

Of course, the US isn’t the only one developing such long-range precision-guided weapons. “It gives you the ability to sink ships – which, again, can be very helpful if someone’s considering some type of amphibious operation.” (While McConville doesn’t offer examples, the most-discussed amphibious scenario is a Chinese attempt to land troops on Taiwan). “Long range precision fires gives you the ability to penetrate integrated air and missile defenses,” McConville said. That makes them much more useful in the Pacific, historically a Navy-dominated theater, where the Army seeks a new role supporting the fleet with land-based anti-ship strikes. What’s more, the Army aims to upgrade these new weapons with sophisticated seekers that let them strike moving targets, including ships at sea.

“We are developing systems that help us deal with the ranges and the speeds that are required in an environment that is much larger,” McConville said. That range is adequate for most targets in eastern Ukraine, but not for the vast distances of the western Pacific. And the US hasn’t actually given any ATACMS to Ukraine, just the 40-mile GMRLS rockets.

Mark Milley, now chairman of the Joint Chiefs, used the annual Association of the US Army conference as a platform to set the service on a bold new course, refocusing from grueling guerilla warfare in the Middle East to high-tech conflict with China and Russia. That’s when then-Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. 1 priority for research, development, and acquisition since 2017. Such “Long-Range Precision Fires” – from GPS-guided howitzer shells to hypersonic missiles – have been the US Army’s No.
