Vought JTACMS/ATACMS (MGM-140)

Firefinder said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m kinda sad that they didn’t figure out how to put ATACMS on F-16
 
Forest Green said:
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.
Click to expand...
It can, but then there are not many AGM-88G around at the moment, and if we talk about AGM-88G then Army have their PRSM which still have longer range.
 
I'm still surprised that the RAF retired its' Tornados as despite their age it's still a very capable attack aircraft. Assuming their retired Tornados haven't been ignominiously scrapped they could be refurbished and donated to the Ukrainians.
 
NMaude said:
I'm still surprised that the RAF retired its' Tornados as despite their age it's still a very capable attack aircraft. Assuming their retired Tornados haven't been ignominiously scrapped they could be refurbished and donated to the Ukrainians.
Click to expand...
I did an FOIA last year after it emerged that the Su-24s used the Tornado pylons for launching Storm Shadow/SCALP, and the majority of the fleet was disposed of shortly after being retired from what I can remember.
 
Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
Why was the naval ATACMs variant not taken all that seriously? Was it due to concerns about it being mistaken as a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile?
Click to expand...

No, it just fell afoul of a combination of technical challenges (it's really too big to easily fit a Mk 41 cell) and budget. NTACMS was being considered right around the late 1990s, and then 9/11 happened and the Navy had no money for fire support because all the wars were too far inland to need it.
 
TomS said:
No, it just fell afoul of a combination of technical challenges (it's really too big to easily fit a Mk 41 cell) and budget. NTACMS was being considered right around the late 1990s, and then 9/11 happened and the Navy had no money for fire support because all the wars were too far inland to need it.
Click to expand...
LockMart was pushing it as an option for Ohio SSGN launcher canisters, since it could easily fit 3 per Trident tube.

And it will technically fit into an SSN VLS, just barely. Have to change one cable from round to flat ribbon and change how the tail fins fold.
 
Now it can likely fit in any of the VPM or CPM equip ships.

but then the question by why used the 30 year old missile instead of the hypersonics or PRSM. Especially since the PrSM can fit in a Tac length MK41 basically as is if you put it in the canister.
 
Firefinder said:
Now it can likely fit in any of the VPM or CPM equip ships.

but then the question by why used the 30 year old missile instead of the hypersonics or PRSM. Especially since the PrSM can fit in a Tac length MK41 basically as is if you put it in the canister.
Click to expand...
Because PrSM didn't exist in the late 1990s-early 2000s when LockMart was pushing Navalized ATACMS.

The hypersonics are now taking up the 3-per-tube slots in VPMs. And I don't think the USN is interested in any new missiles that are single-target only if they're not hypersonic. Crud, even Tomahawk Vs are dual-target, land or sea. SM6s are anti-aircraft, anti-missile, and anti-surface.

SM3s are likely the exception, and even they are nominally anti-ballistic and anti-satellite. They're nominally anti-hypersonic, too, for any time the hypersonic is out of the atmosphere. I strongly suspect the next SM3 upgrade is getting a Patriot or THAAD-like upper stage to increase capabilities against hypersonics, allow it to maneuver in the upper atmosphere.
 
NMaude said:
My guess would be the THAAD KKV mounted on top of an SM-3 Block-II's Mk-136 TSRM with a conical adapter to mate the KKV.
Click to expand...
For Aegis Ashore, sure. IIRC THAAD uses hydrazine thrusters, so it'd need something more like the PAC3 MSE solid-fuel divert thrusters for shipboard use.
 
Archibald said:
Here we go again... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It makes sense, limit targeting to the launch sites, storage locations and transportation of foreign weapons like Shaheds, KN-23s and Fath 360s. That way there are still clear restrictions, so if there's an asymmetric response, more restrictions can be lifted and in the mean time it serves to discourage the use and storage of such weapons. This consideration is a direct result of Russian escalation through the use of foreign-made ballistic missiles, which honestly lack accuracy and will likely kill a lot of civilians.
 
