Project Reality Forums

Simply, the BGM-109 Tomahawk (ground-attack variant) as an Area Attack (30/40mins), specifically on maps with US Carriers such as Jabal al Burj, Operation Barracuda, and Muttrah City (where it is feasible that there would be vessels along with the carrier to launch the missile). The impact would be the rough equivalent of a PR 1000lb bomb, with unique animations/sounds.

Power Plant: Williams International F107-WR-402 cruise turbo-fan engine; solid-fuel booster
Length: 18 feet 3 inches (5.56 meters); with booster: 20 feet 6 inches (6.25 meters)
Weight: 2,650 pounds (1192.5 kg); 3,200 pounds (1440 kg) with booster
Diameter: 20.4 inches (51.81 cm)
Wing Span: 8 feet 9 inches (2.67 meters)
Range: Land attack, conventional warhead: 600 nautical miles (690 statute miles, 1104 km)
Speed: Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h)
Guidance System: Inertial and TERCOM
Warheads: Conventional: 1,000 pounds Bullpup, or
Conventional submunitions dispenser with combined effect bomblets, or
WDU-36 warhead w/ PBXN-107 explosive & FMU-148 fuze, or
200 kt. W-80 nuclear device

It would be really cool if it was visible upon launch from somewhere randomly in the ocean around the carrier, with fitting animations (i.e. sub-launch style) and visible right before it impacts with a missile.. sound.

So you basically want a JDAM clone for carrier maps?

Is there a realistic reason for this? Tomahawks are used for strategic strikes, they are GPS guided, and generally used for known static strategic targets. I don't see how that fits into PR gameplay.

...... sure why not it Sorta does make sense ..... ahha why would they send out a fighter with a bomb if they can just shoot a target from the sea lol such as Baghdad..

There should be Map related Area strikes such as for one of the new Jungle maps .. have napalmstrikes.. or something like that

I'd like a tomahawk or MRLS strike, a small very precise strike that doesn't last long at all.

Though I'd love a very wide selection of area attacks, so mortars, artiller etc would be wide area attacks designed to suppress, JDAM would be for destroying hard cover, MRLS would be for pinpoint attacks etc etc.

[R-COM]BloodBane611 wrote:Is there a realistic reason for this? Tomahawks are used for strategic strikes, they are GPS guided, and generally used for known static strategic targets. I don't see how that fits into PR gameplay.

I can provide about a billion sources where Tomahawks were used against armored targets, structures, infantry, bunkers, etc. It's true that they're more precise and for more focused targets than the JDAM is but I just feel they're a better choice for maps like Barracuda and Muttrah and Jabal.

But mostly I just feel they would make more sense for carrier-based maps.

Aside from adding unique animations and sounds (extra work for the devs), what is different about the JDAM and the Tomahawk as an area attack? If it's just meant to simulate a 1000lb bomb explosion, could you not simply make whooshing noises over mumble or whatnot and close your eyes until it hits?

Well.. I suppose the difference that would be cool is that you could maybe choose between types of tomahawk when launching the missile. So you could get the wide bomblet spread or the direct-impact-JDAM-style thing.

I hate when people say no because of "too much work". The dev team is far and wide, and suggestions aren't illegal.


I like the idea, especially because when a JDAM is available on a map where jets can't fly.. like all the carrier maps. Instead of pretending there's a carrier, it would make sense to have some other sort of area attack. A tomahawk does make sense, and could be realisticly implemented.

I like this idea actually, I feel they need to add animations in general for the area strikes, and a tomahawk makes sense since the navy would definitly provide a strike group to help the marines in a landing, and tomahawks would be a part of the SG
and matt, the sarcasm isn't appreciated -_-

DeltaFart wrote:and matt, the sarcasm isn't appreciated -_-

Word.

Also, a cool video with the Tomahawk firing from ship and sub, hitting a few targets and also about halfway through they have the cluster one.

Tomahawk Cruise Missile - Extreme Weapon. - Video

Startrekern wrote:I can provide about a billion sources where Tomahawks were used against armored targets, structures, infantry, bunkers, etc. It's true that they're more precise and for more focused targets than the JDAM is but I just feel they're a better choice for maps like Barracuda and Muttrah and Jabal.

But mostly I just feel they would make more sense for carrier-based maps.

I can quote about a billion sources that say the earth is flat, that doesn't make me correct. If you have sources, quote them. Make a reasonable case for your suggestion at least.


