17 Comments

"Without having to call the airforce and interrupt their golf game"

-Some guy in his bathrobe

Nice.

Expand full comment

You forgot the most important attribute. It has a good acronym, therefore it is a good weapon

Expand full comment

Surprise! ATACMS!

Expand full comment

Suprise Mutherfucker!

Expand full comment

At one point, ships laden with fertiliser were crossing under the Kerch bridge. Would ATACMs make for a very large explosion if it hit this ship?

Expand full comment
author

Nice try ATF.

Expand full comment

Would depend on what type of fertilizer. Most types of fertilizer are inert but Amonium Nitrate, under some very specific conditions makes for a big boom.

Expand full comment

Such as being hit by a large warhead

Expand full comment

Yes..i suppose if you knew which ship had AN on board..van ATACMs hit moving targets?

Expand full comment

In my opinion the location and arrival time of the missile can be very well known. The timing of a ship I think is possible as given all the barriers around the bridge the ship is probably at 2 knots. So I give it a “possible” but not good enough to try. Instead I would place a bomb on the ship and trip it with a remote device. Having said that, I wonder if fertilizer is even going to be allowed near the bridge. I love better Ryan’s thought on timing a hit on a munitions train. Can you imagine a 25 kiloton event on the bridge?

Expand full comment

So launching alone at an S400 complex, what is probability of success? What chance do the S400 missiles have? Does the ATACMS disburse the bomblets before in range of the S400 autocannon? Or does a strike at S400 need a full SEAD mission with active decoy and live drone to deplete or force shutoff?

Expand full comment
author

That's a good question. It's a TBM, so it's something Russia knows how to handle, but the ATACMS is also moving and guiding itself, so it's making corrections, which will just be weird behavior from a TBM. It may be better to create dilemmas by launching multiple missions, or sending in drones and then adding in an ATACMS to complicate things. But unfortunately, Russia has not provided a probability of hit.

Expand full comment

If out there is a SEAD nerd it would be great to read about strategies. We read how dumb rockets are launched together with HIMARS so the SAM radar has to pick the HIMARS out of the pack with its slightly different velocity. So what are strategies with ATACMS? Launch HARM to try to force off radar? Launch TALD to draw fire and deplete? Can S400 radar be jammed from a jamming drone or missile? I am going to guess there will be high stakes chess games played out. I just hope enough tools are given so Ukraine can suppress SAM to let F-16 get farther out to push back the glide bomb delivery aircraft. I worry that anytime Ukraine tries a breakthrough the concentration of equipment just gets glide bombed. If they could push back the bombers out of range then maybe they can get behind the lines and start a route.

Expand full comment

Paying (in essence) Ukraine to fight and, at a minimum, deplete Russian forces and cash is far cheaper than us doing this ourselves.

Expand full comment

I know there's a lot of concern with the financial state of the U.S. ($33T debt) and the amount that is being spent to aid Ukraine. I'm one of those who has some doubts about how much, if anything, we should keep sending, BUT this weapon seems to be very effective and cost efficient. It's the sort of weapon that forces the adversary to change their tactics and adjust the deployment of their forces. I would suggest that the bigger concern isn't just the financial cost but the depletion of our own arsenals. So long as we can send some and not diminish our capabilities and readiness. What I'm alluding to is having enough to fight China when (not if) they invade Taiwan.

So again, yes I have concerns about the cost but I do see the Russians as the aggressor. In spite of my feelings about how corrupt the Ukrainian govt is notorious for, Ukraine still has a right to defend itself.

Expand full comment

Short response, it is hugely beneficial for the US, to support Ukraine to save American troops lives in a future SCS conflict. It is systematic linear thinking without the analytical approach of shifting variables added to the equation of the evolution in the current war's shifting paradigms on the battlefield. Long story short, our US Military Brass understands this and we will be better prepared by 2026. Cost of old munitions and outdated tech has a cost but intelligence on current war engagements for the future. Fucking priceless!

Expand full comment
Oct 7, 2023·edited Oct 7, 2023

Remember, it should never be about money, only about saving the lives of our troops and allies. Added note: Corruption in Ukraine is being dealt with on a daily basis with President Velenskyy, unlike our current US congress. Chuck Holton has a good video to dissect the misinformation on Ukrainian beaucracy corruption. Don't believe the hype and focus on the people that are primary sources not anecdotes. Much love homie and Slava Ukraini!

Expand full comment