best current cruise missile

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

Spectrum Monitoring and Geolocation Systems

Principles of geolocation techniques, recommended buyers guides.

Secure messaging solutions for naval applications 

Marine navigation systems, software and solutions , 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

GAO finds DoD programme delivery delays have increased

Us and uk industry further entrench in aukus attack submarine programme, nato test for programmes to come in first 100 days of labour government, eu commission gives go-ahead for extended mcm programme, 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.

• Air Transport
• Defense and Space
• Business Aviation
• Aircraft & Propulsion
• Connected Aerospace
• Emerging Technologies
• Manufacturing & Supply Chain
• Advanced Air Mobility
• Commercial Space
• Sustainability
• Interiors & Connectivity
• Airports & Networks
• Airlines & Lessors
• Safety, Ops & Regulation
• Maintenance & Training
• Supply Chain
• Workforce & Training
• Sensors & Electronic Warfare
• Missile Defense & Weapons
• Budget, Policy & Operations
• Airports, FBOs & Suppliers
• Flight Deck
• Marketplace
• Advertising
• Marketing Services
• Fleet, Data & APIs
• Research & Consulting
• Network and Route Planning

Market Sector

• AWIN - Premium
• AWIN - Aerospace and Defense
• AWIN - Business Aviation
• AWIN - Commercial Aviation
• Advanced Air Mobility Report - NEW!
• Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
• Aviation Daily
• The Weekly of Business Aviation
• Air Charter Guide
• Aviation Week Marketplace
• Route Exchange
• The Engine Yearbook
• Aircraft Bluebook
• Airportdata.com
• Airport Strategy and Marketing (ASM)
• CAPA – Centre for Aviation
• Fleet Discovery Civil
• Fleet Discovery Military
• Fleet & MRO Forecast
• MRO Prospector
• Air Transport World
• Aviation Week & Space Technology
• Aviation Week & Space Technology - Inside MRO
• Business & Commercial Aviation
• CAPA - Airline Leader
• Routes magazine
• Downloadable Reports
• Recent webinars
• MRO Americas
• MRO Australasia
• MRO Baltics & Eastern Europe Region
• MRO Latin America
• MRO Middle East
• Military Aviation Logistics and Maintenance Symposium (MALMS)
• Asia Aerospace Leadership Forum & MRO Asia-Pacific Awards
• A&D Mergers and Acquisitions
• A&D Programs
• A&D Manufacturing
• A&D Raw Materials
• A&D SupplyChain
• A&D SupplyChain Europe
• Aero-Engines Americas
• Aero-Engines Europe
• Aero-Engines Asia-Pacific
• Digital Transformation Summit
• Engine Leasing Trading & Finance Europe
• Engine Leasing, Trading & Finance Americas
• Routes Americas
• Routes Europe
• Routes World
• CAPA Airline Leader Summit - Airlines in Transition
• CAPA Airline Leader Summit - Americas
• CAPA Airline Leader Summit - Latin America & Caribbean
• CAPA Airline Leader Summit - Australia Pacific
• CAPA Airline Leader Summit - Asia & Sustainability Awards
• CAPA Airline Leader Summit - World & Awards for Excellence
• GAD Americas
• A&D Mergers and Acquisitions Conference (ADMA)
• A&D Manufacturing Conference
• Aerospace Raw Materials & Manufacturers Supply Chain Conference (RMC)
• Aviation Week 20 Twenties
• Aviation Week Laureate Awards
• ATW Airline Awards
• Program Excellence Awards and Banquet
• CAPA Asia Aviation Summit & Awards for Excellence
• Content and Data Team
• Aviation Week & Space Technology 100-Year
• Subscriber Services
• Advertising, Marketing Services & List Rentals
• Content Sales
• PR & Communications
• Content Licensing and Reprints
• AWIN Access

Cruise Missiles Rise To Top Of U.S. Weapons Agenda

After successfully fielding only one new cruise missile during the past 30 years, the U.S. Defense Department hopes to multiply that result over the next decade.

Two new candidates for a future hypersonic cruise missile are currently in testing, while a third has entered the design phase. A subsonic replacement for a nuclear version of the Boeing AGM-86 air-launched cruise missile is in development. Another replacement for the Navy’s RGM/UGM-109 Tomahawk is on the drawing board and may be adapted for a nuclear role as well.

• Scramjet-powered cruise missiles gain traction
• INF Treaty demise restarts production of ground-launched cruise missiles

Meanwhile, new versions of the Lockheed Martin AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and the Tomahawk missiles are set to enter production. Finally, a new class of air vehicle that blurs the line between a cruise missile and an unmanned aircraft system is gaining traction.

The  Biden administration, however, might intervene. Two nuclear cruise missile projects—the Air Force’s Raytheon Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) and the Navy’s sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N)—could become targets of a pending review by President Joe Biden’s appointees of the $1.2 trillion nuclear modernization program. And the extent to which Biden’s national security team supports conventional hypersonic cruise missiles is not yet apparent.

But U.S. military support has never been higher for a powered alternative to ballistic missiles with the capability to maneuver during a flight without sacrificing speed.

In the category of hypersonic weapons, scramjet-powered cruise missiles are seen as a more affordable and versatile option than the larger and more expensive hypersonic glide vehicles, such as the air-launched Lockheed AGM-183A.

As recently as December 2018, senior defense officials viewed scramjet propulsion as less mature than rocket-boosted hypersonic gliders. But scramjet technology has evolved rapidly in wind tunnel testing.

In 2020, Aerojet Rocketdyne demonstrated that an 18-ft.-long scramjet engine could generate 13,000-lb. thrust in a wind tunnel. Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems achieved the same result with another scramjet design in 2019. Both engines are now set to enter flight testing in 2021 under DARPA’s Hypersonic Air-Breathing Weapon Concept program; Aerojet has partnered with Lockheed, and Northrop has teamed up with Raytheon. A follow-on operational prototyping program, known as the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile, is set to begin, and air-launched and sea-launched versions are possible.

A third option could enter the competition this year. In November, the Pentagon awarded Boeing a contract to complete a preliminary design and component-level testing of the Mach 5-plus HyFly 2, a concept for a dual-combustion, ramjet-powered cruise missile optimized for the Navy’s carrier decks.

All three conventional hypersonic cruise missiles are expected to enter service years before the Air Force fields the nuclear LRSO, but the program is making progress. The Air Force selected Raytheon over Lockheed to continue development of the LRSO, which will be armed with an upgraded W80-4 warhead.

The LRSO entered development under the Obama administration, but the SLCM-N joined the future arsenal following the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review. A Navy analysis recommended developing the SLCM-N as a nuclear variant for the Next-Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW), which is intended to replace the ship- and surface-launched Tomahawk.

As a bridge to the fielding of the NGLAW, the Tomahawk itself reentered production in 2020 to support the improved Block V variant. The Maritime Strike Tomahawk, which integrates a new seeker, is scheduled to enter service in 2023.

Ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCM) also are making a comeback since the demise of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in August 2019. That 31-year-old pact compelled the Air Force to retire an arsenal of deployed BGM-109G Gryphon missiles. But conventional GLCMs will reenter the arsenal. Last November, the Army selected the BGM-109 Tomahawk to form half of a new Mid-Range Capability with a ground-launched version of the Raytheon SM-6 in 2023.

Lockheed’s AGM-158 JASSM provided the Air Force a stealthy option to strike targets at ranges of up to 500 nm. Although the AGM-158 fell far short of the AGM-86C conventional air-launched cruise missile, the Air Force allowed the latter to be retired from service with no direct replacement in November 2019. That gap will be addressed partially by the fielding in 2024 of the AGM-158D, a new version of the JASSM with a range of up to 1,000 nm and the same radar cross section.

Steve covers military aviation, missiles and space for the Aviation Week Network, based in Washington DC.

Related Content

Stay Connected. Stay Informed Grow Your Business.

In new challenge to U.S., North Korea says it tested long-range cruise missiles

• Copy Link URL Copied!

North Korea says it successfully test-fired what it described as newly developed long-range cruise missiles over the weekend, its first known testing activity in months that underscored how it continues to expand its military capabilities amid a stalemate in nuclear negotiations with the United States.

The state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said Monday that the cruise missiles, which had been under development for two years, demonstrated an ability to hit targets 932 miles away during its flight tests on Saturday and Sunday. State media published photos of a projectile being fired from a launcher truck and what looked like a missile traveling in the air.

North Korea hailed its new missiles as a “strategic weapon of great significance” that meets leader Kim Jong Un’s call to strengthen the country’s military might, implying that they were being developed with an intent to arm them with nuclear warheads.

North Korea says it needs nuclear weapons in order to deter what it claims is hostility from the U.S. and South Korea — and has long attempted to use the threat of such an arsenal to extract much-needed economic aid or otherwise apply pressure. The North and ally China faced off against South Korea and U.S.-led United Nations forces in the 1950-53 Korean War, a conflict that ended in an armistice that has yet to be replaced with a peace treaty.

The international community is bent on getting the North to abandon its nuclear arsenal and has long used a combination of the threat of sanctions and the promise of economic help to try to influence Pyongyang. But U.S.-led negotiations on the nuclear issue have been stalled since the collapse of a summit between then-President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in 2019. At that time, the Americans rejected Kim’s demand for major sanctions relief in exchange for dismantling an aging nuclear complex.

North Korea ended a yearlong pause in ballistic tests in March by firing two short-range missiles into the sea , continuing a tradition of testing new U.S. administrations to measure Washington’s response. Kim’s government has so far rejected the Biden administration’s overtures for dialogue, demanding that Washington abandon its “hostile” policies first — a reference to the U.S. maintaining sanctions and a military alliance with South Korea.

World & Nation

U.N. asks North Korea to clarify alleged shoot-on-sight orders

U.N. human rights investigators have asked North Korea to clarify whether it has ordered troops to shoot on sight any trespassers who cross its northern border in violation of the country’s pandemic closure.

Aug. 27, 2021

The U.S. keeps about 28,000 troops in South Korea to help deter potential aggression from North Korea, a legacy of the Korean War.

There hadn’t been any known North Korean test launches since March, as Kim focused his efforts on fending off the coronavirus and salvaging an economy damaged by sanctions, bad flooding in recent summers and border closures amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Experts have warned that the economic situation is dire, although monitoring groups have yet to detect signs of mass starvation or major instability.

The report of the tests comes before President Biden’s special representative for North Korea, Sung Kim, was to meet his South Korean and Japanese counterparts in Tokyo on Tuesday to discuss the stalled nuclear diplomacy with North Korea.

South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said the military was analyzing the North Korean launches based on U.S. and South Korean intelligence. South Korean Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong said after a meeting with Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne that the resumption of testing activity highlighted the urgent need for reviving diplomacy with the North.

How bad is the COVID-19 pandemic in North Korea? Here’s what we know

After insisting for months that it has had no coronavirus infections, North Korea has come its closest to admitting that that might not be the case.

June 30, 2021

The U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said it was monitoring the situation with allies and that the North Korean activity reflects a continuing focus on “developing its military program and the threats that poses to its neighbors and the international community.” Japan said it was “extremely concerned.”

While the cruise missiles were clearly aimed at sending a message to Washington, the tests may indicate that North Korea is struggling with more provocative weapons systems, and might not garner much of a response, said Du-Hyeogn Cha, an analyst at Seoul’s Asan Institute for Policy Studies.

China, the North’s staunchest ally , had no direct comment on the missiles. Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian urged “all parties concerned to exercise restraint, move in the same direction, actively engage in dialogue and contact” to reach a political settlement.

Kim during a congress of the ruling Workers’ Party in January doubled down on his pledge to bolster his nuclear deterrent in the face of U.S. sanctions and pressure and issued a long wish list of new sophisticated assets, including longer-range intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear-powered submarines, spy satellites and tactical nuclear weapons. Kim also said then that his national defense scientists were developing “intermediate-range cruise missiles with the most powerful warheads in the world.”

North Korea vows to be ‘fully prepared for confrontation’ with U.S.

Kim Jong Un has ordered his government to be fully prepared for confrontation with the United States over North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.

June 18, 2021

KCNA said the missiles tested over the weekend traveled for 126 minutes above North Korean territory before hitting their targets. “In all, the efficiency and practicality of the weapon system operation was confirmed to be excellent,” it said.

It appeared that Kim wasn’t in attendance to observe the tests. KCNA said Kim’s top military official, Pak Jong Chon, observed the test-firings and called for the country’s defense scientists to go “all out to increase” the North’s military capabilities.

Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Katsunobu Kato said North Korean missiles of such range would pose a “serious threat to the peace and safety of Japan and its surrounding areas.”

“We are extremely concerned,” Kato said while mentioning Japanese efforts to strengthen its missile defense capabilities. He said Tokyo was working with Washington and Seoul to gather information on North Korea’s latest tests but said there was no immediate indication that the weapons reached inside Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

Breaking News

Get breaking news, investigations, analysis and more signature journalism from the Los Angeles Times in your inbox.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Kim’s powerful sister last month hinted that North Korea was ready to resume weapons testing while issuing a statement berating the United States and South Korea for continuing their joint military exercises, which she said was the “most vivid expression of U.S. hostile policy.”

The allies say the drills are defensive in nature, but they have canceled or downsized them in recent years to create space for diplomacy or in response to COVID-19.

Talks between the United States and North Korea have stalled since the collapse of a summit between Trump and Kim in 2019, when the Americans rejected the North’s demand for major sanctions relief in exchange for a partial surrender of its nuclear capabilities. Kim’s government has so far rejected the Biden administration’s overtures for dialogue , demanding that Washington abandon its “hostile” policies first.

The latest tests came after Kim threw an unusual parade in the capital, Pyongyang, last week that was a marked departure from past militaristic displays, showcasing anti-virus workers in hazmat suits and civil defense organizations involved in industrial work and rebuilding communities destroyed by floods instead of missiles and other provocative weaponry.

Experts said that the parade was focused on domestic unity as Kim now faces perhaps his toughest test, with the economy in tatters.

More to Read

N. Korea says it tested a new hypersonic intermediate-range missile that is easier to hide

April 3, 2024

North Korea says it tested a solid-fuel missile tipped with a hypersonic weapon

Jan. 15, 2024

South Korea says the North has again fired artillery shells near their sea border

Jan. 6, 2024

Start your day right

Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.

The Associated Press is an independent, not-for-profit news cooperative headquartered in New York City.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Opinion: If you were relieved by the Supreme Court’s abortion rulings this term, think again

July 1, 2024

LGBTQ+ Pride Month culminates with parades in New York, San Francisco and beyond

June 30, 2024

Evacuation orders lifted for some Arizona residents forced from their homes by a wildfire

Biden allies rally behind him with public show of support as he spends family time at Camp David

Programs submenu

Regions submenu, topics submenu, postponed: a complete impasse—gaza: the human toll, is it me or the economic system changing chinese attitudes toward inequality: a big data china event, the u.s. vision for ai safety: a conversation with elizabeth kelly, director of the u.s. ai safety institute, new frontiers in uflpa enforcement: a fireside chat with dhs secretary alejandro mayorkas.

• Abshire-Inamori Leadership Academy
• Aerospace Security Project
• Africa Program
• Americas Program
• Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy
• Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
• Asia Program
• Australia Chair
• Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Geostrategy
• Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy
• Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies
• China Power Project
• Chinese Business and Economics
• Defending Democratic Institutions
• Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
• Defense 360
• Defense Budget Analysis
• Diversity and Leadership in International Affairs Project
• Economics Program
• Emeritus Chair in Strategy
• Energy Security and Climate Change Program
• Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program
• Freeman Chair in China Studies
• Futures Lab
• Geoeconomic Council of Advisers
• Global Food and Water Security Program
• Global Health Policy Center
• Hess Center for New Frontiers
• Human Rights Initiative
• Humanitarian Agenda
• Intelligence, National Security, and Technology Program
• International Security Program
• Japan Chair
• Kissinger Chair
• Korea Chair
• Langone Chair in American Leadership
• Middle East Program
• Missile Defense Project
• Project on Critical Minerals Security
• Project on Fragility and Mobility
• Project on Nuclear Issues
• Project on Prosperity and Development
• Project on Trade and Technology
• Renewing American Innovation Project
• Scholl Chair in International Business
• Smart Women, Smart Power
• Southeast Asia Program
• Stephenson Ocean Security Project
• Strategic Technologies Program
• Wadhwani Center for AI and Advanced Technologies
• Warfare, Irregular Threats, and Terrorism Program
• All Regions
• Australia, New Zealand & Pacific
• Middle East
• Russia and Eurasia
• American Innovation
• Civic Education
• Climate Change
• Cybersecurity
• Defense Budget and Acquisition
• Defense and Security
• Energy and Sustainability
• Food Security
• Gender and International Security
• Geopolitics
• Global Health
• Human Rights
• Humanitarian Assistance
• Intelligence
• International Development
• Maritime Issues and Oceans
• Missile Defense
• Nuclear Issues
• Transnational Threats
• Water Security

The 2022 Missile Defense Review: Still Seeking Alignment

Commentary by Tom Karako

Published October 27, 2022

The Biden administration released its unclassified Missile Defense Review today, as part of the National Defense Strategy. As policy guidance to an increasingly broad enterprise, the 2022 MDR represents an opportunity to achieve greater alignment between U.S. air and missile defense (AMD) efforts and the strategic competition with China and Russia.

The new MDR is a step forward from past reviews in several respects. Gone is the primary focus on rogue state ballistic missiles that defined the 2010 review. It also corrects the 2019 MDR’s insufficient attention to integration, air defense layering for cruise missile and UAS threats, and survivability. Although the public version of the review leaves much to be desired, it nevertheless advances several critical mission areas: a comprehensive approach to missile defeat, homeland cruise missile defense, the defense of Guam, and distributed operations.

This MDR has three parts: the first addresses the evolving air and missile threat environment, the second, the U.S. strategy and policy framework, and the third, ways to strengthen international cooperation. Following the overarching theme of the 2022 NDS, the MDR describes missile defenses as a critical component of “integrated deterrence,” defined as a framework bringing together all instruments of national power.

The 12-page, 4,700-word document is dramatically shorter than the 2019 version, which came in at 28,834 words and 100 pages. While brevity can bring readability and concision, it can do so at the expense of what is unsaid and of questions left open.

Despite the National Defense Strategy’s emphasis on this as the “decisive decade,” the MDR does not specify dates or timelines, and budget documents suggest that key new capabilities appear to be pushed to the 2030s. Other notable absences include the usual reference to arms control limitations, the need for increasing production quantities, the need for maintaining flexible acquisition authorities, and specifics on who exactly will manage this new “missile defeat” enterprise.

