What is the use case for choosing a AGM-84 SLAM-ER vs using a BGM-109 Tomahawk?

[norman99]

I’m just curious, in what case dose sending an aircraft to fire a SLAM make more sense than just launching a Tomahawk from the safety of a ship? 

I understand that earlier block Tomahawks required significant on-shore computing power for planning. With the completed data being transferred to the firing unit. This process could take days, depending on the situation. However by the mid 2000s limited on-board planning had been introduced, as well as the ability to change targets mid-flight. These features have been enhanced further since then, basically removing the initial limitations of the system, providing almost the same level of flexibility as a SLAM equipped aircraft.

So why does the US navy still insist on using SLAMS, when in practice most to all of their cruise missile attacks have been completed using Tomahawks? (Eg. Syria in 2017 & 2018.)

Mostly thinking real life here, as we can do as we choose in DCS.

[Kang]

I assume mostly you might not want to fly missiles over certain areas. The air-launched SLAM-ER gives you a little more flexibility in that regard.

With the older versions it is much clearer indeed: people generally underestimate how terrible the early Tomahawk missiles were in terms of preparation, plus the early SLAM were hacked together from old Harpoons and Walleyes and thus a pretty cheap option.

[Dragon1-1]

Also, range can be a factor. A Hornet with a tanker for support can go almost anywhere, whereas a Block V TLAM is hard limited to 900nm or so from the launching ship, and earlier ones even less. Our Hornet+SLAM-ER can do around 550nm by themselves, but when you factor in AAR, you can easily hit twice that, even more if you use a Superbug instead. You also retain the ability to retarget the strike at any point until impact, something TLAMs got fairly recently.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

This thread should probably be moved here: 
https://forum.dcs.world/forum/63-military-and-aviation/