TACMS Missile Production Line Reopens

Discussion in 'Defense Industry & Policy' started by Falcon, Mar 29, 2016.

Share This Page

  1. Falcon

    Falcon Major Staff Member Social Media Team

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2015
    Messages:
    936
    Likes Received:
    1,447
    Location:
    United-States
    DALLAS, March 29, 2016 – Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) has restarted its Tactical Missile System (TACMS) production line at the company’s facility in Camden, Arkansas.

    For more than 20 years, TACMS (formerly ATACMS) was assembled on-budget and on- or ahead of schedule at the company’s facility in Horizon City near El Paso, Texas. In order to consolidate all of Lockheed Martin’s Precision Fires missile and rocket production at its Camden Operations, TACMS production was temporarily suspended in 2014 and relocated to Camden.

    “Restarting the TACMS production is excellent news for our customers seeking deep precision fire support,” said Ken Musculus, vice president – Tactical Missiles at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “This production re-start will yield greater flexibility and significant cost-savings on a program with a rich history of reliability, affordability and mission success.”

    TACMS is a combat-proven precision deep-strike system with readiness rates exceeding 98 percent since the program’s initial fielding in 1990. Providing quick-reaction firepower with ranges up to 300 kilometers, the TACMS missiles can be fired from the entire family of MLRS launchers, including the lightweight High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS).

    Each TACMS missile is packaged in an MLRS launch pod and is fired from the MLRS family of launchers. TACMS is the only long-range tactical surface-to-surface missile ever fired in combat by the U.S. Army. Almost 600 TACMS have been employed to date, with the system demonstrating extremely high rates of combat accuracy and reliability.
     
  2. Technofox

    Technofox That Norwegian girl Staff Member Ret. Military Developer

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    3,196
    Occupation:
    Professional "Doer" of "Things"
    Location:
    Norway
    Hobby:
    Being a geek
    We've asked a lot of questions about the US military, such as why they don't have as many ground-based EW systems as their adversaries or what's an alternative to the F-35 if the program continues to spiral, but this is another good question. Why doesn't the US have more long-range surface-to-surface missiles?

    Is it because of treaties with Russia? I thought they only covered longer ranged missiles like a Pershing type, not battlefield weapons? Doesn't the 300km rule of the MTCR only apply to exported weapons as well - hence why the LRASM and Tomahawk can have a range of 1000km and JASSM can have an extended range version.

    So what's the US military's rational, unless I'm reading the treaties and international conventions wrong, that the US hasn't explored or developed a ballistic missile with a longer range since Pershing II was retired?

    ...

    Russia's Iskander has a range greater than 300km, for the non-export version, and though the US has accused them of violating an arms control treaty - I think the MTCR - with the weapon, because it's a non-export version it technically doesn't violate the MTCR.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2016
    AMDR, Osmanovic, Falcon and 1 other person like this.
  3. Pathfinder

    Pathfinder Lieutenant Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Messages:
    1,406
    Likes Received:
    2,436
    Location:
    United-States
    I don't really get it either. We should have Iskander type systems instead of just having SRBM's and ICBM's. We need to fill the gap, we can't always rely on air superiority.

    We used to have the BGM-109G Gryphon (not a Ballistic Missile)

     
    AMDR, Osmanovic, Falcon and 1 other person like this.
  4. Technofox

    Technofox That Norwegian girl Staff Member Ret. Military Developer

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Messages:
    900
    Likes Received:
    3,196
    Occupation:
    Professional "Doer" of "Things"
    Location:
    Norway
    Hobby:
    Being a geek
    But it was killed along side Pershing II with the establishing of the INF treaty.

    [​IMG]

    Russia is already violating the INF treaty (not the MTCR, as I wrote in my previous post) - according to the US - with its Iskander and R-500, which uses the Iskander's launcher:

    [​IMG]

    Prompt Global Strike and the Advanced Hypersonic Weapons programs also violate the INF treaty, according to the Russians.

    [​IMG]

    They don't really serve the same function as an Iskander type missile does though. A longer ranged TACMS would do wonders for the US. Artillery is costly, but as you rightfully point out, the US can't rely on air power alone, especially in contested environments and not for the current cost.

    Something longer-ranged on the battlefield is needed. The submarine launched PSG and Army AHW aren't going to cut it.
     
    AMDR, Osmanovic and Falcon like this.
  5. Osmanovic

    Osmanovic 1st Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2016
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    United-States
    If Russia withdrew then we should also. Its not fair to our allies and to our troops to put them in danger of Russian missiles without having an equivalent capability.


    non-proliferation-treaty2347-24-728.jpg
     
    AMDR likes this.
Loading...