War Preparation: Romania Orders $1 Billion Of U.S. HIMARS Missile Launchers

Romania’s commitment to increase its defense budget to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) target of 2 percent of GDP has spurred the government to approve a $1 billion purchase of American-made M142 HIMARS (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System).

Defence Minister Mihai Fifor told Jane’s that the HIMARS system would “improve Romania’s national and allied defense capability” and emphasized that Romania’s commitment to the 2 percent of GDP target “for the next 10 years is strong”.

Prime Minister Viorica Dancila said, “We want those procurement programmes to also strengthen our defense industry based on offset arrangements where possible.”

In September 2017, the U.S. State Department approved Romania’s application to acquire HIMARS and other support related-equipment totaling some $1.25 billion. According to Army Recognition, a global defense security technology publication describes the impressive list of what Romania will receive from the Pentagon:

The Government of Romania has requested the possible sale of fifty-four (54) High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) Launchers, eighty-one (81) Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS) M31A1 Unitary, eighty-one (81) Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS) M30A1 Alternative Warhead, and fifty-four (54) Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) M57 Unitary.

Also included with this request are: fifty-four (54) M1084A1P2 HIMARS Resupply Vehicles (RSVs) (5 ton, Medium Tactical Cargo Vehicle with Material Handling Equipment), fifty-four (54) M1095 MTV Cargo Trailer with RSV kit, and ten (10) M1089A1P2 FMTV Wreckers (5 Ton Medium Tactical Vehicle Wrecker with Winch), thirty (30) Low Cost Reduced Range (LCRR) practice rockets, support equipment, communications equipment, sensors, spare and repair parts, test sets, batteries, laptop computers, publications and technical data, facility design, training and training equipment, systems integration support, Quality Assurance Teams and a Technical Assistance Fielding Team, U.S. Government and contractor technical, engineering, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support.

The M142 HIMARS carries six rockets, or one MGM-140 ATACMS missile mounted on a 6×6 Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) five-ton truck chassis. Lockheed Martin designed the HIMARS to be as small as possible, with the ability to ‘shoot-and-scoot.’

Army Recognition provides a summary of the military capabilities of the HIMARS system:

The HIMARS can carry a single six-pack of rockets or one ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) missile on the Army’s Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) 5-ton truck, and can launch the entire MLRS family of munitions. It was successfully combat-tested in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The HIMARS can fire the full range of rockets and can launch the entire Multiple Launch Rocket System Family of Munitions (MFOM) to a maximum range of 40 km, including HE-FRAG (High-Explosive Fragmentation) and cluster. It also fires newly developed extended range guided munitions from a range of 60 to 100 km.

The ATACMS family includes the Block 1, Block 1A and Block 1A Unitary missiles. The block 1 missile delivers 950 anti-personnel anti-material (AP/AM) baseball-sized M74 sub-munitions to ranges exceeding 165 km. The block 1A missile range exceeds 300 km by reducing the sub-munition payload to 300 bomblets and adding GPS guidance.

The HIMARS fire control system, electronics and communications units are interchangeable with the existing MLRS M270A1 launcher, and the crew and training are the same.

In 2017, President Trump called out NATO allies for not meeting the 2 percent of GDP spending on their defense budgets. He stated that it is not fair for the U.S. taxpayer to be footing the bill for military defense spending for NATO members.

Over the last eight years, the United States spent more on defense than all NATO countries combined. If all NATO members had spent just 2 percent of GDP on defense last year, we would have had another $119 billion for our collective defense,” Trump said.

“We should recognize that with these chronic underpayments and growing threats, even 2 percent of GDP is insufficient to close the gaps in modernizing, readiness and the size of forces. We have to make up for the many years lost,” he added.

As for Romania, well, it seems like they got the message from the Trump administration to spend money they do not have and buy a billion dollars worth of rocket launchers.

Nevertheless, this could turn out to be a good purchase considering the threat of war with Russia is at levels not seen since the Cold War era as countries in Eastern Europe are rapidly acquiring military-grade weapons for the fear the next world war could be sparked along the Russian border.

Comments

fx Amy G. Dala Tue, 02/20/2018 - 09:02 Permalink

Gee, how disappointed will all those Romanian cocksuckers and their baltic fellow-morons be, when Russia simply refuses to attack them...

The only way to use all this equipment will then be to attack Russia (in response to some planted fals flag, if possible).

Oh wait, that was the plan all along as the perceived "Russian threat" has always been a silly hoax from the start.

