USS Ohio SSGN-726..aresnal ship?

S

Sea Dog

Junior Member
VIP Professional
darth sidious said:
Sorry but I dont see how tomahawks can be used to attack surface war ships base and habour maybe but not the chinese fleet when its at sea
Click to expand...

No, Tomahawks are not anti-ship weapons any longer. It's true that these TASM's did not give USN the results that they were looking for as Totoro said. Not because of any internal guidance issues. But because the range aspects in conjunction with high density environments made using long-range missiles riskier(to unintended targets) and less accurate. But that doesn't mean the bunkered TASM's still in existence wouldn't still be useful if needed. But still they were removed. USN naval doctrine has thus shifted accordingly. There is currently talk of putting an anti-ship variant out there based on the newer Tomahawks, but so far those are just ideas being discussed. It would be rather easy to do this though.

But as darth said, in the near term, these Tomahawks are only land-attack missiles.

@bdpopeye - Thanks for posting. Any info I can get on the SSGN's the USN is fielding is of great interest.

Edited to Add:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Another interesting link.
 
Last edited:
utelore

utelore

Junior Member
VIP Professional
The latest version of the 32 year old Tactical Tomahawk is the Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile, currently in full rate production at Raytheon. Like its predecessors, the missile is equipped with a conventional warhead and offers flexible targeting and loitering capabilities. The new missile is supported by an improved mission planning and platform weapons control capabilities. Deployed with surface ships and submarines, TLAM is equipped with a two-way satellite data link that enables the missile to respond to changing battlefield conditions. The strike controller can "flex" the missile in flight to alternate targets preprogrammed before launch, or redirect it to a new target. ****This targeting flexibility includes the capability to loiter over the battlefield, awaiting a more critical target. The missile can also transmit battle damage indication imagery and missile health and status messages via the satellite data link.***

I think that if a conflict with the PRC started the U.S would use these as a true longrange standoff weapon to be used against PRC warships. If you think about the power of being able to sit off hundreds of miles away with subs launching these with no way for the PRC to effect or defend against such issues. compounded by having attack subs launching harpoons at 60+ mile ranges in the straits of taiwan. It would be a threat that I do not see the PRC having a answer for.
 
Last edited:
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


very interesting article coming from US naval institute. It is a bit old but it does give information about US tomahawk supply and production of block 3 (or lack of it, to be more precise) just after the war in iraq ended its first phase.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


then there's this article, from sept 2004, which talks about block 4 tomahawk. What i find interesting is this line: "The Navy and Raytheon are entering into a five-year procurement contract to replenish Tomahawk inventory at the most affordable cost." which to me means they will not build more than needed to get back to 2800-3000 level they had before war in afghanistan. most afforadble cost also points to that, that they dont wanna spend too much and buy too many missiles. And in the end, they will need 5 years to produce all those missiles.

Now, i know the production in a case of war can be ramped up, sure. But just by how much? if you can produce 600 missiles a year, how long would you need to set up another production line for 1200 missiles a year? How much time for 1800? etc.

A relatively small scale war against weak and technologically obsolete enemy like serbia required 800 launched tomahawks. China not only has more modern systems, but it has tons more than tiny serbia, plus chinese forces are so huge youd need literally tens of thousands of tomahawks to do to china what US did to serbia in 1999. All that reaffirms my belief that tomahawks are not any kind of magic bullet weapon, especially against large and powerful countires like china that can take a lot of punishment and still keep on coming. They have their uses, yes, and they could somewhat hinder chinese capabilities but by themselves they've got very limited usefulness. They're just a small wheel in a big mechanism of warfare US would need to use to battle a country such as china.
 
utelore

utelore

Junior Member
VIP Professional
You are not going to need tens of thousands of cruise missiles to prevent a PRC invasion of Taiwan. You are just going to need to degrade its amph warfare and surface fleet. Its airforce would be degraded enough over time by cruise missile strikes against airbases that it would prevent effective airops over the straits. you cannot compare Kosvo which had a land contact with serbia proper and was many years ago/tech has advanced greatly/GPS/CONTUPGRADE. If 70+ PRC warships are a the bottom of the sea or burning in port this is a mute point. I am fully confident that a pull back and engage with sub-suface combatants stratagey could prevent a PRC invasion of the ROC
 
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
If chinese ships would behave nicely and sit peacfully in harbours, then yes, a massive tomahawk strike could wipe out a good deal of PLAN's inventory. But thinking bout it realistically, that will never be the case. Or are you suggesting that US would strike first, before china even makes a move and tries to invade taiwan? I don't believe that'd happen. So, what i'm talking about is a scenario where china is already on the move. Where a good deal of ships are out in the sea, where good deal of airplanes are in the air, etc. China can do training runs, not make anything out of those wargames for 100 times, then 101st time attack for real. War in kosovo wasn't many years ago, it was just 6 years ago. And block 3 tomahawks were used, just like in iraq two years ago. Yes, in this potential new war, block 4s would be used, but the difference between those two is slim compared to difference between serbian air denfenses and EW systems and those of china's. Actually, let's be concrete, and talk about two scenarios, one - worst case for US, where china attacks now when USN has under a thousand tomahawks, mostly block 3s, the same kind used in serbia - and scenario two, happening around 2010 - where US has replenished its inventory and has around 3000 mostly block 4 tomahawks. By then chinese forces will be stronger and more modern, too.

As for chinese air force, you can only slow down its progress in a taiwan invasion scenario by hitting the airbases with tomahawks. Without real air power, US can not prevent the invasion with tomahawks alone.

You did mention sub surface combatants... i assume you mean subs other than tomahawk carrying ones, too. Yes, that'd help greatly but it wouldn't guarantee anything and it'd come at great cost. Without air support and so close to china, those subs would be dead the moment they're detected. And they would be detected, simply because of the relatively small area around taiwan and large force china has at its disposal. In the open sea us nuclear subs would have a great edge over chinese SSKs but close to shore, in the shallows, where SSKs would be protecting and not attacking - that edge would all but disappear.

So, to sum it up, yes, US is perfectly capable of ruining any potential china's plans to occupy taiwan but it'd need a full war machine to do it. Just subs and especially just cruise missiles wouldn't cut it, in my opinion.
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
Thank you gentlemen for the intelligent rational discussion on this subject. Outstanding!:)

No, Tomahawks are not anti-ship weapons any longer. It's true that these TASM's did not give USN the results that they were looking for as Totoro said
Click to expand...

True. I wonder if the SSGN's can be outfited with Harpoons block II? I'm pretty sure it can. I have no confirmation.

For attacking naval targets I know the US is depending on JDAM's which are in plentiful supply. And they are cheap compared to any missile. I saw a program on TV two days ago on this weapons system. Actually it's just a kit that turns a gravity bomb into a presiscion guided weapon.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
utelore

utelore

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Totoro, I just we can agree to disagree. I firmly believe that about 50% power of the U.S sub fleet and the ROC airforce and navy would defeat any PRC attempt to retake the Island. I dont think the PRC navy can defeat the U.S subsurface warfare as it realy is a outstanding and LETHAL force....cheers ute.
 
crazyinsane105

crazyinsane105

Junior Member
VIP Professional
I do agree with utelore. The USN's subsurface fleet is quite deadly and I doubt China will be able to properly defend itself from it. However, that is only if a significant number of US subs are present when a conflict in the Taiwan strait breaks out. Right now, how many US subs patrolling near the South China Sea? Does anybody know? Also, in my opinion, this arsenal sub is only for three countries: Iran, China, and North Korea.
 
T

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
utelore said:
Totoro, I just we can agree to disagree. I firmly believe that about 50% power of the U.S sub fleet and the ROC airforce and navy would defeat any PRC attempt to retake the Island. I dont think the PRC navy can defeat the U.S subsurface warfare as it realy is a outstanding and LETHAL force....cheers ute.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's realistic to expect 50% (or even 10% for that matter) of US sub fleet to be in the area when china executes its first strike. By the time US is able to bring significant sub force (50% you speak of) to the war theater china would already take out most of taiwan's air force and navy. (yes, that's just my opinion and, yes, it requires a whole new topic) Yes, with heavy losses on chinese side, but they know time is of the essence, such losses would, in the long run, be cheaper since it'd mean china fights first taiwan then US than the scenario where US is given enough time to fight while taiwan still has some credible defences. But okay, we agree to disagree. cheers.
 