These pics appeared on Oct. 26, 2024 on SM.

photo_2024-10-27_08-58-16.jpg photo_2024-10-27_08-58-18.jpg photo_2024-10-27_08-58-19.jpg

And under this URL there is a collection of photos of the details of the ATACMS:

rg.ru

NDR: Американские кассетные бомбы поставляются на Украину со складов в Германии - Российская газета

ТВ NDR сообщило, ссылаясь на собственные источники, что США хранят кассетные боеприпасы на складах в Германии, откуда их вывозят на Украину.
rg.ru rg.ru
 
Last edited:
Alleged to be ATACMS, but based on earlier information its use was limited to teh Kursk region??

www.twz.com

U.S.-Supplied ATACMS Missile Strike Inside Russia Have Begun

Ukraine has struck a weapons depot in Russia with ATACMS short-range ballistic missiles. Two days after approval came to use it, Ukraine has struck a Russian weapons depot with the short-range ballistic missile.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
www.twz.com

Biden ATACMS Decision Spurs Russian Threats, Hope and Derision Elsewhere

Ukraine Situation Report: Trump's team is clearly mad about Biden's move, but Kursk remains a key bargaining chip for Ukraine.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

https://twitter.com/x/status/1858798573028016607
View: https://x.com/bayraktar_1love/status/1858798573028016607

Seems they're not limited to Kursk.

www.politico.eu

Ukraine struck Russia with American long-range missiles, officials say

U.S. President Joe Biden recently green-lighted Ukraine’s use of ATACMS.
www.politico.eu www.politico.eu

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aTM7n-I5dY
 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
Moderator's note:

Should we take a minute before posting to consider the relevance of the data for the forum?

Again, we should remember that the forum is focused on technical information, mostly about technology that could not progress beyond the drawing board or prototype, also on special variants/modifications and early stages of new and future projects at the moment of posting.

Honestly, post #311 is just about standard use of standard technology. In fact if is noted as "most likely ATACMS", it could not even be related for sure to the thread's subject. The only real information here is about an S-400 system element destroyed.

Then why not starting a dedicated thread about it and post it there?. To me the best solution would be opening a thread like "Russo Ukrainian War diary".

Please consider avoiding subject confusion.
 
Antonio said:
Moderator's note:

Should we take a minute before posting to consider the relevance of the data for the forum?

Again, we should remember that the forum is focused on technical information, mostly about technology that could not progress beyond the drawing board or prototype, also on special variants/modifications and early stages of new and future projects at the moment of posting.

Honestly, post #311 is just about standard use of standard technology. In fact if is noted as "most likely ATACMS", it could not even be related for sure to the thread's subject. The only real information here is about an S-400 system element destroyed.

Then why not starting a dedicated thread about it and post it there?. To me the best solution would be opening a thread like "Russo Ukrainian War diary".

Please consider avoiding subject confusion.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Posts just showing the use of certain systems are boring unless there is something new to be shown (e.g. an ATACMS that suddenly releases a bunch of drones).
 
I'm wondering if Ukraine now that it has F-16s flying will perhaps try to jury-rig an air-launched version of the ATACMS, a poor man's AGM-140?
 
NMaude said:
I'm wondering if Ukraine now that it has F-16s flying will perhaps try to jury-rig an air-launched version of the ATACMS, a poor man's AGM-140?
Click to expand...

No, not physically practical. Let's start with the fact that ATACMS as built has no lugs for aircraft carriage and no reinforcement that would allow you to add them. It's designed to sit inside a tube, and that tube is welded into a steel lattice frame. Not suitable for air launch.
 
TomS said:
No, not physically practical. Let's start with the fact that ATACMS as built has no lugs for aircraft carriage and no reinforcement that would allow you to add them. It's designed to sit inside a tube, and that tube is welded into a steel lattice frame. Not suitable for air launch.
Click to expand...
Does it simply rest on the sides of that tube, or is there a launch rail inside the tube that the rocket is suspended from?
 
Russian MoD published photos of the remains of the ATACMS missiles that attacked the Kursk-Vostochny airfield (Khalino) on the 25th instant, and an S-400 site at Lotarevka in the Kursk region on the 23th instant. Considering the lack of the remains of the warhead and the payload visible on the photos, can our experts assess if the ATACMS missile's engine could have received a hit to the side while descending but after releasing the warhead? Or could the puncture to the engine stage emerge only after hitting the ground? Below are the photos released by the MoD as circulating on sm.

photo_2024-11-26_16-39-11.jpg photo_2024-11-26_16-39-18.jpg photo_2024-11-26_16-39-51.jpg photo_2024-11-26_16-39-31.jpg
 
yahya said:
Russian MoD published photos of the remains of the ATACMS missiles that attacked the Kursk-Vostochny airfield (Khalino) on the 25th instant, and an S-400 site at Lotarevka in the Kursk region on the 23th instant. Considering the lack of the remains of the warhead and the payload visible on the photos, can our experts assess if the ATACMS missile's engine could have received a hit to the side while descending but after releasing the warhead? Or could the puncture to the engine stage emerge only after hitting the ground? Below are the photos released by the MoD as circulating on sm.
Click to expand...
The tear is outward, not inward, so not the result of shrapnel impact.
 
Thank you. And what about a part from the first photo that a guy looks at? Is that the engine part or something else?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom