Join 3,513 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Trademarked Nukes
January 20, 2005 2:59 AM   Subscribe

Tomahawk® Brand Cruise Missiles Because not all Block II Nuclear Variant cruise missles are alike... Look for the name you can trust!
posted by jimjam (31 comments total)

 
i think it's awesome that nuclear weapons are starting to carry trademarks.
posted by jimjam at 3:02 AM on January 20, 2005


I'll add one of these to my Amazon wishlist.
posted by TwelveTwo at 3:12 AM on January 20, 2005


I think we all know what will happen to trademark violators.
posted by NinjaPirate at 3:28 AM on January 20, 2005


I already have two of these. Strictly for home defense, of course. And protecting my crops.
posted by loquacious at 3:34 AM on January 20, 2005


I wonder why Raytheon bothered? Is some other manufacturer going to steal the name and fool an unwary government into buying knock-offs of Tomahawk brand cruise missiles?

Or is it an error on the part of the Navy web site? I don't see any ® symbols on the Raytheon page.
posted by pracowity at 3:35 AM on January 20, 2005


All this for the low, low price of 560,000 a shot--it doesn't say, but I'd wager that's the basic package. Going nuke is gonna' cost you.

When I was in the Navy, I actually got to see them launch a few of these sohm'bitches. They're a bit on the frightening side.
posted by ThePrawn at 3:42 AM on January 20, 2005


All those trademarks, all that great marketing information, but where's the logo?

Towards the end of the Reagan era (or are we still in that era?) a graphic designer friend of mine in Boulder, Colorado, had a chance at the contract to design the logo for the Tomahawk cruise missile. The money was good, and he was seriously considering it until one of his fellow designers stuck this image in his head:

"Okay, let's say there's this peasant on a little farm somewhere in Siberia, just scratching out a living on the frozen land, tending his goats, whatever, and one day he hears a noise and looks up at the sky. What's the very last thing he sees, on the last day of his life, before he's vaporized in a nuclear blast? Your logo!"
posted by CrunchyGods at 4:31 AM on January 20, 2005


Better than seeing Slim Pickens waving a cowboy hat.
posted by eriko at 5:11 AM on January 20, 2005


I think ThePrawn has hit on the ideal marketing catchphrase:
Tomahawk® Cruise Missiles : They're a bit on the frightening side.
posted by ElvisJesus at 5:12 AM on January 20, 2005


I'm surprised the US Navy needs to find graphic designers outside its walls...I mean, dig the header graphic, with the bevels, the drop-shadows, and the shiny faceted purpleness!

Those drop shadows mean victory.
posted by tpl1212 at 5:56 AM on January 20, 2005


Now I know what I'm going to use for home defense. Bring it on revenuers!
posted by substrate at 6:10 AM on January 20, 2005


man, these are cheap missiles...missiles like HARM and Maverick are over a million bucks a pop still, and they're just fire and forget.

admittedly a HARM missile is AWESOME, and pretty fancy...but still, a cruise missile's quite a beast by comparison.
posted by taumeson at 6:22 AM on January 20, 2005


Because I'm a nerd, I looked it up at the US Patent & Trademark Office. In between all the wood chippers and cloth cutters, I found: IC 013. US 009. G & S: Air Vehicles-Namely, Cruise Missiles. and IC 042. US 100. G & S: Defense Services., registered by the Office of Naval Research.
posted by zsazsa at 7:01 AM on January 20, 2005


Touché loquacious.
posted by caddis at 7:14 AM on January 20, 2005


By the way, I hope you don't have any small children at home. You have no idea how tempting and dangerous these things can be around kids.
posted by caddis at 7:16 AM on January 20, 2005


caddis, that's why as a responsible intercontinental ballistic cruise missile owner I keep my launch bunker securely locked and the launch keys safely in my pocket. My silo will only open when I intend to fire. The next time my neighbour lets his dog crap in my yard though...
posted by substrate at 7:24 AM on January 20, 2005


You know, in an emergency you may not be able to get that bunker unlocked quickly enough. You would probably be better off with a dog. (If its big enough your neighbor's dog won't dare poop in your yard.)
posted by caddis at 7:27 AM on January 20, 2005


When ICBMs are outlawed, only outlaws will have ICBMs
posted by ElvisJesus at 7:57 AM on January 20, 2005


The over-application of the ® mark seems like merely bad editing to me, not a lame navy attempt at a statement. When using protected names or marks, the TM or ® only needs to be used on the first mention.