In reply to by Amy G. Dala

COSMOS silverer Tue, 02/20/2018 - 13:52 Permalink

Agree on bad financial decision.  They could of used that money on their own defense industry.  For that figure I am sure they could of built their own 'rocket artillery system'  the technology could of been purchased from either the French, Germans, or Serbians or even the Chinese or Russians.  Another option could of been to build mortar systems with rocket assisted projectiles which can do 30km.  This is not high tech.  This is WW2 technology.  That money could of been spent elsewhere.  Their tanks are old.  They could of used that money to employ their own people in skilled engineering jobs at home.  Instead there will be more population drain.  Just a bad deal.  They USA needs Romania's geographical location and they have been provided with a large military base there and stationing Patriot missiles.  The Romanians should of parlayed this into free military equipment.  They are corrupt at all levels.  I am sure a few corrupt politicians have sold their countrymen into debt bondage. Heck for that money they could of developed their own tactical small nukes, the ultimate invasion deterrent.

In reply to by silverer

Welder fx Tue, 02/20/2018 - 10:06 Permalink

fx, you are a cocksucking homosexual. How many people identify with their traitorous government's decisions?  I'm talking about the entire Western world. It's obvious for any respectable ZHer that governments are just blackmailable puppets.I don't know  how long Poland and Hungary can resist. 

In reply to by fx

MEFOBILLS Welder Tue, 02/20/2018 - 11:48 Permalink

Is Romania part of the West?

https://www.amren.com/features/2017/12/is-romania-part-of-the-west-gyps…

 

Gypsies act as an in-group which has same effect as Jewish in-group behavior.  It leads to general low trust culture and all that entails:

 

Gypsies set the Romanian social tone in one especially subtle but critical way. They are steeped in moral particularism and regard deceiving the members of outgroups almost as an obligation. In the face of such morally particularistic groups, social strategies based on high trust are doomed either to break down or never develop. In post-communist Romania, social trust has either collapsed or never taken root. Members of the Romanian majority have adopted, by default, a low-trust approach to strangers, especially in one-off social and commercial relationships. I suspect this is partly because, under conditions of Gypsy emancipation and consequent genetic blurring, it is difficult to tell whether one is dealing with a “white” Romanian or a Gypsy. Only a fool treats a stranger as an honorable individual if there is any suspicion that he may be a Gypsy.

The result is a generalized race to the moral sewer. Anyone who trusts and is deceived is contemptuously referred to as a fraier: a “sucker”

In reply to by Welder

MK ULTRA Alpha HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 Tue, 02/20/2018 - 03:53 Permalink

What is interesting is the Germans have entered into a side alliance with it's WWII allies, the Hungarians and the Romanians. I had always wondered why, the Germans didn't base troops in the Carpathian mountains to over come the battle of attrition with higher elevation.  The Carpathians are a natural obstacle for an invasion.

Germany, Hungary and Romania will be training together and assigned to German field units deployed in Germany. Very interesting development and one to keep an eye on.

The traditional invasion corridors run threw Poland into Germany, and Central Europe. The terrain is flat.

The Russians presently don't have the capability to make a run for the English channel like Soviet era shock armies. The mass is not there and the positioning. In the Cold War, the Russians had much better positioning for a drive to the English channel, but not anymore. They must start on the other side of the Ukraine.

A quarter of Russian armor would break down before it reached Poland. The Russians are relying on old Soviet era weapons, old tanks with upgrades. Yes, there are newer designs, but the Russians had to cancel the upgrade of old tanks because the Syria war is chewing up the defense budget. They don't have the same kind of shock armies of the Soviets era.

This is why Russia has a first use nuclear weapons doctrine, this is a new policy and it is because of deficiencies in conventional arms. The Russians plan to use tactical nuclear weapons in the "escalate to deescalate" nuclear weapons first use doctrine.

 

In reply to by HRH of Aquitaine 2.0

MK ULTRA Alpha lurker since 2012 Tue, 02/20/2018 - 05:35 Permalink

Get ready? for what, to die in a ZH made for TV movie? A doom and gloom special performance from the foreign anti-Americans nuking me from ten thousand miles away, do you mean Get Ready for them or what?

There was a huge military presence in Europe during the Cold War, nukes were everywhere and Romania was a Warsaw Pact country required to maintain an army to participate in a Red Army invasion of Central Europe.

Go look up Warsaw Pact. It's not hard, you can do it and throw your TV away, you will be able to think after a few years.

In other words, this NATO vs Russia thing had been going on for a long time, nearly 50 years. It stopped for a time because of the fall of the Soviet Empire. Now the Russians are strong again, Turkey is rebuilding the Ottoman Empire, the Iranians are building the Islamic Caliphate Empire, and China is building it's empire. It looks like a battle of empires.

 

In reply to by lurker since 2012

fx land_of_the_few Tue, 02/20/2018 - 09:17 Permalink

EU subsidies.