S

Sea Dog

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Totoro said:
If chinese ships would behave nicely and sit peacfully in harbours, then yes, a massive tomahawk strike could wipe out a good deal of PLAN's inventory. But thinking bout it realistically, that will never be the case. Or are you suggesting that US would strike first, before china even makes a move and tries to invade taiwan? I don't believe that'd happen. So, what i'm talking about is a scenario where china is already on the move. Where a good deal of ships are out in the sea, where good deal of airplanes are in the air, etc. China can do training runs, not make anything out of those wargames for 100 times, then 101st time attack for real. War in kosovo wasn't many years ago, it was just 6 years ago. And block 3 tomahawks were used, just like in iraq two years ago. Yes, in this potential new war, block 4s would be used, but the difference between those two is slim compared to difference between serbian air denfenses and EW systems and those of china's. Actually, let's be concrete, and talk about two scenarios, one - worst case for US, where china attacks now when USN has under a thousand tomahawks, mostly block 3s, the same kind used in serbia - and scenario two, happening around 2010 - where US has replenished its inventory and has around 3000 mostly block 4 tomahawks. By then chinese forces will be stronger and more modern, too.

As for chinese air force, you can only slow down its progress in a taiwan invasion scenario by hitting the airbases with tomahawks. Without real air power, US can not prevent the invasion with tomahawks alone.

You did mention sub surface combatants... i assume you mean subs other than tomahawk carrying ones, too. Yes, that'd help greatly but it wouldn't guarantee anything and it'd come at great cost. Without air support and so close to china, those subs would be dead the moment they're detected. And they would be detected, simply because of the relatively small area around taiwan and large force china has at its disposal. In the open sea us nuclear subs would have a great edge over chinese SSKs but close to shore, in the shallows, where SSKs would be protecting and not attacking - that edge would all but disappear.

So, to sum it up, yes, US is perfectly capable of ruining any potential china's plans to occupy taiwan but it'd need a full war machine to do it. Just subs and especially just cruise missiles wouldn't cut it, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Hi guys. I think I'll stay out of the warfare aspects on this one for now. But I do know that the USN inventory for TLAM's right now is at 2,200 block II and III combined. I was hoping the article posted was going to tell us how many of each. The USN also has approximately 900 bunkered/stored TLAM-N's and TASM's, both of which are out of service but which can be upgraded to Block II or III standards pretty rapidly. I don't know how long it would take but I think probably no more than 30 days. Starting Quarter 1 2006, the USN will begin bringing in Block IV Tomahawks (2,500 - 3,300) over a 5 year time-frame. That's a whole lot of Tomahawks. The real issue is whether or not they will remove the Block II's from service, and how many of the previous blocks that would be.

I do agree with both Utelore and Totoro both on these issues. Both make good points. I agree with Totoro that TLAM cannot be used as an end-all weapon system. It was never intended to be that. The USN uses these as pinpoint strike weapons, for uses against myriads of targets. Some of these include Command Centers, armories, training facilities, weapons factories, fueling depots, SAM sites, C & C bunkers, high-value command, high-value asset, power-plants, etc. I've looked at the Maps of Chinese naval and coastal facilities, including regional airbases. Doing the math, you can see that it wouldn't take more than 400-500 of these weapons to do alot of damage. Add to the mix other layers and methods of attack and you have a whole lot more of the damage. Bottom line, TLAM strikes would not be used alone. They are always intended to be used with other methods of attack, supplemented by surveillance and electronic warfare evolutions. The strength in TLAM lies in quick targeting, quick launch, fast response, range, mass attack, and in the case of Block IV...retargeting, surveillance, and electronic attack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top