SECRETS OF THE ATACMS MISSILE: All the truth about 300 km strikes against the Russians and new modifications! Petro Chernik

Speaker 1

One rocket 950 combat elements

Speaker 2

inside. The impact area is like 4 football fields. What is ATACMS and why were the United States so afraid to transfer it to us? MGM-140 ATACMS. This is the American ballistics that Ukraine waited 17 months for. Biden told journalists directly that he would not provide missiles capable of striking Russia. But just a month later, the first HIMARS arrived in Ukraine. HIMARS is a truck with a launcher, meaning everything is determined by what is loaded into it. The Americans limited themselves to GMLRS missiles with a strike range of 70-80 km. But technically, HIMARS could also launch ATACMS—ballistics with a strike range of 300 km.

Speaker 1

This is, in fact, a very serious weapon system. It is ballistics, it is an operational-tactical missile system. And, in fact, one should start from the name ATACMS itself. If you decode this in English, and Americans love to abbreviate, it is an army missile system. That is the correct way. A very useful and very effective weapon. But, in fact, let's break it down into several parts and, of course, let's start by considering its missiles and its brief history.

Speaker 2

Why did the Americans even need this missile? We need to go back to Europe during the Cold War. In the middle of Germany, the Iron Curtain. On one side, NATO armies; on the other, the USSR and its satellites. The main problem for the West was tanks. According to American analysts, in the early 80s, the Soviet bloc had nearly three times as many. The plan of the Soviet General Staff was simple: attack in waves. The first wave of tanks breaks through the defense, and following it, hundreds of kilometers behind, the second wave arrives—fresh, full of fuel and shells. NATO, in theory, could withstand the first wave, but the second could finish them off. How to stop this wave? The second one. In those years, there was only one answer: nuclear weapons. The US Army had the Lance missile for this. Its primary purpose was a nuclear warhead. But that means a nuclear explosion in the middle of Europe, on the territory of its allies. Therefore, in the late 70s, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, DARPA, launched the Assault Breaker program—literally, the one who breaks the offensive. The goal was to find a way to strike tank columns deep in the enemy's rear without nuclear weapons. A long-range missile that scatters hundreds of small combat elements over the target instead of one nuclear explosion. Steel rain. The program itself turned out to be very expensive and was shut down in '82. But the idea survived and was transferred to a new army missile. This is the ATACMS. And one more detail, which 40 years later will prove to be very important for us. In '84, the US Congress explicitly forbade the development of a nuclear warhead for it. ATACMS has been a conventional weapon since birth. Otherwise, there would have been no question of its transfer to Ukraine.

Speaker 1

The Lockheed Martin company itself developed this missile. At the end of the 80s, it fully entered service. And it received its first baptism of fire during the so-called Desert Storm war. As a reminder, this is the war in the Persian Gulf, which lasted from August '90 to January-February '91. It was used precisely during the final part. It performed very well.

Speaker 2

Desert Storm, 1991. The 7th US Army Corps launches 32 ATACMS missiles. A total of 32 throughout the entire war. The first target in the history of ATACMS was not a tank or a headquarters. It was an Iraqi E-75 Soviet-made surface-to-air missile system. Out of ten missions against air defense, six targets were completely destroyed. Then MLRS positions, ballistic missile launchers, fuel depots, bridges. Remember this list. Soviet air defense, airfields, fuel, logistics. Because 32 years later in Ukraine, it will be repeated almost verbatim.