I'm not a fan of the tomahawk ingame, as I have yet to find any evidence (and I have looked) that it is used tactically, which makes sense because it requires a ship/submarine to fire it and a fair amount of preparation/travel time. Furthermore, I don't see a big difference between a 1000 lb tomahawk warhead and a 1000 lb JDAM in terms of actual effect on the battlefield.


An MLRS is an interesting idea, but if it replaces the current artillery/JDAM, I don't really see a benefit.

Guys you need to ask yourself what will this add to the game as far as I know the engine you can only have one area attack that means that a tomahawk area attack will not differ from a JDAM attack that is used far more in wars because its cost effective and effective at the same time.

[R-COM]BloodBane611 wrote:Is there a realistic reason for this? Tomahawks are used for strategic strikes, they are GPS guided, and generally used for known static strategic targets. I don't see how that fits into PR gameplay.

JDAMs are gps-guided as well, The huge reason that Tomahawks are used very rarely compared to JDAMs, Pricetags.

1 Tomahawk cruise = $570,000
1 JDAM equipped dumb bomb = $30,000-60,000

[R-COM]BloodBane611 wrote:I can quote about a billion sources that say the earth is flat, that doesn't make me correct. If you have sources, quote them. Make a reasonable case for your suggestion at least.


I'm not a fan of the tomahawk ingame, as I have yet to find any evidence (and I have looked) that it is used tactically, which makes sense because it requires a ship/submarine to fire it and a fair amount of preparation/travel time. Furthermore, I don't see a big difference between a 1000 lb tomahawk warhead and a 1000 lb JDAM in terms of actual effect on the battlefield.


An MLRS is an interesting idea, but if it replaces the current artillery/JDAM, I don't really see a benefit.

I'm a Fan of the MLRS.
NOT a fan of Tomahawk, at least for PR.

The Plane with the JDAM has to fly from somewhere before it delivers it's munition, carrier or airfield, just like the TLAM.
How are you defining "tactical use" as per the TLAM??

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bHcg3TNSRPs&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bHcg3TNSRPs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Sky News caption displays "PATRIOT MISSLES" but that is incorrect.
Read the new ticker "Allies fire 500 cruise missles a day" , wow Who is during there research, that can't be right?!?!
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aXfxUjfKtI8&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aXfxUjfKtI8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

Maybe I'm wrong but aren't CRUISE MISSILES a Re-Suggestion??

hartbilt wrote:JDAMs are gps-guided as well, The huge reason that Tomahawks are used very rarely compared to JDAMs, Pricetags.

1 Tomahawk cruise = $570,000
1 JDAM equipped dumb bomb = $70,000 to $90,000

A JDAM costs around 18 000$ from what this website says

Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) GBU-31 - Smart Weapons

DeltaFart wrote:I like this idea actually, I feel they need to add animations in general for the area strikes, and a tomahawk makes sense since the navy would definitly provide a strike group to help the marines in a landing, and tomahawks would be a part of the SG
and matt, the sarcasm isn't appreciated -_-

if you're talking about having a model of a tomahawk come down and explode etc, I don't think thats going to happen, all the stuff like that only ever seemed to work in local afaik

Zimmer wrote:A JDAM costs around 18 000$ from what this website says

Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) GBU-31 - Smart Weapons

As of 2010 it seems Navy will no longer buy JDAM's.

For fiscal year 2010 the USAF plans/has to purchase 7,517 JDAM @ a price of $190,400,000, so that's $25,000/unit, and I believe that just for the guidance/fin package (not including bomb).

United States DOD Fiscal Year 2011 Expected Budget _ WEAPONS/MUNITIONS
source:http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudge ... eapons.pdf

I suggest having two option for commander
1. Jdam wide area suppression and etc

2. tomahawk or equivalent mor eprecise less impact area and better curacy maybe have peeps laze for it? even though its GPS or have the commander control it?
I think more people would play commander if they had more options and if it was more fun

rushn wrote:I suggest having two option for commander
1. Jdam wide area suppression and etc

2. tomahawk or equivalent mor eprecise less impact area and better curacy maybe have peeps laze for it? even though its GPS or have the commander control it?
I think more people would play commander if they had more options and if it was more fun

How about JDAMs and L-JDAMs (laser guided JDAM).

Tomahawk strikes are more often than not, coordinated by Special Ops. FO units, and are approved by the tipsy top brass, and are used for targets of the utmost priority/strategic value. I don't see a need for it in PR, as long as the focus is still on Conventional forces.