Tomahawk
 

Tomahawk

Does the tomahawk missile have a turbine and who builds it? Wonder how much fuel is necessary to go 1500 miles at 550 mph?

Bill

RE: Tomahawk
 

Bill,
Yup. The Tomahawk has a turbine engine.
Early models (made by the the designer, General Dynamics) had a Williams F107-400 turbofan at about 600 lbs thrust. The latest block variants from Raytheon use the Williams F-107WR402 engine, which has better fuel economy.

Back in 1979,80 and 81, I was on temporary layoff from Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical Co. (As well as most of the engineering staff) and worked at General Dynamics (San Diego) in Bldg 5 of the Kearny Mesa facility, as a final assembly supervisor on the cruise missile project.
We used to migrate from company to company during hard times, and go back to our favorite employer when things improved. For several years, Teledyne Ryan and General Dynamics even used to loan people back and forth. They had contracts with each other to provide help as needed in the engineering departments. We were on opposite sides of the runway at Lindberg Field, so the commute was pretty easy.
At that time we were building the AGM-109 (air launched for fly-off against Boeing...they won) and sub launched, ship launched as well as ground launched variants. Lots of acronyms were developed for that product like SLCM, GLCM, ALCM, TALCM, etc. We spoke in code, for sure.

The entire fuselage forward of the tailcone was machined from 7079T-8511 forgings that were electron beam welded together. Seeing that process in action was like something right out of Star Wars. The tailcone was a standard built-up monocoque structure, the wings were bonded aluminum cores/skins, the folding tailfins were polycarbonate plastic injection molded (r/h and l/h skins with locating pins and sockets like a plastic model kit. (Much stronger, though).


I don't remember how much fuel it holds, but the number 54 comes to mind....maybe it holds 54 gallons....
The ground launch, sub launch and ship launch fuel was/is RJ-4 TH dimer. (Tetrahydromethylcyclopentadiene.....freeze point of aaround -54 degrees C.
Air launch used/uses RJ-6 high density fuel, composed of 40% cyclopentadiene and something else (as equally unpronounceable) that I don't remember. That was 28 years ago, so my memory is a little fuzzy.

Harley Condra
BVM REP
JetCat REP

RE: Tomahawk
 

Thanks for the very interesting information.

Bill

RE: Tomahawk
 

Hum? I wonder why one needs to know that kind of information?

Maybe homeland security should check this guy out.

RE: Tomahawk
 

Wow, if that's what you call fuzzy......

RE: Tomahawk
 

Paranoid ?

RE: Tomahawk
 

Ya baby, I am parinoid.

Maybe if someone at a Florida small airport had asked why some guy wanted to learn how to fly a airliner and not learn how to takeoff or land the thing , we would not have had 911 would we?

Sorry to say this is a different world now, my eyes are open now to anything until I am proven it is safe.

When the FBI showed up at my club field after 911 wanting to know everything about the performance of our jets it sent a message that someone could use this as a weapon if they put their mind and money to it. Or some kid shooting up a school if someone would have just noticed the little thing.

Why come here to find information when you can just Goggle anything in the world that you would want to know about?

Some big things start just with a simple act that leads to something big.

Mybe we should just stick our heads back in the sand because everything will be just fine if we don't look?

RE: Tomahawk
 

I worked on and flew the MQM-107 drones for several years. About the size of a cruise missile I suppose. 900 lb thrust turbine, 67 gallons of gas and 8 gal of smoke oil if my memory is correct. Could get about an hour at 500 knots if you were careful. Less if using high power for climbs or manuevering. Recovered with a chute, and launched with a rocket booster. Bird weighed about 1200 lbs ready to go. Bob

RE: Tomahawk
 

Well if anyone has the time watch this video http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...92753501&hl=en you might have a second oppinion on what might have happen with 911 this was the number one video on google for like 2 weeks. [sm=47_47.gif]

RE: Tomahawk
 

I know the comments were initially posted in jest.

Harley is hardly a threat to national security! He is quite the opposite in fact. He's got good advice on how to take off, fly and land your jet. I suppose, if Bob Violett was the head of some ultra conservative religion, called say jetlism, then we should worry about them taking over the world!:D

Anything can be used to hurt or intimidate people. Anything? Yes, even a marshmellow! :D

Sorry to detract...I didn't know tomahawks had turbines??!!!

Raf

RE: Tomahawk
 

"Quote"Well if anyone has the time watch this video"Quote"

I watched the entire video and I must say that it is interesting...

P. Richards aka Swat Team

RE: Tomahawk
 

Very Scary!
Maybe one day we all will learn the truth about 911 and JFK.

RE: Tomahawk
 

Bill, you must have seen the show on Missiles last night on either Discovery or National Geographic, can't remember which one it was on. When launched from a sub, it's propelled under water and into the air by a rocket booster that burns for about 90 seconds after launch. After that, the booster is jettisoned, wings come out as well as the four fins in the rear and a scoop underneath to feed air to the turbine that takes over. Very interesting indeed... Regards,

Richie

PS...This is just my opinion based on JFK footage i've seen, but I believe it was the very driver of his car that fired the fatal shot to the head. Talk about conspiracy....

RE: Tomahawk
 

I recall that the booster motor only burns for about 10 seconds which is a long time for a small booster motor burn. The MCM (mission control module) event sequencer lowers the engine air scoop, starts to spool the engine, the fins erect, the wing plug doors blow off, the wing doors open, the wings sweep forward, the wing doors close. The booster motor is jetissoned when the pyrotechnic charge breaks the attachment ring off as the engine arrives at about half thrust. Tghe wing plug doors are airfoil shaped, and when blown off allow for the wing to fill up the hole they originally occupied. All of this is accomplished by a high pressure (6000 or 7000 PSI... I can't remember which) helium bottle located above the engine inlet cavity.

More later...
Harley Condra
BVM REP
JetCat REP

RE: Tomahawk
 

Harley, you certainly sound like the expert on this matter, but if you really think about it, from the very moment it's launched horizontally from a submarine, it likely takes more than or about 10 seconds before it even reaches and breaks the surface of the water, then it still has to climb to an adequate altitude and speed before all the aforementioned control surfaces extend, the rocket is jettisoned and the turbine takes over. Realistically, 10 seconds is not nearly enough time for all this to take place. I saw this program on missiles last night and I'm almost certain that a burn time of 90 seconds was mentioned for the rocket booster. However, I could be wrong and you certainly know more about this one than I do. Anyway, keep the info coming. I know this is not jet related, but certainly an interesting topic. Hopefully, the thread will stick for a while. Regards,

Richie

RE: Tomahawk
 

I think that the munition is shot out of the tube underwater using compressed nitrogen- I know all the larger sub launched rockets are-they reach about 75 feet in the air before the main booster ignites. We need an old subber to fill us in on the real procedure. Scott

RE: Tomahawk
 

It seems that anytime something unforseen and horrible happens, such as 9-11, all the fringe elements start dreaming up all kinds of theories. I spent many years in the Airforce, and saw many excercises take place that seemed far fetched at best, and then later they made sense. I watched the events of 9-11 unfold, and did not learn until later that a man I knew from our little town was a flight attendant on the second plane that hit the second tower. He was a retired police officer who felt he needed to become a flight attendant. He switched flights that day to fulfil his flying requirement for the month, and thus fate saw him die. Was he part of some consperacy? Oh well, off the soap box. Bob

RE: Tomahawk
 

Before 911 I was going to build a Tomahwawk, about 70% scale with one AMT450.. It would
have had a slighly larger wing and been around 40 lbs... I think it would have been a
good flying plane.. (off 4000 ft runway)

Eddie Weeks

RE: Tomahawk
 

BTW Tomahwawk is old tech... go to Lockheed Martins Website and look and the JASSM and LOCASS both uses turbo jets engines the LOCASS uses a 30 LB turbine.

The cool thing about the LOCASS is if the target has moved it can be redirected in fligh to a new target and if the target is canceled it can land and be picked up for reuse...

The cool factor of the JASSM is it can fly its self in to a cave to hit its target of the size of a dime. not bad at 400K a shot.

RE: Tomahawk
 

The Tomahawk is old tech, but is ejected/propelled from the sub torpedo tube (SLCM sub launched cruise missile) by the gaseous expulsion charge...compressed air. The booster ignites when it arrives at the surface.
A ship launched Tomahawk booser is ignited in the launch tube.
Air launch is done without a booster.
I know that I could be wrong about the booster burn time, because it has been along time since I was involved, but 90 seconds is an eternity for a small booster burn.
Attached is a photo of a Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical Model 324, now a Northrop Grumman product (since they bought us in 1999), that has a much larger booster that only burns for 4.5 seconds. The Model 324 goes from zero knots to booster burnout and jettison at 450 knots in 4.5 seconds! That's what makes me suspicious of the longer burn time figure given on TV. I also know that different propellant grains give different propulsion characteristics, but, I can't remember everything.
The zero length launcher/ground control segment and the launch-recovery vehicle are all that is required ot operate the RPV.
We built 56 of these medium range/altitude photo recon birds for the Arab Republic of Egypt Air Force in the eightys and nintys. I ended up as Chief Engineer on this program in 1999 until my retirement in 2005. From 99 on, it was a modification, provisioning and simulator training program. We have a dedicated Tech Rep in Cairo that operates/oversees the maintenance and other technical issues.
I went to Egypt in 2000 and 2001 for over a month to install and test fly an updated navigation system. What a blast!!. I took the photo that is attached.

Also, the 911 conspiracy theorists' video referenced in this thread gives credit for the Global Hawk (RQ-4A) to Raytheon.

In fact, we at Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical Co. designed, won the contract, beating Boeing, Lockheed, NGC and others. TRA developed, manufactured, produced and delivered the Global Hawk. Ryan is now a part of Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems Sector. Raytheon was a subcontractor. Teledyne Ryan was the prime contractor. The statement made regarding the first flight should be "The Global Hawk accomplished a 6-36-6 flight on the first test flight. That's six hours, 36,000 feet, and landed six inches from the runway center line." Less than three years from wind tunnel to test flight....pretty good, I would say.
No conspiracy there.



Harley Condra
BVM REP
JetCat REP

RE: Tomahawk
 

Removed

RE: Tomahawk
 

BirdofpraY,
Don't you mean LOCAAS?
Low cost autonomous attack system....Been around since the nintys. I say one (actually a display model), at the AFA 50th Anniversary tradeshow in Las Vegas in 1997.
At the time, it was supposed to use a 50 lb thrust engine from Sunstrand. (4 inch core)
We tried the Sunstrand Aerospace 50 pounder in our MALD, but with very limited success.

Harley Condra
BVM REP
JetCAt REP

RE: Tomahawk
 

Apparently this guys Mother-in-law lives 1500 miles away. I would have thought 1500 miles between them would have been enough.:D


David Hudson

RE: Tomahawk
 

No offense intended here, but David, THAT was funny as all hell, I haven't stopped laughing yet!!

Harley, thanks for the input pal...now you've got me curious. I can almost swear I heard 90 seconds and I was under the impression that the boosters ignited (under water) immediately after ejection from the launch tube. I'm going to look out for that program and record it. Believe me this is not a matter of who's right or wrong, missiles have always fascinated me. Keep the info comin...more pics would be nice if anyone's got any. Regards,

Richie

RE: Tomahawk
 

Here's another picture you might find interesting.
The AGM-109 was GDC's idea for the ALCM...Boeing was the winner of the ALCM contract with their own design.
This picture is a non-classified public relations hand-out, so I don't think the Cruise Missile Police are gonna come after me.

Note the small payload size....small nukes. The cruise missile is only 20.6" OD.

Harley Condra
BVM REP
JetCat REP