cruise missile fuel

The New and Improved Tomahawk Missile Now Runs on Corn

The new fuel blend uses feedstocks instead of petroleum in an effort to limit the military's dependence on fossil fuels.

• Modern cruise missiles are powered by turbine engines running off JP-10.
• The result is a domestic, renewable fuel source that the lab believes will be significantly cheaper to use.

One of the nation’s most prestigious national labs has developed a new fuel substitute for the same jet fuel that powers cruise missiles. Los Alamos National Labs has come up with a replacement fuel for JP-10 that uses corn bran and other feedstocks instead of petroleum products. The result is a fuel that can be sourced directly from America’s most plentiful crop, bypassing foreign sources.

The Tomahawk missile is one of the most plentiful missiles in the US military arsenal. Developed in the 1970s, Tomahawk was one of the first low-altitude, radar-evading cruise missiles to enter service, and today 145 U.S. Navy warships carry the missile daily as part of their standard missile loadout. Unlike other missiles that are powered by rocket motors, the Tomahawk and others like it are powered by turbine engines, in effect miniature, single-use airplane engines that trade speed for fuel efficiency and range. These engines, like their bigger, more powerful cousins run on JP-10 jet fuel.

The U.S. Navy sits on a stockpile of 4,000 Tomahawk missiles , each powered by a Williams International F415 turbofan engine, making JP-10 an important part of the fleet’s inventory. The result, LANL says , is a fuel that can be made entirely within the United States, using home-made agricultural products. Unlike petroleum-based JP-10, the feedstock-based method doesn’t require harsh acids to manufacture, making it more environmentally friendly to use as well.

The fuel is made with a byproduct of the process for making corn-based ethanol, making more efficient use of the corn and giving ethanol manufacturers an incentive to manufacture it.

Perhaps the most important aspect of the new formulation: it’s entirely renewable and made with America’s largest crop. American farmers plant 90 million acres of corn every year , which is then used in everything from high fructose corn syrup to feeding livestock. This ensures a steady supply of feedstock that is less susceptible to market volatility. LANL believes that a JP-10 market dominated by the new fuel could drop prices 50 percent, with all of the planting, processing, and refining done in the U.S., which will also create American jobs.

LANL believes that JP-10’s high energy density might lead more high-performance jet engines to use the fuel. This would result in planes with longer ranges or that need to carry less fuel to get from Point A to Point B. If so, this new fuel could be yet another military innovation that carries over to the civilian world.

Source: Los Alamos National Laboratory

Kyle Mizokami is a writer on defense and security issues and has been at Popular Mechanics since 2015. If it involves explosions or projectiles, he's generally in favor of it. Kyle’s articles have appeared at The Daily Beast, U.S. Naval Institute News, The Diplomat, Foreign Policy, Combat Aircraft Monthly, VICE News , and others. He lives in San Francisco.

.css-cuqpxl:before{padding-right:0.3125rem;content:'//';display:inline;} Research .css-xtujxj:before{padding-left:0.3125rem;content:'//';display:inline;}

Everything You Need to Know About Camouflage

Ufology: From Fringe Field to Serious Science

The Truth About Area 51

The Anatomy of the Modern Ambush Attack

Is One of the Pentagon’s UFOs a Party Balloon?

The 30 Most Shocking Government Secrets

The Army Is Using Cell Phones to Detect Drones

Did Nazi Germany Test an Anti-Gravity Machine?

Watch: A Brief History of the Manhattan Project

How Hollywood Could Transform Military Vehicles

Skunk Works Is Testing A Low-Boom Supersonic Plane

Advertisement

How Cruise Missiles Work

• Share Content on Facebook
• Share Content on LinkedIn
• Share Content on Flipboard
• Share Content on Reddit
• Share Content via Email

Tomahawk cruise missiles frequently appear in the news because they are the U.S. weapon of choice for a variety of quick-strike operations. With all of the missiles in the U.S. arsenal, have you ever wondered why cruise missiles seem to come up so often?

In this edition of HowStuffWorks , we will look at cruise missiles so that you can understand what they are, how they operate and why they are ideal for certain scenarios.

A cruise missile is basically a small, pilotless airplane . Cruise missiles have an 8.5-foot (2.61-meter) wingspan, are powered by turbofan engines and can fly 500 to 1,000 miles (805 to 1,610 km) depending on the configuration.

A cruise missile's job in life is to deliver a 1,000-pound (450-kg) high-explosive bomb to a precise location -- the target. The missile is destroyed when the bomb explodes. Since cruise missiles cost between $500,000 and $1,000,000 each, it's a fairly expensive way to deliver a 1,000-pound package.

Cruise missiles come in a number of variations (see the links at the end of the article for more information) and can be launched from submarines , destroyers or aircraft.

When you hear about hundreds of cruise missiles being fired at targets, they are almost always Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from destroyers.

Cruise missiles are 20 feet (6.25 meters) long and 21 inches (0.52 meters) in diameter. At launch, they include a 550-pound (250-kg) solid rocket booster and weigh 3,200 pounds (1450 kg).

The booster falls away once it has burned its fuel. The wings, tail fins and air inlet unfold, and the turbofan engine takes over.

This engine weighs just 145 pounds (65 kg) and produces 600 pounds of thrust burning RJ4 fuel. The fuel load is 800 to 1,000 pounds (about 450 kg) of fuel at launch, or approximately 150 gallons (600 liters). The missile has a cruising speed of 550 mph (880 kph).

The hallmark of a cruise missile is its incredible accuracy. A common statement made about the cruise missile is, "It can fly 1,000 miles and hit a target the size of a single-car garage." Cruise missiles are also very effective at evading detection by the enemy because they fly very low to the ground (out of the view of most radar systems ).

Four different systems help guide a cruise missile to its target:

• IGS - Inertial Guidance System
• Tercom - Terrain Contour Matching
• GPS - Global Positioning System
• DSMAC - Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation

The IGS is a standard acceleration-based system that can roughly keep track of where the missile is located based on the accelerations it detects in the missile's motion ( click here for a good introduction). Tercom uses an on-board 3-D database of the terrain the missile will be flying over. The Tercom system "sees" the terrain it is flying over using its radar system and matches this to the 3-D map stored in memory. The Tercom system is responsible for a cruise missile's ability to "hug the ground" during flight. The GPS system uses the military's network of GPS satellites and an onboard GPS receiver to detect its position with very high accuracy.

Once it is close to the target, the missile switches to a "terminal guidance system" to choose the point of impact. The point of impact could be pre-programmed by the GPS or Tercom system. The DSMAC system uses a camera and an image correlator to find the target, and is especially useful if the target is moving. A cruise missile can also be equipped with thermal imaging or illumination sensors (as used in smart bombs ).

Frequently Asked Questions

How do cruise missiles navigate to their target, what advancements have been made in cruise missile technology, lots more information, related articles.

• How Stinger Missiles Work
• How Sidewinder Missiles Work
• How Smart Bombs Work
• How MOAB Works
• How Patriot Missiles Work
• How Stealth Bombers Work
• How Apache Helicopters Work
• How F-15s Work
• How Airplanes Work
• How Gas Turbine Engines Work
• How Radar Works
• How GPS Receivers Work
• How Rocket Engines Work

More Great Links

• USAF Fact Sheet: AGM-86B/C Missiles
• U.S. navy Fact File: Tomahawk Cruise Missile
• BBC News: NATO's firepower: The cruise missile
• Time.com: Tomahawk Cruise Missile
• Analysis: Tomahawks, Submarines and the F-111

Launch systems

• Arleigh Burke Class (AEGIS) Guided Missile Destroyers, USA
• SSN Los Angles Class Attack Submarine, USA - U.S. subs that launch cruise missiles
• SSN Astute Class Attack Submarine, UK - Royal Navy subs that launch cruise missiles
• B-52H Stratofortress Long-Range Multi-Role Bomber, USA
• B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber, USA

Miscellaneous

• Williams F107-WR-101 Turbofan Engine
• Digital Imagery Workstation Suite (DIWS) - generates the Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation (DSMAC) reference scenes

Please copy/paste the following text to properly cite this HowStuffWorks.com article:

Everything To Know About Tomahawk Missiles: Speed, Cost, And Destructive Power

Tomahawk missiles have been world famous since the first Gulf War in 1991 when the United States used the missile against Saddam Hussein's forces in Iraq and Kuwait. Since then, the missile system has been used in nearly every conflict the United States has been involved in, including recent strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen. Given the weapon's ubiquity, it's worth exploring what exactly a Tomahawk missile is. The United States Navy reports that over 2,300 Tomahawks have been deployed in combat, with that number increasing by the day.

According to the Missile Defense Project from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Tomahawk (full name Tomahawk Land Attack Missile) has been in service since 1983 and were first developed for the United States Navy starting in 1972. It was designed to be launched from ships or submarines and was, from the outset, made with nuclear payloads in mind. However, nuclear-armed Tomahawks have not been used in combat and are currently deactivated.

Slow and steady

The Tomahawk missile itself is a 20.3 foot long craft with a wingspan of eight and a half feet, and it weighs 3,330 pounds with all of its components. It's powered by both a rocket booster and turbofan jet engine made by Williams International. According to PBS, the rocket booster engine launches the Tomahawk in the air (hence all the smoke you may see in news broadcasts or photos you see of the missile) and then its jet engine takes the missile the rest of the way to its target.

Despite being powered by rockets and a jet engine, the Tomahawk missile itself isn't that fast, at least comparatively. It reportedly travels at a speed of around 550 miles per hour. An F-16 fighter jet tops out at 1,500 miles per hour and the much larger Minuteman III ballistic missile can reach speeds of up to 15,000 miles per hour. Supposedly, the Tomahawk's relatively low speed helps it avoid radar systems more efficiently. Additionally, it flies at an altitude of between 100 and 300 feet, much lower than conventional fighter aircraft.

Range and power

The actual payload of the Tomahawk can consist of a number of different munitions. But the primary warhead of the Tomahawk is a 1,000-pound high explosive charge. It can also carry cluster munitions consisting of small bomblets, similar to the ATACMS currently used in Ukraine . For explosive force, Tomahawks were more than enough to disable runways or sink ships.

The exact guidance system and navigational dynamics of the Tomahawk missile are classified. However, it is known that it can use GPS or inertial guidance systems to hit the target. Additionally, the U.S. Navy states that up to 15 targets can be pre-programmed for missile salvos. The Tomahawk is capable of "loitering," meaning that, provided the missile has enough fuel, it can fly around in circles to relay information or wait for the right target. It has a range of around 1,500 miles, meaning that the ship or submarine launching the missile is well out of harm's way. It is accurate to within 10 meters.

The Tomahawk's combat history

The Tomahawk is primarily made by Raytheon Missile Systems. According to budget data from the United States Marine Corps from 2022, each Tomahawk costs around $2 million. As of now, the United States and the United Kingdom are the only countries to deploy Tomahawk missiles, although Australia and Japan have put out bids to purchase Tomahawks.

