Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
14 August 2009
Messages
9,707
Reaction score
2,170
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Vought JTACMS (Joint Tactical Missile System) with F-16 model found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/LARGE-F-16-JTACMS-Topping-Precise-Experimental-Version-Factory-Desk-Model-/182058153075?hash=item2a6382f473:g:E-UAAOSwx-9Wvs4h
 

Attachments

  • s-l1600.jpg
    s-l1600.jpg
    155.4 KB · Views: 367
  • s-l1600i.jpg
    s-l1600i.jpg
    191.2 KB · Views: 188
  • s-l1600h.jpg
    s-l1600h.jpg
    213 KB · Views: 216
  • s-l1600g.jpg
    s-l1600g.jpg
    243 KB · Views: 218
  • s-l1600f.jpg
    s-l1600f.jpg
    184.3 KB · Views: 220
  • s-l1600e.jpg
    s-l1600e.jpg
    141.6 KB · Views: 271
  • s-l1600d.jpg
    s-l1600d.jpg
    115.6 KB · Views: 285
  • s-l1600c.jpg
    s-l1600c.jpg
    125.3 KB · Views: 269
  • s-l1600b.jpg
    s-l1600b.jpg
    194.8 KB · Views: 328
Lockheed Martin (LTV) MGM-140 ATACMS

The ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) is the U.S. Army's current short/medium-range tactical ballistic missile system. Development began in 1982, when the DOD combined the Army's CSWS (Corps Support Weapon System, started in 1980 as a successor to MGM-52 Lance) and the Air Force's CSW (Conventional Standoff Weapon) programs into the JTACMS (Joint Tactical Missile System) program. In 1985, after pre-development contracts had been awarded to several companies, the USAF pulled out of the program, and JTACMS was renamed ATACMS.

In May 1986 the prime contract for development of ATACMS was awarded to Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV), and shortly thereafter, the missile designator MGM-140 was assigned. The first flight of an XMGM-140A missile occurred in April 1988, and in December of that year, low-rate production started. The MGM-140A ATACMS became operational in January 1991, and began to replace the MGM-52 Lance SRBM. In U.S. Army service, the complete ATACMS missile round including the launch pod is known as M39. LTV's missile division was aquired by Loral in 1992, forming Loral Vought Systems, which was in turn purchased by Lockheed Martin in 1996. The current prime contractor for ATACMS is Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control.


Source:
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-140.html
 
I highly suspect the ATACMS replacement (Precision Strike Missile PrSM) will evolve into an air launched version. It will be smaller, lighter, and longer ranged with two per pod on MLRS and HIMARS. Two different companies (I assume Lockmart and Raytheon; I can't recall) have submissions that will be tested beginning of next year; both indicate that the 500km requirement can be exceeded now that the US has withdrawn from INF.
 
I highly suspect the ATACMS replacement (Precision Strike Missile PrSM) will evolve into an air launched version. It will be smaller, lighter, and longer ranged with two per pod on MLRS and HIMARS. Two different companies (I assume Lockmart and Raytheon; I can't recall) have submissions that will be tested beginning of next year; both indicate that the 500km requirement can be exceeded now that the US has withdrawn from INF.

Throw a Harpoon booster on it and it'll still fit in a Harpoon launch tube.
 
The initial version will be GPS/INS guidance only, though the USMC in particular is interested in a version with terminal homing for the ASuW role. It would have more range than NSM, albeit with a much more obvious flight profile.
 
The initial version will be GPS/INS guidance only, though the USMC in particular is interested in a version with terminal homing for the ASuW role. It would have more range than NSM, albeit with a much more obvious flight profile.

I wonder how much glide they could get out of it with some strakes installed. Maybe replace the motor with a dual pulse motor, accept some range loss, and then fly the last 10-15 miles at low altitude?
 
Talk about a wasted opportunity and since this was during the cold-war I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were put into production it would've included a nuclear-armed version (Probably carrying something like a modified W-80 warhead).

Has there been any serious consideration recently of developing an AGM-140 version developed from the MGM-140?
 

Attachments

  • fig17.JPG
    fig17.JPG
    90.2 KB · Views: 282
Talk about a wasted opportunity and since this was during the cold-war I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were put into production it would've included a nuclear-armed version (Probably carrying something like a modified W-80 warhead).

Has there been any serious consideration recently of developing an AGM-140 version developed from the MGM-140?
Never heard of any, and that is an old system to convert. I thought there might be some interest in converting PrSM to air launch, but I think USAF will settle for SiAM for now.
 
Talk about a wasted opportunity and since this was during the cold-war I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were put into production it would've included a nuclear-armed version (Probably carrying something like a modified W-80 warhead).

Has there been any serious consideration recently of developing an AGM-140 version developed from the MGM-140?
Never heard of any, and that is an old system to convert. I thought there might be some interest in converting PrSM to air launch, but I think USAF will settle for SiAM for now.
I was mostly interested in looking at the possibilities of cobbling together existing pieces for a compressed schedule.

I'm curious of the details of the ATACMs modified Zombie target. Would probably make a decent ASM.

GIS-NB-21AUG2020(2)_0.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think there are publicly available PDF files on NATACMS on the DTIC website however I can't recall their names, I do recall seeing years ago a proposed NATACMS launched from a Los Angeles class SSN and that it would've used the same solid rocket-motor used to launch the Tomahawk cruise-missile.
 
More cream for your paws:

View attachment 675615

Is this real? Because I've been looking everywhere for information about a "NTACMS" program that I saw mention of ages and ages ago. If NTACMS really required Mk57 cells, that would explain a fair bit of why the program just vanished into thin air.

