Here's video of the US Navy testing a 'game changing' new missile

businessinsider.com ^ | Feb. 11, 2015 | Jeremy Bender

[Berlin_Freeper]

... Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, the Pentagon's second-highest-ranked civilian, praised the successful test of the missile during a keynote speech at the WEST 2015 conference. He said the missiles were part of the Pentagon's "Third Offset Strategy," an initiative focused on research into new long-range weapons.

“A big part of the Third Offset Strategies is to find new and innovative ways to deploy promising technologies,” Work said. “This is potentially a game changing capability for not a lot of cost. It’s a 1000 mile anti-ship cruise missile.”

[Boiler Plate]

So the the weak point is the F-18 getting shot down?

[Tenacious 1]

There was no revelation about how “stand off” the F-18 needs to be. We assume it must be in at least radar range for a moving target. Right? But consider this. An F-18 can’t fly 2,000 miles round trip without refueling (at least not in combat configuration and speed that I know of). The F-18 is presumably a carrier configured jet. But I suppose the technology does not have to specifically be limited to the F-18. I don’t know and am just guessing.

[Cry if I Wanna]

By converting TLAMs into missiles capable of penetrating thickly-armored vessels at sea..

Thickly armored? Are any warships thickly armored anymore?

[Red Badger]

We’re obviously playing the wrong game................

[musicman]

Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[pfflier]

I don't get the hype. We built Tomahawk TASM variants in the 1980's Why is this now "new" tecnology? Also MacDac built the Harpoon and the Tomahawk used it's anti-ship guidance system.

Most TASM's were converted to TLAM variants. So, the best I can say is that Tomahawk anti-shiop variants are being reborn.

[McGruff]

It’s a 1000 mile anti-ship cruise missile.

Why just an anti-ship missile? Seems like there could be multiple uses for it.

[Berlin_Freeper]

“This is a significant accomplishment,” said Capt. Joe Mauser, Tomahawk Weapons System (PMA-280) program manager. "It demonstrates the viability of long-range communications for position updates of moving targets. This success further demonstrates the existing capability of Tomahawk as a netted weapon, and in doing so, extends its reach beyond fixed and re-locatable points to moving targets.”

[Berlin_Freeper]

If the Navy can perfect the methodology, it would give the service an almost 1,000 nautical mile extension – the range of the TLAM — of its lethal anti-surface radius for its newer guided missile destroyers, which are not fitted with the service’s aging RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missile.

[dainbramaged]

Are any warships thickly armored anymore?
Not like the Iowa Class battleships from WWII, which had 18 inches of laminated steel at the waterline.

[aegiscg47]

No, anything hit by a Harpoon or comparable sized SSM would be a mission kill at the very least. Most corvettes (which make up a sizable percentage of the world's surface forces) would be knocked out or burned to the waterline while frigates would be hard pressed to continue the fight. Larger ships like the Burkes and Ticos could continue the fight depending upon where they got hit, while carriers like the Nimitz class would shrug it off unless it's the size of Tomahawk or SS-N-22.

[Freeport]

So, you didn’t read the article as usual. This is a SHIP based missile.

The F-18, in this case, was a chase plane filming the missiles flight.

[Red_Devil 232]

Read again the article clearly states "a TLAM which was guided into a moving maritime target through directions given by a Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet flying overhead.

[PapaBear3625]

There was no revelation about how “stand off” the F-18 needs to be.

I'm guessing it doesn't have to be an F-18. A satellite, a Predator done (or some future stealthy naval drone), a submarine -- anything that can observe the target and transmit terminal guidance info to the missile.

[gaijin]

Later

[Daus]

I'm guessing it doesn't have to be an F-18.

Correct, the real scenario is a MQ-4C Triton drone (naval Globalhawk) or P8 flying hundreds of miles in front of the battle group messaging back the targeting info to Destroyer which will launch the Tomahawk and then have those coordinates updated as the missile progresses to account for moving ships. Once the missile get's close it will guide itself in using it's own seeker.

The ability to update targeting in flight is the critical part. Sure, we've had long distance Tomahawks for a long time but they were only good for hitting static land targets. 1000 miles at launch means almost two hours in the air. A ship or a Bin Laden doesn't sit still that long.

[skyman]

Doesn’t their slow speed this make them defensible?

China and Russia have some fairly long range anti-shop misslies that are mach 2 or 3 which makes them much harder to shoot down, don’t they?

[Rappini]

Those pidgin’s had wheels up before the missile got there.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I imagine next generation naval weaponry as very heavy with fleets of drone aircraft, surface and subsurface craft.

Importantly, a UUV submarine, for example, does not have to be particularly quiet as it engages potential targets, and can even use active sonar against them. And if it does not encounter any enemy, it can be picked up at leisure, later.