The U.S. Navy states that 140 total craft are capable of launching Tomahawks. That number consists of Ohio-class submarines, Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and more. The United States Army has also tested launching Tomahawks from ground-based platforms. The USS Missouri, a World War II-era battleship and the very last of its kind, was fitted to fire Tomahawks during the opening salvos of the First Gulf War. It fired a total of 28 cruise missiles, in addition to its 16-inch deck guns.

The submarines USS Louisville and USS Pittsburgh launched Tomahawks in 1991 at targets in Iraq and became the first submarines to fire Tomahawks while submerged.

Several decades of service

Outside of the Gulf War, Tomahawks were used to attack Iraq several more times in the 1990s, against Bosnian targets in 1995, during NATO actions against Yugoslavia, and during the engagements against Afghanistan after 9/11. More recently, Tomahawks saw use in Libya as part of Operation Odyssey Dawn, ISIS in Syria experienced the effects of Tomahawks, and Syrian chemical weapons facilities used by despot Bashar Al-Assad were struck by Tomahawks in 2017. In 2024, both American and British forces launched Tomahawks against Houthi rebels after the rebel group attacked shipping lanes and US-flagged vessels in the Red Sea.

Raytheon reports that the Tomahawk missile could stay in service until at least 2035. By that time, the cruise missile will have eclipsed 50 years of service. With its long range, ability to be launched practically anywhere in the world from above or below the waves, and its accuracy, the Tomahawk has proved literally thousands of times that it is a vital part of the arsenals of the U.S. Navy and the Royal Navy.

• Mission Statement
• Advisors to the Board
• Military Fellows
• Jobs at MDAA
• Arizona AETOS ’25
• University of Hawaii Space Science Initiative
• USC SHIELD ’24
• USC SHIELD ’23
• USC SHIELD ’22
• USC SHIELD Alerts
• USC SHIELD in the News
• 2024 European Missile Defender of the Year and Regional IAMD Coalitions Conference
• Ronald Reagan Missile Defense Site, Vandenberg SFB
• Kauai Veteran’s Eternal Memorial and Missile Defense Viewing Site
• Lessons Learned Series
• Write Your Representative
• April 12th, 2022 U.S. Missile Defense – An Overview of Past, Current, and Future Roles and Responsibilities
• Virtual CRT: U.S. Missile Defense – An Overview of Past, Current, and Future Roles and Responsibilities
• MDAA Alert: The Roles and Responsibilities of Missile Defense
• Threat News
• Missile Defense News
• Air Defense News
• MDAA in the News
• Threat Basics
• Ukrainian War Updates
• Taiwan Incursion Updates
• Global Missile Tracker
• Space Threats Updates
• Notable Missile Tests
• Combat Launches
• Future Missile Threats
• U.S. Missile Defense
• Missile Defense of U.S. Partners
• Missile Defense Intercept Test Record
• Operational Intercepts by System
• Future BMD Systems
• Discontinued Programs
• U.S. Air Defense
• Air Defense of U.S. Partners
• Future Air Defense Systems
• Alerts Archive
• MDAA U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense Overview
• MDAA System/Issue Briefs
• MDAA Country Briefs
• Foreign Military Sales by Country
• 3D Panoramas
• Additional Resources

• Cruise Missile Basics

What is a cruise missile?

Cruise missiles, although similar to ballistic missiles in some regards, provide an alternate means to deliver a lethal payload rapidly and accurately to a target. Cruise missiles differ from ballistic missiles in that they fly towards their target at lower altitudes, remaining within the Earth’s atmosphere throughout their trajectory. Cruise missiles are defined as “an unmanned self-propelled guided vehicle that sustains flight through aerodynamic lift for most of its flight path and whose primary mission is to place an ordnance or special payload on a target.” [1] Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned control-guided helicopters or aircraft can be included in this definition [2] , but will not be discussed on this page.

The cruise missile has its beginnings in World War I, when the U.S. Army developed the Kettering Bug, an unmanned aerial bomb designed to strike targets beyond the range of artillery and too dangerous for piloted aircraft. However, the Kettering Bug was never used in combat. [3] Instead, the modern cruise missile originates more from the V-1 Flying Bomb used by the Germany in the last months of World War II. [4]

Launch Platforms

Cruise missiles are capable of being launched from multiple ground, air, sea and submarine platforms. Both fighter and long-range bomber aircraft are capable of carrying and launching cruise missiles. [5] On the ground, cruise missiles are most commonly launched by road-mobile systems due to the inherent advantages of mobility, but they can also be launched from fixed platforms. [6]

Russian warships in the Caspian Sea launch Kalibr cruise missiles towards targets inside Syria.

At sea, various surface ships and submarines can launch cruise missiles. Submarines are capable of launching while surfaced or submerged using torpedo fixtures or vertical launch tubes. [7] In April 2010 Kontsern-Morinformsistema-Agat, a Russian company, began marketing a version of the Russian Kalibr cruise missile housed in and capable of being launched from a standard shipping container. [8] This would allow any vehicle capable of carrying a standard shipping container to become a discreet platform from which to launch cruise missiles. [9]

Propulsion and Flight

Cruise missiles utilize jet engines as their primary method of propulsion. Most cruise missiles are subsonic and use Turbofan and Turbojet engines. While less common, supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles utilize Ramjet and Scramjet engines. [10] Some also use rocket motor propulsion as a booster in the first phase of flight [11]  or to accelerate to supersonic speeds in the terminal phase. [12]

Cruise missiles can fly to their targets at varying altitudes as long as they remain within the atmosphere. The trajectory of most remains close to the Earth’s surface, sometimes skimming just meters above the ground. Their low flight path makes it much harder for most radar and sensor systems to detect the missile, unless the radar or sensor system is airborne and directed towards the ground. [13] Some cruise missiles will fly only at high altitudes and dive sharply down once they reach their target. Flying at high altitude can extend the range of the missile because it’s more fuel-efficient than flying at lower altitudes. However, this also makes the missile more susceptible to missile defense systems since today’s radars and sensors are typically positioned to detect and track high altitude threats. [14] Cruise missiles can also mix their flight trajectory between high and low altitude in order to get the benefits of both. In this instance, cruise missiles will typically fly at a high altitude early in their flight to help extend their range, but as they approach their target, or missile defenses, they will fly down to a lower sea skimming/terrain hugging altitude to help it evade detection and defenses. [15]

Flight test of Pakistan’s Ra’ad cruise missile.

Cruise missiles can use multiple guidance methods in order to accurately place their ordinance on the desired target and avoid missile defense systems. One of the first methods used by cruise missiles was inertial guidance, which is still used today and allows the missile to fly along a flight path programmed prior to launch. [16] Another guidance method is terrain contour matching (TERCOM), which compares a terrain map to the current terrain the missile is flying over to ensure the missile is flying on the correct path. [17] Some use GPS systems, which require connection to either GPS or GLONASS satellite system, but can help ensure the missile follows the correct flight path and strikes the final target using specific coordinates with a high degree of accuracy. [18]

Other guidance methods are primarily used in the terminal phase of flight to increase accuracy. One is a laser guided system which uses a sensor to detect its target painted by a laser, however this can be unreliable because dust and smoke can interfere with the laser or the missile may not always be able to see the laser or painted target. [19] Another terminal guidance method is TV guidance, in which an operator uses a camera in the nose of the missile to visually identify and manually guide the missile to the target in its final phase. This method also gives the operator the option to abort the strike in the final phase if an anomaly is detected. [20]  A radar seeker is also used in the nose of some missiles to identify and/or keep the missile on target in the terminal phase. These radar seekers use either passive radar, which detect radar emissions of their target, or active radar, which emit their own radar to detect their target. [21] Infrared (IR) guidance – directing the missile towards heat emitting objects, such as engines [22] – may also be used by cruise missiles in the terminal phase. [23] However, because of its simplicity, IR guidance cannot differentiate between friendly, adversarial, or extraneous IR signals in a crowded battlefield, and is usually used in conjunction with other guidance systems. [24] The last guidance system used by cruise missiles is Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation (DSMAC), which uses a camera in the missile to find the desired target and match it to a stored image using an image correlator. [25]

Cruise missiles are typically armed with conventional or nuclear warheads, but can also be equipped with chemical or biological warheads. [26] The warhead weight and yield can vary widely, depending on the specific cruise missile and its mission.

[1] “Cruise Missiles.” Federation of American Scientists. http://fas.org/nuke/intro/cm/

[3] “Kettering Bug.” UAVGLOBAL. http://www.uavglobal.com/kettering-bug/ ; “War Machines: Cruise Missile.” National Geographic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD8Kr0f1tEY

[4] Hickman, Kennedy. “World War II: V-1 Flying Bomb.” About Education. http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/artillerysiegeweapons/p/v1.htm

[5] N.R.P. “Explained: How Cruise Missiles Work!” Defencyclopedia. https://defencyclopedia.com/2014/08/01/explained-how-cruise-missiles-work/

[8] Stott, Michael. “Deadly New Russian Weapon Hides in Shipping Container.” Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-weapon-idUSTRE63P2XB20100426

[9] Lewis, Jeffrey, Nikolai Sokov. “Sokov on Russian Cruise Missiles.” Arms Control Wonk. http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/207801/sokov-on-russian-cruise-missiles/

[11] Brain, Marshall. “How Cruise Missiles Work.” How Stuff Works. http://science.howstuffworks.com/cruise-missile.htm

[12] N.R.P. “Explained: How Cruise Missiles Work!” Defencyclopedia. https://defencyclopedia.com/2014/08/01/explained-how-cruise-missiles-work/

[22] Kopp, Carlo. “Heat-Seeking Missile Guidance.” Air Power Australia. http://ausairpower.net/TE-IR-Guidance.html

[23] N.R.P. “Explained: How Cruise Missiles Work!” Defencyclopedia. https://defencyclopedia.com/2014/08/01/explained-how-cruise-missiles-work/

[25] Brain, Marshall. “How Cruise Missiles Work.” How Stuff Works. http://science.howstuffworks.com/cruise-missile.htm

[26] “Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat.” Federation of American Scientists.   http://fas.org/irp/threat/missile/naic/part02.htm ; Norris, Robert S., Hans M. Kristensen. “Nuclear Cruise Missiles.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. http://bos.sagepub.com/content/63/6/60.full

Missile Threat and Proliferation

• Missile Payload Destruction Cost Comparisons
• Technological Threat Assessment
• War By 2025 Threat Analysis
• Ballistic Missile Basics
• Hypersonic Weapon Basics
• Rocket and Mortar Basics
• Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Basics
• Non-State Actors
• Israel-Hamas War Updates
• United States Incursion Tracker
• World Drone Comparison
• Dong Feng-16 (CSS-11)
• Dong Feng-15 (CSS-6)
• Dong Feng-11 (CSS-7)
• M-7 (8610)/CSS-8
• Dong Feng-12 (CSS-X-15)
• Dong Feng-3 (CSS-2)
• Dong Feng-21 (CSS-5)
• Dong Feng-21D (CSS-5)
• Dong Feng-26
• Dong Feng-4 (CSS-3)
• Dong Feng-5 (DF-5)
• Dong Feng-31 (CSS-10)
• Dong Feng-41(CSS-X-20)
• DH-10 / CJ-10
• Changjian-20 (CJ-20)
• DF-ZF Hypersonic Glide Vehicle
• Dong Feng-17
• Chinese Spy Balloons
• Hwasong-17/KN-27
• Pukguksong-3 (KN-26)
• KN-02 (Toksa)
• Hwasong-5 (Scud-B Variant)
• Hwasong-6 (Scud-C Variant)
• Hwasong-9 (Scud-ER/Scud-D Variant)
• Polaris-2 (Pukguksong-2/KN-15)
• Taepodong-1
• Hwasong-12/KN-17
• Taepodong-2
• KN-08 / Hwasong-13
• Hwasong-14/KN-20
• Hwasong-15/KN-22
• 3M22 Zircon
• Avangard (Hypersonic Glide Vehicle)
• RS-26 Rubezh
• OTR-21 Tochka (SS-21 Scarab)
• SS-1 Scud-A
• R-17 Elbrus (SS-1 Scud-B)
• S-300P Air and Missile Defense System
• S-300V Air and Missile Defense System
• S-400 Triumf Air Defense System
• SS-1d Scud-C
• R-17 VTO/SS-1e (Scud-D)
• Iskander-M (SS-26)
• Kh-47M2 Kinzhal (“Dagger”)
• SS-18 Satan/R-36M2 Voyevoda
• SS-19 Stiletto
• RS-12M Topol (SS-25 Sickle)
• SS-27 / Topol-M
• SS-27 Mod 2 / RS-24 Yars
• RS-28 Sarmat (Satan 2)
• AS-15 Kent (Kh-55 Granat)
• RK-55 Relief (SS-N-21 Sampson)
• 3M-54 Klub (SS-N-27 Sizzler)
• 3M-14 Kalibr (SS-N-30A)
• P-15 Termit (SS-N-2 Styx)
• P-6 Progress/SS-N-3C Shaddock
• P-120 Malakhit (SS-N-9 Siren)
• P-270 Moskit/SS-N-22 Sunburn
• P-500 Bazalt (SS-N-12 Sandbox)
• P-700 Granit/SS-N-19 “Shipwreck”
• KH-35 (SS-N-25 Switchblade)
• P-800 Oniks (SS-N-26 Strobile)
• P-1000 Vulkan
• R-29R / SS-N-18 Stingray
• R-29RM / SS-N-23 Skiff
• SS-N-30 Bulava
• Tondar-69 (M7, CSS-8)
• Natanz Enrichment Facility
• Fordow Uranium Enrichment Plant
• Arak Heavy Water Nuclear Reactor

International Cooperation

Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance

515 King Street Suite 330 Alexandria VA, 22314 Phone: 703.299.0060 [email protected]

Quick Links

• Privacy Policy

© Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance 2024

Switch language:

Tomahawk Long-Range Cruise Missile

Tomahawk is a long-range, all-weather, subsonic cruise missile in service with the surface ships and submarines of the US and the UK’s Royal Navy.

Long-range subsonic cruise missile

Manufacturer

US Navy and Royal Navy

Williams International F415 cruise turbo-fan

Tomahawk is a long-range, all-weather, subsonic cruise missile in service with the surface ships and submarines of the US and the UK’s Royal Navy. Originally produced by General Dynamics, Tomahawk is currently manufactured by Raytheon.

The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) can strike high-value or heavily defended land targets. The Block II TLAM-A missile achieved initial operating capability in 1984. The missile was first deployed in combat during Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

Recommended White Papers

Angle of Arrival/Direction-Finding Techniques

Advanced geolocation capabilities, recommended buyers guides.

Military messaging and naval communications software providers for the naval defence industry

Maritime solutions: subsystems for the naval industry, tomahawk missile variants.

The Tomahawk family of missiles includes a number of variants, carrying different warheads. The UGM-109A Tomahawk (Block II TLAM-A) carries a W80 nuclear warhead.

RGM / UGM-109C (Block III TLAM-C) is a conventional unitary variant, carrying a 1,000lb-class warhead. RGM / UGM-109D (Block III TLAM-D) is a submunitions dispenser variant armed with 166 combined-effects bomblets.

RGM / UGM-109E Tomahawk (Block IV TLAM-E) is the latest member in the Tomahawk missile family. It carries a 1,000lb-class unitary warhead for a maximum range of 900nmi.

The Tomahawk Block IV missiles were converted and upgraded to Block V in 2017. The upgraded Tomahawk includes extended range, enhanced navigation and communication systems and modernised data-link radio.

The upgrades were performed at Raytheon’s Tucson, Arizona facility. The US Navy will use the upgraded Tomahawk cruise missiles beyond 2040. Raytheon was contracted to integrate the upgraded navigation and communication systems into the Block IV Tactical Tomahawk (TACTOM) missile in March 2020. The upgraded version is known as the Block V TACTOM.

The Block Va variants will be named Maritime Strike and have the capability of hitting a moving target. The Block Vb will feature the Joint Multi-Effects Warhead System.

Tomahawk design features

The Tomahawk is designed to operate at very low altitudes while maintaining high-subsonic speeds. Its modular design enables the integration of numerous types of warheads, guidance and control systems.

The missile carries a nuclear or conventional payload. It can be armed with a nuclear or unitary warhead or a conventional submunitions dispenser with combined-effect bomblets. The missile has a 5.56m length, 51.8cm diameter and a 2.67m wingspan. The weight of the missile is 1,315kg. It has a life span of 30 years.

The Tomahawk weapon system includes the Tomahawk missile, Theatre Mission Planning Centre (TMPC) / Afloat Planning System and the Tomahawk weapon control system (TWCS) for surface vessels or combat control system (CCS) for submarines.

Guidance and control

The Tomahawk Block IV uses GPS navigation and a satellite data-link to continue through a pre-set course. The missile can be reprogrammed in-flight to a new target.

The two-way satellite communications are used to perform post-launch mission changes throughout the flight. The on-board camera provides imagery of the target to the commanders before the strike.

The guidance system is assisted by Terrain Contour Matching (TERCOM). The Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation (DSMAC) system or GPS provide terminal guidance.

The Tactical Tomahawk Weapons Control System (TTWCS) integrated within the ship’s systems computes the path to engage targets. The system enables the planning of new missions on board the launch vessel. TTWCS is also used to communicate with multiple missiles for reassigning the targets and redirecting the missiles in flight.

The Block IV Tomahawk missile is outfitted with advanced electronic support measure (ESM) seeker in Block IV Tomahawk missile. Its joint multi-effects warhead enables the commander to control the blast.

The Tomahawk Block IV missile is powered by a Williams International F415 cruise turbo-fan engine and ARC MK 135 rocket motor. The propulsion provides a subsonic speed of 880km/h.

Tomahawk launch platforms

The missile can be launched from over 140 US Navy ships and submarines and Astute and Trafalgar class submarines of the Royal Navy. All cruisers, destroyers, guided missile and attack submarines in the US Navy are equipped with a Tomahawk weapons system.

US Navy launch platforms were modified to accommodate upgraded Tomahawk missile variants. Four Ohio class nuclear ballistic missile submarines were converted into cruise missile submarines for firing Tomahawk missiles. The Virginia class submarines and the Royal Navy Astute class submarines were also fitted with new vertical launch modules for Tomahawk missile.

Tomahawk orders and deliveries

The US signed a foreign military sales (FMS) agreement with the UK in 1995 to supply 65 Tomahawks for use with the Royal Navy nuclear submarines. The first batch of missiles was delivered in 1998.

The US Government approved an agreement in 2003 to deliver 65 Tomahawk Block IV missiles for the UK. In August 2004, the US Navy placed a $1.6bn multi-year procurement contract with Raytheon for 2,200 Tomahawk Block IV missiles.

Raytheon was awarded a $346m production contract for 473 Tomahawk Block IV cruise missiles in March 2006. The contract includes 65 submarine torpedo tube-launched missiles for the Royal Navy. The Block IV entered service with the Royal Navy in March 2008.

Raytheon was awarded a $207m-worth firm-fixed-price contract in March 2009 for 207 Tomahawk Block IV All-Up-Round (AUR) missiles.

The 2,000th Tomahawk Block IV missile was delivered to the US Navy in February 2010.

The US Navy placed a $338m contract with Raytheon in June 2012 for the delivery of 361 Tomahawk Block IV tactical cruise missiles. Another contract worth $254.6m was awarded for Tomahawk Block IV in the same year.

Raytheon delivered the 3,000th Tomahawk Block IV to the US Navy in January 2014 as part of the ninth Block IV production contract.

The US Navy awarded a $251m contract to Raytheon for the production and delivery of Tomahawk Block IV missiles for both the US Navy and Royal Navy in September 2014.

A $25.9m contract for Tomahawk missile composite capsule launching systems (C/CLS) was awarded in December 2014. The C/CLS is integrated with the nuclear-powered fast-attack submarines and nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines, allowing the missile to be launched from submarines.

Tomahawk Block IV missile demonstrated its moving target capability in tests conducted in February 2015.

Raytheon received a $122m contract from the US Navy in March 2015 for the production of 114 Tomahawk Block IV all-up round missiles. Raytheon conducted an active seeker test flight for the Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile in January 2016.

The 4,000th Tomahawk Block IV missile was delivered to the US Navy in August 2017. The US Navy warships and submarines launched 66 GPS-enabled Tomahawk missiles at Syrian chemical weapon facilities in 2018.

Raytheon planned to undertake recertification and modernisation programmes for Tomahawk Block IV missile in 2019 to add maritime strike capability and multiple-effects warhead upgrades to the missiles.

Raytheon received a $349m contract for phase two of the Maritime Strike Tomahawk Rapid Deployment Capability to improve the Tomahawk cruise missile system in August 2019. Work will be executed in various locations across the US until February 2023.

Related Projects

More Projects

Transwing Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) UAS, US

Combat boat 90 (cb90), sweden, naval station mayport, jacksonville, florida, kings bay naval submarine base, sign up for our daily news round-up.

Give your business an edge with our leading industry insights.

Sign up to the newsletter

Your corporate email address.

Naval Technology In Brief

Global Defence Technology

Thematic Take

I consent to Verdict Media Limited collecting my details provided via this form in accordance with Privacy Policy

Thank you for subscribing

View all newsletters from across the GlobalData Media network.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

What Is a Tomahawk Missile?

By: Martin Stezano

Updated: August 30, 2018 | Original: April 7, 2017

History of the Tomahawk cruise missile

The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) is an American-developed weapon classified as a cruise missile, which is an unmanned jet-propelled aircraft that uses guidance systems to seek and destroy targets.

The missiles are approximately 21 feet long, weigh 1.5 tons and can be launched from both traditional torpedo tubes and vertical launch tubes on modern submarines. Once the Tomahawk is in the air, the turbojet engine kicks in and its wings spread, allowing it to reach speeds of 500 miles per hour.

