US Navy Wants To Stop Production Of Tomahawk Cruise Missiles

Donate

US Navy Wants To Stop Production Of Tomahawk Cruise Missiles

Illustrative image

The US Navy intends to cut off the production of Tomahawk cruise missiles, which do not conform to the modern standards, according to the Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Plan.

“The Navy once again wants to end production of new Tomahawk missiles, focusing instead on the recertification process for the existing inventory,” the document reads.

The US Defense One news website explained the need to remove Tomahawk cruise missiles as its effectiveness reduces general defense of the country:

“Like any weapon, Tomahawk will ultimately require replacement — and improvements in enemy tech means the need is urgent. The main lines of effort to create a faster, stealthier, more lethal precision strike weapon include the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, or LRASM, and the Next Generation Land Attack weapon, or NGLAW.”

However, the Defense One also pointed out the “increasing need” of these cruise missiles due to the “past success” of these weapons.

The latest “success” of Tomahawk cruise missiles was observed in the massive missile strikes on Syria on April 14, carried out by the US, France and the UK in response a supposed chemical weapons attack in Douma on April 7, allegedly carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

On April 14, a spokesperson for the US Department of Defense Dana W. White stressed that “operation was carefully orchestrated and methodically planned” and the US “successfully hit every target”.

This version was refuted by the Russian Ministry of Defense.

On April 25, the chief of the Russian General Staff’s main operations directorate Colonel-General Sergey Rudskoy said that among alleged 105 missiles launched by the US-led coalition only 22 missiles had hit targets in Syria. 71 missiles were intercepted by the Syrian Air Defense Forces and a part of the missiles failed to reach their targets by different, apparently technical, reasons.

A previous occurrence was on April 7, 2017, when the US Navy carried out a missile strike on Shayrat military airfield of the Syrian Arab Air Force. The US launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles.

On April 10, US Secretary of Defense James Mattis claimed that the strike had resulted in a great damage of the Syrian facilities in the area.

Later, the Russian Defense Ministry described the “combat effectiveness” of the attack as “extremely low” adding that only 23 missiles hit the target.

The question arises as to whether the desire to cut off the production of Tomahawk cruise missiles may be connected to the above-mentioned events.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Starlight

    As Trump continues the march to war on Iran with Putin’s passive assistance every step of the way, this non-story is what SF wastes its time on?

    • as

      I at least know where your allegiance at. How you defended kurds which act the same way as the invading occupants of Jerusalem say it all.

  • as

    Yep. The truth need no enforcement.

  • Jesus

    Tomahawk cruise missile has been an ineffective weapon for the last 2 decades or more, its much ballyhooed success was mere propaganda in order to project an aura of high offensive capability, to scare more limited countries and to sell more weapons worldwide.
    The presumed next generation anti ship missiles and attack cruise missiles to be built by the MIC remains to be seen if it becomes a tangible capable system, or just more talk to milk funds for fruitless projects.

    • as

      It stems from the missile mission objective which is precise ground attacks. So naturally they’d need big payload to deliver.
      Missile engine + guidance system + big payload + long cruising range. Results in relatively slow missile.
      On the contrary air defence missiles do not need to carry big payload thus able to achieve most of it’s maneuverability and speed.
      Like their Hollywood indeed they rather cover them up with dumb lies and make believe.

      • FlorianGeyer

        The US should keep some for when the US is fighting people with only bows and arrows for defence . Its the American Way :)

      • Jesus

        Yes, the Tomahawk was designed to attack fixed targets, the location of such targets were known therefore a flight pattern was developed for the missile to fly at low level and approach the target without being much noticed, due to inferior air defense systems, by countries like Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia…etc.
        The Tomahak can be jammed easily by competent EW capability, also point defenses like Pantsir can fire Mach 3 air defense missiles that easily outmanever and kill subsonic targets.
        On the other hand the Kalibr can fly most of its trajectory subsonically, and when it gets close to the target it accelerates to Mach3 giving air defenses very short time to react.
        It is jam resistant, the only weapon that might be effective against it is the Barrack, an Israeli/Indian jointly developed missile.

        • as

          Even then they’re not actually used to penetrate and kill air defence. They go with F15 accompanied with electronic warfare planes.

          • Jesus

            In the first Iraq war the cruise missiles were used to take out fixed radar stations, command posts, communication nodes…etc, making it easier for the air force to go in unimpeded.

          • SnowCatzor

            Actually the very first air assets to attack Iraq were Apaches, they flew in low and attacked early warning radars.

          • Selbstdenker

            actually, the US used their no fly zone to get rid of Iraqi Air defense capabilities. Whenever an overflying US plane controlling the no fly zone was locked by an air defense radar, US took it as hostile act and destroyed the air defense system. This thinned out the defense until the real war started.

          • Sinbad2

            That is the American method of attack, they use missiles to destroy the air defenses of the victim, then follow up with massive air strikes.
            It’s very effective against 3rd world countries, which is what the US specializes in.

          • as

            Was it ?

          • Jesus

            The cruise missile onslaught was intended to soften up the of enemy’s fixed SAMs, radar, command and communication nodes, before the air force went in. Same concept of bombarding a shoreline before you do an actual landing.

          • as

            I read It’s the low flying Apache helicopter, some Nighthawk, and fast flying F15 with jammers. I’ll look into it then.

          • Jesus

            I think almost 300 cruise missiles were used. Yea, the Apaches were used as well.

        • Sinbad2

          Actually the Kalibr is a modular design, they can swap motors and warheads, so they can be either a subsonic turbofan motor for long range, or a solid fueled rocket for high speed.
          The whole concept is light years ahead of American rocketry.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M-54_Kalibr

          • Jesus

            I was referring to the land attack version that has a range of +2500Kms, there are multiple versions deployed from subs and ships with anti ship and land attack capability.

    • gustavo

      Tomahawk were an effective offensive weapon, but not anymore. Russia has found the way to stop these missiles effectively without using any missiles, just electronic warfare. Of course, S-300 or S-400 system can shoot down any of these Tomahawk.

      • Jesus

        Yes I agree, Russian EW will revolutionize conventional warfare as a passive mode of defense that is highly effective in disrupting US high tech weaponry.

        • as

          Soon all manner of electronic signal usage be it datalink or communications would be vulnerable to total shutdown. Drone and gps guided system soon find itself redundant if not obsolete.

  • Smith Ricky

    The most useless and expensive weaponry thats why.

  • Ilya

    Well, they sure learn slow, but they learn.. maybe, just maybe they will consider modern missile defence capabilities when they plan the design for the next one. Probably though, it’ll just be another out of date thing.

    • FlorianGeyer

      Lets hope it is an ‘ Out of date thing’ Ilya.

    • as

      They believe that they can just overwhelming the AD installation with salvos of many subsonic cruise missile. No matter how expensive it could get i guess.

  • BMWA1

    Trump’s smart missiles are perhaps TOO smart, to the point of insubordination?

    • FlorianGeyer

      Are they smart enough to play golf :)

      • They’d help one score a hole-in-one?

        • FlorianGeyer

          They would only succeed with a rabbit hole I would think.

  • You can call me Al

    The crap stopping crap, nothing more folks.

  • FlorianGeyer

    ” “operation was carefully orchestrated and methodically planned” and the US “successfully hit every target”.”

    Its satisfying that the US administration is now believing its own propaganda bullshit now. Whenever that has happened in history the end is nigh for such hubristic clowns.

  • Dr. Pro Liv

    Trump’s “nice” and “new” and “smart” missiles turned to be CRAP….

  • SnowCatzor

    Hmmm, convenient timing much? I thought these missiles were ‘New, Smart and 100% effective’ – wasn’t that the propaganda line we were sold last month?

    Looks like US government just admitted that their attack on Syria failed, and now they’re trying to quietly rush through the creation of an effective replacement.

  • Sinbad2

    The US has not come up with a new missile in a long time, they just keep upgrading the old designs.
    Large parts of the spaceX missiles were actually designed in Ukraine.
    The problem is because of the way things work in the USA, were a below average banker earns a lot more money than a genius rocket scientist, there are very few capable rocket scientists in the USA.

    And it’s not just rocketry, look how long it has taken to get the F35 into service, 26 years.
    But having said that, the US military should not be underrated, as they use attrition to defeat the enemy, just like the great powers did in WWI.
    They will literally keep throwing men and machines at the enemy, until the enemy runs out of bullets, just as the US did in its bombing campaign against Germany during WWII. The German fighters shot down so many American bombers, that they ran out of ammunition, but the bombers kept coming.

  • Russia should stop this nonsense of knocking the fabulous Tomahawk missile that hits 100% of its targets everytime. Look at the result – now the UN Navy wants to replace them!

    Face it, push is going to come to shove and there is absolutely no downside to your enemy having missiles that he thinks are 100% accurate but actually are on target only 1-20% of the time.