Still, it's funny that the name is registered, as though the US government is concerned that competing missile products might be similarly named. We wouldn't want our arms trade partners buying knock-off cruise missiles, would we? How would that look?
posted by dammitjim at 9:27 AM on January 20, 2005


ElvisJesus - I'm pretty sure you didn't mean it, but just to make sure we're all clear the Tomahawk is not an ICBM - it's a medium-range tacitical missle.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 10:24 AM on January 20, 2005


Oh ... never mind then
posted by ElvisJesus at 11:07 AM on January 20, 2005


Tomahawk is the civilian term.. All real Navy men use the acronym - TLAM.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:36 AM on January 20, 2005


Caddis: What's to stop substrate neighbor from just getting a bigger dog...and so on...
posted by MrMulan at 11:51 AM on January 20, 2005


That's when you launch the Tomahawk brand cruise missiles. You can only push a man so far in defense of his home.
posted by caddis at 11:57 AM on January 20, 2005


missiles like HARM and Maverick are over a million bucks a pop still, and they're just fire and forget.

HARM costs about $300k; the newer HDAM (HARM with GPS) will cost a little more.

Maverick costs about $150k, depending on the version. (Info comes from Janes and I can't provide a direct link.)

JASSM. OTOH, costs about $1 mil -- were you thinking of that?
posted by joaquim at 12:48 PM on January 20, 2005


missiles like HARM and Maverick are over a million bucks a pop still, and they're just fire and forget.

Except that TLAMs, HARMs and AMG-65s (Maverick) all have different tactical purposes.

TLAMs are used for long range tactical strikes on stationary targets, and the newer ones are guided by GPS. There are a bunch of different TLAM variants.

HARMs are anti-radiation missiles designed to be fired in the vicinity of a moving target that has it's radar on. Once it's reached its interdiction point, it looks for an active radar signal, and homes in.

AMG-65's are air to surface missiles, guided either by laser, or by the pilot, as they have a little camera in the front that allows the pilot to lock on to a target visually. Some of the newer ones have an IR sensor that looks for heat.
posted by SweetJesus at 2:16 PM on January 20, 2005


guided either by laser, or by the pilot
AGM-65 missiles are not man-in-the-loop postlaunch. They have either TV (A, B), imaging infrared (D, F, G), CCD TV (H, K), or semi-active laser (E) seekers. Before launch, the missile provides the pilot video. The pilot selects a target and locks the missile to it, then launches. After that, the missile is on its own. The AGM-65E is an exception: it guides by reflected laser energy provided by either the shooter or a 3rd party.

HARMs are anti-radiation missiles designed to be fired in the vicinity of a moving target that has it's radar on. Once it's reached its interdiction point, it looks for an active radar signal, and homes in

HARM is not usually deployed against moving targets (unless they're nice and slow, like a ship). Block VI HARM (aka HDAM) may be launched against non-emitting targets and guide by GPS. "Vicinity" is a relative term. The FAS link gives a range of 30+ nmi, the "+" being operative -- the unclassified range of HARM is about 50 nmi.
posted by joaquim at 4:35 PM on January 20, 2005


Heh, you obviously know more than I. I do some simulation work for the Navy, and I just know the basics. Thanks for the more detailed info. :-)
posted by SweetJesus at 5:35 PM on January 20, 2005


SweetJesus: I got lucky in the subject matter. I helped design HARM.
posted by joaquim at 7:57 PM on January 20, 2005


Ahhh, a SME :-)
posted by SweetJesus at 9:44 PM on January 20, 2005


... while Tom Cruise is more of a sex bomb.
posted by fatllama at 7:44 PM on January 21, 2005


« Older Who will be the next president of World Bank?...  |  One of those geography quizzes... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments