Vought JTACMS/ATACMS (MGM-140)

Last edited:
TomS said:
I was surprised to discover that more than 1100 BAT were made in pre-production/low-rate production.
Click to expand...

Wow! That's a lot of preproduction rounds, I was under the impression it never got past the prototype stage.
 
I was looking up details on the MGM-140's propulsion system but I haven't found out much so I was wondering does anyone know what the thrust and burn time of the rocket-motor is?
 
Forest Green said:
Does ATACMS have an independent warhead, or is it all one piece?
Click to expand...
There was an experimental ATACMS variant using a modified Mk 4 reentry vehicle from the TRIDENT ballistic missile for penetrating hardened targets. It was called TACMS-P.

From Janes:
The TACtical Missile System Penetrator (TACMS-P) uses ATACMS missiles to carry a hard target penetrating warhead, and this was originally known as the Block 3 missile. This development programme is being supported by the US Army and US Navy, and integrates a modified UGM-96 Trident C-4 SLBM Mk 4 re-entry vehicle containing a conventional HE warhead with the ATACMS Block 1A missile. The modified RV will have a guidance and control system fitted, to change the trajectory in space and following re-entry. Other warheads may be considered for this version, which is planned to have a maximum range of 300 km. A further design was considered, extending the range of the TACMS-P missile to nearly 500 km.
Click to expand...

From Sandia National Laboratories:
Tactical Missile System-Penetrator (TACMS-P), an accelerated three-year project, integrates an Army TACMS booster developed by Lockheed Martin with a Navy Strategic Systems Program (SSP) maneuvering reentry vehicle that was designed, developed, and tested by Sandia.
Sandia was chosen to build the integrated Earth Penetrating Warhead (EPW) based on the Labs’ proven expertise in high-speed flight system design, precision navigation, guidance, control capabilities, and penetrator technology, says David Keese (15404), Deputy Director of Aerospace Systems Development Center 15400.
[...]
The TACMS-P was fired from a Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) M270A1 launcher at Launch Complex 33, and flew to a pre-determined altitude and speed to separate the EPW from the booster.
After separation, the booster locked its fins and continued on a ballistic path while the EPW used its movable fins to guide it to a fixed, hard target using a navigation, guidance, and control system developed at Sandia.
Click to expand...
Not sure if the EPW is still based on the MK 4.
 

Attachments

  • TACMS-P.jpg
    TACMS-P.jpg
    51.5 KB · Views: 102
  • TACMSpenetrator.JPG
    TACMSpenetrator.JPG
    141.3 KB · Views: 105
  • 13214792.pdf
    1 MB · Views: 41
According to Kopp (1985) in "F-15E - Anatomy of Strike Fighter" ( https://www.ausairpower.net/TE-F-15E-Strike-Eagle.html ), the F-15E Strike Eagle was projected to carry up to five JTACMS. Depending on the warhead, the current ATACMS weight in the range from 2910 to 3690 lbs. As illustrated below by King (1995), each of the F-15E Strike Eagle's weapon stations, including the unused outboard wing stations, was stressed for the following capacity:
F-15E Air-to-Ground Weapon Stations.PNG
SOURCE: King, D. R. (1995). A Review of Fighter Aircraft Capability for Smart Bombs. Retrieved from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA300588.pdf

Thus, the F-15E Strike Eagle could have carried two JTACMS / ATACMS under the inboard wing stations, one under the centerline station, and two more under the inboard CFT stations.
 
What is the range of cluster warhead versions of ATACMS?

All versions besides the original M39 are listed at 300km on wiki.
 
Last edited:
The Atacms as an AWHOLE is an INF treaty complianant missile.

By design it limited to the 300km mark to be treaty complainant, might be able to gain maybe another 50km at most by some rejiggling of the flight program but by design that is made to be hard to do.
 
Firefinder said:
The Atacms as an AWHOLE is an INF treaty complianant missile.

By design it limited to the 300km mark to be treaty complainant, might be able to gain maybe another 50km at most by some rejiggling of the flight program but by design that is made to be hard to do.
Click to expand...

The initial (non-GPS) ATACMS didn't even max-out the INF range. They added GPS and hacked the payload way back to hit 300km. If they had tried to get more range than that, there would be basically zero payload left.
 
The simple way of extending the ATACMS's range would be to do @sferrin 's suggestion (Albeit at the expense of a bigger missile needing a new launcher) and make a two-stage version (The first-stage being a modified ATACMS propulsion section with a boost only grain), call it ATACMS-ER.
 
NMaude said:
The simple way of extending the ATACMS's range would be to do @sferrin 's suggestion (Albeit at the expense of a bigger missile needing a new launcher) and make a two-stage version (The first-stage being a modified ATACMS propulsion section with a boost only grain), call it ATACMS-ER.
Click to expand...
Or apply the guidance system to a Hrim-2.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Absolutely amazing that they managed to stuff that 24" missile into a submarine VLS launch tube designed for 21" weapons.
Click to expand...

A Mk41 would be funny. Tissue paper thin canister walls. The missile has to race out of the tube before the collapsing aluminum crushes it. An Indiana Jones scene every time an FC slaps the TLAM console. 8% chance the VLS causes a fire or the rocket explodes in tube and blows the bow off every time it fires.

TMs just have to grease the cans with KY Jelly to get them to fit.
 
Last edited:
I think the claim is bullshit, if you look at the rocket-motor you can clearly see the mounting ring for attaching the payload which was submunitions so this ATACMS successfully released its' payload the question is what was its' target?
 
Josh_TN said:
That’s what LRASM used. PrSM also is going to ultimately have a terminal seeker for moving targets, so there would be some big advantages to adoption.

That might also allow the army to adopt the boosted version for its MRC mission in place of much more expensive SM-6; it’s a mk41 compatible launcher.
Click to expand...
The seeker equipped variant of the PrSM (existing PrSm with a seeker) is expected to achieve EOC in the FY27-28 timeframe. The longer ranged variant probably in the early 2030s. By that time, it would probably be better to figure out and develop a VLS launched variant of the Navy's HALO Air Launched hypersonic weapon.
 
bring_it_on said:
The seeker equipped variant of the PrSM (existing PrSm with a seeker) is expected to achieve EOC in the FY27-28 timeframe. The longer ranged variant probably in the early 2030s. By that time, it would probably be better to figure out and develop a VLS launched variant of the Navy's HALO Air Launched hypersonic weapon.
Click to expand...
There's a good argument that you should have both hypersonic (or at least high supersonic, Mach 4-6) missiles and LO subsonic cruise missiles in inventory. They do different tasks. Need a target smashed RIGHT NOW? Hypersonic all the way. Need to be sneaky? Hypersonics are anything but sneaky, use the LO subsonics.
 
bring_it_on said:
The seeker equipped variant of the PrSM (existing PrSm with a seeker) is expected to achieve EOC in the FY27-28 timeframe. The longer ranged variant probably in the early 2030s. By that time, it would probably be better to figure out and develop a VLS launched variant of the Navy's HALO Air Launched hypersonic weapon.
Click to expand...

No argument, if the program is successful and it can be so adapted. It remains to be seen what kind of propulsion method HALO will use. If it uses a rocket or a hybrid Ram/Scramjet, it might well be amenable to surface launch with a Mk72.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom