Why do we make such a big deal about the ATACMS?
A story about the missile Ukraine covets and Russia hopelessly despises.
“You know once it’s been fired, it takes a while to work out exactly the missile’s trajectory and where it’s going to impact. Basically, all you can do is warn everyone to duck,” Justin Crump, the chief executive of the strategic intelligence company Sibylline told the Telegraph.
To be fair, I had no idea that ATACMS are faster than Cruise missiles until I read Mr. Crump’s statement on the Telegraph. That particular data point wasn’t there in the story, but my mind started questioning how in the heck a projectile fired from an artillery unit be so hard to be dealt with.
First of all ATACMS is not a projectile, it is classified as a tactical missile. Second, the launchers used to fire the ATACMS are not simple artillery units, they are many different things in one. Third, when you fire the ATACMS missiles it can hit a speed of MACH 3, beating conventional cruise missiles.
Once fired the ATACMS needs just 3 to 3.5 minutes to reach the maximum stated range of 300kms. That is 180 seconds of reaction time. Now imagine, six missiles homing in on a single airfield from different angles.
I would rather not duck.
I would leave my bags and run.
The MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), called “attack-ems” by military experts is a short-range, surface-to-surface missile developed and manufactured by the U.S. defense manufacturer Lockheed Martin.
Developed in the 1980s as a replacement for the MGM-52 Lance missile, the ATACMS is a tactical weapon designed to take out high-value targets behind enemy lines, such as airfields, missile sites, troop concentrations, and command centers.
It can be launched from either the tracked M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) or the wheeled M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) .
What is the difference between the M270 and HIMARS?
Can you see the wheels in HIMARS (image above)? That is the difference.
HIMARS runs on wheels. M270 comes with a tracked chassis. HIMARS offers same multiple launch rocket system firepower on a wheeled chassis. It sacrificies capacity for increased mobility on the field.
M270 can fire 2 ATACMS missiles simultaneously, while HIMARS can fire only one missile at a time.
If you want to shoot and scoot as quickly as possible, it is better to use HIMARS. Just send multiple units in different directions. Give them the same co-ordinates. Fire them all at the same time. As soon as the missiles are in the air, you run.
The United States of America is in a very strong position when it comes to the availability of M270 and HIMARS units. According to the manufacturer, as of May 3, 2022, there were 550 launchers in the field. I have no idea how many are in storage.
The Missiles
ATACMS missiles have a range of 145kms to 300kms. They can carry a variety of payloads, including unitary warheads or submunitions. The modern versions are highly precise as they can fall within 10m to 50m of the target 50% of the time. The precision is not far from the levels of well known cruise missiles.
There are lots and lots of ATACMS types. The one who has the launchers can literally pick the best version that is suited for the job.
If you want to take out a group of helicopters parked across an airfield, then you can fire the ATACMS Block IA (M39A1) with submunitions. One missile can drop 300 bomblets over a small area. Fire the M39, it will reach only 165kms, but can drop 950 bomblets. Both missiles are bad news for military assets in a confined area as well as troops holding out in the trenches.
If you want to destroy fortified targets such a as buildings, vehicles, command posts, supply depots, then ATACMS with unitary warhead will be a better option as it contains a single explosive payload designed to detonate upon impact with the target.
The ATACMS was first used in combat in 1991: 32 were fired from the M270 MLRS during Operation Desert Storm. In 2003, more the 450 were fired in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
So, using hundreds of missiles in a theater of war is not an abnormal event. When you have a weapon as valuable as ATACMS you expect to fire hundreds of them to reduce your enemy’s combat power.
The United States does not have to unduly worry about the level of stock in its storage. For a while the administration kept saying that there aren’t enough. They are not saying that anymore.
As of August 14, 2017, according to the manufacturer:
Lockheed Martin has produced more than 3,800 ATACMS missiles. More than 600 ATACMS have been fired in combat, and the system has demonstrated extremely high rates of accuracy and reliability while in theater.
The Russian armed forces, and even their propaganda TV understand the value of ATACMS. Ukrainians cannot intercept the glide bombs the Russians are dropping over the frontline. Similarly the lack of reaction time does not give the Russian armed forces any room to intercept the ATACMS after they are launched. They will try. And may be they will intercept a few. But that is how far they can go.
ATACMS will keep finding their way to their target. The only recourse for the Russians would be to destroy the launchers. Sadly, the two year report card of the Russian response to HIMARS is abysmal.
- The United States has supplied Ukraine with 39 HIMARS units.
- In the last two years the Russian army had managed to destroy just a single unit.
- That is how much effort Ukraine has taken in order to protect this valuable system.
As the flow of ATACMS to Ukraine is set to increase at a rapid pace, the Russians will intensify their effort to locate and destroy the launchers. It is obvious what the workaround will be. Ukraine is never going to mass multiple HIMARS units or M270s in a single location.
It will be a single target, fired from many different locations. It will be highly choreographed and syncrhonised attack on enemy targets. Hit and immediately evacuate the area as the Russians will be desperate to fire back at the spot from where the missiles are launched.
It is an uneven battle.
Unless Ukraine finds itself in dire circumstances, forcing them to take unnecessary risks like advancing too close to the frontline and exposing themselves to surveillance drones, it’s difficult to envision how the Russians could effectively counter the ATACMS threat.
Disrupting Russia’s logistical supply lines is paramount for Ukraine’s success. When considering supply routes, it’s inevitable to discuss the Kerch bridge. Now, let’s explore whether ATACMS has the capability to disrupt this vital artery of Russian supply.
Can ATACMS with the unitary warhead break the Kerch bridge?
The response from most of the military analysts whom I refer to is a collective sigh. The answer remains a resounding no. First, the Kerch bridge is a massive structure. While it may be possible for anyone to puncture it, destroying it is not going to be a simple task. Its size and length alone represent significant strengths for the bridge.
Launching a large volley of ATACMS with unitary warheads will weaken the bridge and may even render it unusable for some time. However, the effort and resources required for such an endeavor may not yield commensurate value. I believe Ukraine would be better off utilizing the ATACMS for other purposes. I am also not sure if America will send a substantial quantity of ATACMS with unitary warheads. Ukraine requires a considerable quantity of ATACMS with submunitions.
The utility of the Kerch bridge is already significantly lower than it was last year. Bringing down the Kerch bridge would represent a significant propaganda victory for Ukraine, boosting Ukrainian morale and undermining Russian morale. We must also remember that as long as the bridge stands, Ukraine’s claim over its sovereign territory will not be full and final.
So, it has to go. But I am just not sure, if that target is worth the ATACMS right now.
May be later.
May be after the United States loads up Ukrainian warehouses with hundreds of ATACMS missiles.
How much ATACMS will Ukraine get?
I hope it hits the thousands mark over time. Or at the very least it runs into the hundreds. Considering the current state of the battlefield it will be much better if the United States opts for the French model and starts supplying a set number of ATACMS missiles to Ukraine every month. Give Ukraine the visiblity into the calender of the supply and avoid a huge amount of ammunition be exposed to Russian attacks.
We will never know how much the United States has supplied.
I hope no one leaks that information.
But we can already see the results in the battlefield. The recent attack on the Dzankoi airfield that destroyed a billion dollars worth equipment was the result of an ATACMS attack. Reports indicate it was just six ATACMS that rendered that damage. Multiple S400 launchers, a command post and other equipment was destroyed.
If the United States delivers 450 ATACMS missiles, the same amount they used in Operation Iraqi Freedom… I can only imagine the amount of capacity reduction the Russian army will go through.
This story is accessible to all, free for non-Medium users. Feel free to share it with anyone.