The sophisticated guidance system uses a combination of GPS, TERCOM (Terrain Contour Matching) and DSMAC (Digital Scene-Matching Area Correlator) to ensure the missile accurately destroys its target. TERCOM uses radar signals, while DSMAC uses optical images stored in the electronic system. As it closes in on its target, the missile drops to an altitude of 100 feet or less before impact. In layman’s terms, this type of missile is designed to be used at great distances, with pinpoint accuracy, minimizing risk to personnel and civilians.

What sets the Tomahawk apart from other types of munitions is that combination of size, speed, distance and trajectory. Traditional saturation bombing–in which hundreds of bombs are dropped from a plane–is powerful, but not accurate. Saturation bombing also requires the use of a pilot and crew, which endangers personnel. Ballistic missiles, like the Scud, can travel greater distances at faster speeds, but require much bigger launching pads and a lot more fuel, meaning they can’t be used as covertly The Tomahawk is smaller and flies lower than other missiles, making them harder to detect and intercept.

Development of what would become the Tomahawk began in the 1940s, but the emergence of the Polaris ballistic missile program led to its shelving. Technological advances made it possible for the missile to be revisited in the 1970s, and the new weapon was introduced by defense contractor McConnell Douglas in 1983.

Initially, there were three types of Tomahawk missile: an anti-ship one with conventional warheads, and two land-attack versions with either nuclear or conventional warheads attached. Today, only the land-attack, conventional non-nuclear version is in use. Improvements have been made on the original design, and today’s more accurate and more powerful versions are manufactured by Raytheon.

The Tomahawk Missile in Use

The Tomahawk made its debut in live combat during the Persian Gulf War in 1991. On January 17, the USS Paul F. Foster launched the first Tomahawk missile, and nearly 300 additional missiles were launched from U.S. Navy ships and submarines in subsequent days of the conflict. The new weapon proved instrumental in bringing a swift end to the war.

Production of the missile ramped up after that, and hundreds of Tomahawks were used throughout the 1990s. On December 16, 1998, 415 missiles were fired at Iraqi targets during Operation Desert Fox, after Saddam Hussein refused to abide by United Nations-mandated inspections. They were also used by NATO forces in early 1999, during Operation Allied Force operations against targets in Serbia and Montenegro. More than 800 Tomahawks were launched during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and other successful deployments include Afghanistan, Somalia and Libya.

Use of the missile has not been without controversy. On December 17, 2009, 41 civilians–mostly women and children–were killed by missiles targeting an alleged Al-Qaeda training camp in Yemen. Although U.S. and Yemeni government officials initially denied responsibility, an investigation by Amnesty International—and revelations by WikiLeaks—eventually concluded that the missiles had been American Tomahawks launched from a naval vessel.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Press Release

Apl technology cornerstone of first fully integrated hypersonic cruise missile engine test.

The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) successfully conducted the first-ever ground test of a full-scale, fully integrated hypersonic cruise missile engine using conventional liquid hydrocarbon fuel, May 30, at NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia.

Credit: DARPA/ONR/NASA Langley Research Center

A team led by The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), in Laurel, Md., successfully conducted the first-ever ground test of a full-scale, fully integrated hypersonic cruise missile engine using conventional liquid hydrocarbon fuel, May 30, at NASA Langley Research Center in Virginia. The APL-invented Dual Combustion Ramjet (DCR) engine concept being tested forms the basis for a hypersonic strike missile concept being developed under the newly initiated Hypersonic Flight (HyFly) Demonstration Program — a joint effort between DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and ONR (Office of Naval Research). HyFly is aimed at flying a high-speed, long-range hypersonic air-breathing test vehicle. Such technology could be used to develop a future high-speed strike weapon to engage and defeat time-critical, heavily defended, hardened or buried targets while keeping forces farther from harm.

The May 30th test, simulating realistic cruise conditions for a hypersonic vehicle operating at 90,000 feet at a speed of Mach 6.5, demonstrated robust engine operation. It’s the first in a series of tests to fully characterize the engine’s performance at speeds of Mach 6.0 and above. Tests later this summer, at the Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) in Tenn., will verify operation at Mach 3.5-4.0 flight conditions simulating takeover after a rocket boost.

“This is the first time a full-scale, scramjet missile engine has been tested with conventional, liquid hydrocarbon fuel where the complete engine flowpath is fully installed in a missile configuration. This has enabled us to measure for the first time net positive thrust for an installed hydrocarbon fueled scramjet engine. This is a major milestone for the hypersonic community and it’s the product of a real team effort between DARPA, ONR, APL, Boeing, Aerojet and NASA,” says Mike White, APL program area manager for Advanced Vehicle Technologies. “APL conducted combustor developmental testing and worked with Boeing to refine the DCR inlet design. Aerojet built the freejet engine we’re now testing. Our current freejet tests are the transition element between ground-test development performed under the ONR Hypersonic Weapon Technology Program and the joint HyFly flight demonstration program.” Boeing and Aerojet have now taken over responsibility for the DCR flight demonstrator under HyFly.

“The dual combustion ramjet engine concept is the enabling technology for a future high-speed strike weapon,” according to a joint statement, included within a DARPA press release announcing the test, issued by Rear Adm. Jay Cohen, chief of Naval Research and Dr. Tony Tether, director of DARPA. “A hypersonic strike weapon has the potential to transform our nation’s armed forces to meet future warfighting needs. HyFly is a leading element of DoD’s National Aerospace Initiative to demonstrate advanced hypersonic technologies.”

Earlier this fiscal year, DARPA and ONR joined forces in the 4-year HyFly program to demonstrate, in flight, a missile concept capable of flying at speeds up to Mach 6.5 at ranges of 600 nautical miles using liquid hydrocarbon fuels, which are non-toxic and safe to carry aboard ships. The missile concept being developed can also cruise at Mach 4.0, extending the range to over 800 nautical miles.

Current testing verifies very robust, high performance Mach 6.5 operation of the engine using room-temperature, liquid JP-10 fuel. “The engine test just completed demonstrated robust engine operation over a broad range of fuel flows that transitioned the engine from supersonic combustion to dual-mode combustion operation during this single test,” says Don Messit, Aerojet’s lead propulsion engineer for DCR. “The JP-10 fuel we are using for DCR is the same fuel that is currently used in the Tomahawk cruise missile and already approved for shipboard use,” according to Gil Graff, ONR program manager for Weapon Technology and deputy program manager for HyFly.

Development of the DCR engine concept continues through 2002 with freejet engine tests and complementary direct-connect combustor tests at APL’s Avery Advanced Technology Development Laboratory. “We’re continuing to conduct full-scale, direct-connect combustor tests in parallel with the freejet tests to obtain a more complete picture of the total engine performance,” says Steve D’Alessio, APL’s project manager for the DCR engine. “We’ve conducted over 100 runs simulating Mach 6.0-6.5 conditions in preparation for the freejet tests. We’re now testing at conditions simulating Mach 3.0-4.0 in our direct-connect facility prior to testing the full-scale freejet model at AEDC later this summer.”

Flight tests of HyFly’s demonstrator vehicle will begin in late 2003 with demonstration of a surrogate submunition deployment in March 2004. Powered flights at Mach 4.0 will begin in November 2004 and at Mach 6.0 a year later. A total of 11 flights (eight will be powered) will be conducted in a “fly early, fly often” program approach geared toward managing risk while achieving program performance goals.

As lead technical agent for DARPA and ONR throughout this program, APL provides technical advisory support to program management and to the government and industry team executing the program. “APL has nearly a 60-year heritage in the development of high-speed guided-missile technology,” says White. “We’re applying our long-term expertise in this area to help a team of government and industry experts succeed in transitioning this technology to industry for development of a high-speed strike weapon.”

Areas of Impact

• Hypersonics

The Applied Physics Laboratory, a division of The Johns Hopkins University, meets critical national challenges through the innovative application of science and technology. For information, visit www.jhuapl.edu.

Media Contact

Kristi marren.

This website uses cookies to measure traffic and improve your experience. View our Privacy Policy to learn more.

A new nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missile: Just say no

By Robert J. Goldston | July 19, 2023

• Copy link Linked copied

As can be seen in the headlines, the House of Representatives recently passed their version of the National Defense Authorization act, laden with provisions to fight “wokeness” in the military. This will create difficulties for reaching agreement with the Senate on a final bill. However, lost in the headlines is the fact that Congress will have to decide whether to fund the development of a new nuclear-armed, sea-launched cruise missile (acronym: SLCM-N) and its associated warhead. Based on its 2022 Nuclear Posture Review, the Biden administration zeroed out funding for this system in its budget request for 2024, but both the House version and Senate Armed Services Committee’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act authorize funding for the development of SLCM-N and its warhead. There are, nonetheless, multiple steps ahead to the point of actually appropriating funds (through appropriations bills), and so there are still real opportunities for informed decision-making.

A policy debate [1] is raging about the development and deployment of the new nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile. Advocates [2] , [3] argue that in a world where the United States and Russia are in a state of extreme tension, and China is increasing its nuclear arsenal, the United States needs to strengthen its nuclear weapons capabilities, particularly at the so-called “middle rung” of deterrence, between so-called “tactical” and “strategic.” Those who oppose the new cruise missile [4] , [5] often argue that it is redundant and costly and will create practical impediments for the US Navy’s conventional war-fighting capability. Their arguments are cogent, but the situation is even worse than this. Deployment of such a weapon would seriously deteriorate, not improve, US national security and that of its allies, for reasons touched on in an article in Defense One [6] and a fact sheet by the Physicists’ Coalition for Nuclear Threat Reduction. [7] I flesh out these arguments here.

From a top-level perspective, at a time of increased tensions, renewed efforts at arms control and restraint are most needed. It is important to pull the most incendiary logs off the fire first, as President Reagan recognized in signing the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty in 1987. Now is not the time to add especially flammable fuel to the fire. Much worse than being redundant and costly, the sea-launched cruise missile is extraordinarily dangerous, having even more risky characteristics than the low-yield W76-2 warheads loaded onto submarine-launched ballistic missiles following the Trump administration’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review.

There are at least three strongly compelling reasons that the SLCM-N is dangerous to US national security:

• To an adversary, a SLCM-N is indistinguishable from a conventional sea-launched cruise missile, so the very existence of the SLCM-N makes the use of a conventional SLCM a possible trigger for thermonuclear war, due to misattribution of a conventionally armed missile as one carrying a nuclear warhead. Since the Baltic and Black Seas are only 500 miles from Moscow and the Yellow Sea is only 500 miles from Beijing, with Taiwan about 1,000 miles from Beijing, stealthy SLCM-Ns with a range of 1,500 miles would create the risk for Moscow and Beijing of an undetected decapitating nuclear strike, and as a result create for the United States enhanced risk of disastrous split-second miscalculation by its potential adversaries. This is what the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty was designed to mitigate, and what the current restraint on intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe is continuing. The United States would be throwing explosive logs onto an already hot fire with the SLCM-N.

Conventional Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missiles were employed in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War. Misattribution was not a significant risk, as Kuwait is nearly 2,000 miles from Moscow, and relations at the time between the United States under President George H.W. Bush and the Soviet Union under President Gorbachev were favorable. After President Bush removed all nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missiles from service in 1992, conventional Tomahawk cruise missiles were used in Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sudan, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Syria [8] without any risk of misattribution.

NATO’s defense of Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and/or Estonia would likely require the use of barrages of conventionally armed sea-launched cruise missiles. This would render misattribution by Russia an existential risk for the United States. Crucially, the deployment of SLCM-Ns would reduce, not enhance, the United States’ ability to defend its NATO allies.

• More generally, any use of a sea-launched cruise missile would be extraordinarily ambiguous; an adversary could not know whether it carried a conventional or nuclear payload, or, if the warhead were nuclear, what its yield might be. Greatly enhancing this ambiguity is an adversary’s inability to know where a stealthy, maneuverable cruise missile is headed, even if it is detected after launch. The SLCM-N blurs the escalation ladder in an extraordinarily dangerous way, through wide ambiguity in both its yield and its target.

The ambiguity is even worse than that which surrounds a submarine-launched ballistic (not cruise) missile armed with a low-yield W76-2. This missile certainly carries a nuclear warhead, and its trajectory can be determined. Because this submarine-launched missile is ballistic, adversaries will know in advance if it is headed to a strategic target in Moscow or Beijing, or to a battlefield tactical target.

• Arms-racing is now a three-player game. The United States is planning to build 38 Virginia-class attack submarines, each of which could carry up to 16 SLCM-N’s, with a potential total of 608 warheads [2] , even ignoring the possibility that these missiles could be placed on surface ships. Assuming reasonably that both Russia and China would feel that they must match such increased firepower, the United States could eventually be facing twice as many additional warheads as it mounted.

Adding nuclear warheads is not a wise long-term strategy for US security in the modern threat environment. In a three-way arms race, while the United loses in a two-for-one ratio when it increases nuclear warhead numbers, it can gain by a two-to-one ratio if it negotiates warhead limitations or, better, reductions with Russia and China.

The bottom line is that a new sea-launched cruise missile will deteriorate US national security in both the short and the long term. Furthermore, the new three-peer nuclear arms environment we are facing provides a strong incentive for arms control, not for arms racing.

[1] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12084

[2] https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/the-nuclear-sea-launched-cruise-missile-worth-the-investment-deterrence

[3] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/issue-brief/strengthening-deterrence-with-slcm-n/

[4] https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/05/12/taxpayers-should-question-pitch-to-fund-another-naval-nuclear-weapon-pub-87120

[5] https://armscontrolcenter.org/fact-sheet-nuclear-sea-launched-cruise-missiles-are-wasteful

[6] https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/04/biden-should-sink-new-nuclear-weapon/173473/

[7] https://physicistscoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SLCM-N-Fact-Seet-April-20-2023-FINAL.pdf?emci=dce192ed-0f0a-ee11-907c-00224832eb73&emdi=ea000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&ceid=

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)

Together, we make the world safer.

The Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise. But as an independent nonprofit organization, our operations depend on the support of readers like you. Help us continue to deliver quality journalism that holds leaders accountable. Your support of our work at any level is important . In return, we promise our coverage will be understandable, influential, vigilant, solution-oriented, and fair-minded. Together we can make a difference.

Keywords: SLCM-N , nuclear-armed , sea-launched cruise missile Topics: Analysis , Nuclear Risk , Nuclear Weapons

We consider ourselves to be a civilized sentient species, yet we spend trillions of dollars annually building WMD that can destroy the human race in multiple ways. How dare we consider ourselves ‘civilized’ when we focus our efforts on multiple ways to exterminate mankind?

I agree fully but as we cannot trust foreign nuclear armed nations, I would argue for a naval-based platform of defensive ABM missiles, preferably hypersonic to destroy offensive enemy missiles during launch phase. Instant reliable launch location & tracking is also required.

Robert J. Goldston

Robert J. Goldston is a professor of Astrophysical Sciences at Princeton University. He was the director of the US Energy... Read More

Ukrainian journalist Illia Ponomarenko on the horror and absurdity of Russia’s senseless, existential war

By Susan D’Agostino

What India’s MIRV test adds to the ‘strategic trilemma’ in South Asia

By Huma Rehman

Trump says he’d disband the pandemic preparedness office—again

By Erik English

Republicans and Democrats investigating the origins of COVID-19 find a common target: Peter Daszak

By Matt Field

An Indigenous future for nuclear power in California?

By Jon Christensen , Matthew Crotty

To find a place to store spent nuclear fuel, Congress needs to stop trying to revive Yucca Mountain

By David Klaus

RELATED POSTS

Why Iran may accelerate its nuclear program, and Israel may be tempted to attack it

By Darya Dolzikova , Matthew Savill

How India’s restructured rocket force makes conflict with China more likely

By debak das, receive email updates, bulletin daily.

Drink the Kool-Aid all you want, but don’t call AI an existential threat

By Jeff Caruso

North Korea says tested new type of cruise missile with nuclear capability

State news agency says Pulhwasal-3-31 cruise missile is still in its development phase.

North Korea has said it conducted its first test of a new-generation cruise missile, as it continues to expand its military capabilities.

The official Korean Central News Agency reported on Thursday that the Pulhwasal-3-31 missile was still in its development phase and described the missile as “strategic”, implying an intent to arm it with nuclear weapons.

Keep reading

North korea fires ‘several’ cruise missiles from west coast, north korea touts ‘underwater nuclear weapons system’, blasts us drills, north korea’s kim shuts agencies working for reunification with south korea, north korea says it tested solid-fuel missile with hypersonic warhead.

KCNA did not specify how many missiles were fired.

“The test-fire had no impact on the security of neighbouring countries and has nothing to do with the regional situation,” it said.

South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said on Wednesday morning it had detected the launch of “ several ” cruise missiles from North Korea’s western coast.

The JCS said it was analysing the launch, which followed the January 19 test of a nuclear-capable underwater attack drone , and the test-firing of Pyongyang’s first solid-fuel intermediate-range ballistic missile five days earlier.

On Thursday, it said it thought the launch was a test of upgrades to existing missiles’ capabilities. North Korea carried out its first test of a strategic cruise missile in September 2021.

Tensions on the Korean peninsula have increased in recent months as North Korean leader Kim Jong Un continues to move ahead with his weapons development programme and issue provocative threats of nuclear conflict with the United States and its allies in the region.

North Korea’s cruise missiles, which tend to be jet-propelled and fly at a lower altitude, are harder to detect and intercept than ballistic missiles and are among a growing arsenal aimed at overwhelming missile defences in South Korea and Japan.

North Korea claims they are nuclear-capable and have a range of up to 2,000 kilometres (1,242 miles), a distance that would include US military bases in Japan.

Cruise missile tests are not banned under long-running United Nations sanctions imposed over North Korea’s nuclear programme.

The latest launch took place as South Korean special forces staged a drill off the country’s east coast, “in light of serious security situations” with North Korea.

The 10-day exercise concludes on Thursday, according to the South’s navy.

“We will achieve our mission to infiltrate deep into the enemy’s territory and neutralise them completely under any circumstances,” the drill’s commander said in a statement.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

North Korea says it tested ‘super-large’ cruise missile warhead and new anti-aircraft missile

Korean Central News Agency released photos showing at least two missiles being fired off launcher trucks on a runway. The missiles in the image were not identified. State media said North Korea’s missile administration on Friday conducted a ‘power test’ for the warhead designed for the Hwasal-1 Ra-3 strategic cruise missile and a test-launch of the Pyoljji-1-2 anti-aircraft missile.

The South Korean and U.S. air forces held joint air drills in Gunsan, South Korea on Friday, where they practiced ways to detect and counter enemy threats.

A TV screen shows an image of North Korea’s missile launch during a news program at the Seoul Railway Station in Seoul, South Korea, Saturday, April 20, 2024. North Korea said Saturday it tested a “super-large” cruise missile warhead and a new anti-aircraft missile in a western coastal area as it expands military capabilities in the face of deepening tensions with the United States and South Korea. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

• Copy Link copied

South Korean army soldiers pass by the barbed-wire fence in Paju, South Korea, near the border with North Korea, Friday, April 19, 2024. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

A U.S. Army soldier from the Eighth Army and South Korean army soldiers throw simulated grenades during the Expert Soldier, Infantry, and Medic Badge (E3B) competition at the Rodriguez Live Fire Complex in Pocheon, South Korea, Friday, April 19, 2024. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

U.S. Army soldiers from the Eighth Army compete during the Expert Soldier, Infantry, and Medic Badge (E3B) competition at the Rodriguez Live Fire Complex in Pocheon, South Korea, Friday, April 19, 2024. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea said Saturday it tested a “super-large” cruise missile warhead and a new anti-aircraft missile in a western coastal area as it expands military capabilities in the face of deepening tensions with the United States and South Korea.

North Korean state media said the country’s missile administration on Friday conducted a “power test” for the warhead designed for the Hwasal-1 Ra-3 strategic cruise missile and a test-launch of the Pyoljji-1-2 anti-aircraft missile. It said the tests attained an unspecified “certain goal.”

Photos released by the North’s official Korean Central News Agency showed at least two missiles being fired off launcher trucks at a runway.

North Korea conducted a similar set of tests Feb. 2, but at the time did not specify the names of the cruise missile or the anti-aircraft missile, indicating it was possibly seeing technological progress after testing the same system over weeks.

KCNA insisted Friday’s tests were part of the North’s regular military development activities and had nothing to do with the “surrounding situation.”

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula are at their highest in years, with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un dialing up his weapons demonstrations, which have included more powerful missiles aimed at the U.S. mainland and U.S. targets in the Pacific. The United States, South Korea and Japan have responded by expanding their combined military training and sharpening their deterrence strategies built around strategic U.S. assets.

Cruise missiles are among a growing collection of North Korean weapons designed to overwhelm regional missile defenses. They supplement the North’s vast lineup of ballistic missiles, including intercontinental ballistic missiles aimed at the continental United States.

Analysts say anti-aircraft missile technology is an area where North Korea could benefit from its deepening military cooperation with Russia , as the two countries align in the face of their separate, intensifying confrontations with the U.S. The United States and South Korea have accused North Korea of providing artillery shells and other equipment to Russia to help extend its warfighting in Ukraine.

What Iran’s attack on Israel revealed about its weapons arsenal

Iran’s first direct attack on Israel overnight Saturday demonstrated the country’s military might and the advances of its domestic weapons program, analysts said, while also revealing the limitations of its arsenal.

With more than 300 drones and missiles launched in a layered onslaught, it was Iran’s largest-ever conventional show of force . That it inflicted only minimal damage was due in part to the choreographed nature of the attack — giving Israel and the United States ample time to prepare air defense systems — but may also be attributed to shortcomings in its medium- and long-range capabilities.

“The operation showed that our armed forces are ready,” Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi told crowds gathered Wednesday in Tehran to mark Army Day. Parades in the Iranian capital featured many of the same munitions used in the attack on Israel.

