Obama to Kill Tomahawk, Hellfire Missile Programs

[Victorian Gray]

Wait - alien entities claiming to be G-d are fairly common in TOS?

Man, I have GOT to start reading those things before I check them off!


Two things. First,it's not at all uncommon to fire off a couple hundred a day in a normal regional conflict. In a conflict with a power such as Russia, where targets are mobile or hardened and efficient air defenses can be expected to lower the normal ~85% effectiveness to a mere fraction and take much, much longer to degrade, we could run low very quickly. Remember that we cannot dedicate every Tomahawk to a Russian-Ukrainian battle; we still have to maintain a credible deterrent world round.

Second, "is developing a successor" is a far cry from "has a successor". Defense programs in general and missile programs in particular take many years and most never make it into production.

From the same Wiki page, all the Tomahawks fired by the US Navy since 1991. In roughly 25 years 2000 have been fired in total by the US. They have at least 3500 stockpiled and will be building them for another year.


"United States Navy

• In the 1991 Gulf War, 288 Tomahawks were launched. The first salvo was fired by the cruiser USS San Jacinto on January 17, 1991. The attack submarines USS Pittsburgh and USS Louisville followed.
• On 26 June 1993, 23 Tomahawks were fired at the Iraqi Intelligence Service's command and control center.
• On 10 September 1995, the USS Normandy launched 13 Tomahawk missiles from the central Adriatic Sea against a key air defense radio relay tower in Bosnian Serb territory during Operation Deliberate Force.
• On 3 September 1996, 44 cruise missiles between UGM-109 and B-52 launched AGM-86s, were fired at air defence targets in Southern Iraq.
• On 20 August 1998, around 75 Tomahawk missiles were fired simultaneously to two separate target areas in Afghanistan and Sudan in retaliation to the bombings of American embassies by Al-Qaeda.
• On 16 December 1998, Tomahawk missiles were fired at key Iraqi targets in during Operation Desert Fox.
• In spring 1999, 218 Tomahawk missiles were fired by US ships and a British submarine during Operation Allied Force against key targets in Yugoslavia.
• In October 2001, approximately 50 Tomahawk missiles struck targets in Afghanistan in the opening hours of Operation Enduring Freedom.
• During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, more than 725 tomahawk missiles were fired at key Iraqi targets.[13]
• On 17 December 2009, two Tomahawk missiles were fired at targets in Yemen.[14] One of the targets was hit by a TLAM-D missile. The target was described as an 'alleged al-Qa’ida training camp' in al-Ma’jalah in al-Mahfad a region of the Abyan governorate of Yemen. Amnesty International reported that 55 people were killed in the attack, including 41 civilians (21 children, 14 women, and six men). The US and Yemen governments refused to confirm or deny involvement, but diplomatic cables released as part of Cablegate later confirmed the missile was fired by a US Navy ship.[15]
• On 19 March 2011, 124 Tomahawk missiles[16] were fired by U.S. and British forces (112 US, 12 British)[17] against at least 20 Libyan targets around Tripoli and Misrata.[18] As of 22 March 2011, 159 UGM-109 were fired by US and UK ships against Libyan targets.[19]
• The United States Navy has a stockpile of around 3,500 Tomahawk cruise missiles of all variants, with a combined worth of approximately US $2.6 billion.
• Tomahawk production for the United States Navy is scheduled to end in Fiscal Year 2015 "

As for your second point I suspect that you're safe:

 

[Nebor]

But we've converted entire nuclear submarines into Tomahawk missile boats. This seems ill advised. Also, having been supported many times by Kiowas & Apaches carrying hellfires, they're an effective tool in todays wars.

 

[MrPickins]

Why would nations like Russia, Iran and north Korea take our president serious when he is cutting funds to workhorse programs?

Do you still take Russia seriously after they discontinued the Mosin Nagant?

 

[finglobes]

The Navy doesn't have as many Tomahawks as I keep seeing posted. Raytheon announced its 2000th Tomahawk to the Navy back in 2010.

The military budget for China in Graph is wrong. Experts advise China's military spending is closer to (at least) two thirds more than they officially report. Based on GDP US defense spending isn't even in top 10 (Russia is).

The cruise missiles being developed to replace Tomahawks are years away from production. They don't even have a test model yet.

