The US army now has a 300km+ mach 3 anti ship missile- a modified ATACMs launched from HIMARs or MLRS.
Warheads were removed because they also wanted to test launch a NSM at it and sink it with a torpedo. plan is to have these in the pacific around certain disputed islands.
Other urls found in this thread:
nationalinterest.org
thedrive.com
navyrecognition.com
dvidshub.net
twitter.com
>plan is to have these in the pacific around certain disputed islands.
Which islands?
by the way, the first thing to hit the ship was the NSM, the ATACM variants were next.
have them in japan, guam and the phillipines.
the UK have MLRS launches. they could hit anything in the english channel or most of the giuk gap. would make for a very sensible weapon with russia transiting through there so often.
I thought that Jow Forums's consensus was that surface-launched AShMs are completely useless?
No, we just have vatniks and gooks claiming that they make all ships obsolete because buzzwords. Now the USA have them so there's no reason to even build ships anymore.
The ATACM was the big one with secondary explosion?
>murrika stronk
burgerniks
yeah the 3 that hit in succession
guessing the NSM was inert as well?
yeah. they generally remove the warheads from everything but the torpedoes on sink-exs so a
a lot of units can get live fire training.
Finally my tactic of using ATACM's on ships in Wargame has been noticed
Wow cool, we're finally bridging this huge capability gap. From here you know it's just a matter of a few years before they put them in a naval VLS block and an air-launch variant.
So 2 hit the ship and one missed?
>the UK have MLRS launches. they could hit anything in the english channel or most of the giuk gap.
>or most of the giuk gap.
Your geography sucks.
they fired 11.
the US navy already have a mach 3.5 anti ship missile, its the SM-6. they won't be getting this.
i count 3 hits on that video + 1 nsm hit (and the torpedo at the end)
They fired 11 ATACMS?
>Chinks claim carriers are obsolete because AShM
>mfw a Chink carrier gets sunk by American AShM
>3.5 anti ship missile, its the SM-6
SM-6 don't have active seeker for ship target and it can't maneuver again ship target. 3.5 mach is nothing when the only thing it do is glide to the target.
>SM-6 don't have active seeker for ship target
yes it does.
"The missile uses the airframe of the earlier SM-2ER Block IV (RIM-156A) missile,[9] adding the active radar homing seeker from the AIM-120C AMRAAM in place of the semi-active seeker of the previous design. This will improve the capability of the Standard missile against highly agile targets, and targets beyond the effective range of the launching vessels' target illumination radars."
nationalinterest.org
>The US army now has a 300km+ mach 3 anti ship missile- a modified ATACMs launched from HIMARs or MLRS.
No, it has a 227mm missile with a 70km range.
The anti ship version is not the 610mm ATACMS
that was a ship to shore experiment. using the himars as fire support for a landing USMC force.
Why is this Army and not Navy? Surely fighting against ships is what the Navy is for, right?
>SM-6 don't have active seeker for ship target
Don't talk about shit please. There is not a single SM in the tubes that does not have an seeker on the missile.
LOL no,
You cann't use a RADAR from the AIM-120C AMRAAM to track surface target.
It's enlarged brainlet.
Their seeker can only track airborne target, not ship.
The ship need to guide the SM-6 in land attack mode.
yes you can. they say it did not take long to modify the code.
>The ship need to guide the SM-6 in land attack mode.
thats absolutely false. you're thinking of the SM-2.
So which is it?
Yes user, yes it can.
Even the SM-2 has a IR seeker.
>The anti ship version is not the 610mm ATACMS
Yes it is.
There were no ATACMS used, just normal GMLRS rockets.
Philippines and jap/china lands
Sauce? The anti ship version was the ATACMS.
i think he made an honest mistake and got it mixed up with this recent exercise.
if its on land its army, if its in the water its navy
The SM-3 can't be used in long range anti ship duties. First of all, it's primarily an anti-aircraft weapon that has a small warhead, and second it's radar seeker is for airborne targets, not for surface targets which requires a different type of radar. It can be used to shoot at close range threats, but it is in no way a replacement for actual AShMs like the Harpoon or Excocet.
Sorry meant SM-6, the SM-3 is the new badass anti-ICBM kinetic kill interceptor.
That's pretty much the beginning and end of it. It's really about who has bigger balls where, and it's actually all about how money is distributed.
>the SM-3 is the new badass anti-ICBM kinetic kill interceptor.
It was about a year ago that we intercepted MRBMs which are mach 9-12. ICBMs are like mach 20+ hold your horses.
Did you watch the video? A HIMARS only holds 1 ATACMS yet they were firing a barrage.
SM-6 has already been used as an AShM, all that is required is a software patch.
Acktually, the block IIA will have initial ICBM capability.
Where? Are you sure it was not random footage edited in?
This article talks about the firing of 1 NSM and a set of Type 12 SSM, but no MLRS. Clip in the link seem to show the Type 12 firing, and not a US MLRS.
>navyrecognition.com
>All this butthurt vatnik and 50cent disinfo
>Acktually, the block IIA will have initial ICBM capability
That sounds destabilizing
Yep. But technology marches on.
Nevermind this, just read TheDrive-article which mentions the 6 HIMARS. Also, from the footage it looks like the Type 12 has a lot less smoke than the HIMARS-launches
Someone doesnt understand how radar works
The SM-6 isn't an anti-ship missile, it's a SAM that can be shot at a surface ship in a pinch. It has too small a warhead to be a really effective ASCM and doesn't have any terminal maneuvering or other tricks to penetrate the point defense. We are actively acquiring several purpose built ASCMS and the SM-6 workaround is kind of a stop-gap solution until those come online.
I'm really glad to see this ATACMS working out. It makes the PLAN's life a lot harder if they make an aggressive move against PI. Probably won't be exported to Taiwan though.
Yep. ATACMs is a big boi.
Anyways, it's all a meme. Loud and fast AShMs are a complete waste. The only reason it might work is because the US has about 1,500 M270s and Himars.
>It has too small a warhead to be a really effective ASCM and doesn't have any terminal maneuvering or other tricks to penetrate the point defense.
The manuvering part is unknown, and it's a 3,000lb object going mach three. It got plenty of oomf.
It's more coastal defense, which has always been an Army show. In muddled areas of responsibility like the littorals, generally the Navy is the offensive element, and the Army / marines are the blocking/defensive element. At least in theory. We haven't done any of this shit in 60 years, real-world.
1:04 of OP's video is HIMARS firing GMLRS.
Most likely just random footage. USNI said ATACMS at this RIMPAC, and GMLRS does not make much sense.
It's footage from the SINKEX, is an AShM capable ATACMS was used there is no video ir pictures of it.
I'm actually more interested in the sub launched Harpoon.
>that plume
Oh yeah, there be ATACMS.
>Shoot dumb bomb with wings
huehuehue Amerika stronk!
Meanwhile China has supersonic 750km ranged missiles that carries its own chaff and countermeasures plus has a number of different flight paths that it can use, also come with datalink that it shares between the ship and other missiles. And it costs the same as the American dumb missiles too if you count in the American corruption and red tape.
>multiple plumes from a HIMARS
>HIMARS only hold 1 ATACMS
guise I dunno, I think it's an ATACMS barrage
Yeah but that stolen tech and software on it hasn't had the backdoor programmed in to "pull the plug" when we want to!
>there is only one himars to a batt
Comon man, aint rocket science (Lel). M26/M30 don't have a wide flame out of the exhaust or quite the plume.
Link?
proofs?
You have never actually watched GMLRS being fired have you.
>supersonic 750km ranged missiles that carries its own chaff and countermeasures plus has a number of different flight paths that it can use, also come with datalink that it shares between the ship and other missiles
So, sending J-15s to kamikaze into things. Probably more useful than using them as actual planes. Brilliant strategy, Tsun-Tzu.
I have, in person. Attackems has a big ass jet that is clearly visible, M30 does not.
The fucking SM2 had AShM capability you fucktoads, we even frired them in anger. That's why they're called STANDARD missiles. Because they are the STANDARD missile of the navy, and this has always been a part of the plan. They are not and never were pure SAMs.
>M30 does not
Does not have as big as a jet*
It's still there, mind you.
Then you would know the video and the photographs are GMLRS and not ATACMS.
Cool story Bro.
That doesn't really work when you are saying it about your own post.
I could show picture after picture and video of MLRS launches and the differences between an M31 and a ATACMS, it would not change your mind because your mind is made up. I don't believe in exercises in futility, hence the cool story Bro.
You aren’t even trying to hide it anymore
talk to us again when burgers have ramming cargo ships
You could post a video of showing the difference between GMLRS and ATACMS being fired, but you won't because it would show that OP's video is GMLRS.
Alright kiddo, cool story. Totally convinced me. I got what I wanted out of this thread, you my friend are a waste of time.
>I look like an ass, better take my ball and go home
Yep, you caught me. 100% ass!
>that wrinkled metal after the torpedo hit
fugg
No, just the 'undeadable hypersonic carrier killer' meme missiles
>National interest
>America doesn't have an analogue
>Better call them chink names
We have no idea what the fuck he is going on about.
J-15s don't have datalink
Brutal. Maybe the chink screaming into the radio could be considered a datalink?
technically. it's an antiship ballistic missile
Technically it's an antiship quasi-ballistic missile.
chinklink
No, the Jow Forumsonsensus is that Russian/Chinese "unstoppable hypersonics" is meme bullshit. Sea skimmers are well established, as are steep-diving missiles. ATACMS probably doesn't go fast enough to have the seeker issues hypersonics get.
Reminder that Talos, Tartar, and Terrier all had anti-surface modes, and they were semiactive. You most definitely can use a 13.5" pulse-doppler active radar seeker to hit ships.
>destabilizing
Not too much, as the capability is limited by missiles available and BMD ships available, the accuracy low (around 50% in testing), and intercept geometry needs the ships to be well-positioned to intercept. Currently, it's no threat to Russia or China as they can just power through it; but it does raise the bar for new nuclear powers to threaten the US. NK for example.
This
Only American hypersonic like X-51 is not meme bulshit! Because Amurrikka stronk!
Not at all. Just that air launched is superior for range and size
Well, Technically one could position destoryers to actually give them a good chance to hit any incoming nukes to the mainland that's not a polar shot.
>American hypersonic like X-51
The US never claimed the X-51 is guided, armed, or unstoppable.
The X-51 is only claimed to be air-breathing hypersonic.
