Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/15/2006 9:33:54 AM EDT
Raytheon Awarded $346 Million for Block IV Tomahawk Missile Production



TUCSON, Ariz., March 15, 2006 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN)
has been awarded a $346 million contract increment to supply the U.S. and
United Kingdom navies with the Block IV (Tactical) Tomahawk cruise missile.
This is the third installment on a multi-year contract whose value could reach
$1.6 billion.

The fiscal year 2006 production contract calls for production of 473
missiles, 65 of which are the submarine torpedo tube-launched variant for the
U.K. Manufacturing work will be done at Raytheon's Missile Systems businesses
in Tucson, Ariz., and Camden, Ark., and is expected to be completed in 2009.
Raytheon began delivering Block IV missiles to the U.S. Navy in mid-2004.

Block IV Tomahawk is the next generation of the Tomahawk family of cruise
missiles, incorporating innovative technologies to provide new, flexible
operational capability while dramatically reducing acquisition, operations and
lifecycle support costs.

Raytheon Company, with 2005 sales of $21.9 billion, is an industry leader
in defense and government electronics, space, information technology,
technical services, and business and special mission aircraft. With
headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 80,000 people worldwide.

Note to editors:
Block IV Tomahawk is the centerpiece of the Navy's new Tomahawk Baseline
IV Weapons System. The system integrates the Block IV missile with improved
mission planning and platform weapons control capabilities. This latest
version of the Navy's surface- and submarine-launched precision strike
standoff weapon incorporates innovative technologies to provide unprecedented
operational capabilities while dramatically reducing acquisition, operations
and support costs. The Block IV missile has a 15-year warranty and
recertification cycle, compared with the Block III variant's eight-year
recertification cycle.

The new capabilities that Block IV Tomahawk brings to the Navy's sea
strike capability are derived from the missile's 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 preprogrammed alternate
targets 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. For the first time,
firing platforms will have the capability to plan and execute missions. This
new capability will provide Global Positioning System-only missions. Block IV
will also introduce an improved anti-jam GPS receiver for enhanced mission
performance.

The Navy and Raytheon have entered into a five-year procurement contract
to replenish Tomahawk inventory at the most affordable cost. The legacy
program Tomahawk missile is the Navy's weapon of choice for critical,
long-range precision strike missions against high value, heavily defended
targets. The Block IV costs about half the price of a newly built Block III
missile.

Link Posted: 3/15/2006 9:46:09 AM EDT
Wow! Who do we get to test this on?
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 11:21:05 AM EDT
I wonder how many Tomahawks we get for $346 mil? I also wonder if this purchase will go to mostly fill the tubes of the newly converted Tactical Trident SSGN's?
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 11:21:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:
I wonder how many Tomahawks we get for $346 mil? I also wonder if this purchase will go to mostly fill the tubes of the newly converted Tactical Trident SSGN's?



The fiscal year 2006 production contract calls for production of 473
missiles, 65 of which are the submarine torpedo tube-launched variant for the
U.K.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 1:10:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:
I wonder how many Tomahawks we get for $346 mil? I also wonder if this purchase will go to mostly fill the tubes of the newly converted Tactical Trident SSGN's?



The fiscal year 2006 production contract calls for production of 473
missiles, 65 of which are the submarine torpedo tube-launched variant for the
U.K.



I wonder how many missile tubes the USN has total? It has to be an ass-load. DDG's have 80 or more cells. The Tac-Trident can hold 154 total for Tomahawks. 400 Tomahawks for 1 year ain't too shabby.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 1:16:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:
I wonder how many Tomahawks we get for $346 mil? I also wonder if this purchase will go to mostly fill the tubes of the newly converted Tactical Trident SSGN's?



The fiscal year 2006 production contract calls for production of 473
missiles, 65 of which are the submarine torpedo tube-launched variant for the
U.K.



I wonder how many missile tubes the USN has total? It has to be an ass-load. DDG's have 80 or more cells. The Tac-Trident can hold 154 total for Tomahawks. 400 Tomahawks for 1 year ain't too shabby.


Four SSGNs with 154 cells each.
Most SSNs have 12.
DDGs could carry 90 to 96 depending on the Flight. (28 and ~16 respectively)
CGs could carry 122. (I think we have 22 of these.)
Of course, CGs and DDGs like to carry other things.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 1:33:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
Of course, CGs and DDGs like to carry other things.


I was shocked to read that the Mk41 was not able to be reloaded at sea. That really limits how long these ships can stay on station. I mean, with the size of CVBGs diminishing, there are only so many SM-2s to go around if the battle group came under attack. Once they're gone, you've got to withdrawl because the AOEs can't reload the cells.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 1:38:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TheCynic:

Originally Posted By dport:
Of course, CGs and DDGs like to carry other things.