It is indeed foolish to announce missile cuts while world is going to hell. No doubt Obama and crew want to try and make GOP look bad and srip military while blaming sequester. They did this before playing games with sending (or not sending) a carrier to the Gulf when that area was falling apart. Indeed Bob Woodward said:



"We now have the president going out - because of this piece of paper and this agreement, saying I can't do what I need to do to protect the country. That's a kind of madness that I haven't seen in a long time."

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hil...-heats-up-sequester-fight-as-cuts-take-effect

 

[MrPickins]

Based on GDP US defense spending isn't even in top 10 (Russia is).

Based on GDP

Based on GDP

:whiste:

 

[momeNt]

Between the Federal Debt, and China's military quickly reaching and soon to surpass our own. I think Obama is setting us up for slavery to China and Russia. I don't say this lightly, and would happily eat any shit Mr. Bashir wants to feed me, but I think it's true.

Slavery and colonization is about to come back to America people.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Between the Federal Debt, and China's military quickly reaching and soon to surpass our own. I think Obama is setting us up for slavery to China and Russia. I don't say this lightly, and would happily eat any shit Mr. Bashir wants to feed me, but I think it's true.

Slavery and colonization is about to come back to America people.

In a forum full of stupid, paranoid comments, this post is still remarkable in its stupidity and paranoia.

 

[brycejones]

China's military quickly reaching and soon to surpass our own.

What time frame do you think this is happening in? China is decades away from being able to truly project power outside its region.

 

[Agent11]

The only things to fear from China are economic warfare, and the invasion of our allies located near China.

 

[momeNt]

In a forum full of stupid, paranoid comments, this post is still remarkable in its stupidity and paranoia.

My bow is as deep as Obama's to our foreign, soon to be domestic leaders.

I thank you for the kind words.

 

[JManInPhoenix]

The koolaid is flowing deep

 

[rommelrommel]

But we've converted entire nuclear submarines into Tomahawk missile boats. This seems ill advised. Also, having been supported many times by Kiowas & Apaches carrying hellfires, they're an effective tool in todays wars.

How is it ill advised? There are a ton of tomahawks, and the replacement cruise missile fires from the same launcher as the tomahawk. Also, the SSGN's are due for replacement.

If something happens where the USA is firing hundreds of tomahawks a day there are bigger problems than how many are left.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Sensationalist BS.

The Tomahawk and Hellfire are not being killed. Acquisition is being deferred as current inventory is sufficient. The plan is to gradually reduce their number and phase them out in favor of their replacements.

And its not Obama, this is a decision of the Navy. They have a reduced budget, and in order to continue funding the development of the replacements, they have to hold back on buying more Tomahawks and Hellfires.

This is also not the first time that this happened.

From Navy FY2015 [http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/15pres/WPN_BOOK.PDF]:

RE Navy Hellfires:

The Department of the Navy has achieved the Total Munitions Requirement (TMR) for Hellfire missiles; therefore, the department has deferred Hellfire procurements beginning in FY15.

RE Navy Tomahawk:

Procurement of new missiles has been suspended beginning in FY16, five years earlier than the FY2014 President's Budget Program of Record because inventory will satisfy munition requirements. The
Industrial base will be maintained to support unplanned maintenance until FY19. Missiles are scheduled to be returned to the depot starting in FY19 for planned depot maintenance (recertification). The FY15
funding strategy and porfolio requirements has been reduced to a limited production of 100 surface variant All-Up-Rounds lessening the overall risk to the industrial base. FY14 to FY15 unit cost increases are
attributed to lower procurement quantities

The Air Force is actually being MORE hellfires at an increasing rate in the upcoming years.

 

[finglobes]

"The Tomahawk and Hellfire are not being killed. Acquisition is being deferred as current inventory is sufficient. The plan is to gradually reduce their number and phase them out in favor of their replacements."


Last year the Navy planned on buying 980 Tomahawks this year. Now its down to 100 in 2015 and none after that. Something dramatically altered in a year. This all happened while the world is coming unhinged. China is bullying neighbors, Russia is taking territory, Libya was turned into Soamlia 2.0,Syria is on fire, Egypt is tipping into anarchy - and the US is dismantling its military. its all wrong. We know who all this begins with.