Speaker 1

There are several modifications. Six in total. For us, the most useful are the modifications with a cluster warhead. What is a cluster warhead? It is in the head of the missile. There are these very interesting submunitions concentrated there, called M-74. What is M-74? It is a small thing, like a tennis ball, stuffed with up to half a kilogram of these high-energy explosives. Excuse the tautology. There are two main modifications. For 300 kilometers, and there can be up to 300 sub-elements here. And for 165 kilometers, there can be 950 kilometers. How does the ATACMS missile itself work in strike mode? This is, in fact, a very fast missile. It can move at a speed of about 5400 kilometers per hour and rises high into the atmosphere, up to about 50 kilometers. And when it reaches the target, these balls, these little balls open at an altitude of 300-500 meters, plus or minus, depending on how the guidance system for the strike specifically works. And, let's say, these balls can seed a strike zone within a radius of up to 200 meters. This is incredibly much and incredibly valuable. Why is it valuable and very useful? Because you can destroy what is called logistics. Let's not forget that the Russians transport 90% of everything they bring into the combat zone by train. This is a wonderful weapon in this particular sense. I mentioned a great American six-star—by the way, the only general in their history who received [this] from the hands—John Pershing, who commanded the US Army theater of operations in the First World War, after whom very powerful and good American missiles 1 and 1-2 are named. Soldiers win battles, but logistics win the war. In this context, these missiles would be incredibly useful.

Speaker 2

The strike area of one missile is a circle about 200 meters in diameter, over 30 thousand square meters, 4-5 football fields, helicopters on the apron, aircraft near revetments, anti-aircraft installations, tanks, everything that stands freely and in the open. This is an ideal target for cluster attacks.

Speaker 1

Of course, there is such an interesting phenomenon as a gyroscope, that is, to turn the rocket in the required direction. What is a gyroscope? The simplest example, for instance, is a spinning top. If you place a spinning top on a book, spin it, and, conditionally, move the book by 5-6 degrees, the top will remain steady. This is a very, very complex thing, especially modern gyroscopes, but this is precisely a part of the inertial system. And on the final trajectory, the phenomenon called a GPS signal from space can be activated, plus a quasi-ballistic trajectory. That is, it does not go straight to a single point; it can be adjusted, and therefore, it is a great weapon for use against moving targets. I already mentioned that railway tracks, hubs, and, first and foremost, railway echelons, in my view, would be the best things to target with it.

Speaker 2

The first version of ATACMS flew without GPS at all, purely on an inertial system. Later, satellite correction was added. But an important clarification regarding moving targets. ATACMS hit based on coordinates. It does not have a homing head that can find a Russian echelon on its own. The Americans closed the program for such a seeker back in 2020. Its element is that which will not run away. Stations, unloading platforms, warehouses; in 2026, they destroyed an Iranian submarine. But not at sea, but at the pier.

Speaker 1

Besides the two mentioned systems that we already discussed in the "Cluster" section, there is, of course, a unitary, heavy warhead of up to 230 kilograms. With these specific rockets, it is possible to target even small bunkers. One can strike, for example, things such as fuel and lubricant depots. Ammunition depots can be targeted. Command headquarters, communication hubs, and the like can be targeted. Actually, it is an incredibly high-quality complex. The second aspect, which is very important, is the chassis from which it is launched. And here a very interesting aspect begins, because two rockets can be launched from the M-270 system. What is the M-270 system? It is a kind of multiple launch rocket system in the American style, because Americans actually do not like multiple launch rocket systems. In terms of a close analog, it is an analog of the Soviet BM-27 Uragan system, and there is a light version that our viewers know very well, called HIMARS M-142. And this HIMARS is actually the most interesting. Why? It's the wheel configuration. The vehicle is very, very accurate—I am referring specifically to the launch chassis. It is quite fast. It moves at a speed of around 80-85 km per hour. It has a very long range. And what is the peculiarity of the ATACMS rocket specifically? Because this transport launch container is standardized. While it takes up to an hour to reload the BM-27 Uragan after a salvo, this machine can be reloaded in literally 15 minutes. Everyone has seen a small bracket on the launcher. That bracket is nothing other than a crane. Why is this useful? Why is this interesting? Why is it practical? Because there is no need to carry the entire ammunition load with you. For example, say there are 100 conventional kilometers, and every 30 km you need to strike some targets at a depth of 165 km. So, how this can work, how it works in reality. The ammunition moves separately, and the vehicles move separately. They drive up, carry out rocket launches, move to another point where a transport container is already lying, load it, fire, and move on. That is why it is very, very difficult to hunt for such a rocket and such a launcher. This is, in fact, an incredibly good and high-quality weapon.

Speaker 2

Throughout 2022, Ukraine has been asking for ATACMS. Throughout 2022, Washington responded that it is too early. There are two arguments. First, escalation. A missile with a range of 300 km will reach Russian territory. The second is not as convincing, but no less important. Namely, that the procurement of new ATACMS for the US Army ended back in 2007. And it is very expensive. Afterwards, they mostly modernized old ones and the Pentagon counted every single one. According to the New York Times, Ukraine received the first batch, only 20 missiles, and it was the oldest M39 version with a range of 165 km and 957 submunitions. But they were used in such a way that one of the Russian military bloggers called the night of October 17, '23, one of the worst for the Russian army, because the Ukrainians attacked Russian airfields in occupied Berdyansk and Luhansk. 9 helicopters, an air defense launcher, and an ammunition depot were destroyed; runways were damaged. The detonation of ammunition in Luhansk lasted until 11 AM. Then Ukraine received a small number of ATACMS with a range of 300 km. April 17 – a strike on the airfield in Dzhankoy in Crimea. And only a week later, on April 24, the Americans officially confirmed – new missiles are already in Ukraine. The exact number is unknown, but most media outlets agreed that it was no more than 50.

Speaker 1

Certain shortcomings, which of course it has, because electronic warfare systems do their job. There are even cases where the Russians have, to some extent, learned to probe those frequencies on which the radio transmitter operates directly from the warhead of the missile, with the satellite. But this is an endless game of cat and mouse, everything is developing incredibly quickly, nothing stands still.

Speaker 2

Now Ukraine is desperately trying to develop its own ballistics. And there are many discussions about whether Russia will be able to shoot them down, because it supposedly has not yet had such difficult tests. But in reality, all attacks are ballistic, and they have already hit the territory of Russia.

Speaker 1

Is it possible to shoot down ballistics of this class? Of course it is. This is exactly why their most numerous system, the S-300, as well as the fairly numerous S-400, were developed in the first place. They can handle this task. Plus, we spoke about the fact that on the final trajectory, attacks reach the target primarily via a GPS signal. It can be jammed, but it is very incorrect to raise questions of usefulness, uselessness, expediency, inexpediency, whether it worked or didn't work. In reality, all of this can only be assessed after the war, when we are able to conduct an expert examination of every target. My position, personally, perhaps not so much as a military specialist, but as a citizen: if you understand that the war is existential, if the enemy aims not only to destroy our statehood, but to exterminate us to the last person—and they say this explicitly—then any military target that is struck, regardless of by what means, is useful. If, hypothetically, out of ten attack missiles even 5-6 reach the target, and the rest are shot down or deflected by electronic warfare means, but they kill at least one occupier, then it is already useful. I do not share the philosophy, the part of which says that we must count the money. Indeed, they should be counted, weapons should be made cheaper, but how much can the life of our ordinary Ukrainian child cost? When you look at the process this way, everything immediately falls into place. I remind you that when the great nuclear missile races began between the Soviet Union and the USA following the Second World War, no one counted resources at all, literally.

Speaker 2

If the Russian Ministry of Defense is to be believed, they shoot down ATACMS almost always. If the satellite images of Dzhankoy, Belbek, and the Crimean S-400 positions are to be believed, clearly not always. The honest answer is that none of us has accurate statistics. But one paradox says more than all the statistics. ATACMS performed best against the very things that were supposed to shoot them down, specifically against S-300 and S-400.

