POTUS is clearly illogical!!

[mpow66m]

:mad3:http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/03/administration_to_cancel_hellfire_and_tomahawk_missile_programs.html

[Gibsonm]

Hmm guess this fits into:

"No flames, political or religious discussions please." ??

[mpow66m]

how so its about the Military.

[Gibsonm]

Well the topic suggests that you doubt your President's sanity (whichever side of the aisle he comes from).

Surely a "Military" topic would be "Massive cut to military capability foreshadowed" or something.

One person's view of course.

[mpow66m]

Well I do doubt his sanity amongst other things,but I will rephrase the Title to a more suitable and more contemporary PC wording.:thumbup:

[Rotareneg]

The budget that article is talking about is just the US Navy, and the US Navy hasn't been using Hellfire missiles operationally, they've only been evaluating them for possible use. And, according to Wikipedia, the US Navy has 3500 Tomahawks stockpiled.

[mpow66m]

The budget that article is talking about is just the US Navy, and the US Navy hasn't been using Hellfire missiles operationally, they've only been evaluating them for possible use. And, according to Wikipedia, the US Navy has 3500 Tomahawks stockpiled.

In addition to the monetary cuts to the program, the number of actual Tomahawk missiles acquired by the United States would drop significantly—from 196 last year to just 100 in 2015. The number will then drop to zero in 2016.

The Navy will also be forced to cancel its acquisition of the well-regarded and highly effective Hellfire missiles in 2015, according to Obama’s proposal.

The proposed elimination of these missile programs came as a shock to lawmakers and military experts, who warned ending cutting these missiles would significantly erode America’s ability to deter enemy forces.

The U.S. Navy relied heavily on them during the 2011 military incursion into Libya, where some 220 Tomahawks were used during the fight.

Nearly 100 of these missiles are used each year on average, meaning that the sharp cuts will cause the Tomahawk stock to be completely depleted by around 2018. This is particularly concerning to defense experts because the Pentagon does not have a replacement missile ready to take the Tomahawk’s place.

[mpow66m]

ok,I thought he was gonna phase out all Helllfires in all branches,but the Tomahawk ,A10,reduction of nukes,troop draw down.....is bad news.Then theres this guy in Russia whos making look like a fool.

[enigma6584]

@mpow66m

So I ask you, so what?

[mpow66m]

@mpow66m

So I ask you, so what?

figure it out.

[enigma6584]

figure it out.

LMFAO! You post in here a clearly political thread. From a source which is laughable at best. And tell me to figure it out. Come now, enlighten me. Show me there is something inside you other than a Parrot.

[Tacbat]

BOC.

[RENEGADE-623]

Lets not start this into a flame war please

[cobrabase]

ok,I thought he was gonna phase out all Helllfires in all branches,but the Tomahawk ,A10,reduction of nukes,troop draw down.....is bad news.Then theres this guy in Russia whos making look like a fool.

They have been saying they will remove the A-10 from service for 23 years... still counting.

The B-52... OMG... forever.

Don't panic.

[mpow66m]

LMFAO! You post in here a clearly political thread. From a source which is laughable at best. And tell me to figure it out. Come now, enlighten me. Show me there is something inside you other than a Parrot.

umm yeah,lol

[Invader ZIM]

Sometimes these articles don't tell the whole picture.

I know we've used Tomahawks for some time, and we still have quite a few of them if the need arises.

But when they cut money from one system, it sometimes goes to another.

Look up JASSM, that is a much stealthier cruise missile meant to defeat future threats, and there's already thousands of them in U.S. inventories. It's so successful, the Navy wants in on it in the form of LRASM.

Point is, when it comes to defence budgets, sometimes a cut in one area only brings new opportunities in another. (or a name change of the program.)

Regarding the Hellfire, it's going to turn into the JAGM, better seekers combined into a single unit, a better Hellfire if you will, but, not called a Hellfire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Air_to_Ground_Missile

Don't panic

[Marko]

Sometimes these articles don't tell the whole picture.

