USAF Advanced Conventional Standoff Missile (ACSM)

fightingirish

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
3 June 2006
Messages
3,086
Reaction score
3,905
Last edited by a moderator:
There was a proposal of a Tomahawk with a pointed nose mentioned in Janes in the early 2000's, but nothing seems to come out of it ....

It was supposed to be "supersonic", but other than ramping the engine to max RPM and getting an overheated turbine, I am not sure how they can achieve Mach 1 without substantial redesign ....
 
NMaude said:
Supersonic Tomahawk?
Click to expand...

The wing is still dead straight and it looks like a flush inlet so probably not supersonic.

zjz said:
There was a proposal of a Tomahawk with a pointed nose mentioned in Janes in the early 2000's, but nothing seems to come out of it
Click to expand...

Post #1 in this thread.

The photo above is Convair, so much older. Also, you can see four fins instead of of the later three-fin layout of the supersonic proposal.
 
NMaude said:
The F-104 Straighter had straight wings and it was a Mach 2 supersonic interceptor.
Click to expand...

But not the same shape wing that you'd have seen on a subsonic aircraft, while the wing and tail fins on that pointed Tomahawk are exactly the same as the one on the round-nosed and definitely subsonic ones.

Between SALT I and II, there were some discussions of treaty limitations on certain classes of cruise missiles. Possibly this was the sort of visual differentiation required to make that verifiable in imagery.
 
FYI, another new stack of pictures showing AGM/BGM-109 Tomahawk during its early development were uploaded at the SDASM Flickr archive today. :cool:
https://flic.kr/p/2qCDnAq
View: https://flic.kr/p/2qCDnAq

Now we know, why this Tomahawk model had a pointy nosecone (and also a flush inlet), since it was to reduce its radar signature.
Here two pictures showing an advanced cruise missile. The hull might look similar to the Raytheon (General Dynamics) AGM-129 ACM, but this advanced cruise missile has a conventional, non-nuclear payload.
https://flic.kr/p/2qCyKVr
View: https://flic.kr/p/2qCyKVr

https://flic.kr/p/2qCDnE8
View: https://flic.kr/p/2qCDnE8

Dear mods, if you think, that post is here in a wrong topic, please feel free either to edit, to delete or move it to a much more suitable topic.:)
 
I could not find anything about "ACSM", any one knows what program was it?

Also, almost all photographs have been tagged with "1963".... obviously this could not be the year of the program, and it seems to be "Model 1963" from what I can make out ....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
zjz said:
I could not find anything about "ACSM", any one knows what program was it?

Also, almost all photographs have been tagged with "1963".... obviously this could not be the year of the program, and it seems to be "Model 1963" from what I can make out ....
Click to expand...

Advanced Conventional Standoff Missile, which seems to have been the Air Force antecedent to MRASM.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA140985.pdf
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20241230-212300.png
    Screenshot_20241230-212300.png
    468.4 KB · Views: 56
TomS said:
Advanced Conventional Standoff Missile, which seems to have been the Air Force antecedent to MRASM.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA140985.pdf
Click to expand...
Thanks! I am aware MRASM was a shortened Tomahawk, even shorter than the ALCM candidate that was tested against AGM-86B .....

I will take some time to read through the report .... I am a sucker for any documentation that provides historical context on missile developments .....
 
From Page 205 :

A brief mention, and no more :

"
MRASM

The last subdivision of the cruise missile is the medium-range air-to-surface
missile (MRASM). Essentially parallel programs began as studies by USAF in 1975
and Navy in 1977; the Air Force's Advanced Conventional Standoff Missile and the
Navy's Supersonic Tactical Cruise Missile. In the late 1970s, Congress made clear
to the Navy that only a joint program with the Air Force would suffice. In June
1978, Aviation Week mentioned the cruise missile's ability to carry submunitions.
Before the year ended, the aviation press reported a successful demonstration of
MRASM neutralizing airfields. In May 1978, a modified Tomahawk flew 403 miles
from its launch point to the Dugway Proving Ground, guided by TERCOM and
scene-matching area correlator (SMAC) terminal guidance, and dropped 11 of its
12 bomblets dead on its runway target. It then returned over the target, simulating a
photo reconnaissance run.
 
zjz said:
Thanks! I am aware MRASM was a shortened Tomahawk, even shorter than the ALCM candidate that was tested against AGM-86B .....

I will take some time to read through the report .... I am a sucker for any documentation that provides historical context on missile developments .....
Click to expand...
TomS said:
Advanced Conventional Standoff Missile, which seems to have been the Air Force antecedent to MRASM.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA140985.pdf
Click to expand...

Apparently, there are another 2 related reports .....


The Joint Cruise Missiles Project: An Acquisition History--Appendixes

Dual-Source Procurement in the Tomahawk Program
 
SDASM released a whole string of images tagged as Tomahawk that definitely are NOT the Tomahawk we know and love. Mach 2+ (the wind tunnel slides say between M2.36 and M2.80, I think) with a chin inlet and wrap-around wings and tail fins. I wonder if these might be that Navy Supersonic Tactical Cruise Missile mentioned as a semi-competitor to ACSM above.

https://flic.kr/p/2qEcfL4
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/54253477707/in/photostream/


https://flic.kr/p/2qEi1Da
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/54254600883/in/photostream/
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom