AGM-109/BGM-109 Tomahawk/Gryphon

[Firefinder]

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.

Look like its recess into the hull.

I do know that the MK26 Ticos had a large amount of space between the hull and the MK26 internals.

In theory you could put a pop up launcher for the 109s there. And I have seen refences, Old ones with the class still label as the DDG47 class as tomahawk capable...

Maybe...

 

[AN/AWW-14(V)]

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.

probably art was inspired this series and Tico just was top hype in this days

USS Merrill served as the Navy's test platform for the Tomahawk Cruise Missile Program receiving armored box launchers and test launching a Tomahawk 19 March 1980. Merrill carried two ABLs and an ASROC launcher into the 1990s until the ASROC launcher was removed.

 

[RavenOne]

In my neck of the woods, the American Hangar at IWM, here are my photos of BGM109 GLCM and it’s launched, relic from the RAf Molesworth cruise missile days.

i have been on RAF Molesworth few times back in 2009/2010 when the 423rd Air Blase Group / Joint Analysis Center (army, Navy, marines as well as UsAF) held a equivalent of the car boot sale inside the famous WW2 D Hangar great bargains especially the unit spouses sold home mad Texas chili!! And my first taste of Mountain Dew yes, few years before likes of Sainsbury’s and tescos and Asda started to stock them!

But because of terrorist threats and so forth, then no more weekend bazaars.

when I went out of sisd door to get air, was standing in direct sight of the GAMA compound bunkers and security / launch tower (look in google earth ) it’s the sky’s of modern ATc towers at airports.

cheers

 

[Keyboard Commando]

Why was AGM-109 passed over for the Air Force cruise missile program, did it lose fairly to the AGM-86 or was it a case of politics and inter-service rivalry?

 

[NMaude]

Why was AGM-109 passed over for the Air Force cruise missile program, did it lose fairly to the AGM-86 or was it a case of politics and inter-service rivalry?

IIRC it was tested as the AGM-109 but was found to be inferior to the AGM-86.

 

[TomS]

Why was AGM-109 passed over for the Air Force cruise missile program, did it lose fairly to the AGM-86 or was it a case of politics and inter-service rivalry?

IIRC it was tested as the AGM-109 but was found to be inferior to the AGM-86.

Kinda hard to judge though. Both were abysmal in testing, with four failures in 10 flights each.

The history certainly lends itself to questions. The USAF had developed the shorter range AGM-86A before the Joint Cruise Missile Program Office flyoff. Selecting AGM-86B allowed them to stick with the missile they already knew and liked.

Conversely, the Navy never seriously thought about an AGM-86A development when it looked for an air-launched cruise missile. It designed a cut down Tomahawk (MRASM) instead.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/agm-109-dispenser.38954/

An early version of the AGM-109H MRASM?

Definitely differs from this version:

 

[TsrJoe]

ref. Flight International, 20 December 1995

 

[TsrJoe]

A couple (actually 3 or 4 total) ex USAF. GLCM. tractor units are hiding in the undergrowth of a military vehicle sales yard in Girvan, Scotland

 

[NMaude]

Now that the US has withdrawn from the INF treaty what are the odds we'll see a return of the GLCM in some form?

 

[TomS]

Now that the US has withdrawn from the INF treaty what are the odds we'll see a return of the GLCM in some form?

The Army is already buying Tomahawk.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12135

But I think there is basically no chance of going back to the Air Force nuclear GLCM.

 

[NMaude]

I just stumbled across the below manual for the B/UGM-109:

TECHNICAL MANUAL TOMAHAWK CRUISE MISSILE RGM/UGM-109 SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

 

[aonestudio]

Now that the US has withdrawn from the INF treaty what are the odds we'll see a return of the GLCM in some form?

USMC Discusses Land-Based Tomahawk Missile Launchers - Naval News

The U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) are moving closer to fielding Land-based Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from tractor-trailers

www.navalnews.com

 

[Tomahawk missile fan]

AGM-109 Tomahawk Cruise Missile!!

 

[Artificer018]

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?

There was a ground launched version as well, I believe, that never went into service or was pulled out of service very quickly after its inception.

 

[TomS]

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?

There was a ground launched version as well, I believe, that never went into service or was pulled out of service very quickly after its inception.

We sorted out the three versions of Tomahawk Block V in the posts right after totoro's question.

There was a ground-launched nuclear Tomahawk (BGM-109G Griffon or GLCM) which is mentioned several times in this thread. It was in service in Europe from ~1983-1988 (finally withdrawn from service in 1991 but had not been deployed for several years before that).

 

[totoro]

I guess the new question would be: is there a source which shows that the maritime strike variant will retain land strike capabilities?

 

[TomS]

I guess the new question would be: is there a source which shows that the maritime strike variant will retain land strike capabilities?

Yes, according to the 2017 DOT&E report on MST.

https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2017/navy/2017tomahawk.pdf?ver=2019-08-19-113709-897

 

[Artificer018]

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?

There was a ground launched version as well, I believe, that never went into service or was pulled out of service very quickly after its inception.

We sorted out the three versions of Tomahawk Block V in the posts right after totoro's question.

There was a ground-launched nuclear Tomahawk (BGM-109G Griffon or GLCM) which is mentioned several times in this thread. It was in service in Europe from ~1983-1988 (finally withdrawn from service in 1991 but had not been deployed for several years before that).

Okay, sorry about that

 

[Tomahawk missile fan]

AGM-109 Tomahawk Cruise Missile very rare launch screen shot.

 

[NMaude]

What was the launch aircraft?

 

[TomS]

B-52.

 

[zjz]

I own this book on the Tomahawk cruise missile.. I wonder if there are others, maybe updated version?

 

[NMaude]

I own this book on the Tomahawk cruise missile.. I wonder if there are others, maybe updated version?

I recognise that title-page, IIRC I read it the library back in the 1990s.

 

[zjz]

I own this book on the Tomahawk cruise missile.. I wonder if there are others, maybe updated version?

I recognise that title-page, IIRC I read it the library back in the 1990s.

Yes, it was published in 1995. I really hope that someone get an updated version printed.

 

[Forest Green]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7Ayj1153ag

 

[isayyo2]

Polaris SSBN conversion to SSGN

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

 

[Yellow Palace]

I find it interesting that the proposed conversions would have carried 80 Tomahawks.

In the roughly contemporary Duff-Mason report, the UK considered cruise missiles to replace the Polaris system and the RESOLUTION class submarine. A cruise missile submarine of similar size to the RESOLUTION class was expected to carry 80 Tomahawk missiles.

That doesn't necessarily mean there was knowledge of the US proposal. Similar size boats would be expected to have similar capacities. But exactly the same is a little bit coincidental.

 

[Firefinder]

I find it interesting that the proposed conversions would have carried 80 Tomahawks.

In the roughly contemporary Duff-Mason report, the UK considered cruise missiles to replace the Polaris system and the RESOLUTION class submarine. A cruise missile submarine of similar size to the RESOLUTION class was expected to carry 80 Tomahawk missiles.

That doesn't necessarily mean there was knowledge of the US proposal. Similar size boats would be expected to have similar capacities. But exactly the same is a little bit coincidental.

Not really when you consider that both navys used the same Missile, Polaris, and their SSBN had the same numbers of tubes, 16, for them.

Assuming that the Brit SSGN was to be base on the Resolution class or even a modified version of the Vanguard class which also had 16 tubes?

Well by using the Same missile, the Tomahawk, you going to get tge same number. Cause each tube can only hold 5 missiles. And well 16 by 5 is 80 so.

The maths checks out.

A C size sub can only have J number of Tubes of P size which can only carry R number of Missile T means you can only get Z number of said missiles.

The only way to change that up is likely going with the Los Angles or early Virginia class individual sleeved VLS in place of the ICBM size multi round tubes like here.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Assuming that the Brit SSGN was to be base on the Resolution class or even a modified version of the Vanguard class which also had 16 tubes?

It was pre-VANGUARD, so would have been a clean-sheet design in any case. It wouldn't be at all surprising for that design to have individual launch tubes, in which case any number of missiles is plausible. Slightly larger tubes with a seven-missile insert could also make sense, as we've seen with the OHIO and VIRGINIA classes. That would make 84 Tomahawks a likely number. You could easily pick other arrangements, of course.

In reality, I don't know that it was designed in any great detail beyond the extent needed to come up with an approximate missile capacity and cost.

 

[flateric]

from GD World June 1991 via SDASM

 

[Justin]

from GD World June 1991 via SDASM

Do you know how many years I’ve been looking for this!!! The infamous least known Tomahawk versionthe Anti-Sub version!

 

[zjz]

If anyone has the following book (1991/92 edition), I saw that there is a short paragraph and a picture of the torpedo-Tomahawk inside the addendum pages of this book :

 

[zjz]

putting cruise missiles on WWII battleships

Photos of USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin firing 16″ rounds at Iraqi targets in 1991 are well-known as the last instances of battleships in combat. Less widely known is their operations with T…

wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com

 

[fightingirish]

Early graphics showing a General Dynamics F-16 with 2 MRASM under each wing.

https://flic.kr/p/2oREs1D

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oREs1D

https://flic.kr/p/2oRBsJp

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oRBsJp

https://flic.kr/p/2oRBsJj

View: https://flic.kr/p/2oRBsJj

Source: San Diego Air & Space Museum Image Collection

 

[TomS]

Those last two look like a full-sized Tomahawk, compared to the cut-down Navy version usually associated with MRASM. The Navy version was of course sized to fit weapon elevators on the carriers but the Air Force had no such limitation.

 

[Forest Green]

Weren't there two sizes of AF versions of MRASM. One more JASSM-sized.

Raytheon AGM/BGM/RGM/UGM-109 Tomahawk

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.

Those last two look like a full-sized Tomahawk, compared to the cut-down Navy version usually associated with MRASM. The Navy version was of course sized to fit weapon elevators on the carriers but the Air Force had no such limitation.

But surely the weapon elevators manage with SM-3s?

 

[sferrin]

Kinda hard to judge though. Both were abysmal in testing, with four failures in 10 flights each.

The history certainly lends itself to questions. The USAF had developed the shorter range AGM-86A before the Joint Cruise Missile Program Office flyoff. Selecting AGM-86B allowed them to stick with the missile they already knew and liked.

Conversely, the Navy never seriously thought about an AGM-86A development when it looked for an air-launched cruise missile. It designed a cut down Tomahawk (MRASM) instead.

Tomahawk was probably a better fit for torpedo tubes and such with its round cross section.

 

[TomS]

Tomahawk was probably a better fit for torpedo tubes and such with its round cross section.

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.

 

[sferrin]