I know we've used Tomahawks for some time, and we still have quite a few of them if the need arises.

But when they cut money from one system, it sometimes goes to another.

Look up JASSM, that is a much stealthier cruise missile meant to defeat future threats, and there's already thousands of them in U.S. inventories. It's so successful, the Navy wants in on it in the form of LRASM.

Point is, when it comes to defence budgets, sometimes a cut in one area only brings new opportunities in another. (or a name change of the program.)

Regarding the Hellfire, it's going to turn into the JAGM, better seekers combined into a single unit, a better Hellfire if you will, but, not called a Hellfire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Air_to_Ground_Missile

Don't panic

I sometimes get the impression that the four branches of the US military are in competition

With each other for funding.

I could never really understand why they don't share more weapons platforms obviously the Navy will have different Needs to the Army.

But I would wager there's a lot they could share ,and of course the poor marines first in worst equipped well in comparison to the other branches the marines were still using M-60 Tanks in OPDS.

[mpow66m]

I sometimes get the impression that the four branches of the US military are in competition

With each other for funding.

I could never really understand why they don't share more weapons platforms obviously the Navy will have different Needs to the Army.

But I would wager there's a lot they could share ,and of course the poor marines first in worst equipped well in comparison to the other branches the marines were still using M-60 Tanks in OPDS.

They are in competition with each other so to speak,look at the camo mess.Every branch has a different camo scheme.From what Ive read all the Branches are gonna use the same camo schemes and BDUs.It will save tons of money.Ths USMC always get the leftovers for some reason,I guess for being part of the USN.As far as weapon systems a ground based force is a ground based force,wheather it be the USMC or US Army,they can and do share where needed.I think developing a weapons system or platform that is to be used for multiple parties is the wise way to go,and most are,but the this is for the Army only or this is for the AF only stuff can hurt all forces in the long run.Of course the various Military entity has every right to keep its individuality and tradition.If you get what I mean.

[mpow66m]

Sometimes these articles don't tell the whole picture.

I know we've used Tomahawks for some time, and we still have quite a few of them if the need arises.

But when they cut money from one system, it sometimes goes to another.

Look up JASSM, that is a much stealthier cruise missile meant to defeat future threats, and there's already thousands of them in U.S. inventories. It's so successful, the Navy wants in on it in the form of LRASM.

Point is, when it comes to defence budgets, sometimes a cut in one area only brings new opportunities in another. (or a name change of the program.)

Regarding the Hellfire, it's going to turn into the JAGM, better seekers combined into a single unit, a better Hellfire if you will, but, not called a Hellfire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Air_to_Ground_Missile

Don't panic

Not panicing,lol.It just doesnt make sense to cut the Tomahawk when its main replacement is 10 yrs away.Theres alot of slicing and dicing in the last few years and most of it hurts out Military on the whole or as an individual serviceman.

[Invader ZIM]

LOL Marko you nailed it, like mpow66m said the branches very much are in competition for funding, and pet projects.

.I think developing a weapons system or platform that is to be used for multiple parties is the wise way to go,and most are,but the this is for the Army only or this is for the AF only stuff can hurt all forces in the long run.Of course the various Military entity has every right to keep its individuality and tradition.If you get what I mean.

When the services find they have a similar requirement and a tool is available they do tend to share on the tool. A good example of this is the MALD-J decoy. The air force was working on it, and then the Navy found it it would really help them when used with the F-18's to go against advanced air defences, currently the Navy is incorporating the Air Force's MALD-J

But like you said, each branch still has it's own specialized missions and tools and maintains their individuality and traditions. Sometimes a good idea is just a good idea though.

[Invader ZIM]

Not panicing,lol.It just doesnt make sense to cut the Tomahawk when its main replacement is 10 yrs away.Theres alot of slicing and dicing in the last few years and most of it hurts out Military on the whole or as an individual serviceman.

lol, I know you weren't panicking, just took the term from Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy. A lot of people don't usually know how the defense industry in the U.S. works, so sometimes you'll hear what sounds like horrible news of a system being taken out of service, but a little digging shows that the services already have a replacement handy and ways of dealing with an expected threat.

Like I said, JASSM is here now, it's been here for 10 years, it does replace Tomahawk, you can't imagine how much more stealthy that thing is vs. Tomahawk using the same 1000lb payload.

But I hear you, I've been laid off because of defense cuts myself. Seems a lot of people don't realise that when you cut defense spending, you cut defense jobs.

Edit: Dang, learned something new looks like Tomahawk is getting a replacement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)#Replacement

Since its introduction, about 6,000 Tomahawks have been manufactured, with 2,000 fired in combat. The Tomahawk is now facing anti-cruise missile surface-to-air missile threats. To counter this, the U.S. is developing a successor to the Tomahawk called the Cruise Missile XR (Extended Range). It will weigh 4,400 lbs, have a 2,000 km (1,200 mi) range, and a 2,000 lb warhead. It will be stealthier and use a combination of guidance and targeting systems. Each Cruise Missile XR is expected to cost $3 million.

Then you look at the other toys:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-unveils-hybrid-cruise-missileuav-plans-200272/

Lockheed Martin has unveiled plans to demonstrate a “persistent surveillance” hybrid cruise missile/unmanned air vehicle next year. Named Top Cover, the air-launched, forward-swept-wing design will have an endurance of over 24h at altitudes around 5,000ft (1,500m) and is intended to operate as a cruise missile, lethal UAV or disposable surveillance UAV.

Speaking exclusively to Flight International, Lockheed officials have also revealed concepts for a new penetrating guided bomb using the warhead from the company’s AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM); a UAV development of the Longshot strap-on wing-kit to provide battle damage assessment; and updated information on its proposed 2,270kg (5,000lb) “extreme range” (XR) version of JASSM.

Neat, so their building on the proven example of the JASSM and up scaling it for longer range and larger warhead.

A lot of time news articles are all about the sensationalism, or shock, without providing the entire story. What's in the article above seems to be the way the military is going. More advanced and more stealthy missiles that surpass the capabilities of even the latest Block IV Tomahawks.

[Homer]

"...will not be battle ready for at least 10 years, according to some experts."

This hardly qualifies as indisputable fact. I would dismiss it entirely since they do not name any of the sources.

[mpow66m]

Overall, the Navy has essentially cut in half its weapons procurement plan, impacting a wide range of tactical weapons and missiles.

Navy experts and retired officials fear that the elimination of the Tomahawk and Hellfire systems—and the lack of a battle-ready replacement—will jeopardize the U.S. Navy’s supremacy as it faces increasingly advanced militaries from North Korea to the Middle East.

The cuts are “like running a white flag up on a very tall flag pole and saying, ‘We are ready to be walked on,’” Cropsey said.

Retired Army Lt. Col. Steve Russell called the cuts to the Tomahawk program devastating for multiple reasons.

“We run a huge risk because so much of our national policy for immediate response is contingent on our national security team threatening with Tomahawk missiles,” said Russell, who is currently running for Congress.

“The very instrument we will often use and cite, we’re now cutting the program,” Russell said. “There was a finite number [of Tomahawk’s] made and they’re not being replenished.”

“If our national policy is contingent on an immediate response with these missile and we’re not replacing them, then what are we going do?” Russell asked.

North Korea, for instance, has successfully tested multi-stage rockets and other ballistic missiles in recent months. Experts say this is a sign that the Navy’s defensive capabilities will become all the more important in the Pacific in the years to come.

Meanwhile, the experimental anti-ship cruise missile meant to replace the Tomahawk program will not be battle ready for at least 10 years, according to some experts.

The Long Range Anti Ship Missile has suffered from extremely expensive development costs and has underperformed when tested.

