Pretty cool capability. I wonder how/if organic ARG defensive measures will have to be bolstered with this kind of capability and those that are coming with F-35.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
HIMARS
- Thread starter robav8r
- Start date
Cool science experiment, but in reality, I'm pretty sure we already have TLAM which can shoot farther than "70 km." I'd be interested in the cost in comparison to the well established POR TLAM.
No TLAMs within the ARG. Plus this sounds like Marines shooting for Marines which is important for those people.
So the DDGs that escort the L-ships have no TLAM? I'm pretty sure they do.
I'll stick to my statement that this is a neat science experiment.
I’ve seen it employed in combat twice... it’s very impressive and effective. With the limited weapons load out for fixed wing CAS assets from the ARG, it would definitely be useful.
As for having to bolster defensive measures for the ARG... those who have the capabilty and motivation is going to try to hit the ships regardless of the additions of this capability or the F-35. Those who don’t, won’t.
You’re not going to see a TLAM employed for a CAS fires request from marines on the ground.
But is it practical and cost effective?
ATACMs goes out to 300km....and launching off of a ship is a new thing. What’s sad is that Navy doesn’t already have this capability. It was used in OEF all the time on shit heads in rags and sandles. Cost effective? Definitely not cheaper than a 155 shell and it has its limitations.
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't think the Marines had ATACMS.
DDGs don’t go with an ARG, only an ESG. if you don’t have the whole gang then there’s no TLAMs. Also as others have mentioned TLAMs aren’t used in this capacity (strategic vs tactical). I’m guessing this should be viewed as a slight at USN’s lack of NGFS.
This . . . . and we’ll leave the “lack of ASW” capability for another day.
I’d have to reach out to an Arty guy to be honest buts it’s not something I recall being service specific. It’s just a different and larger round shot out of the same launcher.
In a Fires call situation Compared to a TLAM? Yes.
Compared to loosing a bunch of Marines in an ambush because their Harrier/F35 CAS support has already dropped their couple of bombs and the helos are taking a bunch of face shots from small arms and heavier weaponry and dont have the firepower or standoff capability to supress without a prolonged engagement ending with their shootdown? Also yes.
If the asset is already bought and paid for and it’s just a matter of employing it from a ship as a platform.
I see your argument about using it as a preplanned strike asset. The idea that the Marines are going to storm a beach that heavily defended without a massive bombardment campaign while the ARG is at SSM standoff range is a risky idea that the Navy would never have the will to execute.
What I can see it used for is a pop up target that got missed until the ARG was in closer to the beach, or as fires support during a Marine assault, and then being transferred to land (man made Chinese islands perhaps) and being used a standoff weapon for defense of that territory, and/or supporting fire missions from the newly established FOB the day after its secured.
The Marine Corps likes to plan for things using the assumption that other services won’t bring capabilities to bear in support of their endeavors (which historically has been the case) so seeks to develope and adapt organic capabilities. The Chinese have presented an opportunity to make Marine Corps combat doctrine relavent again and they’re finding ways to adapt their new toys and technologies in its employment. Good for them.
And AAW and SUW and...