Tomahawk missiles: Is Japan getting enough bang for its bucks?
After writing about the Ministry of Defense’s alleged plans for AI-based psyops last week, this week I’ll write about the new big boy’s toys Japan’s Self-Defense Forces will soon be getting: Tomahawk cruise missiles produced by US company Raytheon.
Last week, Japan officially changed its national security strategy from exclusively defensive (i.e., repelling invaders and intercepting incoming missiles)…
…to the possession of “counterstrike capability” (i.e., long-range missiles capable of hitting enemy bases).
The Americans are predictably happy, the Chinese and North Koreans are predictably unhappy, and the South Koreans are “expressing concern”.
Well, if Japan is going to acquire weapons that aggravate regional tensions and possibly spur an arms race, they better be bloody good. So I think it’s worth recalling the one and only time Tomahawks were launched against a country with a decent air defense system.
In April 2018, the US/France/UK launched missiles attacks on Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack. According to the US military, 105 missiles were lauched against 3 targets with a 100% success rate (America, fuck yeah!). But the Russians claimed 8 sites were attacked and 71 of the missiles were intercepted by Syria’s updated Soviet-era air defense system, Pantsir S-1. Moreover, the Russians claimed “all of the missiles aimed at four key Syrian airbases” were shot down.
So who should we believe?
If the US is correct, the below photo is what the destruction caused by 76 missiles, including 57 Tomahawks, looks like. Hmmm.
Confirming my suspicions that the Russian version of events might be more factually accurate is retired Colonel W. Patrick Lang, who held high positions as a civilian in the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) after leaving the US Army.
I am told by several foreign sources with access to the information needed to make a valid judgment that the Russians are correct. These people are friendly to the United States as are their governments. Over two thirds of the US coalition missiles failed to reach their targets. Why? All the reasons cited above must have played a role in this aerial defeat. Obsolescent weapons, a fully integrated air defense and skill brought to the fight.
If the Tomahawks had difficulty bypassing Syria’s air defenses, they’re unlikely to offer much bang for their bucks against highly advanced systems like those Russia has been successfully using in Ukraine and has sold to China. It seems that, unlike the original Native American weapon, modern Tomahawks are no longer cutting-edge (sorry, I couldn’t resist).
Col. Lang also points out why the disappointing results weren’t unexpected.
A very senior civilian colleague in DIA once asked me why sophisticated weapons so often malfunction or are otherwise defeated. I told her that it was simply a fact of life that in actual warfare “whatever can go wrong, will go wrong.” She resolutely stated that this should not be. “The manufacturers guarantee that they will work as advertised,” she insisted. “They lie,” I told her. “That’s business.” She was not happy with that answer, but it was the truth.
Japan will allocate 211.3 billion yen (approx US$1.6 billion) in fiscal 2023 to deploy Tomahawk missiles. So it looks like Japan will give a well-connected US company huge amounts of money for products that probably won’t protect the public as advertised but may concievably increase the danger they face. Now, what does that remind me of?
Tomahawk's effectiveness ended in 1980s! Of course, they were effective back during the days of Pochanhantas.
Fortunately they have the F-35 to fall back on. Those work perfectly, right?