I was shocked to read that the Mk41 was not able to be reloaded at sea. That really limits how long these ships can stay on station. I mean, with the size of CVBGs diminishing, there are only so many SM-2s to go around if the battle group came under attack. Once they're gone, you've got to withdrawl because the AOEs can't reload the cells.


Depends on the Mk41 variant.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 1:38:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By SmilingBandit:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:
I wonder how many Tomahawks we get for $346 mil? I also wonder if this purchase will go to mostly fill the tubes of the newly converted Tactical Trident SSGN's?



The fiscal year 2006 production contract calls for production of 473
missiles, 65 of which are the submarine torpedo tube-launched variant for the
U.K.



I wonder how many missile tubes the USN has total? It has to be an ass-load. DDG's have 80 or more cells. The Tac-Trident can hold 154 total for Tomahawks. 400 Tomahawks for 1 year ain't too shabby.


Four SSGNs with 154 cells each.
Most SSNs have 12.
DDGs could carry 90 to 96 depending on the Flight. (28 and ~16 respectively)
CGs could carry 122. (I think we have 22 of these.)
Of course, CGs and DDGs like to carry other things.



That's still a lot of whoop-ass. What about Virginia Class? Seawolfe can also tac-tom's launch via torpedo tube can it not?
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 1:59:45 PM EDT
Raytheon CompanyLast: 45.27 Change: +0.23 Volume: 2,192,600



Raytheon Company: Stock Rating SummaryRaytheon Company, a large-cap value company in the capital goods sector, is expected to outperform the market over the next six months with very low risk.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 2:45:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shane333:
Wow! Who do we get to test this on?



Damascus and Tehran are on top of a very short list.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 3:13:26 PM EDT
Good! This way we can bring the joys of Shock and Awe to Iran, China, and N. Korea!


-K
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 5:22:59 PM EDT
The cost per Tomahawk is $73,000? Damn that's a bargain, a Hellfire is $100,000 per missile.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 8:58:59 PM EDT
I wonder if any more thought had been given to this............

Multiwarhead Tomahawk could strike many targets
Sea Power, Nov 2003 by Keeter, Hunter C


Spin-Offs May Affect Other Munitions as Engineers Leverage Sub-Warhead Technology

NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER, DAHLGREN, Va.-An advanced version of the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM), armed with seven warheads rather than one, could dramatically improve the Navy's land attack capability while helping to maintain the competitive edge of this key weapon, according to officials here and a senior congressional analyst. As demonstrated in conflicts such as Operation Iraqi Freedom, the military requires the ability to strike precisely at numerous targets in complicated terrain. Improving the capability of mainstay systems such as TLAM is one way the Navy plans to get more from investments already made in long-range striking power.

The Tomahawk missile long has been the Navy's premier land attack weapon. Nearly 300 missiles were launched in Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and more than 700 were launched against Saddam Hussien's army in Operation Iraqi Freedom by attack submarines and surface ships. Built by Raytheon Company's Missile Systems Unit, Tucson, Ariz., the 20-foot cruise missile, guided by terrain comparison and digital scene mapping computer software and Global Positioning System satellites, usually is armed with a 700-pound titanium blastfragment warhead.

The Navy now is buying an upgraded version of the TLAM, known as Block IV, or Tactical Tomahawk. The new TLAM is expected to offer increased range, and more flexible guidance, as well as the ability to loiter over a target area after being launched from a ship or submarine. Using coded radio messages, the missile could be re-directed to attack a new target.

Here at Dahlgren, ordnance designers hope to take the new TL AM's warhead capability one step further. Under a project titled Multiple Responsive Ordnance (MRO) the Tomahawk could be fitted with seven independent warheads, each with its own guidance system and capable of acting independently or together as a single weapon. The TLAM could release some of its payload to attack opportune targets on the way to destroy a site programmed into the missile's memory banks before launch.
Walter E. Hoye, principal scientist for ordnance systems, told Sea Power the MRO concept could build upon the Tomahawk's proven capability to penetrate and destroy hardened structures, such as enemy bunkers. In the near future, several Tomahawks could be launched to destroy a target and, finding their objective already eliminated by earlier rounds, follow-on missiles could be diverted to use their independently programmable warheads to kill additional targets.

"Here is an elaboration or more advanced concept for implementing a longstanding idea of having the TLAM carry multiple munitions," Ronald O'Rourke, a senior analyst with the Congressional Research Service, told Sea Power. "The MRO project would allow the Tomahawk to take better advantage of improvements in precision guidance and small munitions that are becoming available to the manned aircraft community. This has the potential to make the Tomahawk more cost effective in the sense that a single weapon could attack multiple targets."