What Iran used against Israel

110 ballistic

Iranian drones

These drones can deliver small payloads of explosives in self-detonating attacks.

Length: 11.5 ft.

Width: 8 ft.

Max. take off weight: 440 lb.

Max. speed: 115 mph

Range: About 1,100 - 1,500 miles

Its nose contains a warhead and can be equipped with a camera.

Length: 8 ft.

Width: 7 ft.

Max. take off weight: 300 lb.

The Shahed-131 is an earlier version of Shahed-136 with a similar principle of operation. The layout and aerodynamics are also identical.

Ballistic missiles

KHEIBAR SHEKAN

The Kheibar Shekan MRBM is a solid-propellant ballistic missile designed by the IRGC.

Length: 34 ft.

Diameter: 2.6 ft.

Max. range: 900 miles

Warhead weight: 1,100 lb.

Introduction: 2022

The Emad MRBM is an Iranian-designed, liquid-fuel ballistic missile based on Shahab-3.

Length: 54 ft.

Diameter: 4.1 ft.

Max. range: 1,056 miles

Warhead weight: 1,650 lb.

Introduction: 2015

The Ghadr-1 MRBM seems to be an improved variant of the Shahab-3A. It is also referred to as the Ghadr-101 and the Ghadr-110.

Max. range: 1,211 miles

Warhead weight: 1,760 lb.

Introduction: 2007

Cruise missile

Max. range: 1,025 miles

Introduction: 2023

What Iran did not use

The Sejjil-1 Iranian MRBM is a two-stage, solid-propellant, surface-to-surface missile.

Length: 60 ft

Max. range: 1,243 miles

Warhead weight: 1,540 lb.

Introduction: 2011

The Shahab-3 is a MRBM developed by Iran and based on the North Korean Nodong-1.

Diameter: 4.1 or 4.5 ft.

Max. range: 808 miles

Warhead: Single or multiple

with 5 warheads of 617 lb.

Introduction: 2003

Sources: OE Data Integration Network (ODIN),

CSIS Missile Defense Project

120 ballistic

120 ballistic missiles

30 cruise missiles

Overhead view

1,211 miles

1,056 miles

Max. range:

Warhead weight:

Introduction:

Sources: OE Data Integration Network (ODIN), CSIS Missile Defense Project

Raisi hailed the attack as a resounding “success,” but was also quick to qualify the strikes as “limited” and “not comprehensive.”

“If it was supposed to be a large-scale action, nothing would have been left of the Zionist regime,” he said. And if Israel retaliates, Raisi pledged, “they will be dealt with fiercely and severely.”

Yet after analyzing the munitions used in Saturday’s assault and the success of regional defense systems, researchers say it’s unclear how Iran could inflict greater damage on Israel through conventional military means.

“Iran basically threw everything it had that could reach Israel’s territory,” said John Krzyzaniak, a researcher who studies Iran’s missile programs at the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. Like other analysts interviewed for this story, he has spent the past several days studying launch videos, imagery of debris and interception information to identify the Iranian munitions.

His conclusion is that Tehran “used some of every system they have.” And experts said it made sense that the Sejjil-1 and Shahab-3 missiles were excluded from the attack.

Shahab-3 “wasn’t used because it’s so old,” said Fabian Hinz, an Iran analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Berlin. “The Sejjil is a bit of a mysterious missile,” he said, adding that Iran has “used it very, very little during maneuvers.”

Other analysts noted the Sejjil was expensive to produce and may no longer be in production.

The quantity of munitions used also provides new insights into Iran’s capabilities. The deployment of over 100 ballistic missiles in a single wave suggests that previous estimates that Iran has about 3,000 ballistic missiles stockpiled are probably accurate, and could even be on the low end.

“If this is just round one of an unknown number of rounds to come, you wouldn’t fire a significant fraction of what you have just in the first round,” Krzyzaniak said.

The firing of over 100 ballistic missiles in the space of a few minutes suggests Iran has at least 100 launchers, he added — a new data point for researchers.

“This shows that Iran has really faced no limitation in domestically producing missiles and launchers,” he said.

Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal, the largest of any country in the Middle East, is almost entirely homegrown. In recent years Iran has demonstrated the ability to upgrade some systems, improving their range and precision.

The spokesman for Iran’s armed forces, Abolfazl Shekarchi, said the munitions used in the strikes against Israel only represented “a fraction of” the country’s military’s might, according to a statement published on state-run media.

The evolution of Iran’s

missile program

In the mid-1980s, Tehran acquired Scud missiles from Libya, Syria and North Korea and also began adapting the technology for their own missile variants. During the eight-year war with Iraq, Tehran countered primarily with Scud B missiles, which have a range of 185 miles.

Shahab-1 , 186 miles

1994 to 2001

Iran developed its own version of the Scud B, the Shahab-1, and from 1994 to 2001 fired it at bases in Iraq used by the opposition group Mujahedin-e Khalq.

A new generation of missiles

After 16 years without firing new missiles, Iran showed its technological advances in 2017 striking on an ISIS command center with 6 Zolfaghars with a range of 430 miles. In early 2024, it launched strikes against Islamic State targets in northwest Syria using Kheibar Shekan missiles that travelled 745 miles from Iran to Syria.

Fahteh 110 , 181 miles

Fahteh 313 , 310 miles

Zolfaghar , 435 miles

Qiam 1 , 497 miles

Kheibar Shekan , 900 miles

IRAN ATTACKS

Against ISIS

6 ballistic missiles

Deir ez-Zor, Syria

Against Kurdish dissidents

7 ballistic missiles

Abu Kamal, Syria

Against Oil fields and facilities

18 drones + 7 cruise missiles

Abqaiq, S. Arabia

Khurais, S. Arabia

3 cruise missiles

Against U.S. forces

Erbil, Iraq

1 ballistic missile

Ain Al Asad, Iraq

15 to 22 ballistic missiles

Against “Israeli strategic centers”

At least 10 ballistic missiles

73 launches + at least 20 drones

and suicide drones

Sulaimaniyah,

Against IS targets

Harem, Syria

Israeli “spy headquarters”

Against Jaish ul Adl

Balochistan,

Missiles and drones

Against Israel

120 ballistic missiles,

170 drones,

Sources: United States Institute of Peace, CSIS, IDF

The evolution of Iran’s missile program

IRAN TARGETS

KNOWN MISSILE

Zolfaghars,

Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia

Khurais, Saudi Arabia

Zolfaghars and

potentially

Ballistic missiles and suicide drones

Sulaimaniyah, Iraq

Kheibar Shekan

Balochistan, Pakistan

Missiles and drones against Jaish ul Adl

170 drones, 30 cruise missiles

Before the attack on Israel, Iran’s most significant use of ballistic missiles was in 2020, after a U.S. drone attack killed the powerful Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani.

Iran launched more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two U.S. military bases in Iraq, one in the country’s west and one in the north. While there were no fatalities, dozens of U.S. service members suffered traumatic brain injuries.

Iran also used ballistic missiles in strikes this year on Pakistan, Syria and Iraq.

Iranian ballistic

missile ranges

1,240 miles

Locations of Iranian

missile strikes

INDIAN OCEAN

But the attack on Israel suggests that many of Iran’s munitions are of low quality. Israel’s military said 99 percent of the missiles and drones launched by Iran were intercepted or failed to launch.

“We saw that accuracy and precision are a work in progress,” said Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who has written extensively about Iran’s missile program. “These weapons alone won’t win a war for Iran.”

Iranian drones made up the first wave of the attack. Cheap, effective and easy to produce, Iranian drones have been used in attacks across the Middle East for years. Iran has also supplied drones to Russia for its war in Ukraine , where they have been deadly.

During the attack on Israel, the slow-moving drones were probably deployed to occupy air defenses and allow more advanced munitions to get through. All the drones were shot down before entering Israeli airspace, the Israel Defense Forces said.

Ali Hamie, a Lebanese military analyst, said Iran had probably gleaned important lessons about Israel’s aerial defenses. Commentators on Iranian state television have made similar points.

“It could be a testing attack,” Hamie said, “and the Iranians got what they want. Making it past the air defenses is not only a symbolic victory, but real victory.”

One of the few missiles to make it through the interceptors hit an Israeli air base in the Negev desert. Images of the strike were run on loop on many state-run Iranian broadcasters in the days after the attack. Israel characterized the damage as minor.

General location of missile strikes

that reached the ground.

Beirut—

Populated areas

Haifa—

Tel Aviv—

—Amman

—Jerusalem

An emad missile

was found here.

The barrage of

missiles from Iran

included targeting

the Nevatim

General location of

missile strikes that

reached the ground.

Mediterranean

General location of missile

strikes that reached the

In addition to analyzing Israel’s air defenses, Tehran will probably also be studying the problems with its missile systems that reportedly led to failures at launch and in flight, according to Afshon Ostovar, a professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in California.

“Another attack could be more effective,” he said. But ultimately the kind of approach demonstrated in Saturday’s attack “is not really sustainable over a long-term conflict.”

Even if Iran changed the tempo of attacks and adjusted the munitions used, “they would still have to launch quite a lot of stuff for just a few [munitions] to get through,” he said.

Some Iranian officials have suggested they have held back their most dangerous weapons.

“We are prepared to use weapons we have never used before. We have plans for every scenario,” said Abolfazl Amoui, a parliamentary national security spokesman, in an interview with Lebanese broadcaster Mayadeen.

But analysts say it’s unlikely that any one type of munition could be a game changer. Rather, it’s more likely Iran would use the same kinds of munitions in a future attack, but in a different way: giving less warning, or launching the barrage in concert with allied militant groups in the region. The country’s proxy forces, from Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, played little role in Saturday’s assault.

As Israel mulls its response , Tehran has warned that a counterattack would come in “a matter of seconds.”

“Iran will not wait for another 12 days to respond,” Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri Kani said Monday.

While the United States and Israel have celebrated the thwarting of Saturday’s attack, analysts are urging humility.

“The number of munitions it took to repel the attack was enormous, costly and could be difficult to replicate,” said Tom Karako, the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“Israel may have gotten lucky and Iran may have gotten very unlucky.”

William Neff and Suzan Haidamous contributed to this report.

Israel-Gaza war

The Israel-Gaza war has gone on for six months, and tensions have spilled into the surrounding region .

The war: On Oct. 7, Hamas militants launched an unprecedented cross-border attack on Israel that included the taking of civilian hostages at a music festival . (See photos and videos of how the deadly assault unfolded ). Israel declared war on Hamas in response, launching a ground invasion that fueled the biggest displacement in the region since Israel’s creation in 1948 .

Gaza crisis: In the Gaza Strip, Israel has waged one of this century’s most destructive wars , killing tens of thousands and plunging at least half of the population into “ famine-like conditions. ” For months, Israel has resisted pressure from Western allies to allow more humanitarian aid into the enclave .

U.S. involvement: Despite tensions between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and some U.S. politicians , including President Biden, the United States supports Israel with weapons , funds aid packages , and has vetoed or abstained from the United Nations’ cease-fire resolutions.

