Comments on: Trademarked Nukes

Trademarked Nukes

jimjam — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:59:26 -0800

Tomahawk® Brand Cruise Missiles Because not all Block II Nuclear Variant cruise missles are alike... Look for the name you can trust!

By: jimjam

jimjam — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:02:10 -0800

i think it's awesome that nuclear weapons are starting to carry trademarks.

By: TwelveTwo

TwelveTwo — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:12:45 -0800

I'll add one of these to my Amazon wishlist.

By: NinjaPirate

NinjaPirate — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:28:01 -0800

I think we all know what will happen to trademark violators.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:34:33 -0800

I already have two of these. Strictly for home defense, of course. And protecting my crops.

By: pracowity

pracowity — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:35:22 -0800

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.

By: ThePrawn

ThePrawn — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 03:42:44 -0800

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.

By: CrunchyGods

CrunchyGods — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 04:31:16 -0800

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!"

By: eriko

eriko — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:11:21 -0800

Better than seeing Slim Pickens waving a cowboy hat.

By: ElvisJesus

ElvisJesus — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:12:35 -0800

I think ThePrawn has hit on the ideal marketing catchphrase: Tomahawk® Cruise Missiles : They're a bit on the frightening side.

By: tpl1212

tpl1212 — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 05:56:13 -0800

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.

By: substrate

substrate — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:10:12 -0800

Now I know what I'm going to use for home defense. Bring it on revenuers!

By: taumeson

taumeson — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 06:22:17 -0800

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.

By: zsazsa

zsazsa — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:01:53 -0800

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.

By: caddis

caddis — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:14:39 -0800

Touché loquacious.

By: caddis

caddis — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:16:25 -0800

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.

By: substrate

substrate — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:24:46 -0800

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...

By: caddis

caddis — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:27:55 -0800

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.)

By: ElvisJesus

ElvisJesus — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:57:27 -0800

When ICBMs are outlawed, only outlaws will have ICBMs

By: dammitjim

dammitjim — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:27:47 -0800

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?

By: thedevildancedlightly

thedevildancedlightly — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:24:24 -0800

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.

By: ElvisJesus

ElvisJesus — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:07:34 -0800

Oh ... never mind then

By: SweetJesus

SweetJesus — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:36:45 -0800

Tomahawk is the civilian term.. All real Navy men use the acronym - TLAM.

By: MrMulan

MrMulan — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:51:42 -0800

Caddis: What's to stop substrate neighbor from just getting a bigger dog...and so on...

By: caddis

caddis — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:57:52 -0800

That's when you launch the Tomahawk brand cruise missiles. You can only push a man so far in defense of his home.

By: joaquim

joaquim — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:48:59 -0800

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?

By: SweetJesus

SweetJesus — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:16:30 -0800

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.

By: joaquim

joaquim — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:35:54 -0800

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.

By: SweetJesus

SweetJesus — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 17:35:35 -0800

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. :-)

By: joaquim

joaquim — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:57:47 -0800

SweetJesus: I got lucky in the subject matter. I helped design HARM.

By: SweetJesus

SweetJesus — Thu, 20 Jan 2005 21:44:43 -0800

Ahhh, a SME :-)

By: fatllama

fatllama — Fri, 21 Jan 2005 19:44:10 -0800

... while Tom Cruise is more of a sex bomb.