“You have to ask yourself: An anti-ship missile is not going to be something we can drive into a cave in Tora Bora,” Russell said. “To replace it with something not needed as badly, and invest in something not even capable of passing basic tests, that causes real concern.”

The Pentagon did not return requests for comment.

Well thers this and a retired LTC speaks about the cuts.But there are way to many harmful cuts to the Military and its clearly weakining our Country.

[Invader ZIM]

The Long Range Anti Ship Missile has suffered from extremely expensive development costs and has underperformed when tested.

“You have to ask yourself: An anti-ship missile is not going to be something we can drive into a cave in Tora Bora,” Russell said. “To replace it with something not needed as badly, and invest in something not even capable of passing basic tests, that causes real concern.”

This is something I've seen before, it's an alarmist atitude to create the fear that if we don't have something NOW, then we're in trouble.

The LRASM is based off of the JASSM, expensive? Well every American cruise missile is going to be expensive, but you guys wanted something that was stealthy and could penetrate an S-400 air defense network and use multiple waypoints to come in at the target at multiple points of the compass and achieve simultaneous time on target, well mission accomplished, you have it.

And I take issue here, because the LRASM has passed all tests so far with flying colors, I'm not seeing where the system has underperformed.

http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2013/12/03.aspx

You have to ask yourself: An anti-ship missile is not going to be something we can drive into a cave in Tora Bora,” Russell said

Now that's funny, because he's relying on the people to not know their weapons systems, he's correct, you don't use the LRASM for caves in Tora Bora, you use JASSM. (See video in previous post that showcases it going into a cave mouth.)

I know, some military budget cuts hurt, but you'd be surprised at the capability the U.S. military still has even with cuts. And there's not rule that says these cuts are in stone, things change, situations change. I've seen calls already to INCREASE defense spending again because of the Crimea crisis, and not just the U.S. NATO too seems to be waking up it's defense industries for the same percieved threat. I'm not about to worry just yet.

Also, if you still like the Tomahawk: http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/5499/when-the-navy-declassifies

Let’s start with the Tomahawk inventory. I remembered the debate over Operation Allied Force, when some members of Congress were concerned that Operation Allied Force might deplete the inventory. Ron O’Rourke wrote a report for CRS that attempted to estimate the inventory based on public sources.

Turns out, the Navy has been publishing the inventory (TLAM/C-D/TacTom) all along in the O&M book, which is conveniently online dating back to FY1998:

The impact of Operation Desert Fox and Operation Allied Force on cruise missile inventories was very modest, despite concerns the Navy might run out of cruise missiles. (Admittedly, newer blocks might have been depleted first.) Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, on the other hand, resulted in a larger depletion of the cruise missile stockpile, although the Navy still had a significant number of TLAMs in reserve and quickly replenished the inventory. (I think of a “significant reserve” as more missiles in the inventory than were expended in the operation.) GAO, by the way, revealed the level of depletion in December 2003:

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, 789 Tomahawks were expended with a remaining inventory of 1,474

The numbers are probably slightly different given the date that the inventory was calcuated, although they are in general agreement.

I guess we can lay the issue of inventory depletion to rest, as well as concerns about declaring the size of the inventory.

In the course of looking at cruise missile warheads, I noticed a strange entry: nuclear weapons warheads. I rubbed my eyes. Nuclear. Weapons. Warheads. Holy crap! The Navy, between 1997-2000, listed the number of TLAM/N warheads at 337:

FY13 tomahawk supply is at 3,699 missiles.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/january/mfc-010814-lm-receives-449-million-in-contracts-for-jassm.html

“These contracts bring the total number of JASSM cruise missiles on contract to over 2,100, and underscore the U.S. Air Force’s and Lockheed Martin’s commitment to the program,”

Basically, we have cruise missiles coming out the wazoo... And one for every mission.

[Homer]

A retired (2006) army infantry officer speaking about a navy program. He has a political agenda too (I looked him up).

Expert opinion or someone who is crying, "the sky is falling! the sky is falling!"?