Hoye and other scientists at Dahlgren's weapons lab point to the difference between sub-warheads and sub-munitions. A sub-munition is generally thought of in association with cluster bombs or other types of weapons that may be able to spread unguided mine-like, or grenade-like, objects around a target area. A subwarhead, when it separates from the main weapon, would be independently targeted and guided to its goal.

"The Tomahawk is getting away from some of the smaller sub-munitions because these have been found not to be as effective as desired," David Cooke, head of Dahlgren munitions program's strike group, told Sea Power. "Under the MRO project, if you needed a unitary warhead, you could keep the individual sub-war-heads in the package and take them all into the target. But each of the sub-war-heads could have its own guidance system and could be released at some earlier point, and they would know to go to specific targets."

The Tomahawk program also is under pressure from new concepts such as the Affordable Weapon, being developed by the Office of Naval Research, O'Rourke noted. With the newest version of TLAM expected to cost half a million dollars, the Affordable Weapon cruise missile, offering a price tag closer to $50,000 per unit, has the attention of some in the Navy and Congress. The Affordable Weapon system is not expected to have the range or payload capacity of Tomahawk, but improving the ability of the more expensive missile precisely to strike at multiple targets may go a long way toward maintaining TLAM's competitive edge, according to O'Rourke. Last year, the Office of Naval Research continued its relationship with the San Diego-based firm, International Systems, under a $25 million contract operating through April 2004.

The Navy's efforts to improve current cruise missile capability, whether through advanced warhead concepts such as the one conceived at Dahlgren, or the TLAM's competitor, Affordable Weapon, fit into an overall plan to boost striking power from the sea to shore. With ships and submarines being improved to carry large volumes of weapons, such as the SSGN conversion plan to refit four Trident nuclear ballistic-missile submarines to carry as many as 154 TLAMs, added capacity in the weapons themselves could further amplify the conventional striking power of tomorrow's fleet.

Spin-off technology from efforts such as Dahlgren's MRO for TLAM could benefit other systems. The Navy is considering sub-warhead technology's application for the Joint Stand-Off Weapon, a glide bomb launched by manned aircraft, and for the CBU-97 sub-munitions bomb. The Air Force's Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles, and the Army's Tactical Missile Systems, are examples of products that could also employ sub-warhead technology.

Meanwhile, other efforts are underway at the Dahlgren weapons lab. One of those is a project to reduce the collateral damage of a conventional blastfragment warhead on a bomb or missile. Under a project titled Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME), Dahlgren scientists are studying the effects of adding dense metallic particles, such as tungsten, to a high-explosive chemical mixture. According to tests performed at Eglin Air Force Base, FIa., the detonation of such a mixture shows increased deadly effects at a slightly greater range from the center of blast, contrasted with conventional explosives. But the DIME mixture's lethality falls sharply a short range from the blast center, reducing the chance of destroying something other than the intended target.

The DIME concept is particularly interesting to the Navy for use in urban areas. Cook explains: "a normal blastfrag warhead has high-explosive putting fragments out. You get a high probability of kill, but it lasts for quite a distance. That means that if you were to drop a blast-frag weapon in the middle of a city block you would be doing a lot of damage in an urban area," which is not always the effect U.S. forces want to achieve. With DIME, the blast effect equals that of a blast-fragment weapon, but the chances of collateral damage appear to be substantially less, said Cook. Another series of DIME technology tests is planned later this year at Eglin Air Force Base.

By HUNTER C. KEETER

Link Posted: 3/15/2006 9:01:14 PM EDT
If the sub-warhead configuration were loaded on an SSGN, that would be 1,078 guided warheads from one vessel.
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 9:05:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:
The cost per Tomahawk is $73,000? Damn that's a bargain, a Hellfire is $100,000 per missile.



Your math is off, its just under a million a missile, at 730,000 each. JDAMs are $33K, and carry twice the warhead (depending on version).
Link Posted: 3/15/2006 9:47:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/15/2006 9:49:47 PM EDT by COLE-CARBINE]

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:
The cost per Tomahawk is $73,000? Damn that's a bargain, a Hellfire is $100,000 per missile.



Your math is off, its just under a million a missile, at 730,000 each. JDAMs are $33K, and carry twice the warhead (depending on version).



I thought that looked funny. LOL. Forgot the extra zero. JDAMS are great too, so in the true Arfcom tradition, Get both!
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 8:06:16 AM EDT
Top Top