Pigeons Sitting on Stacked Containers Blasted by Tomahawk Missile

Rob is being a wiseass…Bravo Zulu!

Pigeons Sitting on Stacked Containers Blasted by Tomahawk Missile

By Rob Almeida On February 9, 2015

//youtu.be/Jgv5ixxgTsQ

This video sequence filmed on 27 January 2015 offshore California near San Nicolas Island shows a Tomahawk Block IV missile launched from USS Kidd (DDG 100) and then followed by an F/A-18 until it eventually plows through a stack of containers stacked atop a moving ship.

This is the first time a Tomahawk missile has been used to hit a moving maritime target, according to the U.S. Navy.

Capt. Joe Mauser, Tomahawk Weapons System (PMA-280) program manager commented on the test:

“It demonstrates the viability of long-range communications for position updates of moving targets. This success further demonstrates the existing capability of Tomahawk as a netted weapon, and in doing so, extends its reach beyond fixed and re-locatable points to moving targets.”

obviously added by Rob…HA!

“And the flowers are still standing,” – Bill Murray

but what the FUCK does any of this nonsense prove and WTF is this vessel carrying its containers one row wide?

.

[QUOTE=c.captain;154116] but what the FUCK does any of this nonsense prove and WTF is this vessel carrying its containers one row wide?[/QUOTE]

I thought it was clearly stated in the article, “It demonstrates the viability of long-range communications for position updates of moving targets. This success further demonstrates the existing capability of Tomahawk as a netted weapon, and in doing so, extends its reach beyond fixed and re-locatable points to moving targets.”

and yes the vessel was carrying its containers in a single row, 3 high.

And the Navee hasn’t been able to do this since surface to surface guided missiles were introduced more than 50 years ago?

[QUOTE=c.captain;154121]And the Navee hasn’t been able to do this since surface to surface guided missiles were introduced more than 50 years ago?[/QUOTE]

Maybe only every other nation’s navy … the Russians managed it in 1960. I guess we didn’t spend enough money on defense contractors. At around 1.5 million apiece for the missile alone, that bit of marketing video should be proof of criminal misfeasance for some admiral and his master.

The key aspect is RANGE. This is the kind of stuff the Navy should be doing, utilizing systems already designed, and increasing there flexibility. With a little research on wiki, you can tell we have been short of a long range ship to ship missile, especially with the decrease use of the Harpoon. The Standard Missile has about the same range as the harpoon, but far less punch in the ship to ship role (primary anti air). Even having the harpoon, we still lack a ship to ship missile matching some of our potential adversaries range. If we are able to utilize an existing missile as a long range ship to ship system, then we’ve saved billions on R&D, production and so forth. This is an excellent idea, and deserves praise from the taxpayer.

I used to work for the company that maintains and crews those targets. The containers layout/build up vary according to whatever program is doing the op. Depends on what kind of profile/silohuette of the target they want for the exercise.

[QUOTE=Lone_Star;154229]The key aspect is RANGE. [/QUOTE]

Gimme a break … if the target can be deetected any kind of sensor the damn missile can be steered close enough to it to lock on with the apparently lame, overpriced, and ineffective guidance system we have been paying through the nose for for so long.

This is the kind of stuff the Navy should be doing, utilizing systems already designed, and increasing there flexibility. With a little research on wiki, you can tell we have been short of a long range ship to ship missile, especially with the decrease use of the Harpoon. This is an excellent idea, and deserves praise from the taxpayer.

No, it just shows how freaking stupid and wasteful the admirals and generals are. It shows that they are not competent to have any part of specifying or purchasing anything except their own toiletries. The all but crippled Germans were guiding missiles to ships at the end of WW2 with primitive television technology. Considering we can zap a terrorist’s car in Bumfukistan from a trailer park in the Florida panhandle wouldn’t you think some swabbie could steer a cruise missile close enough to get a lock before his own ship got zapped by some third world navy that had better technology for less money a decade ago? We have enough money invested in satellites that we shouldn’t even need a swabbie with a joystick.

In keeping with current American policies, we could even outsource control to some 3rd world startup owned by an American defense contractor and save even more on labor costs.

What a scam!

[QUOTE=Ctony;154230]I used to work for the company that maintains and crews those targets.[/QUOTE]

Are they actually manned during the shoot or remotely controlled after arrival in the area?

[QUOTE=Steamer;154234]Are they actually manned during the shoot or remotely controlled after arrival in the area?[/QUOTE]

Not manned during the shoot. Depending on the op area, the target is either towed or driven under its own power to the location then they disembark after setting and testing it on remote. There are cameras on board that are operated remotely as well.

the Navee appears to have two of these floating pencils…one seems to be a barge

what I want to know is if these are purpose built target vessels and how much did they cost?

once upon a time in the mid 80’s, I worked on the tug that towed the barge to San Nicholas Island from Port Hueneme once a week. That was before they built the breakwater on the island to keep the barges from getting the shit beat out of them when they were beached. I also remember a good many WWII vintage ships there at the time all slated to be towed targets.

Gimme a break … if the target can be deetected any kind of sensor the damn missile can be steered close enough to it to lock on

Yeah… No. Tell me the range of the longest “sensor”, then tell me the range of the longest ship to ship missile we have. Can you explain to me how a Tomahawk “locks-on”?

with the apparently lame, overpriced, and ineffective guidance system we have been paying through the nose for for so long.

