M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS Developments

NMaude said:
It could also be used against ships too.
Click to expand...

PrSM already has an antiship seeker capacity in work (Increment 2).

www.thedefensepost.com

New Precision Strike Missile Seeker to Turn It Into Ship Killer

The US Army flight tested a Precision Strike Missile multimode seeker last year that enables the missile to perform maritime targeting.
www.thedefensepost.com www.thedefensepost.com

For the US missions, you need the range PrSM offers to have a credible antiship capacity in the Pacific.

As to moving targets and GMLRS, the US seems to have a different philosophy. If you have a target location and persistent tracking, you can use a standard guided rocket with in-flight course correction rather than stuffing a multimodal seeker into the projectile. Interestingly it's the same data link proposed for Patriot, which tells you something about how the US th inks about domain awareness. A track is a track, as far as we are concerned.

www.thedefensepost.com

Lockheed Device Enables HIMARS Munitions to Strike Moving Targets

Lockheed Martin has demonstrated a communication device that provides in-flight target updates to munitions such as GMLRS.
www.thedefensepost.com www.thedefensepost.com
 
Biden approved delivery of the long-range Army Tactical Missile System, known as ATACMS, in early March, and the U.S. included a “significant” number of them in a $300 million aid package announced at the time, one official said.

The two U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the delivery before it became public, would not provide the exact number of missiles given last month or in the latest aid package, which totals about $1 billion.
Click to expand...
www.independent.co.uk

Ukraine uses long-range missiles secretly provided by US to hit Russian-held areas, officials say

U.S. officials say Ukraine for the first time has begun using long-range ballistic missiles, striking a Russian military airfield in Crimea and Russian troops in another occupied area overnight
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
www.telegraph.co.uk

China is pushing. The Philippine forces are pushing back – with ship-killer missiles

Just a harmless training exercise
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
The C-Stars that arm the Jose Rizal-class frigates are just the first of a trio of new anti-ship systems on Manila’s shopping list. The Philippines is also buying Brahmos ground-launched anti-ship missiles from India as well as wheeled High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launchers from the United States. HIMARS launchers fire the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) artillery missile, primarily useful in land warfare.

But American arms-maker Lockheed Martin, which produces the HIMARS, is developing an anti-ship missile that would be compatible with the HIMARS’ rocket pod.

“Our new equipment will be coming soon,” Philippine army chief Gen. Romeo Brawner said last year.

With C-Star and Brahmos missiles and potentially HIMARS-launched anti-ship missiles, Philippine forces could threaten Chinese ships hundreds of miles from the Philippine coast. The disputed Second Thomas Shoal, the locus of a bitter and escalating territorial dispute between The Philippines and China, lies just 100 miles west of the Philippine island of Palawan.
Click to expand...

Presumably they are refering to PrSM.
 
sferrin said:
ATACMS most likely.
Click to expand...

The ship-killer in question is almost certainly the Brahmos AShM, that missile in tests has not only sunk the target with just one missile in some cases it has blown the target in half before sinking.

TomS said:
The Cross-Domain ATACMS with a seeker was cancelled in FY21.
Click to expand...

No doubt Congress is regretting that decision in light of what has been happening in Ukraine since 2022, Ukraine would no doubt have put the cross-domain ATACMS to good use sinking Russian warships.
 
NMaude said:
The ship-killer in question is almost certainly the Brahmos AShM, that missile in tests has not only sunk the target with just one missile in some cases it has blown the target in half before sinking.
Click to expand...

The article mentions three antiship weapons: CStar, Brahmos, and a HIMARS-launched weapon that pretty much has to be PrSM.
 
NMaude said:
The ship-killer in question is almost certainly the Brahmos AShM, that missile in tests has not only sunk the target with just one missile in some cases it has blown the target in half before sinking.



No doubt Congress is regretting that decision in light of what has been happening in Ukraine since 2022, Ukraine would no doubt have put the cross-domain ATACMS to good use sinking Russian warships.
Click to expand...
You were saying.

www.forbes.com

In Blowing Up A Russian Minesweeper, Ukraine May Have Revealed A Secret: It Has ATACMS Rockets With 470-Pound Warheads

The Ukrainian military sank another warship from the Russian Black Sea Fleet on Sunday, possibly hitting it with M48 or M57 ATACMS rockets with unitary warheads.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
Flyaway said:
You were saying.

www.forbes.com

In Blowing Up A Russian Minesweeper, Ukraine May Have Revealed A Secret: It Has ATACMS Rockets With 470-Pound Warheads

The Ukrainian military sank another warship from the Russian Black Sea Fleet on Sunday, possibly hitting it with M48 or M57 ATACMS rockets with unitary warheads.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
Click to expand...
It needs to be pointed out that the Attack happened in port by all accounts with the minesweeper tied up to dock.

Basically a floating building.

Just need good targeting coordinates and bang, More or less tge same way arty works. Heck does even need a direct hit, close enough with the nearly 500 pound warhead going off underwater will do frightening damage to a ship. If it was unprepared, it be a keel breaker in effect.


Now if the Sweeper was moving on the other hand...

Now that be interesting.
 
Is the GPS really providing that much course correction during the terminal phase of the projectile/missile coming down? Could that be done closer to the epoch and having INS do the rest? Less accurate for sure but still something. Have the Russians only been able to implement this level of jamming around rear-area targets? It seems cheap drones are still regularly able to wreak havoc on the front edge of the battlefield. I'd have to expect if they could have that support up front those drones would be similarly ineffective.

Less unitary warheads and more ones carrying cluster bomblets would probably help. Does something like Excaliber for DPICM exist?
 
What the US needs to be doing is to start supplying Ukraine with anti-GPS HOJ terminal seekers to mount on their donated JDAM-ERs and GLSDBs, once that happens Russian anti-GPS jammers should quickly cease being a problem (A long with a lot of dead Russian soldiers operating these anti-GPS jammers).
 
Grey Havoc said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

US-supplied Himars ‘completely ineffective’ as Russia jams skies with new tech

Ukraine forced to stop using many arms supplied by the West because of Putin’s electronic warfare strategy
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk
Click to expand...
'Completely ineffective' seems kind of exaggerated given that yesterday we saw an entire S-400 battery being squad-wiped by a HIMARS ATACMS strike, and earlier in the week we saw all those 'also completely ineffective GLSDBs' hitting a Russian occupied building.
 
Last edited:
Colonial-Marine said:
Is the GPS really providing that much course correction during the terminal phase of the projectile/missile coming down?
Click to expand...

M31 series rockets have the equivalent of a Mk 81 warhead, at best, so yes.

Colonial-Marine said:
Less unitary warheads and more ones carrying cluster bomblets would probably help.
Click to expand...

The majority of HIMARS rounds sent are probably M30 series. Cluster munitions are marginal against anything with top cover though.

Colonial-Marine said:
Does something like Excaliber for DPICM exist?
Click to expand...

No, M483 series lacks the (super?) deep intrusion well necessary for M1156 fuses IIRC. It's only for M795 and M589 series.
 
Kat Tsun said:
No, M483 series lacks the (super?) deep intrusion well necessary for M1156 fuses IIRC. It's only for M795 and M589 series
Click to expand...
That depends on the model.

The OG M483 is for the older short fuses.

The A1 plus models are deep well fuses capable, actually uses the fuze bursting charge to kick out the munitions, and as such can, and have, use the PGK System to precisely drop its payload of either DCIPM OR Mines where ever.

Isn't advise too since the spread of those combine with a modern gun accuracy basically made it unneed. Plus doctrine wise call for multiple shots for a proper coverage of the submunitions. But you can do it if you want to.

There was a Cargo Shell Varient of the Excalibur planned for both DCIPM and/or Mine but that was canceled back in like 2014 irc with the whole dropping of the submunition deal.


There is no Super deep cavity only Shallow, which is being removed from service and Deep cavity which is the new standard. It was from how the old mechanical time fuzes were basically jusy a nub top bit with very little need for peneration into the shell, while the First few gens of proxy fuses had a long tail for the battery. Meaning you need a deep intrusion into the shell to fit them. Modern fuses use the tail for a larger burster charge to ignite the new insensitive explosives or to fire off any munitions carried.

Edit: old DCIPM shell did not have a deep fuse cavity since at the time it did not made sense to fit them with proxy fuses, but in tests during the late 80s they found that the proxy fuses gave a better more reliable dispersion patterns to submunitions. That was due to it be far easier to set the Proxy fuse to go off at the right attitude, and it reliably firing at said attitude, to get the perfect dispersion. Compare to the Time fuses which was heavily dependent on both Shell speed and impact area terrian. Far less variation makes for a far more reliably size pattern.
 
Last edited:
Firefinder said:
That depends on the model.

The OG M483 is for the older short fuses.

The A1 plus models are deep well fuses capable, actually uses the fuze bursting charge to kick out the munitions, and as such can, and have, use the PGK System to precisely drop its payload of either DCIPM OR Mines where ever.

