why are we using cruise missiles

[Zigrat]

Uhm why not just drop JDAMs. Jdam costs less than 1/10 the cost of a cruise missile.  Yes teh aircraft has to fly the sortie but it can carry 4 jdams easy and hit alot of stuff. seems like iraqi AAA is pretty crap and it would be alot cheaper.

[Chairboy]

A couple reasons I can think of.

Any time you can avoid putting a pilot in harms way, take it.

Additionally, some of the Tomahawk strikes are utilizing time on target planning techniques that allow for multiple simultaneous strikes within a few seconds of each other.  To get the same effect with airplanes, you'd need many more planes flying, and the more planes you have overhead at any time, the better chance the Iraqis have of shooting someone down.

JDAMs are incredible, but remember, when your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.  There are times when it's worth the cost of using Tomahawks.

[john9001]

they use tomahawks to give the navy something to do

[BGBMAW]

crusie missles cost a fraction of what an American or allied pilots life/training and plane costs


Pretty simple..

o yaa  they can go under radar too:

[Raubvogel]

The word Tomahawk sounds cooler.

[Tracer-15]

u remeber all those explosions all within a minute of each other when that shock and awe campaign began....that was the time on target planning with tommahawks

[lord dolf vader]

5 mill a pop

[funkedup]

Cruise missiles don't put a pilot at risk if there is heavy air defense.  Iraqi AAA may be crap but even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.
Cruise missiles have big-ass warheads (up to 3000 lb) and some macho penetrators.
All the cruise missiles are now available with a GPS upgrade that gives them similar CEP to JDAM or JSOW.
And the more older cruise missiles they shoot up, the more new goodies they can ask for from Congress.  TLAM and CALCM are old systems, and you know they want some new replacements.

[Toad]

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
5 mill a pop

Anything negative, right? True or not?

From: FAS.org

Primary Function:  Long-range subsonic cruise missile for attacking land targets.
 
Contractor:  Hughes Missile Systems Co., Tucson, Ariz.
 
Power Plant:  Williams International F107-WR-402 cruise turbo-fan engine; solid-fuel booster
 
Length:  18 feet 3 inches (5.56 meters); with booster: 20 feet 6 inches (6.25 meters)
 
Weight:  2,650 pounds (1192.5 kg); 3,200 pounds (1440 kg) with booster
 
Diameter:  20.4 inches (51.81 cm)
 
Wing Span:  8 feet 9 inches (2.67 meters)
 
Range:  Land attack, conventional warhead: 600 nautical miles (690 statute miles, 1104 km)
 
Speed:  Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h)
 
Guidance System:  Inertial and TERCOM
 
Warheads:  Conventional: 1,000 pounds Bullpup, or
Conventional submunitions dispenser with combined effect bomblets, or
WDU-36 warhead w/ PBXN-107 explosive & FMU-148 fuze, or
200 kt. W-80 nuclear device
 
Date Deployed:  1983
 
Costs  $500,000 - current production Unit Cost
$1,400,000 - average unit cost (TY$)
$11,210,000,000 - total program cost (TY$)  
Total Program  4 170 missiles

[-ammo-]

you beat me to it toad.

[Hangtime]

Costs $500,000 - current production Unit Cost

and the more we make, the less they cost..

every tomahawk delivered strike is a live pilot NOT in harms way to hit a target. whats a piloted airframe cost? the value of a human pilot?

tomahawk is a spectacular success.

[TheflyingElk]

isnt the end result what matters?

[Hangtime]

note: caught wind of a tomahawk/harm development program a few years back... a tomahawk that hunts radars.

slick, enh??