Overpriced? YES, for sure. Damn wasteful government bastards. Ineffective guidance? No. Seems to be hitting its land targets just fine over the years. These missiles are old, and have been around for a long time. They have already been paid for.

The all but crippled Germans were guiding missiles to ships at the end of WW2 with primitive television technology. Considering we can zap a terrorist’s car in Bumfukistan from a trailer park in the Florida panhandle wouldn’t you think some swabbie could steer a cruise missile close enough to get a lock before his own ship got zapped by some third world navy that had better technology for less money a decade ago? We have enough money invested in satellites that we shouldn’t even need a swabbie with a joystick.

You have a complete lack of knowledge on missiles, range, guidance systems, drones, geography (Assfuckistan, get it right), the movie Top-Gun, and mr swabbies job at the control console. Comparing a hellfire missile fired from an aircraft being remotely operated by a drone pilot in Florida to a land attack missile being being fired from a destroyer and hitting a moving maritime target for the first time is completely irrelevant and simply an over generalization of the subject. What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone that viewed this thread is now dumber for having read that… (A little sarcasm here).

The “Fritz X” as you are referring too had a range of 5NM. The TLAM has around 1000NM. Our current anti-ship missile has a range of about 80NM (harpoon, SM). Other Navies have been developing longer range anti ship missiles in recent years. We on the other hand haven’t been pursuing (seriously) a long range ship to ship missile since the old harpoon (1977), which is being phased out. Why haven’t we? Different ideas on tactics based around the aircraft carrier. The harpoon has been deemed sufficient all this time. Now other navies have been developing new systems with longer ranges. We have not. What is a good solution for now? Hmm, how about the Tomahawk, a missile we already have, with an awesome range. Theres much more to this subject, but I see nothing wrong with utilizing something in our inventory for a role that needs filled.

The sad part is the Navy had a variant of the Tomahawk in the 80’s and early 90’s that was designed specifically for the anti-ship role. It had the necessary guidance systems (like radar) but was pulled from service. Now we are re-inventing the wheel, utilizing a TLAM for a role that had already been filled in the past.

[QUOTE=Steamer;154234]Are they actually manned during the shoot or remotely controlled after arrival in the area?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, Seaman Timmy is driving this one. I think this rating is called TS (targeted specialist) and requires a maximum asvab score of 8. I could be wrong though.

[QUOTE=c.captain;154242]the Navee appears to have two of these floating pencils…one seems to be a barge

what I want to know is if these are purpose built target vessels and how much did they cost?

once upon a time in the mid 80’s, I worked on the tug that towed the barge to San Nicholas Island from Port Hueneme once a week. That was before they built the breakwater on the island to keep the barges from getting the shit beat out of them when they were beached. I also remember a good many WWII vintage ships there at the time all slated to be towed targets.[/QUOTE]

The vessel at dock 5 west is MST 9301, which is the one in the article. It basically is a self propelled barge. It has a little steering box on the stern, with lots of room fwd for container build ups.

The vessel at dock 5 east is ATLS 9701. It is the same hull, but was built by Halter in '97. A yard in Bellingham built MST in '93. ATLS has a house structure and actual wheelhouse. She was built to launch the vandal missle and after only doing it once, was pretty much dormant till they found a use for her in anti-piracy training, helo, and assorted vessel boarding search and seizure ops.

Both vessels are NAVAIR PT Mugu assetts.

The only breakwater I know of at san nicolas is on the front (north) side of the island where they have moorings for fuel barges. Around the east end by dutch harbor is where back in the day they used to land the freight barge. Since then they have built a pier that they tie the barge up to with a ramp that lowers to meet the ramp from the barge.

[QUOTE=Ctony;154248]The vessel at dock 5 west is MST 9301, which is the one in the article. It basically is a self propelled barge. It has a little steering box on the stern, with lots of room fwd for container build ups.

The vessel at dock 5 east is ATLS 9701. It is the same hull, but was built by Halter in '97. A yard in Bellingham built MST in '93. ATLS has a house structure and actual wheelhouse. She was built to launch the vandal missle and after only doing it once, was pretty much dormant till they found a use for her in anti-piracy training, helo, and assorted vessel boarding search and seizure ops.

Both vessels are NAVAIR PT Mugu assetts.[/quote]

thanks for the additional info

The only breakwater I know of at san nicolas is on the front (north) side of the island where they have moorings for fuel barges. Around the east end by dutch harbor is where back in the day they used to land the freight barge. Since then they have built a pier that they tie the barge up to with a ramp that lowers to meet the ramp from the barge.

the pier is what I meant…we used to have to beach the barge using wires run to deadmen on the beach to hold it. I remember a terrible surge there in the winter that would lift the barge 10’ and then slam it back down. Beat the crap out of the bottom of that barge!

[QUOTE=c.captain;154249]thanks for the additional info

the pier is what I meant…we used to have to beach the barge using wires run to deadmen on the beach to hold it. I remember a terrible surge there in the winter that would lift the barge 10’ and then slam it back down. Beat the crap out of the bottom of that barge![/QUOTE]

I know some guys that have done that run and have heard the stories…nick has little shelter and usually lots of current. Were you with pactow?

[QUOTE=Ctony;154252]I know some guys that have done that run and have heard the stories…nick has little shelter and usually lots of current. Were you with pactow?[/QUOTE]

no, before they took over the contract…a million years ago it seems now