4 ms·

This should be higher, the Army never had a lot of ATACMs to begin with as launching missiles at things is not really their job. Doesn't make the points about

by panzagl 2mo ago

This should be higher, the Army never had a lot of ATACMs to begin with as launching missiles at things is not really their job. Doesn't make the points about this administration not having a real plan invalid though...

AxiomaticSpace 2mo ago
From what I've seen the US has never really put much effort behind surface-to-surface missiles in the first place because when you have a massive and well-funded air force that's a lot better tool for executing long-range fires. Not to say that losing those missiles won't hurt if we get into a war in the medium-term (or want to supply more firepower to our allies), especially in a more land-based theatre like eastern Europe.
mrguyorama 2mo ago
>Army never had a lot of ATACMs to begin with as launching missiles at things is not really their job It's called the Army tactical missile system FFS. It was literally built for them. It's rocket artillery! We built only 3500 of the missiles total. We stopped investing in rocket artillery because they get very close to IRBMs, and those were banned until recently. The Marines had some, but not anymore (IIRC). Other branches have zero. The replacement, PrSM is not in any serious production yet. Other long range precision strike munitions include: Tomahawk: 10k total production through all US history. We only fired 800ish total in all of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. We have so far fired over 1000 in Iran. The immense "Shock and Awe" that the world drooled over during the Gulf War involved fewer than 300 Tomahawks. AGM-158 JASSM: This is our bread and butter Air launched cruise missile (There isn't an air launched version of Tomahawk!). They only cost about $800k each! Lockheed claims they can someday build 1000 a year. We built 10k total. We fired 1100 in Iran so far and only have 1500 left. AGM-86 ALCM: A 70s era cruise missile. We built 1800. We supposedly only have a few hundred remaining as nuclear tipped cruise missiles. Donald Trump has fired over 2500 of our missiles in Iran, for no benefit, which represents a massive draw down of our long range precision munitions. These numbers are literally public information.
- lifestyleguru 2mo ago
  > AGM-158 JASSM: This is our bread and butter Air launched cruise missile (There isn't an air launched version of Tomahawk!). They only cost about $800k each! Lockheed claims they can someday build 1000 a year. We built 10k total. We fired 1100 in Iran so far and only have 1500 left. What exploded last week in Poland, a NATO country, was a fully armed Russian equivalent of JASSM. Poland has maybe few dozen of JASSM and even fewer F16... ohh and last year Poland pointlessly wrecked one of its F16, the only platform capable of launching JASSM it posses. Russia is watching really closely these shenanigans.
- panzagl 2mo ago
  I'd put the emphasis on Tactical- 3500 is not a lot of a tactical weapon, but that's because there are not a lot of tactical targets worth launching a missile at. The fact that they're being used at all just shows what a cluster the entire operation is.

by panzagl 2mo ago

AxiomaticSpace 2mo ago

From what I've seen the US has never really put much effort behind surface-to-surface missiles in the first place because when you have a massive and well-funded air force that's a lot better tool for executing long-range fires. Not to say that losing those missiles won't hurt if we get into a war in the medium-term (or want to supply more firepower to our allies), especially in a more land-based theatre like eastern Europe.

mrguyorama 2mo ago

>Army never had a lot of ATACMs to begin with as launching missiles at things is not really their job It's called the Army tactical missile system FFS. It was literally built for them. It's rocket artillery! We built only 3500 of the missiles total. We stopped investing in rocket artillery because they get very close to IRBMs, and those were banned until recently. The Marines had some, but not anymore (IIRC). Other branches have zero. The replacement, PrSM is not in any serious production yet. Other long range precision strike munitions include: Tomahawk: 10k total production through all US history. We only fired 800ish total in all of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. We have so far fired over 1000 in Iran. The immense "Shock and Awe" that the world drooled over during the Gulf War involved fewer than 300 Tomahawks. AGM-158 JASSM: This is our bread and butter Air launched cruise missile (There isn't an air launched version of Tomahawk!). They only cost about $800k each! Lockheed claims they can someday build 1000 a year. We built 10k total. We fired 1100 in Iran so far and only have 1500 left. AGM-86 ALCM: A 70s era cruise missile. We built 1800. We supposedly only have a few hundred remaining as nuclear tipped cruise missiles. Donald Trump has fired over 2500 of our missiles in Iran, for no benefit, which represents a massive draw down of our long range precision munitions. These numbers are literally public information.

lifestyleguru 2mo ago
> AGM-158 JASSM: This is our bread and butter Air launched cruise missile (There isn't an air launched version of Tomahawk!). They only cost about $800k each! Lockheed claims they can someday build 1000 a year. We built 10k total. We fired 1100 in Iran so far and only have 1500 left. What exploded last week in Poland, a NATO country, was a fully armed Russian equivalent of JASSM. Poland has maybe few dozen of JASSM and even fewer F16... ohh and last year Poland pointlessly wrecked one of its F16, the only platform capable of launching JASSM it posses. Russia is watching really closely these shenanigans.
panzagl 2mo ago
I'd put the emphasis on Tactical- 3500 is not a lot of a tactical weapon, but that's because there are not a lot of tactical targets worth launching a missile at. The fact that they're being used at all just shows what a cluster the entire operation is.