Are you certain about that? The reason I ask is because Boeing’s entry was never shaped for launch from a TT and in fact gets it’s triangular cross section from the desire to maximize the use of the available volume on a rotary launcher.

You missed the significance of a word in my posting. I wrote:

“the configuration of the two missiles was defined by the need to be compatible with the SAC’s rotary launcher and the standard USN torpedo tube *respectively*.”

= the ALCM had to be compatible with the rotary launcher, and Tomahawk had to be compatible with the torpedo tube.

There were plans to have an air-launched version of the Tomahawk for naval use but it got cancelled.

You’re right, but from memory the air-launched Tomahawk was originally evaluated as an alternative to ALCM, so was proposed for USAF use.

Not sure if Tactical Tomahawk can be air-launched but it for sure can’t be launched from a torpedo tube as apparently it’s too fragile

‘Fragile’ might not be the right word. The goal of the Block IV missile – subsequently renamed Tactical Tomahawk – was to get the cost down, and analysis of the design showed that a major cost driver had been the requirement for torpedo tube launch.

The USN had subsequently developed a submarine-mounted vertical launcher, and this form of launch placed less stress (in terms of torsion load, I think) on the missile. So eliminating torpedo tube launch allowed the creation of a less expensive airfare.

This left the UK in the lurch, because RN submarines don’t have vertical launchers. So a launch capsule had to be developed to allow Tactical Tomahawk to be launched from a torpedo tube. (And I’d love to know how the development costs of that project were split between the US and UK.)