Why Does the US Not Have Supersonic ASMs? (Anti-Ship Missiles)

**The Lawspeaker** · 03-07-2019, 10:41 AM

Russia has got them... so does Japan, India, Taiwan, and others. So why doesn't the US?

**Red Pill** · 07-24-2019, 10:18 PM

Because the anti-ship function in the US Navy is mainly performed by carrier-born aircraft. Long range anti-ship missiles were considered redundant. Since the budget - even in the US Navy - is limited, you have to prioritize. Since no other Navy has a carrier force comparable to the US Navy, long-range ASMs makes sense for outfits like the Russian Navy. This situation may change in the future however. Anyway, during the cold war the US Navy had an anti-ship version of the Tomahawk missile, the RGM/UGM-109B (TASM), which was withdrawn in 1994. Now the US Navy is planning to reintroduce a Maritime Strike Tomahawk (Block Va). Even if it's not supersonic, it's a step to counter the increased capabilities of its potential enemies.

**PaleoEuropean** · 07-24-2019, 10:30 PM

As it said in the video, the counter measures don't make it worth it, faster missiles=predictable, it would be more worth it to just keep developing counter measures.

**Westbrook** · 07-24-2019, 10:49 PM

I'd rather see the railgun fully developed

Originally Posted by PaleoEuropean

As it said in the video, the counter measures don't make it worth it, faster missiles=predictable, it would be more worth it to just keep developing counter measures.