Speaker 1

Now a very important point, which, in my view, must be dispelled. It is very fundamental, as if, there are not that many ATACMS missiles. But, before I say this, I must also say that these missiles performed very well during the war in Iraq in 2003. At the beginning of the so-called operation "Iraq Freedom", they used over 451. And now, currently, in 2026, the Americans have in fact already used a long-range missile, because a missile has already been developed for this launcher that can deliver strikes from 500 to 1000 kilometers. And a unique moment of this specific land-based complex is that they struck, so to speak, an underwater object that was in a surface position. This is an Iranian diesel-electric submarine of the "Paltus" type. And in reality, it is nothing other than an export version of the "Varshavyanka", quite accurate submarines. This can be considered a very, very huge success in this direction. So, since this missile system has been in service, the Americans have produced at least 4000 missiles of various types. This is very, very many. Therefore, all these sighs that, allegedly, there are no missiles, that they cannot provide them to us, do not correspond to reality. In reality, there are very, very many of them. It is only a question of political will to remove them from mothballing, modernize them somewhat, modify them, and send them into battle. Overall, the systems are not that [expensive]. The missile itself is not that expensive. It costs between one million and 1.5 million dollars. Given the future US defense budget for next year, which is planned to be more than 1 trillion dollars, these are absolutely affordable and understandable funds. In reality, it would be very, very, very good if, along with the systems we have for the launchers themselves, which operate in the mode of multiple launch rocket systems, mainly the M31A1 and M31A2 munitions with a range of up to 90 kilometers at most, these missiles appeared. True. It must be understood that wunderwaffe does not exist in nature, only in combination with other systems. In today's reality, this includes unmanned systems that deliver strikes in the so-called mid-strike mode. This also includes, of course, heavy artillery; in my view, it should not be written off. These are the same Storm Shadow missiles, as well as a huge nomenclature of other weapons. Indeed, indeed, everything can be very, very useful. But scalability, scalability, and once again scalability, quantity, quantity, and once again quantity—unfortunately, a large [factor] is present here. Both in American domestic politics and in geopolitics.

Speaker 2

August 4, 2026, Reuters reported that during the war with Iran, the US army spent practically all of its [stocks] in attacks. The White House denies this. Even before the war in the Middle East, we were given these missiles in limited quantities, and there are no statistics to assess exactly how they influenced Ukraine's war with Russia.

Speaker 1

Indeed, as of this moment, we have used up to 50 missiles. They have carried out certain options. We hit some high-value targets with them. But I will give a very specific example for comparison. In that same year 2003, in the war of the Americans against the regime of Saddam Hussein, there was one short period, within one month, where more than 600 ATACMS missiles were used. Let's think about this number. This is despite the fact that at that time, ATACMS missiles were not the primary means of strike for the Americans. Primarily, among the heavy missiles, there was the Tomahawk missile, as well as a huge number of the most diverse aviation complexes, starting from the F-117, which they have already decommissioned. Quite old, but very functional. F-16, F-18, F-15, and so on. Therefore, to say that such a quantity is useless is also incorrect, but they did not do what we would have hoped. True, there is one very important psychological moment here, and it is good that this happened. Both the Americans and the British are gradually, gradually, gradually overcoming these psychological risks—that, as was claimed, truly serious weapons cannot be handed over. But most importantly, we have the launch platform, and we hope that the point will come when we can actually receive a large number of these missiles. And if one understands that Lockheed Martin is very seriously restarting a huge amount of its own production—it is perhaps the largest American corporation. And if one understands that, as a result of both the Russo-Ukrainian war and the American-Iranian war, the military flywheels will only continue to spin up, then in that regard, I am full of optimism.

Speaker 2

Then get new ATACMS, if the Americans themselves don't have many left. The answer was unexpectedly found in Turkey. Turkey is a NATO member and has long been buying American weapons, specifically old ATACMS. Now it is getting rid of these stocks, and Ukraine is buying them. But there is a rule: American weapons cannot simply be resold to a third country. Washington's consent is required. Therefore, on August 3, 2020, the US State Department officially informed Congress that permission for the transfer has been granted. That is, these are the same missiles that burned helicopters in Berdyansk in October '23. Not new, but combat-proven. No one has publicly announced exactly when they will be transferred. This missile is almost 40 years old. It is being replaced by the new PRSM missile. It was used in combat for the first time this year against Iran. And here is why this is important. Because we already have the launch platform for these new missiles; nothing needs to be changed. These are HIMARS and M270. There is only one question. Will this new missile be given to Ukraine?