Weapons of Choice

One of the strengths of the 2019 MDR was its broader description of missile threats, to include ballistic, cruise, and hypersonic missiles. The Trump administration’s actual programmatic and budgetary implementation of hypersonic and cruise missile defense, however, were quite modest. The 2019 review also neglected UAS as a species of air defense, or what the new review calls “missile-related” threats. As seen in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Iranian attacks in 2019 , and the Ukrainian war this year, that neglect is no longer tenable.

The 2022 review draws attention to the more complete spectrum of air and missile threats. It describes UAS as an “inexpensive, flexible, and plausibly deniable” means to “carry out tactical-level attacks below the threshold for major response, making them an increasingly preferred capability.” Still, other delivery systems must also be contemplated going forward, including spaceplanes and fractional or multiple orbital delivery systems “that move in and out of the atmosphere.”

The threat description in the MDR is, however, less sharply put than that conveyed by the May 2022 congressional testimony of Assistant Secretary of Defense John Plumb: “Offensive missiles are increasingly weapons of choice for Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, for use in conflict and to coerce and intimidate their neighbors.”

Strategic Deterrence and Defense

Like the Obama and Trump administration reviews, the Biden MDR notes that "the United States will continue to rely on strategic deterrence . . . to address and deter large intercontinental-range, nuclear missile threats to the homeland.” While this distinction may apply specifically to Chinese and Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles, it need not apply to other delivery systems, to non-nuclear strategic attack, or to the likes of North Korea.

Even as threats increase, the new MDR states “the United States will also continue to stay ahead of North Korean missile threats to the homeland through a comprehensive missile defeat approach, complemented by the credible threat of direct cost imposition through nuclear and non-nuclear means.” The use of “missile defeat” represents a subtle but important shift which applies broadly to the missile defense enterprise. A broad defense and defeat-dominant posture toward North Korea remains intact, but attack operations and more novel measures left of launch will help size the requirements for active missile defense interceptors within the comprehensive missile defeat enterprise.

Homeland ballistic missile defense is here to stay. The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system is “an essential element” of missile defeat, and its “continued modernization and expansion” is necessary to maintain both “a visible measure of protection for the U.S. population” and an assurance to “allies and partners that the United States will not be coerced by threats to the homeland.” The Biden administration initiated a competitive development process to procure 20 Next Generation Interceptors (NGIs) in March 2021. The MDR notes that the NGI may not merely “augment” but “potentially replace” today’s fleet of 44 Ground Based Interceptors.

Air Defenses

The 2022 MDR corrects past inattention to aerial threats, including unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and homeland cruise missile defense. The review says that “homeland and regionally forward deployed forces require the fielding of technical and integrated C-UAS solutions.” While not discussed in the review, the U.S. Army is moving out rapidly as the acquisition authority for countering UAS (C-UAS). Possible capability improvements are legion, but capacity and training for the mission remain paramount. The new MDR likewise embraces cruise missile defense for the homeland (CMD-H), which first appeared in the 2022 and 2023 budget requests. The past focus on rogue state ballistic missile attacks should give way to a focus on a nonnuclear strategic attack by major powers: “To deter attempts by adversaries to stay under the nuclear threshold and achieve strategic results with conventional capabilities, the United States will examine active and passive defense measures to decrease the risk from any cruise missile strike against critical assets, regardless of origin.”

The discussion of future technologies prioritizes sensors above all, followed by battle management and command and control (C2). The missions for AMD sensors are to “detect, characterize, track, and engage current and emerging advanced air and missile threats regionally, and to improve early warning, identification, tracking, discrimination, and attribution for missile threats to the homeland.” Requiring engagement support for regional threats but not for attacks on the homeland seems especially odd since the document repeatedly highlights the specter of nonnuclear strategic attack on the homeland. CMD-H must also include engagement capabilities; its sensors must include those capable of combat identification and fire control quality tracks. That paragraph highlights modern over-the-horizon radars for “improving warning and tracking against cruise missile and other threats to the homeland.” The same criterion must be applied to the emerging space sensors. It is not good enough to provide “strategic and theater missile warning and tracking.” Sensor architectures must also support fire control.

The 2019 review referenced “transregional” threats, which blur the legacy distinction between homeland and regional concerns. As it turns out, cruise missiles, UAS, and aerial threats that threaten U.S. forces and allies in other regions are a global concern. North America is a region, too, and cruise missile defense for the homeland is a capability the United States has neglected for too long. Embracing the priority of homeland missile defense requires attention to more than just rogue state ballistic missiles. It remains to be seen whether the Air Force moves out to field not just sensors but active defenses for CMD-H.

Complex and Integrated Attacks

The new MDR notably recognizes how various air and missile threats would be used in conjunction for complex and integrated attacks. The text places special attention to UAS: “Adversaries also are utilizing multiple types of missile salvos—such as one-way attack UAS in combination with rockets—in an effort to defeat missile defense systems.” America’s perceived birthright to air superiority is long gone. Recognition in a policy document of how adversary air and missile threats could suppress and disintegrate active defenses is long overdue. Its implications are profound.

It is critical to acknowledge that adversaries will attempt to suppress U.S. and allied AMD capabilities. The 2018 NDS endorsed dispersed basing and operations, but the 2019 MDR did not apply that logic to AMD. The 2022 review does so explicitly: “Future air and missile defense capabilities must also be more mobile, flexible, survivable, and affordable, and emphasize disaggregation, dispersal, and maneuver to mitigate the threat from adversary missiles.”

AMD is necessary not only for fixed infrastructure, but for “joint maneuver forces.” It is all well and good to move swiftly around the battlefield, but loitering munitions and cruise missile targeting has dramatically improved. Mobility is no longer a panacea. With limited room to move on a small island like Guam—where launchers have little place to be repositioned—it may not be worth the time and expense to require AMD elements to be fully mobile. When one must defend what one cannot move or hide, fixed emplacements may be good enough.

The defense of Guam is, indeed, one of the most important new initiatives of the Biden administration. Despite years of urging by U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, the matter only first appeared in the 2022 and 2023 budget requests. As with CMD-H, the problem of Guam further defies the homeland-regional dichotomy of yesteryear. Guam has a “unique status as both an unequivocal part of the United States as well as a vital regional location.” The significance of Guam as a test case for full-spectrum, 360-degree AMD cannot be overstated.

International Cooperation

Three of the MDR’s 12 pages are devoted to describing international missile defense cooperation. Its discussion of cooperation with Canada is accompanied by reference to the “acute” (read: Russian) threat of “increasingly sophisticated conventional missile capabilities that are able to target critical infrastructure in North America.” Again, the document commits to improving “early warning surveillance for potential incursions or attacks,” but does not discuss the need for fire-control quality tracking and engagement support.

In the Indo-Pacific, the MDR highlights cooperation with Japan, Australia, and South Korea. Within NATO, the Patriot, NASAMS, and the SAMP-T systems get shoutouts in the endorsement of 360-degree AMD (read: to include Russia). The European Sky Shield Initiative may be an important element of this, although C2 and sensors for NATO probably deserve prioritization. Recent developments in Europe include Germany’s consideration of Arrow-3, Poland’s defense buildup across the board, and Finland and Sweden’s likely accession to NATO. Slovakia, moreover, likely needs new defenses to replace the S-300 units it donated to Ukraine. The document recognizes the longstanding cooperative efforts with Israel, encourages Gulf Cooperation Council cooperation, and notes the “ongoing normalization efforts between Israel and key Arab states” to create new opportunities for AMD cooperation.

The global market for AMD capabilities has continued to increase. The MDR notes how Russia uses “several lower-tier air defense systems for its own use and export as a foreign policy instrument.” The sale of the S-400 to countries like Turkey and India, for instance, has certainly been a wedge within the alliances. How well Russia is able to maintain the operation and upgrades of those exports in the face of sanctions on its defense industry will remain to be seen.

Honorable Unmentions

The brevity of the 2022 review means that it leaves several issues unmentioned. One notable absence is timelines and phases. It is one thing to say that the United States must defend Guam, that it must have hypersonic defense, and that space sensors are critical, but there are no express milestones or dates to assess whether they will be available within the decade, let alone at the speed of relevance.

Also missing are the usual recitations about arms control. The 2010 review declared that “the Administration will continue to reject any negotiated restraints on U.S. ballistic missile defenses,” and the 2019 review affirmed that “the United States will not accept any limitation or constraint on the development or deployment of missile defense capabilities needed to protect the homeland against rogue missile threats.” Instead, with language reminiscent of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty’s preamble, the document highlights “the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive systems.” Without endorsing limitations, the 2022 MDR suggests “strengthening mutual transparency and predictability.”

Another omission is any reference to acquisition authorities, the protection of which was affirmed in both the 2010 and 2019 reviews and in numerous legislative pronouncements. This may reflect the legacy of what is known as the “Trump DTM,” the Directive Type Memorandum . Even when the Pentagon was pushing acquisition authorities down across the services, the Trump administration began to undermine the acquisition authorities of the Missile Defense Agency. The 2022 MDR does, however, acknowledge the need for “adaptive acquisition approaches.” Rescinding the Trump DTM would help protect such approaches.

The document omits past discussions on directed-energy missile defense systems. Given the intensity of the air and missile threat spectrum, non-kinetic effects offer considerable promise. The Trump administration removed directed energy from the Missile Defense Agency’s budget. As technology has advanced in service and DOD-wide applications, concepts like high-powered microwaves, short-pulse lasers, and other types might now have applications for active defense missions.

The MDR’s policy direction does not seem to address who will manage the department’s missile defeat enterprise. While embracing of the full means of countering and defeating missile threats has much to commend it, an unbalanced pivot to “missile defeat” carries could have pitfalls. A prudent “fly before you buy” approach should apply to exotic non-kinetic and left-of-launch capabilities just as it does to hit-to-kill interceptors. Reliance on highly secret solutions that sacrifices deterrence for warfighting may be necessary, but nonkinetic and left-of-launch capabilities could be unproven, untestable, incapable of demonstration, and unsusceptible to foreign military sales.

A final unmentioned item worthy of policy guidance relates to production. One of the many lessons of the Ukraine conflict is how quickly missiles and munitions are expended in a conflict with a major power. The necessity of mass-producing AMD elements must be addressed. European countries who have given their air defenses to Ukraine, for instance, will no doubt be expecting a backfill. NATO’s air defense initiatives signal a demand for significant procurement and the potential for collaborative and bulk approaches.

As Assistant Secretary Plumb said in May , “Missiles have become a common and expected facet of modern warfare,” which makes “missile defeat and missile defense efforts more important than ever.” If the Trump MDR foundered for disconnects from budgets and programs, the Biden MDR deserves similar scrutiny so that these capabilities do not remain paper programs . While advancing certain mission areas on paper, taking the next steps requires implementing CMD-H, the defense of Guam, space sensors, and hypersonic defense with the seriousness they demand. The missile threat spectrum is not a boutique problem, but a central military challenge from China and Russia. Whether the Biden administration will properly resource and implement the goals of its MDR and NDS is now the question.

Tom Karako is a senior fellow with the International Security Program and the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Commentary   is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).

© 2022 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

Programs & Projects

• 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
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

North Korea says it tested cruise missiles with ‘super-large’ warheads in its latest weapons display

This photo provided by the North Korean government, shows what it says a test firing of a new anti-air missile in North Korea Friday, Feb. 2, 2024. Independent journalists were not given access to cover the event depicted in this image distributed by the North Korean government. The content of this image is as provided and cannot be independently verified. Korean language watermark on image as provided by source reads: “KCNA” which is the abbreviation for Korean Central News Agency. (Korean Central News Agency/Korea News Service via AP)

• Copy Link copied

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korea said it tested cruise missiles outfitted with new “super-large” warheads as well as a new type of anti-aircraft missile, extending a streak in weapons demonstrations that has rival South Korea worried.

The report Saturday by North Korean state media came a day after South Korea’s military said it detected the North launching multiple cruise missiles into waters off its western coast. It’s the country’s fourth round of launches of such weapons in 2024.

North Korean photos of the test showed a low-flying cruise missile striking a target built on a coastal shore, and another projectile soaring into the air after being launched from ground.

In announcing the development of larger warheads for cruise missiles, North Korea could be trying to emphasize that these missiles are intended to be armed with nuclear weapons.

North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency did not specify the number of missiles tested or the details of their performance. The agency said the tests were part of the country’s “normal activities” for military development and did not affect the security of neighbors.

Cruise missiles are among a growing collection of North Korean weapons designed to overwhelm regional missile defenses. They supplement the country’s vast lineup of ballistic missiles, including long-range weapons 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 United States.

In January, North Korea conducted two tests of a new cruise missile designed to be launched from submarines, which leader Kim Jong Un described as a meaningful step toward his goals of building a nuclear-armed navy. The North also conducted tests of a long-range cruise missile, which it has described as nuclear-capable and can cover ranges of up to 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles) — potentially putting U.S. military bases in Japan within reach.

Those cruise missile tests followed the Jan. 14 launch of a new solid-fuel intermediate-range missile , which underscored North Korean efforts to advance weapons that could target U.S. assets in the Pacific, including the military hub of Guam.

Friday’s launches came hours after North Korean state media reported that Kim reiterated his focus on strengthening his naval forces as he inspected the construction of warships at a shipyard in Nampho on the west coast.

In recent months, Kim has emphasized efforts to build a nuclear-armed navy to counter what he portrays as growing threats posed by the United States, South Korea and Japan, which have stepped up their military cooperation in response to his nuclear ambitions.

There are concerns that Kim, emboldened by the steady advancement of his nuclear arsenal and strengthened ties with Russia , would further ramp up pressure against his rivals in an election year in the United States and South Korea. Experts say Kim’s long-term goal is to force the U.S. to accept the idea of the North as a nuclear power and negotiate security concessions and sanctions relief from a position of strength.

While most analysts downplay Kim’s threats of war, some say there’s a possibility that he could attempt a direct military provocation in a limited scale that he can contain without letting it escalate into a full-blown war.

One of the potential crisis points is the disputed western sea boundary between the Koreas, which has been the site of several bloody naval skirmishes over the years.

Top 7 Hypersonic and Cruise Missiles In Development

This article delves into the dynamic landscape of military technology, highlighting seven cutting-edge missiles that nations worldwide are actively developing. These are the Top 7 Hypersonic and Cruise Missiles In Development

1. CAKIR (Turkey)

Cakir is a new-generation cruise missile that can be launched from land, sea, and air platforms with a range of more than 150 kilometers. It is designed by Turkish rocket and missile manufacturer RoketSan . The missile’s intended targets include surface targets, land and surface targets close to the shore, strategic land targets, field targets, and caves. The first firing from the UAV Bayraktar Akinci is planned for the end of 2022, with platform integration in 2023. Checkered can carry warheads weighing up to 70 kilograms and can reach a maximum speed of Mach 0.85.

2. GEZGIN (Turkey)

Turkey is developing a new sea-launched indigenous cruise missile named Gezgin, which is similar to American Tomahawk and Russian caliber missiles. While exact specifications have not been announced, it is expected that the Gezgin cruise missile will have an operational range of approximately 1,400 kilometers.

Integrating Gezgin missiles onto forthcoming Reis-class submarines or the indigenous milden (MILDEN-Milli Denizalti) class submarine, which is currently in the design phase, would significantly enhance the capability of silent underwater platforms with a long-range, high-precision strike asset.

3. R’AAD II (Pakistan)

The R’aad II missile is a Pakistani long-range air-launched cruise missile that was first publicly unveiled on March 23, 2017. Its range has increased from an initial 300 kilometers to its most recent test range of 600 kilometers, with enhancements to its guidance and flight control systems. The missile features a conventional tail fin configuration and measures 4.85 meters in length, with further details remaining classified.

4. Brahmos 2 (India-Russia)

Brahmos 2 is a Hypersonic cruise missile currently under joint development by India and Russia. It is the second in the Brahmos series of cruise missiles and is expected to have a range of 1,500 kilometers and a speed of Mach 8.

A scramjet air-breathing jet engine will propel the missile during its cruise stage. Production cost and physical dimensions of the missile have not yet been published, and testing, originally planned for 2020, has been delayed. Brahmos 2 is anticipated to be the fastest cruise missile in the world, with double the top speed of the current Brahmos 1.

5. Brahmos NG (India-Russia)

While Brahmos continues to maintain its position as the world’s best and fastest cruise missile system , advancements in military technology have led to the development of the Brahmos NG (Next Generation). This smaller and lighter weapon system promises increased versatility, lethality, and flexibility. It is expected to be one of the most potent weapon systems in the future.

6. Fattah (Iran)

Fattah Iran has recently unveiled Fatah, a Hypersonic ballistic missile capable of penetrating defense systems , raising concerns in the West and Israel. Fattah is a two-stage precision-guided solid-fueled missile with a top speed of up to Mach 15.

Its Warhead is powered by a spherical engine using solid fuel and features a movable nozzle, allowing it to accelerate and change direction. According to Iran, Fatah can navigate in and out of the atmosphere, avoiding anti-missile defense systems like the Iron Dome . It can also target anti-ballistic missile defense systems, leaving the adversary defenseless against Iran’s additional rockets.

7. FC/ASW (UK-France)

The Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapon seeks to develop a new generation of deep-strike and anti-ship missiles by 2030. It aims to replace the capabilities provided by the Storm Shadow, SCALP air-launched cruise missile in the UK and France, the Exocet anti-ship missile in France, and the Harpoon anti-ship missile in the UK.

A Ramjet motor powers the Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapon , measures 5 meters in length, weighs around 800 kilograms, and carries a payload comprising a 1,200-kilogram main Warhead and 250 kilograms of subsidiary Warheads. These Warheads can either contribute directly to the overall impact or be ejected from lateral bases before the missile reaches its target, effectively acting as submunitions.

That concludes the list of seven Hypersonic and cruise missiles that are currently under development.

Tempor Nec Feugiat Nislpretium Fusce Platea Dictumst

Egestas Egestas Fringilla Phasellus Faucibus Scelerisque

• Air Warfare
• Cyber (Opens in new window)
• C4ISR (Opens in new window)
• Training & Sim
• Asia Pacific
• Mideast Africa
• The Americas
• Top 100 Companies
• Defense News Weekly
• Money Minute
• Whitepapers & eBooks (Opens in new window)
• DSDs & SMRs (Opens in new window)
• Webcasts (Opens in new window)
• Events (Opens in new window)
• Newsletters (Opens in new window)
• Events Calendar
• Early Bird Brief
• Digital Edition (Opens in new window)

Pentagon plan for homeland cruise missile defense taking shape

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon’s plan to defend the U.S. homeland from cruise missiles is starting to take shape after a prolonged period of development because until recently , the threat was perceived as a more distant regional one, a senior Air Force official said.

North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command have been working for several years and across two presidential administrations to come up with a design that can effectively defend the continental U.S. from cruise missiles, according to Brig. Gen. Paul Murray, NORAD deputy director of operations.

NORAD and NORTHCOM, in consultation with the Missile Defense Agency and the Joint Integrated Air and Missile Defense Organization are closing in on a design framework for the mission, Murray said, just as the Pentagon enters a critical decision-making period as it formulates the fiscal 2024 budget request.

Once the design is created, “it’s time to go out and defend the design,” Murray said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies conference July 14. This translates to conducting modeling and simulation to prove out, in part, that the architecture will work.

It’s also not to say “my computer’s crunching numbers, buy me these capabilities,” he said, adding capabilities need to be demonstrated which includes partnering with the MDA and others to experiment.

Budgets for cruise missile defense of the homeland in fiscal 2022 and 2023 were modest, with combatant commands including NORTHCOM placing additional funding for development in so-called wish lists rather than in base budget requests and hoping that Congress ultimately supplies the dollars.

The cruise missile challenge

Land-attack cruise missiles can be launched from the air, ground or sea and because they fly at low altitudes under powered flight, it is difficult for radars to detect them.

Ballistic missiles can be detected much earlier, which allows more time to detect, track, decide and act. For cruise missiles, decision makers may have only a couple of minutes and salvos of cruise missiles can attack from different directions, complicating the approach to defeating the threat.

While the U.S. has been focused on ballistic missile defense of the homeland from adversaries including North Korea, Russia and China have made investments over several decades to develop cruise missiles capable of carrying out a non-nuclear attack.

The 2019 Missile Defense Review highlighted the need to focus on near-peer cruise missiles and directed the Pentagon to recommend an organization to have acquisition authority of cruise missile defense for the homeland. The designation requirement also appeared in the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, but the Pentagon has yet to choose what organization will be in charge of the effort.

The lack of an acquisition authority can hamper the budget process. And budget requests during the Trump administration contained little to get moving on cruise missile defense. In President Joe Biden’s first two budgets, the mission also received very little funding save to conduct a cruise missile defense kill chain demonstration.

Previous attempts to figure out how to defend against cruise missiles hit roadblocks.

In 2015, for example, a large aerostat being evaluated for cruise missile defense at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland broke free from its mooring and drifted across Pennsylvania. It’s long tether knocked out power lines and, once it landed in a grove of trees in Amish countryside, had to be shot at by State Troopers to get it to deflate.

The JLENS program was promptly canceled .

The debate over what part of the U.S. is most important to protect from cruise missiles also hindered progress because it was difficult to land on policy to help determine site locations, Peppi DeBiaso, a non-resident senior associate at CSIS, said during a panel discussion at the conference.

Impossible to protect everything

CSIS, in a report it debuted at the conference , said it will be impossible to protect everything. Lt. Gen. A.C. Roper, U.S. NORTHCOM deputy commander, said in a recording played at the event, that “placing a Patriot or a [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense] battery on every street corner is both infeasible and unaffordable.”

Missile Defense Agency fires Patriot missile from THAAD system

Mda has hit a milestone for integrating the terminal high altitude area defense system with the patriot air and missile defense system, firing an advanced patriot missile from thaad..

The CSIS report lays out a suggested architecture, implementation plan and cost estimate for a cruise missile defense capability to protect the homeland that uses systems already fielded today and leverages sensors and radars already working other jobs to provide early warning and information to aid detection and then decision making in the event of a cruise missile attack.

The design in the CSIS report consists of five layers implemented over three phases. The elements include over-the-horizon radars, towered sensors, an aerostat, three types of interceptors, command-and-control operations centers and a mobile airborne asset, all with a projected acquisition cost of $14.9 billion. Phased operations and sustainment costs are estimated to be $17.8 billion – or $32.7 billion over 20 years.

A study from the Congressional Budget Office in 2021 developed four architectures with 20-year acquisition and sustainment costs estimated between $77 billion and $466 billion. CSIS said the architecture designs from CBO were “hampered by methodological constraints and by element selection, resulting in brittle and expensive solutions.”

The authors of the report acknowledged that “no weapon system is perfect, and perfection is the enemy of the good,” but added, “even if limited and imperfect, a sufficient and affordable defense can complicate adversary planning and strengthen deterrence.”

Vista Rampart and beyond

NORAD and NORTHCOM held a wargame called Vista Rampart in March and April to further refine cruise missile defense concepts. Then NORAD took the design outside of the headquarters to the Globally Integrated War Game, which addressed the capabilities at a broader level with the services and combatant commands.

Other considerations will need to be made, Murray added, to include how to organize, train and equip the defensive systems.

How the architecture would tie into a broader defensive framework with allies and partners such as Canada will require further coordination and analysis. The U.S. and Canada are extensively partnered through a binational command, with capabilities including the North Warning System at the edge of the Arctic designed to detect airborne threats coming from the polar region.

The Pentagon is also keeping a close eye on how the establishment of a missile defense capability on Guam will inform a homeland cruise missile defense capability. The Missile Defense Agency revealed a relatively detailed plan for defending the island against ballistic, hypersonic and cruise missile attacks as well as other airborne threats and funded the initial development and fielding in the coming years to build it.

“I think as we develop a Guam architecture, working with the Army, working with the Navy, working with the joint staff and the services, I think we will learn a lot from that, how we want to operate that integrated kind of defense” Stan Stafira, Missile Defense Agency chief architect, said at the conference. “And then that area is kind of the size of what you’re looking at trying to defend, say, a limited area in CONUS,” he said.

Last fall the Joint Requirements Oversight Council approved an Integrated Air and Missile Defense priority requirements document through a portfolio management review process, Col. Tony Behrens, JIAMDO deputy director, said on the same panel.

“This process will enable a flexible and holistic approach to determining and prioritizing IAMD requirements. It established a priority framework that the combatant commands and Joint Force will help us review annually in developing what we’re calling the Integrated Air Missile Defense portfolio priority list, a holistic approach to the entire IAMD enterprise,” Behrens said.

The list is intended to aid senior decision makers balance budgetary needs and synchronize support across the services and DOD in support of missions like air and cruise missile defense of the homeland, he said.

As the Pentagon looks at cruise missile defense capability “there is a lot of capability out there,” Stafira said, “and all of the services have developed capabilities to defend against cruise missiles.”

Yet as the Defense Department looks at all of these capabilities it is going to need help from industry to answer, “how do you integrate different industry partners’ assets together to do that?”

Jen Judson is an award-winning journalist covering land warfare for Defense News. She has also worked for Politico and Inside Defense. She holds a Master of Science degree in journalism from Boston University and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Kenyon College.

More In Pentagon

How achievable is the continuous Authority to Operate model?

Staying current requires agile development practices that continuously integrate and deliver high-quality software with reduced risk..

Construction begins on new fleet of warships for Royal Canadian Navy

The project will see the construction of 15 warships to replace the current fleet of halifax-class frigates..

Pentagon seeks objective way to test tools for zero trust compliance

To increase the number of designs going through purple teaming, resnick said he wants to find a way to enlist the help of industry..

US Central Command to demo integrated counter drone sensors this fall

Centcom will stage a u.s.-based exercise in october focused on spotting uas threats followed by a second demo in theater early next year..

Pentagon to issue guidance on open radio access networks to support 5G

Oran is something the dod has been pushing aggressively to explore., featured video, avoiding student loan scams — money minute.

U.S. troops train to tame snakes; and soldiers learn to recover fallen comrades

Roundup: the biggest topics at TechNet Cyber 2024

The future of missile defense in the Pacific

Trending now, how ukraine can defeat russian glide bombs, south korea orders first batch of kf-21 fighters, bae cuts steel on first anti-submarine frigate for australia, next-gen helo engines delivered to sikorsky for black hawk integration.

North Korea tests more cruise missiles as leader Kim calls for war readiness

SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea on Friday extended a provocative run in weapons tests by firing cruise missiles into the sea, as leader Kim Jong Un called for his military to step up war preparations while touring a shipyard.

South Korea ’s Joint Chiefs of Staff said the U.S. and South Korean militaries were analyzing the North Korean launches into its western sea. It said the South’s military detected multiple missiles but it did not immediately provide a specific number or an assessment of their flight characteristics.

The launches, which were the North’s fourth round of cruise missile tests in 2024, came hours after state media reported that Kim reiterated his focus on strengthening his naval forces as he inspected unspecified naval projects at a shipyard in Nampho, on the west coast.

Kim in recent months has emphasized his effort to build a nuclear-armed navy to counter what he portrays as growing external threats posed by the United States, South Korea and Japan, which have stepped up their military cooperation to cope with Kim’s nuclear weapons and missile program.

North Korea’s official Korean Central News Agency did not specify when Kim visited Nampho. It paraphrased Kim as saying that the strengthening of his naval force “presents itself as the most important issue in reliably defending the maritime sovereignty of the country and stepping up the war preparations.”

KCNA did not specify the types of warships being built in Nampho, but said they were related to a five-year military development plan set during a ruling party congress in early 2021. During those meetings, Kim revealed an extensive wish list of advanced military assets, which included nuclear-powered submarines and nuclear missiles that can be launched from underwater.

During the inspection, Kim was briefed on the progress of his naval projects and remaining technological challenges and ordered workers to “unconditionally” complete the efforts within the timeframe of the plan that runs through 2025, KCNA said.

Kim Inae, a spokesperson for South Korea’s Unification Ministry, said it was the first time the ministry was aware of that state media reported on Kim Jong Un conducting a military inspection in Nampho. That could suggest an expansion of naval projects from the country’s eastern shipyard of Sinpo, which has been the North’s base for submarine construction. Kim did not provide a specific answer when asked whether Seoul believes the North is using Nampho for its efforts to build nuclear-powered submarines.

“By making military threats routine, North Korea is trying to create a sense of insecurity among South Korean people to undermine trust in their government and to attract international attention to build an atmosphere in which its demands must be accepted to resolve the crisis on the Korean Peninsula,” she said.

South Korea’s army said its special operation troops wrapped up a 10-day training with U.S. Green Berets on Friday in a region near the country’s capital, Seoul, in the allies’ latest combined military exercises. The countries in recent months have staged larger drills, including trilateral exercises involving Japan.

Kim Jong Un also called for naval might on Sunday while inspecting a test of a new nuclear-capable cruise missile, the Pulhwasal-3-31, designed to be fired from submarines. Last month the North also conducted tests of a long-range cruise missile, which it has described as nuclear-capable and can cover ranges of up to 1,240 miles, which would potentially put U.S. military bases in Japan within reach.

While North Korea has demonstrated quick progress in expanding its lineup of land-based nuclear-capable missiles, experts say Kim’s naval ambitions may require significantly more time, resources and technology breakthroughs. Most of its aging, diesel-powered submarines can launch only torpedoes and mines, and experts say Kim’s stated pursuit of nuclear-propelled submarines is largely unfeasible without significant external assistance.

The Associated Press

The Navy's Most Powerful Warships Are Going Extinct in 4 Years, Giving China the Upper Hand

It’s the end of a mighty era—and the start of a new power struggle.

• The U.S. Navy will decommission all of its guided missile cruisers by 2027.
• The first cruiser, the Atlanta , entered service in 1884.
• The exit of the Navy’s cruisers means that the most powerful ships, by number of missiles, will be Chinese.

The U.S. Navy’s longest serving class of warships will go extinct in four years, ending 143 years of continuous service. The last of the mighty Ticonderoga -class guided missile cruisers are scheduled to decommission in 2027, taking more than 1,500 missile silos with them. The loss of the Tico s will leave China’s new Type 055 cruisers as the most powerful surface warships afloat by number of missiles carried.

The Tired 13

The 13 Ticonderoga class guided missile cruisers are the last of 27 ships commissioned between 1983 and 1994. The Ticonderoga class was conceived as a multi-purpose warship, capable of surface strike, anti-ship, and anti-submarine warfare. The ship’s major emphasis, however, was on anti-air warfare. The class gradually evolved the capability to engage virtually all air and space threats, from sea-skimming anti-ship missiles flying 30 feet above the wavetops to satellites in low-Earth orbit.

The ships have served continuously since, and for more than 40 years, the Navy has assigned one cruiser to serve as the primary air defender for every deployed carrier strike group. In the post-Cold War period, the ships were often used to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles against enemy land targets. Today, as the threat reverts back to anti-air warfare, the ships are simply too old to continue in service.

Shield of the Fleet

The Ticonderoga s were meant to act as bodyguards for aircraft carriers, battleships, and large amphibious ships, defending them against Soviet missile raids. The ships could also act as the flagship for a surface action group, a task force without a carrier or amphibious ship, with two or three other destroyers.

The Ticonderoga class was the first to use the Aegis combat system. Named after the Greek god Zeus’s shield, Aegis is an automated combat engagement system originally designed to defeat enemy air attacks, linking the SPY-1 phased array radar system with Standard SM-2 surface-to-air missiles. Aegis was designed to detect, track, and engage up to 100 incoming missiles at a time, far more than human operators could monitor effectively.

The most important armament on the Ticonderoga class is the 122 Mk 41 vertical launch missile silos, each of which can house one SM-2 air defense missile, one SM-3 ballistic missile interceptor, one SM-6 multipurpose missile, one Tomahawk land attack cruise missile, or one ASROC anti-submarine torpedo. Each silo can alternately carry up to four Evolved Sea Sparrow short range air defense missiles.

The Mk 41’s versatility means a ship can swap out missile loads to respond to the threat environment: if the mission involves protecting a carrier, it would load up on air defense missiles. If the mission involved striking land targets, it would carry cruise missiles with enough other types of missiles to fulfill basic defensive missions.

In addition to the missiles stored in silos, a Ticonderoga can carry up to eight Harpoon anti-ship missiles in deck mounted tubes. Each ship also has two Mk 45 5-inch guns, twice as many as a destroyer, two helicopters, two Phalanx last ditch anti-missile systems, two 25mm chain guns, and up to six 324mm anti-submarine torpedoes.

A Short History of the Cruiser

Cruisers came about in the second half of the 19th century. The navies of the world wanted a ship smaller and faster than a battleship, one that could scout ahead and locate the enemy fleet. Once the enemy fleet was located, the main battle fleet of battleships could close with it and take it under fire.

Over the years, the mission of the cruiser evolved. As carrier-based aircraft took over the scouting role, cruisers adapted to carry large numbers of anti-aircraft guns, protecting battleships and aircraft carriers from aerial attack. The age of the missile saw cruisers evolve into guided missile cruisers, which use a combination of radar and surface-to-air missiles to extend a bubble of protection from missiles and aircraft around the fleet for miles in every direction.

The adoption of the vertical launch missile silo boosted the number of missiles that cruisers could carry, enhancing their effectiveness at sea. Some cruisers, like the California class, were nuclear powered, ensuring they could keep up with nuclear-powered carriers. As the Cold War ended and the threat shifted to rogue states armed with ballistic missiles, the Aegis combat system was modified to counter them with the SM-3 missile.

The SM-3 can not only engage missile warheads in low-Earth orbit, but satellites as well. In 2008, the cruiser USS Lake Erie shot down USA 193 , a failing U.S. government satellite, with a SM-3 missile at an altitude of 150 miles.

The retirement of the Ticonderogas has been a long time coming, and there have been several attempts to design a replacement. For various reasons, chiefly a lack of funding for the naval service and bad decisions, the ships never left the concept stage. Today, the Navy plans to replace the cruisers with the future DDG(X), a new guided missile destroyer that will have just 96 missile silos, compared to the Ticonderogas’ 122.

Destroyers are a step below cruisers in the size and power hierarchy, meaning after 2027, the Navy will go without cruisers for the foreseeable future. The Navy plans to augment DDG(X) in combat with robotic ships carrying additional missiles.

The loss of the Ticonderoga s and their large missile magazines will leave the Chinese Navy operating the world’s largest surface warships. The Renhai , or Type 055 class , is classified by the U.S. Department of Defense as a cruiser and is fitted with 112 missile silos.

Maybe it won’t matter that when the world’s largest surface ships come calling, they won’t be American, and that they will carry 18 more missiles than their closest American counterparts ... but maybe it will.

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;} Pop Mech Pro .css-xtujxj:before{padding-left:0.3125rem;content:'//';display:inline;}

Charred Scroll Explains Plato’s Final Night

Can Young Blood Transfusions Really Reverse Aging?

Human Consciousness Is an Illusion, Scientists Say

Ship from Famous Explorer's Final Journey Found

Japan Follows U.S. in Investigating UAP Sightings

Treasure May Be Hidden Amongst Terracotta Army

The Air Force's NGAD Fighter Might Be Dead

In a Show of Force, Russian Navy Visits Cuba

The Real WWII Fighter That Killed Godzilla

The CIA’s Plan to Deploy an Army of Super Spies

She Was Pronounced Dead—Then Found Gasping for Air

North Korea tests 2 missiles, 1 reportedly may have fallen on land

One of the two launches may have flown toward Pyongyang, Yonhap reported.

SEOUL and LONDON -- North Korea test-launched on Monday two ballistic missiles, one of which may have failed and fallen to the ground before reaching the sea, according to South Korea 's military and media.

"We strongly condemn North Korea's missile launch as a clear provocation that seriously threatens peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula," South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said.

The tests were detected at 5:05 a.m. and 5:15 a.m., the South Korean military said. South Korean officials shared the launch data in real-time with the United States and Japan , South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday.

MORE: North Korea tests new type of cruise missile, state media says

The latest provocation from North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong Un, followed last week's joint military exercises by the U.S., Japan and South Korea. Those exercises were a sign that the security cooperation in the region "has never been stronger," U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said on Friday.

The U.S. military condemned Monday's launches, calling on North Korea to put an end to its "unlawful and destabilizing acts."

"While we have assessed that this event does not pose an immediate threat to U.S. personnel, or territory, or to our allies, we continue to monitor the situation," the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command said in a statement. "The U.S. commitments to the defense of the ROK and Japan remain ironclad."

MORE: Russia and North Korea solidify partnership, vowing mutual assistance against 'aggression'

 The first of Monday's ballistic missile tests flew about 600 km, or about 373 miles, and landed off Chongjin, North Korea, in the Sea of Japan, the South Korean military said.

The other missile appeared to have flown only about 120 km, or about 75 miles, the military told the South Korean news agency Yonhap.

"It is difficult to know exactly where the short-range missile hit, and we believe it may have gone toward Pyongyang," a South Korean military official said, according to Yonhap.

ABC News' Ellie Kaufman contributed to this report.

Related Topics

• North Korea

Trending Reader Picks

Scorching heat expected across US on July Fourth

• Jun 30, 1:35 PM

18 inmates overpower guard, flee prison in Kashmir

• Jul 1, 2:49 AM

'Serious conversation' for Dems on Biden: Raskin

• Jun 30, 8:23 PM

Personality cult of North Korea's Kim grows

• Jul 1, 2:42 AM

Will Trump stand trial in DC before the election?

• Jun 30, 8:37 PM

ABC News Live

24/7 coverage of breaking news and live events

Russian space control centre in Crimea struck by missiles

H uge fires were recorded by satellites at the scene of a suspected Ukrainian ATACMS strike on a Russian-controlled space control centre in Crimea .

Photographs taken by Nasa’s Firms fire-monitoring system picked up two distinct large blazes near the NIP-16 space communications complex in the village of Vitino, on the occupied peninsula’s western coast.

Separate satellite images captured by Sentinel appeared to back up claims of large-scale blazes on the grounds of the site.

The details emerged after reports of Ukrainian forces launching multiple US-supplied ATACMS in the direction of Crimea, which was illegally annexed by Moscow in 2014.

Footage shared on social media appeared to show four Ukrainian M270 rocket launchers firing eight missiles into the night sky on Sunday night.

Shortly afterwards, Crimean Wind, a local channel on the Telegram messaging app, shared a separate video that suggested that the space communications centre had been hit during the ATACMS raid.

Other channels shared reports from locals claiming to have heard loud explosions and reports of ambulances being dispatched to the area.

The complex is known to house systems for deep space communications that support manned and robotic space missions.

It had reportedly been struck by an air-launched British-supplied Storm Shadow cruise missile in a raid in December last year.

There are understood to be other Russian military installations positioned in the area.

Open source researchers on social media suggested a Krasukha electronic warfare radar jammer had been positioned on the complex.

Ukraine has significantly ramped-up its long-range attacks against Russian targets in Crimea since the US secretly donated an unspecified number of ATACMS.

The medium-range ballistic missiles are fired from ground launchers, such as Himars, with the more powerful models supplied to Kyiv capable of hitting targets close to 190 miles away with conventional or cluster munition warheads.

Russian authorities have not commented on the latest strikes, while Kyiv has also refrained from claiming responsibility.

Ukrainian officials are waiting for a battle damage assessment before confirming the attack, The Telegraph understands.

Cloud cover over Crimea has made it hard for satellite images to be taken of any potential damage.

It was only possible to depict burns on the grass in the first low-resolution photographs captured and released on social media.

The Telegraph was not able to independently verify any damage.

Warning of ‘consequences’

The Kremlin on Monday warned there would be “consequences” for America, as it accused Washington of being directly involved in deadly strikes on the occupied peninsula.

“Of course, the involvement of the United States of America in hostilities, direct involvement in hostilities that result in the death of Russian civilians, this, of course, cannot but have consequences,” spokesman Dmitry Peskov was quoted as saying.

“What exactly – time will tell.”

Russia claimed to have intercepted four of five ATACMS reportedly fired in the direction of Belbek airfield, which Russia uses to launch fighter jets that regularly target civilian infrastructure in Ukraine.

A fifth was said to have detonated mid-air after being struck by air defences, with falling shrapnel killing four people and injuring 151 on a beach on the ground.

Footage showed bathers flying from beaches as loud explosions rang out above.

A report by the Russian state-owned Tass news agency said Lynn Tracy, the US ambassador to Moscow, had been summoned by the foreign ministry in response to the alleged attacks.

Ukraine did not comment on the attacks.

Sign up to the Front Page newsletter for free: Your essential guide to the day's agenda from The Telegraph - direct to your inbox seven days a week.

Opinion columnists | Column: The ships that end the world could be…

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on X (Opens in new window)

e-Pilot Evening Edition

Opinion columnists

• Letters to the Editor
• Submit a Letter
• Submit an Op-Ed

Breaking News

Opinion columnists | vehicle went off monitor-merrimac bridge, officials say; search in progress, subscriber only, opinion columnists | column: the ships that end the world could be built in our backyard.

There, in a cluster of new buildings, the tallest emblazoned with an American flag and the corporate logo, the shipyard produces the bows, sails and sterns for the nuclear-armed Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines. General Dynamics Electric Boat in Groton, Connecticut, builds the rest of each submarine and will do the final assembly. In 2031, the Columbia class is scheduled to start replacing the current Ohio-class ballistic missile subs. When completed and deployed around 2042, the fleet of 12 Columbia-class subs will carry the explosive power of 18,000 Hiroshima-sized bombs, enough to end civilization as we know it.

Building the Columbia class has been the Navy’s top priority for a decade, to ensure that the sea-based, and most survivable, leg of our nuclear triad is in place through the century. Together with bombers loaded with nuclear-armed cruise missiles and gravity bombs and underground missile silos in the Midwest, ballistic missile submarines make up our nation’s “strategic nuclear deterrence.”

Deterrence has been the watchword since the Soviet Union tested its first nuclear weapon in 1949. The foundational idea upon which all nuclear policy rests, deterrence theory is the circular belief that having nuclear weapons prevents one from being attacked with nuclear weapons, that the balance of such terror keeps the world safe. But, as researcher and educator Ward Hayes Wilson argues in “It Is Possible: A Future Without Nuclear Weapons,” deterrence has a simple, fatal flaw — it must be perfect in order to work. If it fails even once, the consequences for humanity will be catastrophic. And because human beings are imperfect, deterrence will ultimately fail.

Deterrence is more psychological theory than eternal truth. Indeed, deterrence wagers that no national leader could ever launch a nuclear strike out of perceived advantage, existential desperation, a bruised or inflated ego, madness or mistake — or that cyberattacks, artificial intelligence or autonomous technologies could ever bypass official channels and start a nuclear war. Is it that difficult to imagine the war in Ukraine, or the faceoff over Taiwan, or North Korean saber rattling, or Israeli/Iranian or Indian/Pakistani animosity ending in nuclear conflagration? Even probability theory says that the longer nuclear weapons exist, the more likely they are to be used.

If the world survives 20 more years of nuclear deterrence, it may be that the submarines under construction right now at Huntington-Ingalls Newport News Shipbuilding ignite the end of the world. In Newport News, whenever driving south on Warwick Boulevard and then bearing right onto Huntington Avenue, passing the glistening new buildings at the north end of the shipyard, we might do well to reflect on what would happen if their handiwork is ever called upon. In his farewell address, outgoing President Jimmy Carter painted a scenario:

“In an all-out nuclear war, more destructive power than in all of World War II would be unleashed every second during the long afternoon it would take for all the missiles and bombs to fall. A World War II every second — more people killed in the first few hours than in all the wars of history put together. The survivors, if any, would live in despair amid the poisoned ruins of a civilization that had committed suicide.”

Humanity’s best chance to avoid nuclear cataclysm is the relentless pursuit of global, verifiable nuclear disarmament. Such is the mission of the 70 and counting member-nations to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Email me to join the Hampton Roads Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (HRCAN), local partner to the international grassroots movement promoting the treaty and a nuclear weapons free world. That can start in our backyard, too.

Steve Baggarly is a member of the Hampton Roads Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. Email him at [email protected].

More in Opinion columnists

Opinion columnists | Column: Congress should pass its bipartisan bill to protect kids online

Opinion columnists | Column: Expect big promises but Biden and Trump have limited ability to deliver

Opinion columnists | Column: Expand options for veterans in need of counseling

Opinion columnists | Column: Supreme Court, with one dissent, rules gun rights are limited

Trending nationally.

• Disney rescues 20 riders stuck on California Adventure’s Incredicoaster in scorching heat
• PA grandmother makes U.S. Olympic team in race walking
• Hurricane Beryl, now Category 4, has Jamaica in its path; potential for Tropical Storm Chris to form near Mexico
• After Tom Cruise once denied ‘abandoning’ Suri, she seems to get the last word
• Celebrity chef Justin Sutherland arrested on suspicion of domestic assault, threats of violence

Kalispell native serves as a member of U.S. Navy’s submarine force

Senior Chief Petty Officer Nathaniel Faerber, a native of Kalispell serves in the U.S. Navy. (Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Josiah Trombley)

BANGOR, Wash. - Senior Chief Petty Officer Nathaniel Faerber, a native of Kalispell, Montana, serves the U.S. Navy assigned to Trident Training Facility (TTF) Bangor at Naval Base Kitsap, homeport of West Coast ballistic-missile and guided-missile submarines. 

Faerber graduated from Flathead High School in 2000. The skills and values needed to succeed in the Navy are similar to those found in Kalispell. “My hometown taught me how to work hard and how to be grounded,” said Faerber. "I also learned that I am no better than anyone else and that nothing comes for free, I have to earn it. Those lessons help me stay humble in the Navy because you have to earn everything here. They also help me work with people.” Faerber joined the Navy 19 years ago. Today, Faerber serves as a missile technician. “I joined the Navy to see the world and to have some adventure in my life,” said Faerber. Known as America’s “Apex Predators,” the Navy’s submarine force operates a large fleet of technically advanced vessels. These submarines are capable of conducting rapid defensive and offensive operations around the world, in furtherance of U.S. national security. A major component of that maritime security is homeported at Naval Base Kitsap, in Washington. There are three basic types of submarines: fast-attack submarines (SSN), ballistic-missile submarines (SSBN) and guided-missile submarines (SSGN). Fast-attack submarines are designed to hunt down and destroy enemy submarines and surface ships; strike targets ashore with cruise missiles; carry and deliver Navy SEALs; conduct intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions; and engage in mine warfare. The Virginia-class SSN is the most advanced submarine in the world today. It combines stealth and payload capability to meet combatant commanders’ demands in this era of strategic competition. The Navy’s ballistic-missile submarines, often referred to as “boomers,” serve as a strategic deterrent by providing an undetectable platform for submarine-launched ballistic missiles. SSBNs are designed specifically for stealth, extended patrols and the precise delivery of missiles. The Columbia-class SSBN will be the largest, most capable and most advanced submarine produced by the U.S. – replacing the current Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarines to ensure continuous sea-based strategic deterrence into the 2080s. Guided-missile submarines provide the Navy with unprecedented strike and special operation mission capabilities from a stealthy, clandestine platform. Each SSGN is capable of carrying 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles, plus a complement of heavyweight torpedoes to be fired through four torpedo tubes. Strategic deterrence is the nation’s ultimate insurance program, according to Navy officials. As a member of the submarine force, Faerber is part of a rich 124-year history of the U.S. Navy’s most versatile weapons platform, capable of taking the fight to the enemy in the defense of America and its allies. The Pacific Submarine Force maximizes the Navy’s strengths of knowledge, stealth, agility, firepower, and endurance. “The men and women of the Pacific Submarine Force are among our best and brightest Americans,” said Rear Adm. Richard Seif, Commander, Submarine Force U.S. Pacific Fleet. “The pace of activity across the force is eye-watering, and our ability to remain on-scene, unseen, is only possible due to their hard work and critical thinking. We are lethal, far-reaching, and incredibly capable, and we deter aggression through our demonstrated advantage in the undersea domain.” With 90% of global commerce traveling by sea and access to the internet relying on the security of undersea fiber optic cables, Navy officials continue to emphasize that the prosperity of the United States is directly linked to recruiting and retaining talented people from across the rich fabric of America. Faerber serves a Navy that operates far forward, around the world and around the clock, promoting the nation’s prosperity and security. “We will earn and reinforce the trust and confidence of the American people every day,” said Adm. Lisa Franchetti, chief of naval operations. “Together we will deliver the Navy the nation needs.” Faerber has many opportunities to achieve accomplishments during military service. “I'm proud of seeing the people I’ve led grow and become leaders,” said Faerber. “I am also proud that I am going to retire soon. When you lead a division, they become family so seeing them succeed is a great feeling. Retiring is also a big accomplishment because the Navy can be hard at times and getting to this point is something prestigious that you earn. It feels good to be able to retire because it is not a point that everyone gets to.” Faerber can take pride in serving America through military service. “Serving in the Navy gives me pride becuase I see how my soon looks up to me” said Faerber. "His view of the military and country is positive and he is by far the most patriotic 11-year-old." Faerber is grateful to others for helping make a Navy career possible. “I want to thank my mom, Katrina Hill, for her encouragement and for always being someone I can talk to,” added Faerber. “I also want to thank my son, Ebin, for always believing in me. Lastly, I want to thank my friend Lyle Geller, for encouraging me and for lending an ear.”

Share This Story

Ukraine destroyed columns of waiting Russian troops as soon as it was allowed to strike across the border, commander says

• Ukraine destroyed columns of waiting Russian soldiers with HIMARS, a Ukrainian commander said.
• He said Ukraine targeted them as soon as it got permission to use allied weapons across the border.
• Military experts say Ukraine's ability to use Western-supplied weapons in Russia is aiding its fightback.

Ukraine has been able to destroy columns of Russian soldiers after it got permission from its allies to use their weapons to strike military targets across the border into Russia, a Ukrainian commander has said.

The artillery commander, with the call sign Hefastus, told the Associated Press that Ukrainian HIMARS started firing in the northern Kharkiv region as soon as Ukraine got permission.

"The HIMARS were not silent for the whole day," he said, referring to the US-made High Mobility Artillery Rocket System .

Ukraine got permission from its allies last month to strike military targets in Russia with weapons they'd supplied, reversing a long-held restriction.

"From the first days, Ukrainian forces managed to destroy whole columns of troops along the border waiting for the order to enter Ukraine," Hefastus said, according to the AP.

He said Ukraine couldn't have achieved this without its new permissions, as regular ammunition couldn't reach that far.

Hefastus added that Ukraine was now able to destroy Russian command centers.

His claims have not been independently verified.

Even so, Ukraine appears to have used HIMARS to strike targets in Russia since the restrictions were lifted.

Russia has also been stationing troops close to the border with Ukraine, ready to be called in to fight.

Related stories

Ukraine's deputy defense minister, Ivan Havryliuk, told the AP that at least 90,000 Russian troops deep in Russian territory were readying for a new assault when the restrictions were lifted.

It's not clear whether any of these were the troops said to be hit by the HIMARS attacks.

In the past, analysts described Ukraine as being forced to fight with one hand behind its back , with Russia using its own territory to resupply its forces and launch drone, missile, and aircraft attacks.

This changed in May when many of Ukraine's allies said it could now use weapons they'd supplied to go after military targets on Russian soil.

The US, which announced its policy change on May 30, didn't go as far as some but still said Ukraine could use weapons it provided to hit into regions across the border from Kharkiv.

This has allowed Ukraine to fight back more forcefully against a new Russian offensive that started in Kharkiv on May 10.

On Tuesday, Ukraine's national guard posted images of what it said were two destroyed Russian Pantsir-S air defense systems, just south of the city of Belgorod. Russian outlets also reported the attack, which was well within range of HIMARS.

While it's unclear exactly which weapons were used, Defense Express reported that the Pantsirs' locations had been compromised to OSINT researchers some six months ago, and went on to suggest the attack had been enabled by the switch in US posture.

Experts say this new reality has had a big impact in Kharkiv, particularly given the Russian border is so close to the fighting. In the past, Russia was able to resupply its forces with troops, ammunition, and equipment and Ukraine could do little to interfere.

George Barros, a Russian-military expert at the US' Institute for the Study of War, told BI that within the first days, there was a "positive difference."

"They've actually helped blunt the Russian offensive at the heart," he said, with Ukraine able to launch "small tactical counterattacks."

Two Ukrainian officials told The Washington Post that some Russian attacks had been reduced, but they added that air bases where it was launching attacks from were out of range of what the US permission allowed Ukraine to hit.

The AP reported that Ukraine's new strike abilities had "greatly slowed Russia's momentum," with local reports saying Ukrainian troops had been able to push forward and reclaim some territory — though the country's military is still under great pressure.

Watch: Russian vs. Western-made tanks in the Ukraine war

• Main content

Advertisement

Tracking Hurricane Beryl

By William B. Davis, Madison Dong, Judson Jones, John Keefe, and Bea Malsky

Beryl was a Category 4 hurricane in the North Atlantic Ocean late Sunday Eastern time, the National Hurricane Center said in its latest advisory .

The hurricane had sustained wind speeds of 130 miles per hour. Follow our coverage here .

Beryl is the second named storm to form in the Atlantic in 2024.

In late May, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted that there would be 17 to 25 named storms this year, an above-normal amount.

What does the storm look like from above?

Satellite imagery can help determine the strength, size and cohesion of a storm. The stronger a storm becomes, the more likely an eye will form in the center. When the eye looks symmetrical, that often means the storm is not encountering anything to weaken it.

This season follows an overly active year, with 20 named storms — including an early storm later given the official name of “Unnamed.” It was the eighth year in a row to surpass the average of 14 named storms. Only one hurricane, Idalia, made landfall in the United States.

Typically, the El Niño pattern that was in force last season would have suppressed hurricanes and reduced the number of storms in a season. But in 2023, the warm ocean temperatures in the Atlantic blunted El Niño’s usual effect of thwarting storms.

The warm ocean temperatures that fueled last year’s season returned even warmer at the start of this season, raising forecasters’ confidence that there would be more storms this year. The heightened sea surface temperatures could also strengthen storms more rapidly than usual.

To make matters worse, the El Niño pattern present last year is also diminishing, most likely creating a more suitable atmosphere for storms to form and intensify.

Hurricanes need a calm environment to form, and, in the Atlantic, a strong El Niño increases the amount of wind shear — a change in wind speed and/or direction with height — which disrupts a storm's ability to coalesce. Without El Niño this year, clouds are more likely to tower to the tall heights needed to sustain a powerful cyclone.

Sources and notes

Tracking map Source: National Hurricane Center | Notes: The map shows probabilities of at least 5 percent. The forecast is for up to five days, with that time span starting up to three hours before the reported time that the storm reaches its latest location. Wind speed probability data is not available north of 60.25 degrees north latitude.

Wind arrivals table Sources: New York Times analysis of National Hurricane Center data (arrival times); U.S. Census Bureau and Natural Earth (geographic locations); Google (time zones) | Notes: The table shows predicted arrival times of damaging, 58 m.p.h. winds in select cities when there is a chance such winds could reach those locations. “Earliest possible” times are times when, if damaging winds do arrive, there is at least a 10 percent chance they will arrive at the time shown. “Most likely” times are times when, if damaging winds do arrive, there is an equal chance that such winds will arrive before and after the time shown.

Radar map Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration via Iowa State University | Notes: These mosaics are generated by combining the 130+ individual RADARs that comprise the NEXRAD network.

Storm surge map Source: National Hurricane Center | Notes: Forecasts only include the United States Gulf and Atlantic coasts, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The actual areas that could become flooded may differ from the areas shown on this map. This map accounts for tides, but not waves and not flooding caused by rainfall. The map also includes intertidal areas, which routinely flood during typical high tides.

Satellite map Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration| Notes: Imagery only updates between sunrise and sunset of the latest storm location.

• Share full article