Isn't advise too since the spread of those combine with a modern gun accuracy basically made it unneed. Plus doctrine wise call for multiple shots for a proper coverage of the submunitions. But you can do it if you want to.

There was a Cargo Shell Varient of the Excalibur planned for both DCIPM and/or Mine but that was canceled back in like 2014 irc with the whole dropping of the submunition deal.
Click to expand...

TBF PGK is like 80% of an Excalibur anyway, so as long as it fits...

But yeah rest in peace cassette Excalibur.
 
Forest Green said:
'Completely ineffective' seems kind of exaggerated given that yesterday we saw an entire S-400 battery being squad-wiped by a HIMARS ATACMS strike, and earlier in the week we saw all those 'also completely ineffective GLSDBs' hitting a Russian occupied building.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the s400 video featured a cluster warhead atacms. Which means it was a non-gps guided missile, as to my knowledge all gps guided variants have unitary warheads. over a 160 km range of the cluster munition variant, even just INS guidance may be enough to steer the missile close enough for the cluster warhead to do its magic.

jammers aren't gonna be everywhere, of course. Less important targets are not likely to have them around.
 
totoro said:
To be fair, the s400 video featured a cluster warhead atacms. Which means it was a non-gps guided missile, as to my knowledge all gps guided variants have unitary warheads. over a 160 km range of the cluster munition variant, even just INS guidance may be enough to steer the missile close enough for the cluster warhead to do its magic.
Click to expand...
Cluster munition variants come in both ranges, there's just more munitions in the lower ranged one.
totoro said:
jammers aren't gonna be everywhere, of course. Less important targets are not likely to have them around.
Click to expand...
I also see jammers getting hit by HIMARS, lots of evidence throughout this thread:

To the point where I think the whole 'ineffective' story might just be diversionary propaganda.
 
NMaude said:
There are already simple, available for mass-production anti-GPS jammer HOJ terminal seekers available for the likes of SDB, JDAM and MALD.
Click to expand...

There are also anti jam GPS receivers like SABR-Y/M and HAMMER. But it is not clear if or how many of any of these have been provided to Ukraine. Likely few to none.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Do the Mk41 cells being used for Typhon fit into a HIMARS?
Click to expand...

No. Strike-length VLS canisters are 22 feet long; MLRS/HIMARS pods are 13 feet, 2 inches.

The Mk 70 Typhon launcher is basically the size of a 40-foot ISO container (can't find a source to confirm but I'd be shocked if it isn't exactly the same). That's why Typhon needs a much larger truck to tow it.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
'Completely ineffective' seems kind of exaggerated given that yesterday we saw an entire S-400 battery being squad-wiped by a HIMARS ATACMS strike, and earlier in the week we saw all those 'also completely ineffective GLSDBs' hitting a Russian occupied building.
Click to expand...
It's the Telegraph, I've never rated their defence reporting, which has strayed into complete fiction at times, and is inevitably politicised, and while the story is behind a paywall, just the byline says it's not even by their defence correspondent.
 
kqcke for you said:
NMESIS should be able as they can take 1 Tomahawk
Click to expand...
Yes, but the Mk41 cells would not fit on an ATACMS, which I thing is the subject being discussed.

www.twz.com

Our First Look At Marines' Tomahawk Missile Launching Drone Truck Firing

Ground-based Tomahawk launchers are set to give the Marine Corps entirely new ways to hold targets on land and at sea at risk.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

The NSM launching cells might/should though.

www.navalnews.com

Here is our first look at the USMC's NMESIS: NSM being launched from an unmanned JLTV - Naval News

Raytheon and the U.S. Marine Corps successfully demonstrated the Navy Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System, or NMESIS...
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

With the NMESIS Rogue fires JLTV you seem to be able to mix and match HIMARS with dual NSM and single Mk41 launchers anyway.

www.navalnews.com

USMC Demonstrates Long-range Precision Fires Launchers - Naval News

Naval News inquired to the USMC Public Affairs office for more info on the types of launchers, such as ROGUE-FIRES, NMESIS, and the LRF.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

1716902092117.png
The ROGUE-FIRES unmanned JLTV with a “six-pack” pod of HIMARS rockets. Combined with NMESIS and Naval Strike Missiles, ROGUE-FIRES provides the U.S. Marines with long-range precision fires, but currently HIMARS rockets cannot target moving ships. Image: OshKosh Defense
1716902337021.png
1716902306644.png

There's also the army's Typhon and marine's Mark 31 MTVR cabs for quad Mk41/Mk70 stuff.

1716902537001.png
1716902546008.png
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom