So the Marines got rid of their Abrams tanks in exchange for nothing?:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/06/u-s-marine-corps-abandons-tomahawk-missiles-doubles-down-on-extended-range-nmesis-in-fy2026-budget/

>a crayola instead of a tomahawk
really?

>Despite the benefits of longer range, the USMC concluded that the weapon platform did not meet the force’s requirements for maneuverability and deployability.

It's a good choice, they can just put it on something else that moves. The strategy behind it, the launcher itself, the other systems - they still exist so once they get going again, they start at 70% readiness or something.

the excuse they used doesn't make much sense
>poor mobility
what did they want? it'd be fine on almost all roads and trails out there, and considering the range of tomahawk, you're not going to need to go off-road too much

>>63908147 (OP)
How were they supposed to reload them once they were fired their single missile? I don't think they thought this through during development...

americans are retarded

>>63908174
Do they mean the vehicle itself or the missile.

>>63908147 (OP)
Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to give the crayon eaters Tomahawks in the first place?

>>63908195
Because they gave up their Abrams tanks for them

>>63908191
missile. being able to launch a 1000 mile+ highly missile from a buggy is a great capability to have for a light force. mobility would be good enough for what it is.

>>63908221
Good luck reloading it as a "light force"

>>63908226
who cares, just bringing one to the fight without a warship is amazing
either bring an entire fleet or a little truck you can load on a plane and fly almost anywhere?
which is better for the "light force" general anon?

Armaturd thread

>>63908244
How I'd hitting one target 1000 miles away going to help your Marines take over a beach head? Which btw no longer have tanks to support them because of this one trick pony, and now have neither?

>>63908226
The HIMARS works fine.
>GMLRS six-rocket pods and ATACMS pods are heavier than Tomahawks

>>63908259
HIMARS was a manned platform, while this "one trick pony" is remotely operated "drone" meant for "island hopping". That's the main difference.

>>63908266
>was a manned platform,
Yes, it was. Explain why the unmanned HIMARS wouldn't be as practical as the normal HIMARS, both can be reloaded in the field they need other support vehicles for maintenance and spare pods.

>>63908295
>explain how reloading an unmanned system using men isn't identically practical to reloading a manned system using men
Idk anon, maybe we can schedule a working group to ponder the issue at length and socialise some possible resolutions to table.

>KDA bro's, we eatin' and we eatin' goof

>>63908257
you have the ability to strike with a cruise missile, without a ship, and it gets delivered by marines
son, you are dumb and would be lucky to carry fuel for my tomahawk buggy

>>63908364
>a cruise missile
different anon, but I'd like to point out the redundancy problem for your mission critical weapon system, you need more than one platform and more than one weapon to make sure they get the job done

>>63908257
>How I'd hitting one target 1000 miles away going to help your Marines take over a beach head? Which btw no longer have tanks to support them because of this one trick pony, and now have neither?

They have a lot of projects meant for island hopping when China gets its shit pushed in :)

So many chinese will die by western hands when these marvels of engineering are put to use. They will eat each other in hysterical panic again as their food supply runs out while overdosing on their own illegal fentanyl storages. It will be glorious. GLORIOUS!

>>63908257
>help your Marines take over a beach head
nigger it's over get over it
usmc will be absorbed by the navy in a few decades

>>63908226
Maybe they just didn't feel like breaching that door

>>63908147 (OP)
I thought the idea was that Burkes and Zumwalts (lol) would give them direct fire support since they would be island-hopping in terrain too narrow for tanks.

>>63909089
>hooni
based based based

>>63908257
takes out the anti air radar or SAM launcher to allow for carrier to send planes in for airstrikes. marine corps is complimenting the navy's assaults in this way.
>why unmanned doe
when it blows up you lose 1x electronic purposefully expendable platform instead of 1x united states marine

>>63908147 (OP)
>The Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile, used by NMESIS, is slated to receive several new range extension modifications to improve reach.

This will be good for Australia, which will possibly be choosing NSM fired from a Bushmaster, instead of PrISM-AShM (in development) fired from a HIMARS.

>>63915126
Two different capabilities, one's ballistic the other is sea-skimming. One gets there real fast, the other cruises at low alts and is harder to shoot down. One is less susceptible to traditional ship-borne chaff the other has greater maneuver capability in the terminal phase.

>>63908147 (OP)
One of these turns any merchant vessel into a potential missile cruiser. Makes sense to have a self-contained RO/RO missile system. Better than an entire conex trailer and truck. Imagine the possibilities of places you can tuck these into.