Tomahawk Economics
Mr. Obama, after weeks of dithering that allowed Col. Qadaffi to slaughter untold numbers of his own countrymen, has responded to the recent UN resolution authorizing a no-fly zone over Libya by a tried and true Clintonian military strategy: Chucking 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libya from ships off shore.
The Tomahawk is a subsonic, long range land attack missile programmed to strike specific targets with a high degree of accuracy. It commonly carries a 1000 pound conventional high explosive warhead and costs between $600 thousand dollars and $1 million dollars per shot (I’d bet on the higher number) It is used by our Navy and the British Navy and media reports indicate that both have fired Tomahawks on Libya. This is a particularly interesting development completely in line with Mr. Obama’s past practice. Because he is unable to make timely decisions and is risk-averse, the primary thrust of Mr. Obama’s war on terror has been through Predator drone-fired Hellfire anti-tank missiles. Simultaneously our troops on the ground in Iraq, and particularly Afghanistan, are saddled with rules of engagement so restrictive that they have actually cost the lives of American soldiers. In addition, where a bullet or a few inexpensive bombs would do, Mr. Obama prefers much more expensive, higher tech applications of taxpayer dollars. So while French pilots successfully attack Qadaffi’s ground forces inside Libya with relatively inexpensive munitions, our air assets are grounded and we lob less effective, far more expensive--and rare--hi-tech cruise missiles at military assets that can and should be destroyed by the application of relatively inexpensive JDAM equipped or laser guided bombs, weapons that can have substantially greater explosive capacity than the pricey Tomahawk. That ought to help balance the budget. Oh well. At least we’re not looking like a second string, second rate military power struggling to keep pace with the French. Are we? I’m tempted to say that Mr. Obama is looking more Carteresque every day, but he’d have to man up considerably to reach even that abysmal standard. Update, 03-20-11: Thanks to our readers for their pertinent points. Such issues are difficult, not least because we don't have the intelligence information those making command decisions hopefully have. That said, Tomahawks have their limitations. They're absolutely great against targets that are not capable of moving, or are very unlikely to move, but they are essentially fire and forget weapons. An F/A-18, say loaded with four bombs, is far more flexible. The pilot can make targeting decisions on site, and has the capability to destroy multiple targets with precision rather than one. Indeed, the Tomahawk is a good weapon for taking out fixed missile and radar sites, though in the Persian Gulf War, that task was in part assigned to Apache helicopters (I know that option is likely unavailable here; just making the case for alternatives). An additional consideration is that if a Tomahawk lacks the explosive capacity to completely do the job, or if its intended target moved before the Tomahawk arrived, another strike, likely by manned aircraft, will be necessary to complete what could and should have been done in the first place. Manned strikes do expose our people to danger, but they understand and accept this. We should never expose our people to unreasonable risks when there are viable alternatives, but the French are flying, apparently successfully. Are we less capable? My worry continues to be that Mr. Obama, because of his inability to make timely decisions, and his reluctance to use American force for any reason, is falling back on the tried and true Democrat dodge of using very expensive missiles when other, more effective and less expensive alternatives might do the job--militarily speaking--more effectively. Let's not even get into the argument about America's leadership in the world, at least not in this post.
Posted by: MikeM at 09:03 PM
Comments
1
I have to disagree on this one. According to press reports, the initial round of strikes was aimed at elements of the air defense system. This is exactly the sort of role where cruise missiles are most appropriate, since they allow strikes against SAM sites and radars without putting aircrew at risk. Tomahawks can, and have, been used inappropriately (for exhibit A, see the 1998 strikes launched by President Clinton). However, these strikes against Libya don't really fit in that category.
Posted by: Chris at March 19, 2011 10:27 PM (4AFdH)
2
I have to side with Chris on this one. SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) missions are an excellent fit for the Tomahawk - Difficult to detect, accurate, and no air crew at risk.
As to the relative expense, don't forget that JDAM that you're dropping requires POL, maintenance, parts, and RISK to deliver it and get home safely. There's more to the 'deal' than just the cost of the munition.
Further, we DO have Tomahawk equipped vessels in the area...we do NOT have any strike aircraft conveniently at hand. Especially none that can be part of a proper SEAD mission.
I ask you to consider what you'd be writing had Obama sent in an aircraft strike package and we'd lost say, an F/A-18 or two?
Ideally, we'd have followed up on the confusion and chaos caused by the Tomahawk strikes and finished of their AD network, but...
Orion
As to the relative expense, don't forget that JDAM that you're dropping requires POL, maintenance, parts, and RISK to deliver it and get home safely. There's more to the 'deal' than just the cost of the munition.
Further, we DO have Tomahawk equipped vessels in the area...we do NOT have any strike aircraft conveniently at hand. Especially none that can be part of a proper SEAD mission.
I ask you to consider what you'd be writing had Obama sent in an aircraft strike package and we'd lost say, an F/A-18 or two?
Ideally, we'd have followed up on the confusion and chaos caused by the Tomahawk strikes and finished of their AD network, but...
Orion
Posted by: Orion at March 19, 2011 11:28 PM (r12Li)
3
It is also useful to note that we aren't making any more Tomahawks. What we are using up are part of a strategic stockpile that is dwindling and not likely to be replaced under this administration.
There is no plan for replenishment.
There is no plan for replenishment.
Posted by: Professor Hale at March 20, 2011 01:12 AM (FJTpO)
4
I agree about the rarity factor... according to buddies of mine in the business, after the Reagan/Bush Cold War years General Dynamics and the other manufacturers of your basic "cruise missle" either sold off/disassembled/destroyed the 'hard machinerery' that was capable of producing the 'tech' of the missles themselves... From what I understand (from a Navy Commander who I worked with who's job it was at one point to be the 'button pusher' on a ship) is that each one (missle that is) as far as cost goes is actually exponential every time one is fired. As in if it cost $1 mil to initally make, (circa 1980) it's actually going to cost $5 mil to shoot and replace, and since they aren't being made, and the equipment to make them isn't around any more, it's now $10 mil per shot.
Another example: My padna's dad worked at NASA on the Space Shuttle. When they did the initial 'upgrade' in the early 90's of the Shuttle fleet, they (NASA) actually had to go on to Ebay to find some of the "hardware tech" b/c it was so 'obsolete' it was no longer commecially available on the shelf so to speak in order to keep the Space Shuttles flying!!!
In the long view, the seperation of civil/military control is a sound idea, but the the 'disconnect' of the current administration from the reality of "boots on the ground" is a grim scene, especially here in Baghdad right now, where I'm looking at being "Last Man Standing." Literally AND figuratively.
We should stay the hell away from Libya and worry about how thinly spread we are already, and save those Tomahawks for a REAL emergency (like saving MY a$$ if the Haj ever wake up here in Iraq, and realizing they outnumber us like 10,000 to 1 here... a potential "Alamo/Little Big Horn" situation here ya know?) If worse comes to worse, I really would prefer my tax dollars used to save my skin instead of a Libyans ya dig? Just sayin!!!
Wish me luck over the next few months!
Another example: My padna's dad worked at NASA on the Space Shuttle. When they did the initial 'upgrade' in the early 90's of the Shuttle fleet, they (NASA) actually had to go on to Ebay to find some of the "hardware tech" b/c it was so 'obsolete' it was no longer commecially available on the shelf so to speak in order to keep the Space Shuttles flying!!!
In the long view, the seperation of civil/military control is a sound idea, but the the 'disconnect' of the current administration from the reality of "boots on the ground" is a grim scene, especially here in Baghdad right now, where I'm looking at being "Last Man Standing." Literally AND figuratively.
We should stay the hell away from Libya and worry about how thinly spread we are already, and save those Tomahawks for a REAL emergency (like saving MY a$$ if the Haj ever wake up here in Iraq, and realizing they outnumber us like 10,000 to 1 here... a potential "Alamo/Little Big Horn" situation here ya know?) If worse comes to worse, I really would prefer my tax dollars used to save my skin instead of a Libyans ya dig? Just sayin!!!
Wish me luck over the next few months!Posted by: Big Country at March 20, 2011 03:42 AM (Z8fIq)
5
Um, I think you might have some bad data there on the Tomahawk program. They just delivered the 2,000th Block IV Tomahawk in February of 2010, they're developing improved ASM capability for the Block-IV since May of 2009, and are developing the 'Tactical Tomahawk'...
Last time I knew, the lines in Tucson were still running (used to live there and have friend who worked there)
Orion
Last time I knew, the lines in Tucson were still running (used to live there and have friend who worked there)
Orion
Posted by: Orion at March 20, 2011 06:07 AM (r12Li)
6
This is an aside from which weapons to use.The big issue here is that while ostensibly we are aiding the "rebels" in their quest for freedom or democracy, in reality we are clearing the stage for another Islamic theocracy that will certainly be less friendly to America than the idiot in power there now.
Posted by: -Bill at March 20, 2011 12:59 PM (322Ns)
7
The Tomahawk is still in production, but I have to admit that the first thought when I read 110 missiles (which, IIRC was more than we launched at Iraq in the start of the first air war) was "who has the contract to resupply those munitions and how much did they give Obama in 2008?"
Posted by: Phelps at March 20, 2011 02:08 PM (ACp4b)
8
I recall in 2003 the navy started a program to recycle nuke TLAMs into conventional ones because they couldn't afford to replace what they were using.
Posted by: Professor Hale at March 20, 2011 08:31 PM (FJTpO)
9
"We should never expose our people to unreasonable risks when there are viable alternatives, but the French are flying, apparently successfully."
Reportedly, B-2s, F-15s, F-16s, and Harriers were flying missions over Libya tonight.
Reportedly, B-2s, F-15s, F-16s, and Harriers were flying missions over Libya tonight.
Posted by: Chris at March 20, 2011 10:13 PM (4AFdH)
10
Dear Chris:
Thanks for the information, but that wasn't publicized until after I wrote the update. In fact, the only thing I've found on the topic is the suggestion that "stealth aircraft" had been used sometime in the last 24 or so hours. I'd be a bit surprised if Harriers were flying as they are generally used by our forces only as ground support and temporary air cover for Marines, and there are far more capable ground attack aircraft in our maritime arsenal. F-15s and F-16's flying air combat sorties might also be a bit unusual due to the great distances they'd have to travel from our nearest ground bases. They can certainly extend their range with tankers, but why do that so soon with F/A-18s already off the coast on carriers?
My point, written around the time of the initial Tomahawk strikes, was that we were not flying then and the French were, which as far as I know, remains factual. The issue remains which packages are appropriate for given targets and whether our military is being allowed to make military decisions unrestricted by timid political decision makers.
Thanks for the information, but that wasn't publicized until after I wrote the update. In fact, the only thing I've found on the topic is the suggestion that "stealth aircraft" had been used sometime in the last 24 or so hours. I'd be a bit surprised if Harriers were flying as they are generally used by our forces only as ground support and temporary air cover for Marines, and there are far more capable ground attack aircraft in our maritime arsenal. F-15s and F-16's flying air combat sorties might also be a bit unusual due to the great distances they'd have to travel from our nearest ground bases. They can certainly extend their range with tankers, but why do that so soon with F/A-18s already off the coast on carriers?
My point, written around the time of the initial Tomahawk strikes, was that we were not flying then and the French were, which as far as I know, remains factual. The issue remains which packages are appropriate for given targets and whether our military is being allowed to make military decisions unrestricted by timid political decision makers.
Posted by: mikemc at March 20, 2011 10:25 PM (CjO3x)
11
"Strikes from 26th MEU's AV-8B Harriers against Qadhafi's ground forces and air defenses commenced in the early morning hours joining an international effort to halt an offensive against the Libyan leader."
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Camp_Lejeune_Planes_Join_Military_Action_In_Libya_118322144.html
"Bombings mainly from American aircraft — including B-2 stealth bombers and F-15 and F-16 fighter-bombers — then targeted Libyan ground forces and air defenses, the U.S. military said."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya
"My point, written around the time of the initial Tomahawk strikes, was that we were not flying then and the French were, which as far as I know, remains factual."
I think your point has been undermined by subsequent events.
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Camp_Lejeune_Planes_Join_Military_Action_In_Libya_118322144.html
"Bombings mainly from American aircraft — including B-2 stealth bombers and F-15 and F-16 fighter-bombers — then targeted Libyan ground forces and air defenses, the U.S. military said."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya
"My point, written around the time of the initial Tomahawk strikes, was that we were not flying then and the French were, which as far as I know, remains factual."
I think your point has been undermined by subsequent events.
Posted by: Chris at March 20, 2011 10:41 PM (4AFdH)
12
Dear Chris:
Thanks for the updated information, but my point was not that we'd never fly additional warplanes over Libya. I had little doubt, even as I wrote the initial post, that we eventually would, nor did I suggest otherwise.
Thanks again!
Thanks for the updated information, but my point was not that we'd never fly additional warplanes over Libya. I had little doubt, even as I wrote the initial post, that we eventually would, nor did I suggest otherwise.
Thanks again!
Posted by: mikemc at March 20, 2011 11:36 PM (CjO3x)
13
The POINT my friends is WHY? Iraq you remember was for oil (According to the lib/progs) it had NOTHING to do with Iraq's people trying to rid themselves of a tyrant... 12 years of a no fly zone didn't help... Now, gas prices are rising here, if Obama wants to get re-elected he has to get UNEMPLOYMENT down, and GAS PRICES can't be 3.50 or more. NOT YET. See after obama gets re-elected THEN and only then will gas prices "Skyrocket" because he only has those 4 years left.
Let's see, we bomb Libya under the guise of a "No fly zone?" Um since when did tanks and military bases fly? A NO FLY ZONE means NO flying attacks on the rebels. Also ask yourself WHY no help in Bahrain? in Saudi Arabia? or Yemen? Rebels are being killed in the streets there too?.. Mmm sounds odd to me.
Let's see, we bomb Libya under the guise of a "No fly zone?" Um since when did tanks and military bases fly? A NO FLY ZONE means NO flying attacks on the rebels. Also ask yourself WHY no help in Bahrain? in Saudi Arabia? or Yemen? Rebels are being killed in the streets there too?.. Mmm sounds odd to me.
Posted by: Robert at March 21, 2011 12:18 AM (IEh7K)
14
Tell me again why the US, EU, NATO, and the UN (ok, not the UN) are supporting Al Qaeda in their attempts to establish a Taliban style pan-continental state in Africa and the middle east?
Posted by: JTW at March 21, 2011 04:52 AM (jMRqb)
15
So does this make Obama, “Sarkozy’s poodle” ??
You know the world is upside down when a US president is led into war by a “Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey”
You know the world is upside down when a US president is led into war by a “Cheese Eating Surrender Monkey”
Posted by: Neo at March 21, 2011 01:12 PM (tvs2p)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0192 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0159 seconds, 23 records returned.
Page size 17 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.