Understanding using Tomahawks.

ImnoMensa

New Member
I am having a problem with understanding why we used so many Tomahawk missiles in Libya.

I know that Tomahawks are a great weapon and can be used to keep our pilots safe and deliver a lot of explosives on site with accuracy.

So far in Libya I have heard no reports of Libyan aircraft leaving the ground to challenge the coalition. Some small reports of anti-aircraft, but they haven't hit anything.

Don't we have regular bombs anymore and aren't they cheaper than Tomahawks?
Don't we have A-10's in the area that can use rockets and drop bombs?

Why are we using up missiles (tomahawks) that cost a million a pop to do the job that could be done so much cheaper?

It looks to me like a terrible waste of an expensive resource, and when we run out of them we will have to use the old style bombs anyway.

Note: This is only a question as to why we picked a really expensive weapon to do the job that could be done as well with a cheaper one, not a question as to WTF we are there in the first place.
 

CrashTest

Well-Known Member
Not to mention that we have no track record of ever removing a dictator simply by shooting missiles into his country.
 

Clem_Shady

New Member
I am having a problem with understanding why we used so many Tomahawk missiles in Libya.

I know that Tomahawks are a great weapon and can be used to keep our pilots safe and deliver a lot of explosives on site with accuracy.

So far in Libya I have heard no reports of Libyan aircraft leaving the ground to challenge the coalition. Some small reports of anti-aircraft, but they haven't hit anything.

Don't we have regular bombs anymore and aren't they cheaper than Tomahawks?
Don't we have A-10's in the area that can use rockets and drop bombs?

Why are we using up missiles (tomahawks) that cost a million a pop to do the job that could be done so much cheaper?

It looks to me like a terrible waste of an expensive resource, and when we run out of them we will have to use the old style bombs anyway.

Note: This is only a question as to why we picked a really expensive weapon to do the job that could be done as well with a cheaper one, not a question as to WTF we are there in the first place.
How about we hit your question with some mensa questions?

How much would it cost in equipment and personnel to get your "A-10's" and all the things that would be required to support them into Libya?

How many lives would it endanger?

And what would it take and be the plan to get them out if say a pilot went down?

Would you have to seek permission of a bunch of other uncooperative countries to fly over their air space?

I'm really just getting started here...

:popcorn:
 

ftcret

New Member
Dont need lighting up with T-LAMs, We have assloads of these sitting around, and oddly enough, Clem makes some valid points (good job on the meds!) on air mission costs and dangers to pilots and support team...
 
What I want to know is who's lighting up the targets?
Heard on the radio this morning that Obama signed an executive order beginning of the month, end of last month, authorizing covert ops in country. That tells me that in addition to the british SAS guys, we also have spec ops personnel on the ground guiding the bombs in.
 

Aerogal

USMC 1983-1995
Dont need lighting up with T-LAMs, We have assloads of these sitting around, and oddly enough, Clem makes some valid points (good job on the meds!) on air mission costs and dangers to pilots and support team...
You don't need to light anything up - unless you want to hit a specific target. And I have news for you - they are LG.

(and before anyone gets their panties up there butt - it's public info. Google Tomohawk or TLAM)
 
Last edited:

ftcret

New Member
You don't need to light anything up - unless you want to hit a specific target. And I have news for you - they are LG.
Really? All of them? Have you ever worked on, loaded, launched or otherwise been associated with a tactical missile? Didja know they can be launched from on the sea, or under the sea? Didja know there a several modifications to payloads available including nuke? Didja know they can hit a target WITHOUT having some ground pounder shining a light? Didja have some beyatch flakes this morning? Sheesh.:duel:
 

Clem_Shady

New Member
Really? All of them? Have you ever worked on, loaded, launched or otherwise been associated with a tactical missile? Didja know they can be launched from on the sea, or under the sea? Didja know there a several modifications to payloads available including nuke? Didja know they can hit a target WITHOUT having some ground pounder shining a light? Didja have some beyatch flakes this morning? Sheesh.:duel:
Don't hammer her, she's a good person.

:popcorn:
 

Aerogal

USMC 1983-1995
Really? All of them? Have you ever worked on, loaded, launched or otherwise been associated with a tactical missile? Didja know they can be launched from on the sea, or under the sea? Didja know there a several modifications to payloads available including nuke? Didja know they can hit a target WITHOUT having some ground pounder shining a light? Didja have some beyatch flakes this morning? Sheesh.:duel:
Yes
No - but most do
Yes, Yes, Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes - but we all know how much the politco's LOVE precision to reduce collateral damage. God forbid we not leave infrastructure intact.
FY
 
Last edited:

ftcret

New Member
- In front of all these people?:smoochy:

"Tactical Tomahawk" equips the TLAM with a TV-camera for battlefield observation loitering that allows warfighting commanders to assess damage to the target and to redirect the missile to an alternative target. Additionally the Tactical Tomahawk is able to be reprogrammed in-flight to attack one of 16 predesignated targets with GPS coordinates stored in its memory or to any other GPS coordinates. Also, the missile can send data about its status back to the commander. It entered service with the US Navy in late 2004.
 

DEEKAYPEE8569

Well-Known Member
- In front of all these people?:smoochy:

"Tactical Tomahawk" equips the TLAM with a TV-camera for battlefield observation loitering that allows warfighting commanders to assess damage to the target and to redirect the missile to an alternative target. Additionally the Tactical Tomahawk is able to be reprogrammed in-flight to attack one of 16 predesignated targets with GPS coordinates stored in its memory or to any other GPS coordinates. Also, the missile can send data about its status back to the commander. It entered service with the US Navy in late 2004.
"They're far an' fuh-git." I'm quoting an Alabaman sailor here.
 

Aerogal

USMC 1983-1995
Look, suffice to say that almost ALL our arsenal of smart weapons can be configured for different mission requirements. Trust me, I know. But the cat is out of the bag when the news reports and the bigmouths in DC keep giving out a little bit of info here and there and then it all adds up to a bigger picture and sense of what's going on.

Back to the OP - Clem is spot on the 'other' cost of conventionals and I know we've had conversations before about the political reasons why we use precision weapons. Besides, the cost for them has to justified and the only way to do that is use them.
 

Mongo53

New Member
Tomhawks can hit specific targets without painting the target, but they are still just a sophisticate machine that still doesn't come close to the intelligence or adaptability of a 1st grader. They sometimes can do a better job than conventional air power, other times they can't even come close, it all depends on the circumstances.

Tomhawks, cruise missiles, etc... Can do a lot of amazing stuff, like penetrate and hit targets behind heavy air defenses without risking a pilot and much more expensive machine. They are also far more likely to dumbly fly right by their target that the enemy decided to move to the next bunker 10 minutes before it arrived.

Just like you can NOT win a war with airpower alone, you need infantry, you can NOT win an air war with automated cruise missiles alone, you need pilots in the seat and on the spot. Cruise Missiles are one wheel in the entire mechanism to a successful air campaign.

And this is what I think the O.P. was hinting out? Is the reliance of cruise missiles some sort of half-measure compromise for political considerations.

I don't know, I would have to be in the Command Operations Center to be able to tell for sure. You definitely can't count the media to have the compentence to collect the facts and analysis them with any intelligence to be able to tell us, and worse, even if they did, they have demostrated they are NOT trustworthy enough to give an unbiased and honest presentation of the facts, it will usually be twisted to reinforce thier personal world view.

Clinton, in several conflicts, it was pretty blantant he relied exclusively on Cruise Missiles, seemingly his priority was to create a perception more than have a substansive effect. I don't think this case is so cut and dry.

IMO, lots of goofish missteps to criticise Obama, including pushing for a "No-Fly Zone" when it was clear he wanted a limited Air war instead. It is a half-measure, and IMO, that is the only thing we should do. Of course, after we stop the slaughter by the brutal dictator, and then do nothing else, because we don't like the rebels any more than the dictator. OBAMA needs to back that up with some tough rehtoric for the mid-east that will once again myopically blame us for any and all problems they have. OBAMA better be ready to tell them to "Shut the @#$# UP, what did you do for you brothers and neighbors, NOTHING, your region of the world is a mess because you're cowards that won't stand up and so NO to everything wrong around you".
 

Clem_Shady

New Member
I know one thing: the next American president that sends troops into a raghead, oil pumping country and imposes that country's religious beliefs on those personnel such as no alcohol or showing the bottom of your feet to them, while serving their to save their sorry azzes, ought to be immediately impeached and tossed over the White House fence.

:popcorn:
 

chernmax

NOT Politically Correct!!
I am having a problem with understanding why we used so many Tomahawk missiles in Libya.

I know that Tomahawks are a great weapon and can be used to keep our pilots safe and deliver a lot of explosives on site with accuracy.

So far in Libya I have heard no reports of Libyan aircraft leaving the ground to challenge the coalition. Some small reports of anti-aircraft, but they haven't hit anything.

Don't we have regular bombs anymore and aren't they cheaper than Tomahawks?
Don't we have A-10's in the area that can use rockets and drop bombs?

Why are we using up missiles (tomahawks) that cost a million a pop to do the job that could be done so much cheaper?

It looks to me like a terrible waste of an expensive resource, and when we run out of them we will have to use the old style bombs anyway.

Note: This is only a question as to why we picked a really expensive weapon to do the job that could be done as well with a cheaper one, not a question as to WTF we are there in the first place.
Because just $1 million dollar Tomahawk is capable of killing a site that can shoot down a $30 million dollar aircraft!

Not to mention an entire command and control site!

A lost pilot is worth millions from all his specialized training!

Some variants of Tomahawks can hit 4 sites with 1 missle using bomblets!
 
Last edited:

Clem_Shady

New Member
Because just $1 million dollar Tomahawk is capable of killing a site that can shoot down a $30 million dollar aircraft!

Not to mention an entire command and control site!

Some variants of Tomahawks can hit 4 sites with 1 missle using bomblets!
Look, you guys are talking to someone who's idea of logistics is going down to Murphy's market in Avenue, getting some toilet paper, a loaf of bread, some gas, and a lottery ticket that he prays will get him the hell out of there.

:popcorn:
 
Top