History: The roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and mistrust are deep and complex, predating the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 . Read more on the history of the Gaza Strip .

• Six months of the Israel-Gaza war: A timeline of key moments April 7, 2024 Six months of the Israel-Gaza war: A timeline of key moments April 7, 2024
• Colombia is the latest and largest country to sever ties with Israel May 1, 2024 Colombia is the latest and largest country to sever ties with Israel May 1, 2024
• Hamas touts ‘positive spirit’ in cease-fire talks, will travel to Cairo May 2, 2024 Hamas touts ‘positive spirit’ in cease-fire talks, will travel to Cairo May 2, 2024

North Korea's Cruise Missile Tests Escalate Tensions Amidst Stalled Diplomacy

N orth Korea has once again ratcheted up tensions with the firing of several cruise missiles, according to South Korea’s military. The launches took place near Sinpo, a key military shipyard on the North’s east coast where missile-firing submarines are constructed. This latest demonstration of North Korea’s expanding arsenal raises concerns about regional security and the potential for escalated military confrontation.

The recent missile tests are part of a broader series of weapons demonstrations that include last week’s unveiling of a new cruise missile, Pulhwasal-3-31, and the test-firing of the country’s first solid-fuel intermediate-range ballistic missile on January 14. These activities underscore North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s efforts to develop weaponry capable of evading missile defenses in South Korea and Japan, as well as targeting remote U.S. assets in the Pacific, such as Guam.

Pyongyang’s steady pace in cruise missile launches, at least ten rounds since 2021, demonstrates an aim to enhance its strike capabilities. The claimed range of these missiles, up to 2,000 kilometers, poses a stark threat to U.S. military bases in Japan. Although these cruise missile activities are not directly banned under United Nations sanctions, experts warn they pose a serious threat due to their ability to fly at low altitudes, making them harder to detect by radar.

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have been on the upswing for months, with Kim Jong Un continuing to advance his weapons development and issuing threats of nuclear conflict against the U.S. and its Asian allies. In response, the U.S., South Korea, and Japan have been intensifying their military exercises and refining their deterrence strategies, involving nuclear-capable U.S. assets.

North Korea, meanwhile, has described its weapons tests as part of regular efforts to strengthen its military and indicated that some missiles have “strategic” purposes, suggesting they may be intended for nuclear armament.

The implications of these developments are far-reaching. On the one hand, they reflect North Korea’s determination to bolster its leverage in any potential future negotiations with the U.S. On the other hand, they complicate the already strained security situation in the region. North Korea’s actions have not only drawn sharp condemnation from South Korea and Japan but also from the U.S. These missile tests come at a time when diplomacy with the United States and South Korea remains stalled, with observers suggesting that Pyongyang believes an upgraded weapons arsenal could grant it greater concessions should talks resume.

Relevant articles:

– North Korea fires missile into ocean in its latest weapons launch, South Korea says , ABC News, 05/01/2024

– North Korea fires salvo of short-range ballistic missiles , Yahoo News UK, 04/29/2024

– North Korea fires ballistic missiles as Blinken visits Seoul , Yahoo News Canada, 04/29/2024

Missile defence successes in Gulf, Ukraine fuel global urgency to acquire systems

The success of ballistic missile defences facing their first complex, high-stakes combat scenarios in Israel, the Red Sea and Ukraine will encourage militaries globally to invest in the pricey systems, experts say – and intensify missile arms races.

Iran launched as many as 120 intermediate-range ballistic missiles at Israel on April 13, U.S. and Israeli officials say. U.S. SM-3 and Israeli Arrow interceptors destroyed nearly all of them, leaving drones and smaller threats to the Iron Dome system.

In previous months, interceptors fired from U.S. Navy destroyers stopped Houthi anti-ship ballistic missiles, while in Ukraine, U.S.-made MIM-104 Patriot batteries have shot down advanced Russian Iskander and Khinzal missiles.

Reuters spoke with six experts who said more militaries would look to invest in ballistic missile defence, a potential windfall for companies such as Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, which build those types of systems.

“It’s undeniable that any wealthy country with the technological wherewithal will continue to invest in missile defence,” said Ankit Panda of the U.S.-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a defence and security think tank. “All of this is a recipe for a conventional arms race.”

European countries such as the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and Poland already operate RTX subsidiary Raytheon’s Patriot batteries, the most common Western advanced ballistic missile defence system.

Saudi Arabia has used its Patriots for years to defend against Houthi attacks; it and the United Arab Emirates also operate the Lockheed Martin Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) system. Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain have Patriot batteries as well, and Oman has expressed interest in missile defence.

In the U.S., Lockheed Martin in April won a $17.7-billion contract for a next-generation interceptor for the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program – designed to shoot down small numbers of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) aimed at the continental United States.

But the impact may be most acute in Asia, where China has invested heavily in conventionally armed ballistic missiles. A 2023 Pentagon report said the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force has about 500 DF-26 missiles, designed to accurately strike targets thousands of kilometres away.

That puts U.S. and allied bases in Japan and Guam within range of an attack that may only come with 20 to 30 minutes’ warning.

“In the Pacific, you’ll see further interest in missile defence, which will push the Chinese to build more systems,” said Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in California. “Countries will want to acquire [offensive] missiles because they see other countries using them ... That will drive up demand for missile defences.”

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command and China’s Ministry of Defence did not respond to requests for comment.

China rarely discusses its missile arsenal beyond statements that its forces are meant to preserve peace and are not aimed at any specific country.

Raytheon did not respond to a request for comment. A Lockheed Martin spokesperson referred questions to the company’s first-quarter earnings briefing in late April, in which it said it continued to lead the industry in “missile defence missions, which, given world events, are becoming more critical than ever.”

Dollar signs

Ballistic missile defence works by spotting an attacking weapon either at launch or in flight, then using a surface-based radar to guide an interceptor to the target.

Interceptions can occur in the atmosphere or in space, and each domain requires different hardware. For instance, fins won’t work outside the atmosphere – interceptors must have small steering rockets to function there.

The necessary high-powered computers, far-seeing radars and missiles as large as telephone poles are not cheap, together stretching into the billions. In 2022, for example, the U.S. approved the sale of both Patriots and THAAD systems to Saudi Arabia, in deals worth as much as $5.3 billion.

In the Indo-Pacific region, wealthier countries such as Japan, Australia and South Korea are prime candidates for missile defence, Lewis said, while nearly every country in Asia is already investing in missiles.

Japan’s defense ministry said the country “needs to fundamentally and swiftly reinforce its defence capabilities, including integrated air and missile defence.” It said it is investing in improved Patriot missiles, better radars and enhanced naval anti-missile capabilities.

In its latest defence budget, South Korea increased funding by 12 per cent for its Korea Air and Missile Defense System to expand it “from the existing lower-level defence concept,” the country’s defense ministry said in a statement.

“Cases such as the Israel-Hamas conflict and the Russia-Ukraine war have reaffirmed the importance of a ‘ballistic missile defence system’ to respond to increasingly sophisticated missile threats,” the ministry said.

In mid-April, Australia announced a A$500 million ($328 million) contract with Lockheed Martin to deliver its Joint Air Battle Management System for tracking and destroying aircraft and missiles.

The cost of a ballistic missile is often much cheaper than the system meant to stop it.

But that isn’t the right way to consider cost, said Yoji Koda, former commander in chief of Japan’s Self-Defense Fleet, and an advocate of stronger missile defences in his country.

“In a war economy, the cheaper the better. But sometimes what is necessary, is we need to protect key infrastructure, or key command centres, at any cost. Because without them we would lose.”

The China question

Most of China’s conventionally armed ballistic missiles are designed to hit targets on land.

But it also fields steerable warheads meant to hit ships at sea, including the DF-21D and variants of the DF-26, developed by the state-owned China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation.

Such anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs) had never been used in combat until late 2023, when Houthi forces in Yemen began firing Iranian-made models at ships in the Red Sea.

Between November – the first documented use – and April, U.S. Central Command reported at least 85 ASBMs fired in the region, with 20 interceptions and one civilian ship reported sunk.

CENTCOM has declined to provide specifics about the effectiveness of Iranian ASBMs but has noted missiles posing no threat were not engaged and most that were not intercepted landed harmlessly.

The effectiveness of missile defences on land and at sea will catch China’s attention, said Tong Zhao, a senior fellow with the Nuclear Policy Program and Carnegie China.

“It raises the possibility that the U.S. and its allies could depend on missile defence significantly against a ballistic missile attack,” Zhao said.

Although the technical specifics of China’s missiles are closely held secrets, the country’s heavy investment means they are likely to be more reliable, and are widely believed to use complex countermeasures to complicate interception.

“For opponents such as China which have missile stockpiles an order of magnitude larger than that of Russia or Iran and which field more sophisticated systems ... it’s not clear that the lessons learned invalidate existing operational constructs,” said Sidarth Kaushal, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute.

But the political and practical incentives to invest in missile defence will be too attractive for many countries to ignore, Lewis said.

“All defence procurement decisions are ultimately about politics,” he said. “The politics of this stuff is really simple: do you want to defend the country or not? And the winning answer is always ‘Yes’.”

Report an editorial error

Report a technical issue

Follow related authors and topics

• China Follow You must be logged in to follow. Log In Create free account
• United States Follow You must be logged in to follow. Log In Create free account

Authors and topics you follow will be added to your personal news feed in Following .

Interact with The Globe

Iraqi Militant Group Claims Missile Attack on Tel Aviv Targets, Source Says

(Reuters) -The Islamic Resistance in Iraq, a group of Iran-backed armed groups, launched multiple attacks on Israel using cruise missiles on Thursday, a source in the group said.

The source told Reuters the attack was carried out with multiple Arqub-type cruise missiles and targeted the Israeli city of Tel Aviv for the first time.

The Islamic Resistance in Iraq has claimed dozens of rockets and drone attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria and on targets in Israel in the more than six months since the Israel-Hamas war erupted on Oct. 7.

Israel has not publicly commented on the attacks claimed by Iraqi armed groups.

War in Israel and Gaza

(Reporting by Timour AzhariEditing by Chris Reese and Sandra Maler)

Copyright 2024 Thomson Reuters .

Join the Conversation

Tags: Israel , Iraq , Middle East

America 2024

Health News Bulletin

Stay informed on the latest news on health and COVID-19 from the editors at U.S. News & World Report.

Sign in to manage your newsletters »

Sign up to receive the latest updates from U.S News & World Report and our trusted partners and sponsors. By clicking submit, you are agreeing to our Terms and Conditions & Privacy Policy .

You May Also Like

The 10 worst presidents.

U.S. News Staff Feb. 23, 2024

Cartoons on President Donald Trump

Feb. 1, 2017, at 1:24 p.m.

Photos: Obama Behind the Scenes

April 8, 2022

Photos: Who Supports Joe Biden?

