? Does anyone know what its designation is?

Check the slides here: https://news.usni.org/2020/01/22/entire-navy-tomahawk-missile-arsenal-will-upgrade-to-block-v

The three versions are:

• Block V: NAV/COMMS upgrades
• Block Va: NAV/COMMS upgrade + Maritime Strike Tomahawk seeker
• Block Vb: NAV/COMMS upgrade + Joint Multiple Effects Warhead System

Edit: the ninja Moose beat me to it...

 

[totoro]

Thanks, guys!
So... there's not going to be any submunition variant of tomahawk? Does the US even have any stand off submunition dispenser system currently in use? One JSOW variant, maybe? But nothing powered?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Submunition R&D, not to mention production, still hasn't really recovered yet from the depredations of the Obama era. In part because there are still quite a few officials in high positions, uniformed and otherwise, who climbed the slippery ladder (often over far better people) precisely because of patronage from various U.S. politicians who have promoted stupidities like the Ottawa and Dublin treaties for a long time.

 

[totoro]

So, I was trying to get a sense of the Tomahawk missile family production history and inventory. Perhaps someone can help me with that.
So far I have this:
Some 8500 missiles of all variants produced so far.

With 4201 of those produced before year 2000.
Of those, at least 689 (but possibly more?) were TLAM-N and Gryphon.
And there were several hundred of TASMs, though I'd like to find a more precise number.

Some 4300 or so tomahawk block IV were made in addition to those 4201 older missiles.
Though, it's possible some were counted as new while in fact they were remanufactured older blocks. does anyone have any data on those?
I did find that at least 724 and possibly 784 older block, TASMs and such were remanufactured into block IIIs.

When it comes to expended missiles, at least 2193 missiles were fired in wars. Actual figure may be higher, these are just the recorded/known firings.
A certain number were also surely fired in testing over the decades.
I did find one mention of 2500 missiles fired over the years.

Surely, a lot of the old block I and block IIs were simply not even remanufactured but were scrapped entirely. But i don't know how many.
And probably only a smaller number of block IVs were ever fired. Since block IV entered production, only 305 firings were announced, and a good deal of those might have been older block IIIs.

So, the questions remain: how many block IVs might there be in inventory? and how many block IIIs might remain (if any?) in inventory?
And does the above all mean that as many as 2000 older tomahawks were simply scrapped? (assuming roughly 4000 tomahawks in inventory remaining today)

 

[NMaude]

Check the slides here: https://news.usni.org/2020/01/22/entire-navy-tomahawk-missile-arsenal-will-upgrade-to-block-v

Surely, a lot of the old block I and block IIs were simply not even remanufactured but were scrapped entirely. But i don't know how many.

Scrapping these older missiles if they aren't being remanufactured is wasteful and missing an opportunity as they could be converted into expendable missile-targets.

I just found this old Convair progress report from the 1970s:

 

[Dilandu]

And does the above all mean that as many as 2000 older tomahawks were simply scrapped?

Nuclear models may be scrapped. They required a very significant internal reconstruction to serve as conventional weapons: nuclear warhead was much more compact than conventional one, so fuel tanks took much more space in BGM-109A. Also, nuclear models did not have terminal navigation system. Essentially, only their engines (probably; the engines on old BGM-109A and later models are different) and parts of the hull could be re-used, and it may be considered more practical to just dismantle all 109A for spare parts.

 

[NMaude]

Nuclear models may be scrapped.

That was wasteful, after their W-80 warheads were removed they should've been converted into target drones.

 

[Grey Havoc]

By all accounts, the TLAM-N and nuclear capable anti-ship versions actually proved relatively easy to convert to the pre-TT conventional version. The member of the Tomahawk family that turned out to be the least compatible with the rest proved to be the Block IV/Tactical Tomahawk. To the point that attempts during the late 2000s and 2010s to convert older missiles into Tactical Tomahawks were pretty much abject failures. It just wasn't worth it to literally downgrade older more capable missiles into Block IVs. I believe at one stage they were even running a variation of the old 'ID plate' scam to try and disguise the fact that they were producing brand new missiles rather than conversions.

 

[Dilandu]

and nuclear capable anti-ship versions

Er... BGM-109B TASM was conventional, with 1000-pdr warhead from "Bullpup".

The difference:





I'm not sure how easy is to swap the forward sections. Are they easy to detach?

 

[Grey Havoc]

I'm not sure how easy is to swap the forward sections. Are they easy to detach?

Supposed to be anyway. With regards as to the anti-ship variant, it was planned from the outset with both nuclear and conventional options if I am not mistaken, but the former option was initially blocked by the ongoing trainwreck that was the Carter Administration, for much the same irrational reasons that the deployment of the TLAM-Ns was delayed. I think nuclear armed anti-ship Tomahawks began to be really available around the late 1982 timeframe.

 

[Dilandu]

think nuclear armed anti-ship Tomahawks began to be really available around the late 1981/early 1982 timeframe

Er, do they really existed? The BGM-109B wasnt exactly the ideal nuclear-delivery platform. It have no midcourse correction and no friend-or-foe identification system. It just flew to pre-set distance, switched on the seeker and start search pattern for any target. Launching such weapon with nuclear warhead - knowing that it could home on wrong ship - is... not safe.

I never heard about nuclear TASM's.

 

[AN/AWW-14(V)]

rare point of view

 

[AeroFranz]

Cool. Anyone know why the 180 degree roll before the terminal maneuver?

 

[Richard N]

I imagine it allows the missile to pull positive G to enter the terminal maneuver which steepens the dive and accelerates it towards its target.

 

[TomS]

With regards as to the anti-ship variant, it was planned from the outset with both nuclear and conventional options if I am not mistaken, but the former option was initially blocked by the ongoing trainwreck that was the Carter Administration, for much the same irrational reasons that the deployment of the TLAM-Ns was delayed. I think nuclear armed anti-ship Tomahawks began to be really available around the late 1982 timeframe.

There was never a nuclear Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile fielded.

By all accounts, the TLAM-N and nuclear capable anti-ship versions actually proved relatively easy to convert to the pre-TT conventional version. The member of the Tomahawk family that turned out to be the least compatible with the rest proved to be the Block IV/Tactical Tomahawk. To the point that attempts during the late 2000s and 2010s to convert older missiles into Tactical Tomahawks were pretty much abject failures. It just wasn't worth it to literally downgrade older more capable missiles into Block IVs. I believe at one stage they were even running a variation of the old 'ID plate' scam to try and disguise the fact that they were producing brand new missiles rather than conversions.

I think this confuses several different programs.

There was a program to update TLAM Block III to a Block IV configuration under the Tomahawk Baseline Improvement Program (TBIP). The resulting missile was to be a Tomahawk Multi-Mode Missile (TMMM) that could engage both ships and land targets. This proved to be too complex/expensive and was cancelled.

The TASMs were at one point slated to become TMMM Block IVs under TBIP, but that never happened and the TASMs were instead rebuilt into Block IIIs.

The Block IV designation was then recycled into the Tactical Tomahawk program, but this is essentially a new, value-engineered missile with a much simpler and cheaper airframe and many other changes. All TacToms are new builds. Despite some online sources, no Block IIIs or TASMs were ever rebuilt to the TacTom Block IV standard. Indeed, trying to do so would be impossible because of the differences in airframe construction.

 

[red admiral]

I imagine it allows the missile to pull positive G to enter the terminal maneuver which steepens the dive and accelerates it towards its target.

Yes probably much higher lift in positive g so much tighter turn rather than doing a bunt.

 

[TomcatViP]

Structural and systems also (think fuel pump). The missile can be built lighter with only minimal allowance in negative G. Especially given the high roll rate.

 

[AN/AWW-14(V)]

promotional arts recently uploaded by SDASM Archives (illustrator Roy Gjertson)

Roy Gjertson artwork

Roy was born in Lamberton, Minnesota in December, 1925. Roy studied at the Minnesota Art Museum, before moving to California in 1942, where he studied at the Art Center School in Los Angeles.He served in the U.S. Army Air Corp during World War II as a radio operator and gunner aboard B-24...

www.flickr.com

 

[Hood]

That last painting implies a 4-round or 6-round container-launcher added to the forecastle of a Tico. Is that just purely notional work by the artist or something actually considered.

(A month or so ago I had a chat with a guy on another forum whether two ABLs would fit on a Kidd like the Spurance refit layout, but we agreed it looked like the ABL wouldn't fit and allow proper clearance with the Mk 26 launcher.)

 

[TomS]

That last painting implies a 4-round or 6-round container-launcher added to the forecastle of a Tico. Is that just purely notional work by the artist or something actually considered.

(A month or so ago I had a chat with a guy on another forum whether two ABLs would fit on a Kidd like the Spurance refit layout, but we agreed it looked like the ABL wouldn't fit and allow proper clearance with the Mk 26 launcher.)

Before ABL, there was a proposed non-armored launcher that looked like an upscaled Mk 141 for Harpoon (also seen in the Long Beach painting). I suspect that was what the artist was sketching on Tico. It would be a bit narrower than the ABL, since it would lack the armored sides and elevating hardware, so maybe? What's really odd is that it looks like it might be drawn as partially recessed into the deck between the Mk26 launcher and the Mk 45 gun. I'm pretty sure that would not have worked.

 

[Hood]

That last painting implies a 4-round or 6-round container-launcher added to the forecastle of a Tico. Is that just purely notional work by the artist or something actually considered.

(A month or so ago I had a chat with a guy on another forum whether two ABLs would fit on a Kidd like the Spurance refit layout, but we agreed it looked like the ABL wouldn't fit and allow proper clearance with the Mk 26 launcher.)

Before ABL, there was a proposed non-armored launcher that looked like an upscaled Mk 141 for Harpoon (also seen in the Long Beach painting). I suspect that was what the artist was sketching on Tico. It would be a bit narrower than the ABL, since it would lack the armored sides and elevating hardware, so maybe? What's really odd is that it looks like it might be drawn as partially recessed into the deck between the Mk26 launcher and the Mk 45 gun. I'm pretty sure that would not have worked.

It could indeed be that smaller non-armoured launcher, and agreed, something looks off with that painting the way its depicted.