The "next generation weapon" is still in development. The new version for the Air Force is years away:

"The Air Force is prepared to spend $260 million on a hypersonic cruise missile design program through the 2017 fiscal year. The first phase of the program is expected to take 16 months, with total development possibly extending more than six years -- and that just for a demonstrator missile that would serve as the blueprint for any subsequent version to enter the U.S. arsenal."

Raytheon quietly developing new cruise missile technology
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/b...theon-hypersonic-cruise-missile.html?page=all

 

[Daverino]

I think it's hysterical to imagine Obama sitting down with a book full of weapons and going line-by-line deciding which ones the American military will buy and which ones the American military will not. Like a Sears catalog or something.

Seriously people, do you know what the president does? Hint: deciding the number of Hellfire missiles to buy next year is NOT one of those things.

 

[werepossum]

Sensationalist BS.

The Tomahawk and Hellfire are not being killed. Acquisition is being deferred as current inventory is sufficient. The plan is to gradually reduce their number and phase them out in favor of their replacements.

And its not Obama, this is a decision of the Navy. They have a reduced budget, and in order to continue funding the development of the replacements, they have to hold back on buying more Tomahawks and Hellfires.

This is also not the first time that this happened.

From Navy FY2015 [http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/15pres/WPN_BOOK.PDF]:

RE Navy Hellfires:


RE Navy Tomahawk:


The Air Force is actually being MORE hellfires at an increasing rate in the upcoming years.

If the Air Force is still buying Hellfires, fine. As long as we keep the lines open. Though off the top of my head I can't recall an Air Force platform that uses the Hellfire . . .

As far as the TMR, lowering it to current inventory is not necessarily the same as reaching it.

I think it's hysterical to imagine Obama sitting down with a book full of weapons and going line-by-line deciding which ones the American military will buy and which ones the American military will not. Like a Sears catalog or something.

Seriously people, do you know what the president does? Hint: deciding the number of Hellfire missiles to buy next year is NOT one of those things.

I suspect he does exactly that. There is a huge political component to arms buying - thus the very inefficient practice of spreading out production into as many Senators' states as possible - and with Obama's political capital virtually nil, he can't afford to isolate any Democrat Senators.

 

[Darwin333]

+1

nasa needs all the money it can find

and that will also upgrade our ability to fight in space

For every dollar the government spends one half of one penny of that dollar goes to NASA. That covers EVERYTHING NASA does, space telescopes, (used to) the shuttle, R&D on new vehicles, etc...

Just imagine what they could do with a single penny out of every tax dollar. 1/100... 1%.... Such a small percentage for such huge gains. Knowledge is power, we have forgotten that here in the US despite the absurd amount of money we spend on bullshit.

 

[Darwin333]

Though off the top of my head I can't recall an Air Force platform that uses the Hellfire . . .

Drones.

 

[Darwin333]

Remember that we cannot dedicate every Tomahawk to a Russian-Ukrainian battle; we still have to maintain a credible deterrent world round.

We spend well over 10 times on our .mil than Russia does. You really trying to argue that "only" having 150% of all Tomahawks ever used in war is going to make them, or any other nation, think they have the upper hand despite how much more we spend than them? Really?

Ok, so using history as a judge exactly how many of the missiles do you think we should have stockpiled? How many will be enough, in your mind, to ensure we make it to the next platform?

 

[werepossum]

Drones.

Ah, you're right. I forgot that some of those are Air Force. Probably more than are CIA.

We spend well over 10 times on our .mil than Russia does. You really trying to argue that "only" having 150% of all Tomahawks ever used in war is going to make them, or any other nation, think they have the upper hand despite how much more we spend than them? Really?

Ok, so using history as a judge exactly how many of the missiles do you think we should have stockpiled? How many will be enough, in your mind, to ensure we make it to the next platform?

I don't think it's a number so much as keeping the assembly lines open at a rate that keeps the skilled technicians employed, although the prospect of perhaps fighting a major power while having only twenty to thirty days' worth of heavy bombardment with our best stand-off weapon is not exactly pleasant. But as far as "having 150% of all Tomahawks ever used in war", we have never had Tomahawks in a war with a first rate military power. Imagine all the tons of bombs dropped on Iraq. Now think about replacing every one of those (or at least for the first few months, until we could get air supremacy) with stand-off weapons. Big, slow stand-off weapons. Now imagine the alternative - close combat. There is no possible way we can get 100,000 or even 30,000 troops into Ukraine before Russia takes most or all of it, so we'd be talking about going into complex terrain without air superiority against an entrenched enemy with at least broadly similar satellite capability. I do not believe we have the will to sustain those sort of casualties. Nor should we be forced into that fight; that's the whole point of technological advancement, to make battle as one-sided as possible. Also, our own close air support is woefully lacking, because our doctrine tacitly assumes air supremacy. That probably doesn't matter IF we can collectively keep enough fighters close enough to the front to provide cover without venturing into their air defenses, but it certainly doesn't help.

Too, what makes our weapons so singularly effective is their high tech nature. While high tech weapons are often actually easier to use, they are definitely not easier to build or maintain. Without the ability to replace Tomahawks, that 15% failure rate becomes more of an issue. And the replacement system, which will necessarily be more capable and more complex, will be that much harder to bring to maturity and production.

Worst of all is the message it sends. At the same time we're attempting to convince Putin that we can stand up to him militarily if need be, we're visibly reducing our ability to do so. The quickest way to get into a war is to convince a potential adversary that you don't have the will to win. Remember, Putin has no expectation of beating us in the long run, merely of fighting us to a bloody stalemate that will give him all of Ukraine at the least.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Ah, you're right. I forgot that some of those are Air Force. Probably more than are CIA.


I don't think it's a number so much as keeping the assembly lines open at a rate that keeps the skilled technicians employed, although the prospect of perhaps fighting a major power while having only twenty to thirty days' worth of heavy bombardment with our best stand-off weapon is not exactly pleasant. But as far as "having 150% of all Tomahawks ever used in war", we have never had Tomahawks in a war with a first rate military power. Imagine all the tons of bombs dropped on Iraq. Now think about replacing every one of those (or at least for the first few months, until we could get air supremacy) with stand-off weapons. Big, slow stand-off weapons. Now imagine the alternative - close combat. There is no possible way we can get 100,000 or even 30,000 troops into Ukraine before Russia takes most or all of it, so we'd be talking about going into complex terrain without air superiority against an entrenched enemy with at least broadly similar satellite capability. I do not believe we have the will to sustain those sort of casualties. Nor should we be forced into that fight; that's the whole point of technological advancement, to make battle as one-sided as possible. Also, our own close air support is woefully lacking, because our doctrine tacitly assumes air supremacy. That probably doesn't matter IF we can collectively keep enough fighters close enough to the front to provide cover without venturing into their air defenses, but it certainly doesn't help.

Too, what makes our weapons so singularly effective is their high tech nature. While high tech weapons are often actually easier to use, they are definitely not easier to build or maintain. Without the ability to replace Tomahawks, that 15% failure rate becomes more of an issue. And the replacement system, which will necessarily be more capable and more complex, will be that much harder to bring to maturity and production.

Worst of all is the message it sends. At the same time we're attempting to convince Putin that we can stand up to him militarily if need be, we're visibly reducing our ability to do so. The quickest way to get into a war is to convince a potential adversary that you don't have the will to win. Remember, Putin has no expectation of beating us in the long run, merely of fighting us to a bloody stalemate that will give him all of Ukraine at the least.

Good points, how do you suggest we pay for them? Keep in mind the sequester has reduced the military's budget. Would you accept new taxes to pay for these so a knowledge gape doesn't happen

 

[werepossum]

Good points, how do you suggest we pay for them? Keep in mind the sequester has reduced the military's budget. Would you accept new taxes to pay for these so a knowledge gape doesn't happen

Sequester's history, dude. The problem isn't that we are spending less money on the military, but rather that war-fighting costs partially come out of funds already earmarked for specific programs, so that every time we get into a war we cancel beaucoup programs. If I had my druthers, every military adventure would be funded solely and fully by a new tax levied on every form of income, or perhaps every form of spending. As our system stands now, a comparatively small portion of our population shoulders the burden and our military fields equipment often older than the troops using it - sometimes older than their fathers - while the rest of us may be barely aware there even is a war going on. That's not right.

As far as new taxes, I would happily accept new or higher taxes if that money went solely to the military for equipment and weapons procurement, even though unfortunately the programs funded would almost certainly be selected by political influence and prospective post-retirement employment rather than honest need.