March 11, 2020

Women, Money and Michael Cohen

Lauren Camera May 3, 2024

Lawmakers Ramp Up Response to Unrest

Aneeta Mathur-Ashton May 3, 2024

Job Growth Slows as Unemployment Rises

Tim Smart May 3, 2024

Did Hush Money Fuel Trump’s 2016 Win?

Lauren Camera May 2, 2024

Biden Condemns Unrest on Campuses

Aneeta Mathur-Ashton May 2, 2024

Four More Gag Order Violations

China has a lot more missiles — with US warships and bases in its sights

American warships and bases in the Pacific are within reach of an increasingly worrying threat, a daunting missile force unlike any the US has faced in combat before.

China's ever-expanding Rocket Force is armed with thousands of missiles with ominous nicknames such as "carrier killers" and the "Guam Express."

US military leaders and officials say these weapons could make a war in the Indo-Pacific devastating for American forces. And that's exactly the message they say Beijing wants to send, that messing with China would be catastrophic.

The dangers are startling. An American air base such as Andersen on Guam that routinely hosts US bombers or a carrier strike group sailing in the South China Sea could face dozens, even hundreds, of ballistic missiles in salvos intended to overwhelm their defenses, shatter critical capabilities, and send US warships sinking into the depths. China's missiles haven't been tested in combat, but the threat is real.

In interviews with Business Insider, current and former military officials and defense analysts described the meteoric rise of China's People's Liberation Army Rocket Force as a chief concern. One senior defense official said it's changing America's appetite for war in the region, "creating a conventional deterrence capability that threatens our posture, our presence, and our activities in ways that would potentially cause decision-makers in Washington to consider the risks to be too high."

From 2021 to 2022, the Chinese military effectively doubled its stock of some missiles, including the medium-range ballistic missiles it might use to target American military bases in Japan and intermediate-range missiles that are able to reach Guam, the Pentagon said in its most recent report on the military threat from China.

The "dramatic expansion" of the Chinese missile arsenal, especially MRBMs and IRBMs, is designed to threaten US forces and allies across the Indo-Pacific region, Thomas Shugart, an adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a retired US Navy submarine officer, said.

What these key developments show "is that the PLA leadership has decided that the long-range missiles are a winning capability for them," Bryan Clark, a retired US Navy officer and defense expert at the Hudson Institute, said.

The current commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. John Aquilino, said in his final public interview before he retired that during his tenure as commander, "the security environment has changed drastically and not in a good way," calling China "the most concerning security threat that exists."

China's growing, far-reaching arsenal

China's military doctrine focuses heavily on maintaining the ability to deter threats and, failing that, striking fast and hard. It also encourages maintaining an element of surprise before dealing significant damage to its foes. The People's Liberation Army Rocket Force gives it such an option.

It "is designed as a mechanism to deliver an anti-access, area-denial (A2AD) strategy to push the US and allies and partners from the region," retired Adm. Harry Harris, a former commander of Pacific Command and former ambassador to South Korea, told BI.

He said that the force's "objective is to be able to enforce the illegal and illegitimate claim of everything inside the nine-dash line as sovereign Chinese sea and airspace, as well as forcibly bring Taiwan under Beijing's control."

The nine-dash line refers to China's vast claims in the South China Sea, including its human-made islands and others it has disputes with neighbors over.

Harris said China's advancing missile capabilities concerned him more than any other Chinese military developments during his time as the 24th commander of what was then Pacific Command.

The Taiwan Strait is one area where the Pentagon has said China is strategically expanding its Rocket Force with "new missile brigades, potentially indicating an increasing number of deployed missiles."

Experts said this was part of a larger strategy to prevent the US and its allies from gaining unrestricted access to the Pacific region — whether in a war or in a scenario where US forces attempt to come to Taiwan's aid during a Chinese blockade or invasion .

With these missiles, China is signaling that it could attack US bases and ships in the region with little to no warning, Clark said. One such missile, the DF-26, has been commonly referred to as the "Guam Express" or the "Guam Killer" because it can reach US forces on the island, which is roughly 3,000 miles from Beijing.

The weapon, capable of carrying both nuclear and conventional payloads, also has an anti-ship role and another nickname: " carrier killer ." The People's Liberation Army Rocket Force's DF-21D is another such missile that China could use to target US ships.

There's a lot more to the Chinese Rocket Force than these weapons, though. Other elements of the PLARF arsenal are its DF-17 hypersonic missile, short-range ballistic missiles such as the DF-15 that give it the ability to strike Taiwan with relative ease, and intercontinental ballistic missiles like the DF-5s, DF-31s, and newer DF-41s.

Newer developments, the Pentagon said last fall, "will significantly improve its nuclear-capable missile forces and will require increased nuclear-warhead production." The US Defense Department estimates China has more than 500 operational nuclear warheads, the third most in the world, and that number is expected to increase.

While some are based in silos, many of China's missiles are road-mobile assets or hidden in caves and mountains, making them harder to kill. And outside the Rocket Force, Chinese submarines carry long-range missiles. Its H-6 bombers can do the same. Any confrontation with China must account for the likelihood that many of its nuclear forces would survive direct strikes.

In regard to the Chinese "carrier killer" missiles, satellite-imagery analysts have for years been finding mock-ups of US aircraft carriers and other warships out in Chinese deserts. The suspected targets suggest that China may be relying on these mock-ups to improve its missiles or to practice locking on to and hitting American warships. China has also conducted tests at sea, at least one against a moving target.

After the Pentagon's latest report on China's military power came out, Shugart suggested the sheer number of DF-26s and launchers could turn the missile into a generic "ship killer," available for strikes on not just high-value carriers but also destroyers, cruisers, amphibious assault ships, fleet oilers, and more.

And China doesn't have to sink a ship to score a combat kill. Damaged vessels would have to limp back home, where US repair and maintenance woes could mean a slow recovery.

That changes considerations for US Navy vessels when operating in the Indo-Pacific and raises questions about the role of aircraft carriers in a conflict with China, as they may not be able to get within the strike range for F/A-18s or F-35s.

At a certain range, Clark said, "you're going to have to expend so much effort trying to conceal your presence and prevent targeting by Chinese forces, it's going to constrain your ability to do air operations" from a carrier. And the jets might not even be able to reach their targets.

China's missiles could also influence how the Navy arms its warships, forcing them to carry more air-defense missiles at the expense of other weapons that may be useful in land-attack missions or a confrontation with China's larger navy.

Better defenses, but more work to do

In the vast Indo-Pacific region, the Rocket Force is one of the US military's top concerns "because of its unique capabilities to execute long-range precision fires while not exposing large numbers of personnel to danger," a senior defense official told BI, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence observations of threats in the Indo-Pacific.

Facing this threat and others from China, the US has expanded its training exercises and strengthened connections with its Pacific allies and partners to counter not only PLARF but also the broader Chinese military, the official added.

Experts and analysts have long called for the US to respond to the challenges from China in a way that recognizes the scale of the threats at hand, which goes far beyond the Rocket Force, as frequent risky and unsafe intercepts of US and allied aircraft by China have shown.

Harris said one of the best ways to counter PLARF would be to make "robust" air and missile defenses a reality this decade in the region, with the US positioning land-based, medium-range ballistic-missile systems there, working closer with allies, and not letting China determine US foreign policy in the area, especially with Taiwan.

The US has beefed up its air defenses in the region, employing Terminal High Altitude Area Defense batteries in South Korea and working with Japan's navy on ballistic-missile interceptors such as the SM-3 Block IIA as part of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. And in Guam, the Army has fast-tracked a new project and office for the island's defenses. But experts argue that more is needed.

Robert Peters, a research fellow on nuclear deterrence and missile defense for the Heritage Foundation, wrote in January that the US should station Aegis Afloat cruisers near Guam that are equipped to defeat ballistic missiles. Peters said the US couldn't afford to lose Guam, and the land-based Aegis defense option is likely years from deployment.

"Should a war with China break out, conventional thinking is that China would launch a large salvo of cruise and ballistic missiles at Guam to destroy military bases there that are key to US military operations throughout the Pacific," he wrote, adding that an attack would be a "modern Pearl Harbor" that could hinder power projection and logistics.

Beyond strengthening air defenses, the US can also harden bases in the Pacific so that infrastructure, such as critical runways, could survive a barrage and still launch aircraft. But the disaggregation and dispersal of forces is also important. Fixed bases are targets that can only brace for an attack, not avoid them.  

The US Air Force turned to a new doctrine in August 2022 that assessed : "New weapons systems now place bases at risk that were previously considered sanctuaries." That shift led to the creation of Agile Combat Employment, which looks to atypical approaches to keep key assets from being destroyed.

Agile Combat Employment considers highways, fields, beaches, and more as nontraditional runways to create "a network of smaller, dispersed locations that can complicate adversary planning and provide more options for joint-force commanders." China can target runways at air bases, but it can't hit every piece of concrete in the Pacific.

US ground forces in the region are also keeping an eye on the Chinese Rocket Force, but they're less concerned than the other service branches that China more clearly has in its crosshairs.

The US Army Pacific commander, Gen. Charles Flynn, told BI that while the growth of the Chinese Rocket Force had been "meteoric," PLARF's missiles were "primarily designed to defeat naval and air power."

"I'm always worried about rockets," Flynn said, but they're "not there primarily to defeat distributed, dispersed, mobile, some fixed and some unfixed, reloadable, and meshed land-forces network," which his command and its allies in the Pacific have been developing and prioritizing.

That said, he added, there are many ways for ground forces to create a " dilemma " for Chinese missile forces, such as masking signatures, hiding in different environments, and undermining PLARF's ability to find, locate, and target them.

Beyond defensive measures, the US has various offensive options for combating the Rocket Force.

Difficult-to-detect American submarines can, for instance, fire cruise and ballistic missiles. Stealth bombers, like the B-2 Spirit, can also avoid being spotted while on missions to knock out China's weapons. The US doesn't have the missiles to counter China in this theater of operations, though these systems are in development.

Weak points in the missile game

PLARF may be, as Shugart has said, the " crown jewel " of the Chinese military, but it's not without its limitations. Recent high-profile cases of corruption across the army, in particular in PLARF, have raised questions about how widespread graft may be — and whether that's affecting readiness in the short term.

US intelligence has documented several cases of supposed corruption, including missiles filled with water rather than rocket fuel and problematic silos. Military leadership shake-ups , too, have sparked concerns, as many senior officers and bigwig defense leaders were replaced with little to no explanation.

That said, the US and its allies can't afford to assume the Rocket Force won't be ready should conflict come.

"They now have the world's largest navy, the largest air force in the region," Clark said, "but they invest substantially in these long-range missiles because it's clear that they see that as a more reliable capability."

But clarity on the threat gives the US options. Knowing that China could lean on its missiles in a Pacific showdown allows American forces to train and adapt to work around such a threat.

"Deterrence is a combination of a country's capability and willingness to use that capability," Harris said, "and an adversary's perception of both." In other words, how the US prepares itself and adapts to the Chinese Rocket Force gives it the best shot at avoiding a fight altogether. But there's no guarantee deterrence holds.

Related stories

More from Military & Defense

Most popular

• Main content