NTACMS was real, but those drawings are not, AFAIK.

The real NTACMS fit, just barely, in a modified thin-wall Mark 41 canister.

 
More cream for your paws:

View attachment 675615

Is this real? Because I've been looking everywhere for information about a "NTACMS" program that I saw mention of ages and ages ago. If NTACMS really required Mk57 cells, that would explain a fair bit of why the program just vanished into thin air.

NTACMS was real, but those drawings are not, AFAIK.

The real NTACMS fit, just barely, in a modified thin-wall Mark 41 canister.

The one on the far left is made from a drawing of ATACMS Unitary (MGM-140E (MGM-168A)) They just fit inside the published cross section of a Mk57. Don't know the "stripped" cross section of a Mk41 so I didn't try to fit one in there. Whatever they did to fit an ATACMs though they likely did to fit LRASM though as it's also more than 21" dia.

mgm-168a.jpg
 
It would be interesting to see something like a palletized container that could be dropped into firebase locations. You would need some kind of portable communications bundle for it, but that would also allow remote fire. Sure you could simply park a launcher at a firebase. Tying up a launch vehicle at a temporary location means one less able to move into the field. Being able to conceal single launchers allows you to use spare missiles when the vehicle moves out. Plus you can conceal a single tube much easier than a vehicle.
 
It would be interesting to see something like a palletized container that could be dropped into firebase locations. You would need some kind of portable communications bundle for it, but that would also allow remote fire. Sure you could simply park a launcher at a firebase. Tying up a launch vehicle at a temporary location means one less able to move into the field. Being able to conceal single launchers allows you to use spare missiles when the vehicle moves out. Plus you can conceal a single tube much easier than a vehicle.
I've often though something like that but a small VLS with AIM-9X in it would be interesting. But then how do you keep the locals from damaging or stealing it. . .
 
It would be interesting to see something like a palletized container that could be dropped into firebase locations. You would need some kind of portable communications bundle for it, but that would also allow remote fire. Sure you could simply park a launcher at a firebase. Tying up a launch vehicle at a temporary location means one less able to move into the field. Being able to conceal single launchers allows you to use spare missiles when the vehicle moves out. Plus you can conceal a single tube much easier than a vehicle.
I've often though something like that but a small VLS with AIM-9X in it would be interesting. But then how do you keep the locals from damaging or stealing it. . .
Use standard tubes and disperse them. They shouldn't know live from dummy until it pops. Plus if anyone is acting suspicious around them you know the drill.
 
It would be interesting to see something like a palletized container that could be dropped into firebase locations. You would need some kind of portable communications bundle for it, but that would also allow remote fire. Sure you could simply park a launcher at a firebase. Tying up a launch vehicle at a temporary location means one less able to move into the field. Being able to conceal single launchers allows you to use spare missiles when the vehicle moves out. Plus you can conceal a single tube much easier than a vehicle.

Dispersal is good. Dispersal without the ability to relocate is bad. Against a competent high-tech adversary, it's nearly suicidal.

We are seeing USMC interest in putting a HIMARS-type launcher (6 GMLRS or 2 PrSM) on a robotic JLTV platform. So, remote launch, reduced footprint, fewer troops exposed, but still more useful than just dropping a box launcher somewhere.
 
Israel produced Jumper, a small compact VLS missile using INS/GPS. Look it up
 
Israel produced Jumper, a small compact VLS missile using INS/GPS. Look it up

Produced, or just offered? I don't see any signs that Jumper was adopted, but maybe the Israelis did in quitely? It's very much it the class of the Netfires PAM. Which is very far from NTACMs type missiles.
 
Last edited:
The one on the far left is made from a drawing of ATACMS Unitary (MGM-140E (MGM-168A)) They just fit inside the published cross section of a Mk57. Don't know the "stripped" cross section of a Mk41 so I didn't try to fit one in there. Whatever they did to fit an ATACMs though they likely did to fit LRASM though as it's also more than 21" dia.

The most specific drawing I've seen says that a standard Mk41 canister is 25.12 inches across externally, but it also has some thick ribbed walls. LRASM is "~55 cm" wide (22 inches) according the only reference I can get to right now that lists something (military-today.com), call it 22 inches. I can see that squeezing into a Mk41 with some mods to the canister.

ATACMS is *24 inches* in diameter. That'd have to be an extremely thin-walled canister to let the missile work out of a Mk41. It must have still worked since they actually *did* it, but that's a *really* tight squeeze.

NavalNews.com has a screencap from a LockMart presentation from last year showing the Precision Strike Missile, giving it a diameter of 17 inches and a length of 156 inches. *That* would comfortably fit in a Mk41, possibly even with the tailfins deployed. (And now I'm sort of wondering what would happen if you stuck that on top of a Mk72 booster. If it's supposed to have a 300 mile range on its lonesome...?)

Edit:

The actual LockMart video is on Youtube:

View: https://youtu.be/28zfSkhbSFA
 
Last edited:
(And now I'm sort of wondering what would happen if you stuck that on top of a Mk72 booster. If it's supposed to have a 300 mile range on its lonesome...?)

Next iteration of PrSM supposedly will double that through some form of combined cycle propulsion.

Navalizing that would likely need some sort of booster but Mk72 might be overkill. Maybe the VL ASROC booster, since all you need to do it get it out of the cell and pointed in the right general direction. That also has the benefit of being the same company.
 
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.
 

Top left is LOCAAS (Low Cost Autonomous Attack System)

Top right is SADARM

Bottom left is BAT (Brilliant Anti-Tank) munitions

Bottom right is BLU-108 (Skeet dispenser)
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom