Vought JTACMS/ATACMS (MGM-140)

Ok, call me uninformed…are new ATACMS being built or are we talking about regraining existing missiles? I had thought ATACMS went out of production. But I drink a lot.
 
Josh_TN said:
Ok, call me uninformed…are new ATACMS being built or are we talking about regraining existing missiles? I had thought ATACMS went out of production. But I drink a lot.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that it's both. Still building a few of the long range versions, and regraining the M39s. Though with Ukraine finally being approved for ATACMS, there's a lot less of the old rockets left to regrain.
 
NMaude said:
Not surprising at all given that the Russians are enthusiastic users of cluster-munitions with a callous disregard for civilian collateral damage.
Click to expand...
Well that and it turns out?

They Work extremely frwaking well when use properly on the battlefield against soft to meduim armor targets. Especially against trenches and like...
 
Wreckage of an ATACMS missile in the vicinity of Lugansk airport as reported by Russian websites. Russian sources claim that three ATACMS were intercepted in total.

Source: https://ria.ru/20240719/lugansk-1960640369.html

1960651194_0:147:1178:810_1280x0_80_0_0_4f9f7772c3e5e2e0d2f76bcc022c4377.jpg.webp


1960680571_0:0:1920:1080_1280x0_80_0_0_061ae277a5151331642bb67bc5767139.jpg.webp
 
Last edited:
yahya said:
Wreckage of an ATACMS missile in the vicinity of Lugansk airport as reported by Russian websites. Russian sources claim that three ATACMS were intercepted in total.

Source: https://ria.ru/20240719/lugansk-1960640369.html

1960651194_0:147:1178:810_1280x0_80_0_0_4f9f7772c3e5e2e0d2f76bcc022c4377.jpg.webp


1960680571_0:0:1920:1080_1280x0_80_0_0_061ae277a5151331642bb67bc5767139.jpg.webp
Click to expand...
LOL That's the spent booster with a nozzle sitting next to it. The payload already deployed. I can't believe they keep trying to sell these as kills.
 
Firefinder said:
Also isnt the S300 types explosive killers and not Kinetic Killers like the Pac3s?
Click to expand...

As far as I know the SA-10/12/20/21 interceptor missiles use blast fragmentation warheads, as for the PAC3 it functions as a Hittile when intercepting missiles but interception aircraft it has a warhead of sorts called the kill enhancement device or something to that effect. The PAC3 "Warhead" is a small explosive charge wrapped by preformed Tungsten-fragments IIRC.
 
Guys, what could be a feasible tactical tool which Russia could use to intercept the ATACMS? Buk M3? Tor M2? A more recent Pantsir?
 
yahya said:
Guys, what could be a feasible tactical tool which Russia could use to intercept the ATACMS? Buk M3? Tor M2? A more recent Pantsir?
Click to expand...
Not sure either of those system work against BMs, only S-300/S-400/S-500s really (and S-350 now). Using 'work' in the loosest possible terms.

Buk-M3 still uses SARH, never heard of BM interception using SARH, not without a nuclear warhead anyway. Tor-M2 uses RFCLOS, which isn't really great for anything.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
As far as I know the SA-10/12/20/21 interceptor missiles use blast fragmentation warheads, as for the PAC3 it functions as a Hittile when intercepting missiles but interception aircraft it has a warhead of sorts called the kill enhancement device or something to that effect. The PAC3 "Warhead" is a small explosive charge wrapped by preformed Tungsten-fragments IIRC.
Click to expand...
Was more thinking that if it was intercepted.

It should look like someone went at it with a full auto shotgun at best, be shredded at worse. Like hell we seen both with the Patriot incepts.

And its neither, looks like it smacked into the ground.
 
Firefinder said:
It should look like someone went at it with a full auto shotgun at best, be shredded at worse. Like hell we seen both with the Patriot incepts.

And its neither, looks like it smacked into the ground.
Click to expand...

I suspect that any intercepts made by the Russians, if they happened, were after the submunitions had been released.
 
Forest Green said:
www.defensenews.com

NATO states should abandon treaty banning the use of cluster munitions

Opinion: Our guest authors argue that a treaty banning cluster bombs should be abandoned by NATO states, given the threat of Russia and China.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...

The Ukrainians have repeatedly demonstrated that cluster-munitions are very, VERY effective at neutralising Russian meat-wave attacks that use poorly-trained and equipped cannon-fodder, not to mention that they're the best weapon to attack airfields and missile batteries such as the SA-12/20 and SA-21 SAM systems.
 
Last edited:
Defense Updates has just put out a video about how the Ukrainians used the ATACMS to take out the Russian Kilo-class submarine Rostov-On-Don:


American-supplied ATACMS has again proved its worth.In all likelihood, ATACMS has fully neutralized the Russian Kilo-class submarine Rostov-na-Donu.
Click to expand...
In the latest review released on July 7, UK Defence Intelligence has indicated that the recent Ukrainian strike on Crimea, has likely resulted in the sinking of the sub.Viewers may note that British-supplied Storm Shadow had earlier damaged the submarine. The Rostov-na-Donu was first targeted in September 2023 when Ukrainian forces reportedly utilized air-launched Storm Shadow standoff missiles. This is a major blow for Russia.
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how ATACMS has taken out the Russian Black Sea Fleet’s Rostov-na-Donu Kilo-class submarine ?
Click to expand...
#defenseupdates #ukrainekurskoffensive #ukrainerussiawar
Click to expand...
Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:50 THE INCIDENT
04:25 MI-28 HAVOC
06:40 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...

This particular submarine had already been severely damaged in 2023 by a British supplied Storm Shadow cruise-missile.
 
NMaude said:
The Ukrainians have repeatedly demonstrated that cluster-munitions are very, VERY effective at neutralising Russian meat-wave attacks that use poorly-trained and equipped cannon-fodder, not to mention that they're the best weapon to attack airfields and missile batteries such as the SA-12/20 and SA-21 SAM systems.
Click to expand...
The problem is after the children are done playing, the adults are going to have to pick up the broken toys. American, British and EU taxpayers are going to be faced with the most expensive de-mining and unexploded ordinance removal in history. Farmers in Belgium are still getting killed by WWI shells, a conflict where landmines weren’t ubiquitous. The scale of the Ukraine cleanup will be immense, made worse by the use of time expired cluster munitions, with significant dud rates even when new, and minefields that exceed the scale of those in the Korean DMZ.

It’s entirely premature to embrace Cold War retrotech as a solution for the developing Cold War II. The anti land mine and cluster munition treaties were somewhat effective at limiting proliferation. Personally, I’m glad that the Europeans stopped exporting land mines and cluster bombs and the general trend in pointless 3rd world conflicts was away from random mine laying. Having said that, America never proliferated buried anti-personnel mines to a significant extent, at least not compared to some European countries I can name. Britain was also far more reckless in exporting the BL755 than we were with equivalent systems.

Ultimately, it’s up to the signatory nations to decide whether or not to abrogate these treaties. The is no need or capacity for NATO to overrule the political process of individual members.

Returning to the current conflict, the use of dated cluster munition variants of ATACMS against SAM batteries suggests a failure of conventional SEAD tactics. I’m not sure it’s a lack of resources as the inability to plan and execute SEAD missions.
 
Last edited:
TinWing said:
The problem is after the children are done playing, the adults are going to have to pick up the broken toys. American, British and EU taxpayers are going to be faced with the most expensive de-mining and unexploded ordinance removal in history.
Click to expand...
Pardon my French but fuck that noise. They can clean up their own mess.
 
TinWing said:
Returning to the current conflict, the use of dated cluster munition variants of ATACMS against SAM batteries suggests a failure of conventional SEAD tactics. I’m not sure it’s a lack of resources as the inability to plan and execute SEAD missions.
Click to expand...
definitely lack of resources. Only the US really ever stood up entire squadrons or wings of SEAD/DEAD units, over and above stand-in jammers.

Don't think the UK has any Tornado ECRs. Italy has what, 16?

Germany has two squadrons? Three? And given usual availability rates, probably little more than a dozen planes available at any one time?

Does France have any dedicated SEAD/DEAD squadrons?

Did UkrAF have any such units? Crud, did the Russians?

I think everyone was assuming that the Americans were going to bring the tools for that, so never spent much money on it themselves.
 
If the Ukrainians had some dedicated squadrons for SEAD and the fighters for them I'm sure they'd be put to good use. But if the opportunity arises and there aren't other priority targets the ATCAMS are being reserved for, why not use one? If you know the present exact location of the SAM site, if the vehicles and systems are close enough where multiple targets can be hit, and if the ability of the enemy to intercept those missiles has proven limited, one might as well take advantage of that. It's an effective way of damaging the enemy's air defense network without putting a flight of aircraft and their pilots at risk. Of course, a large, well-executed SEAD/DEAD mission can cause more damage, but you work with the resources that you have.
 
The Two big targets you want to hit on a SaM are:

The Radar.

And Command truck.

Those two are the heart and brains of the system without which the Launchers are merely expansive explosive lawn ornaments.

And a 50 meter spread does a good job of getting both, or tge 5 meter TLE with 500 pounds of hiex for one.
 
Taking out the command truck also means killing the highly trained crew that operates the battery, these personnel take weeks if not months of highly specialised training to qualify on how to operate these missile batteries so they can't be replaced quickly or easily.
 
NMaude said:
Taking out the command truck also means killing the highly trained crew that operates the battery, these personnel take weeks if not months of highly specialised training to qualify on how to operate these missile batteries so they can't be replaced quickly or easily.
Click to expand...
The lead time, and cost, for the production of a radar unit is far greater than the time, and expense, it would take to train the operators. Of course, military technical training is always based on an assumption of the lowest common denominator of aptitude.

The economics will always favor targeting the radar over the command unit. Both are legitimate military targets. However, at some point you have to question the ethics and pragmatism of perhaps gratuitously killing enemy personnel. Body counts don’t win wars anymore but do harden the resolve of an enemy and make conflicts harder to resolve through negotiations.
 
Firefinder said:
The Two big targets you want to hit on a SaM are:

The Radar.

And Command truck.

Those two are the heart and brains of the system without which the Launchers are merely expansive explosive lawn ornaments.

And a 50 meter spread does a good job of getting both, or tge 5 meter TLE with 500 pounds of hiex for one.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, all AGM-88 variants have had a warhead of about 150lbs, which has been more than sufficient. Airborne SEAD is still the most successful tactic. What you’re see at the moment is a failure of air power on both sides. Saturation attacks on SAM systems with quasi-ballistic missiles are neither affordable or sustainable.
 
Last edited:
TinWing said:
As far as I know, all AGM-88 variants have had a warhead of about 150lbs, which has been more than sufficient. Airborne SEAD is still the most successful tactic. What you’re see at the moment is a failure of air power on both sides. Saturation attacks on SAM systems with quasi-ballistic missiles are neither affordable or sustainable.
Click to expand...
Patriot on one side, S-400 on the other. Who wants to fly over them?
 
Scott Kenny said:
definitely lack of resources. Only the US really ever stood up entire squadrons or wings of SEAD/DEAD units, over and above stand-in jammers.

Don't think the UK has any Tornado ECRs. Italy has what, 16?

Germany has two squadrons? Three? And given usual availability rates, probably little more than a dozen planes available at any one time?

Does France have any dedicated SEAD/DEAD squadrons?

Did UkrAF have any such units? Crud, did the Russians?

I think everyone was assuming that the Americans were going to bring the tools for that, so never spent much money on it themselves.
Click to expand...
Most European NATO member states (barring Germany and Italy) use their multirole fighters for that role, at least in the past.
 
TinWing said:
As far as I know, all AGM-88 variants have had a warhead of about 150lbs, which has been more than sufficient. Airborne SEAD is still the most successful tactic. What you’re see at the moment is a failure of air power on both sides. Saturation attacks on SAM systems with quasi-ballistic missiles is neither affordable or sustainable.
Click to expand...
Considering even the US Air Force will perfer the Army arty pound enemy SAMs into dust.

Will not be so sure bout that.

Especially with how both the newer AGM88s and the GMLRS cost roughly the same with similar success rates. And the ATCAMs was design with targeting the S300s ftom day one with the Air Force supporting it.

Hell this is not even the First war that ground units routinely smack SAM sites. Was common in Nam by the Army M107 175mm guns, the M270/M110 did again in Desert Storm, and by Israel Keres Anti Sam system in Lebanon.

And US MLRS unit still train to smack sams.

A proper SEAD/DEAD set up is a multi level deal that can and will switch to the proper attack unit as needed. All to ensure the best safety for allied Air Crews. With the Army weapons getting the job when they are in range.

Cause that job is freaking dangerous even with Stealth and if a unit that basically immune to reprisal can do it.

It makes all the sense to send it and not the vulnerable ones.
 
TinWing said:
Saturation attacks on SAM systems with quasi-ballistic missiles are neither affordable or sustainable.
Click to expand...
Depends how much the missiles cost and how much the SAMs cost and how successful the SAMs/missiles are and how much the radar and control units cost.

10 ATACMS (~$10m total) vs S-400 battery (~$500m) is extremely sustainable.
 
TinWing said:
As far as I know, all AGM-88 variants have had a warhead of about 150lbs, which has been more than sufficient. Airborne SEAD is still the most successful tactic. What you’re see at the moment is a failure of air power on both sides.
Click to expand...
Before the E version, AGM-88 seemed to be pretty inaccurate if adversary turned off their radar while missile fly, in Kosovo war, they launched over 1000 HARMs and only hit like 1-2 radars.
AGM-88E probably solve the accuracy/offline radar issue thanks to MMW seeker, however, comparatively, even AGM-88E is pretty short ranged compared to ATACMS (only AGM-88G has comparable range but it is a whole new missiles).

Moreover, even stealth fighter can be shotdown by SAM in specific case, by contrast, HIMARS is pretty much invulnerable to SAM
TinWing said:
Saturation attacks on SAM systems with quasi-ballistic missiles are neither affordable or sustainable.
Click to expand...
Technically speaking, HARM is basically a small ballistic missile with sensor
 
AGM-88G is also internal carry for stealth fighters. Can a stealth fighter get within 300km of a SAM radar, pretty safe bet it can. I still miss the idea of the air-launched ATACMS though. That could have made 900km and would have provided pretty amazing rapid SEAD capability even to non-stealthy fighters.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom