Russia strikes Poland with 19 drones, what should NATO do? (Poll)

[Mushroom]

What a sane question! How come?

Because the Tomahawk is only launched from ships, and Ukraine does not have any ships capable of launching them.

And without any means of launching them, what good are they?

Oh, there was the TLAM-N that was ground launched, but all of those and their launchers were destroyed back in 1991 in compliance with the INF. And those were all nuclear armed anyways, no way in hell we would give those out even if we still had them.

Now there once was a project to build an air launched Tomahawk known as the AGM-109H/L MRASM. But that was killed way the hell back during the Clinton Administration.

So I am really confused why so many people are demanding that the US send to Ukraine a weapon they can not even use.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Because the Tomahawk is only launched from ships, and Ukraine does not have any ships capable of launching them.

And without any means of launching them, what good are they?

Oh, there was the TLAM-N that was ground launched, but all of those and their launchers were destroyed back in 1991 in compliance with the INF. And those were all nuclear armed anyways, no way in hell we would give those out even if we still had them.

Now there once was a project to build an air launched Tomahawk known as the AGM-109H/L MRASM. But that was killed way the hell back during the Clinton Administration.

So I am really confused why so many people are demanding that the US send to Ukraine a weapon they can not even use.

Battleships had ABLs. I am sure that something like that could be fitted to truck trailers.

 

[Mushroom]

Battleships had ABLs. I am sure that something like that could be fitted to truck trailers.

Which is not going to be done quickly or easily. Not something that they might be able to use in 1-2 years after a lot of R&D and experimentation.

Just to give an idea, the Army's GLCM started development in 1973. And they had to develop both a missile capable of being launched from the ground, and a launcher and all the support equipment. And that took the US a decade, it was not fielded until 1983.

These are not Katyusha rockets that can just be tossed on the back of a pickup.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Which is not going to be done quickly or easily. Not something that they might be able to use in 1-2 years after a lot of R&D and experimentation.

Just to give an idea, the Army's GLCM started development in 1973. And they had to develop both a missile capable of being launched from the ground, and a launcher and all the support equipment. And that took the US a decade, it was not fielded until 1983.

These are not Katyusha rockets that can just be tossed on the back of a pickup.

That's funny! My Harpoon missiles literally came in a canister that we bolted to support frames and attached a cable with pin connections to the ship. That took about a week's worth of design work to build the racks! getting the canisters on the racks was fun. That was a couple days of school work and practice.

 

[Mushroom]

My Harpoon missiles

Well, this should be more than obvious, but Harpoon Missiles are not Tomahawk missiles.

In fact, sending them Harpoon missiles would actually make a hell of a lot more sense than Tomahawk missiles, as those actually exist already exist in an air-to-land configuration known as the AGM-84 SLAM-ER.

You are aware of the huge differences between a Harpoon and a Tomahawk, right? Such as the Harpoon has an active guidance system, and the Tomahawk is for most of their flight operating off of a pre-programmed route put in it's inertial navigation system.

But would you not agree, that if we are going to send cruise missiles to Ukraine, would not the AGM-84 or AGM-158 make a lot more sense? Those are already air-to-ground missiles, and can be fired from the F-16 which they are about to get.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Well, this should be more than obvious, but Harpoon Missiles are not Tomahawk missiles.

In fact, sending them Harpoon missiles would actually make a hell of a lot more sense than Tomahawk missiles, as those actually exist already exist in an air-to-land configuration known as the AGM-84 SLAM-ER.

You are aware of the huge differences between a Harpoon and a Tomahawk, right? Such as the Harpoon has an active guidance system, and the Tomahawk is for most of their flight operating off of a pre-programmed route put in it's inertial navigation system.

But would you not agree, that if we are going to send cruise missiles to Ukraine, would not the AGM-84 or AGM-158 make a lot more sense? Those are already air-to-ground missiles, and can be fired from the F-16 which they are about to get.

Physically, the missiles are not that different in size is my point, jarhead!

 

[Mushroom]

Physically, the missiles are not that different in size is my point, jarhead!

Operationally they are as different as night and day.

If "physically" was all that mattered, we would have seen Tomahawks operating from aircraft four decades ago. So obvious there is something much more important here than "physical". And there was an attempt three decades ago to put them on aircraft, never happened. So obviously there is much more involved than just the size.

But go ahead, continue on about the size and ignore everything else.

 

[Zebra]

3 of 9 say .... sink the ghost fleet!