By the way, while ECB, IMF and eurogroup couldn't get enough budgetary cuts done in Greece for social outlays and pensions and education and such, the notable exception was Greece's bloated defence budget. Greece , throughout the crisis, kept spending more money on defence than anybody else in NATO , except for the US. And nobody, to this day,  ever asked them to cut a single penny from those expenses.

 

Go figure.

 

In reply to by land_of_the_few

thisandthat fx Tue, 02/20/2018 - 10:43 Permalink

Oh, yeah, one of the conditions for Greece's "bailout" was that they had to go ahead with the purchade of German subs and French ships they couldn't afford...

Go figure, indeed (well, not that hard to figure: the reality is it was Greece bailing out German and French economy, not the other way around)...

In reply to by fx

fx MK ULTRA Alpha Tue, 02/20/2018 - 09:13 Permalink

Mk ultra bullshitter, ou are not just a troll, but an idiot troll at that.

Russia's entire military structure  is designed solely for homeland defence. They haven't even tried to build any structures and weapons necessary to sustain a campaign abroad. What they do in Syria right now is already stretching their limits in terms of sustained operations  far away from their home turf. Anybody with two eyes can see that in plain sight. Besides avoiding casualties, they simply lack the infrastructure to support a ground invasion thousands of miles from their borders. So cool down. No Russian tank will ever show up in Berlin again - unless the Germans were foolish enough to attack Russia for a third time.

You need a lot of special logistics and special equipment for sustained campaigns abroad. The task becomes harder with every mile you move from your home turf. The ONLY one who is building up that capabilities, relentlessly is actually NATO. But I guess, they need that to just defend France against some Alien invasion. Or to colonize Mars.

 

 

 

In reply to by MK ULTRA Alpha

thisandthat MK ULTRA Alpha Tue, 02/20/2018 - 11:58 Permalink

You go look up Warsaw Pact; the only reason it ever existed was because NATO refused Stalin's bid to be part of it... it really was a self-defense act.

Also, the reason the Soviet Union got ahold of Eastern Europe (the same way the US did, and still does, of Western Europe...), was because, one, each and everyone of those countries, from Finland all the way to, well,... Romania (other than the Charlie Browns of Europe, Poland), sided with the nazis, and two, to act as a buffer zone against a possible western attack, given Napoleon, Hitler, and the growing western hostility — and remember that, by then, the ussr had lost practically entire male generations, between the famines (which weren't the exclusive of the Ukraine, as propagandists would like you to believe), the "purges" (which targeted mostly Russians), and ww2, and was also heavily destroyed, unlike Scot free US, so weakened and not in a position to sustain a direct western attack, not for long, and not for a long time.

Later, after the collapse of the ussr, it was found they never had the intent of starting a nuclear war with the west, even at the worst times, because they studied the ecological consequences (yes!...) of a nuclear war and (rightfully) found it'd be catastrophic on a global scale; otoh, the US really did plan a first strike nuclear attack on "soviet" cities early on after ww2.

In reply to by MK ULTRA Alpha

fx MK ULTRA Alpha Tue, 02/20/2018 - 09:06 Permalink

@MK ultra bs: The Russians, for as long as they existed, never tried to conquer Europe. But "great Europeans", such as Napolean or Hitler tried to enslave and conquer Russia - and were driven back.

Living in Europe, I know of nobody (except for some paranoid baltics) who feels threatend by a Russian conquest. It's all made up threats - but people like you are easy to fool. Or, more likely, you are just one of those C!A/GCHQ trolls

In reply to by MK ULTRA Alpha

thisandthat MK ULTRA Alpha Tue, 02/20/2018 - 10:34 Permalink

You better start looking at the state not of dinky central european cottage farms, but, oh, say,... the "mighty" British, German and French armies (and recruits — including the US ones), before spewing nonsensical McCainian drivel about Russia, their army, military doctrine or even (alleged) political intents.

But, hey, when it comes to political nonsense, as the say goes, the more, the merrier... and, for sure, if there's something no one can beat the US at, that's that...

In reply to by MK ULTRA Alpha

MEFOBILLS MK ULTRA Alpha Tue, 02/20/2018 - 11:55 Permalink

Russia's military posture is defensive.

They have no blue water navy, their doctrine is one of area denial - to seal their airspace and land.  Russia is a land power trying to protect its very large land mass.

With regards to chewing up defense budget, the rubles spent were lowered recently.  Russia spends on other sectors, including internal security rather than power projection.

Russia does not have a first use nuclear weapons doctrine.  

Russia issued its first military doctrine in 1993. Although it formally dropped the Soviet Union's no-first-use policy, the document "did not assign any specific missions to nuclear weapons and did not define any threats to which nuclear weapons were supposed to respond." [48] In effect, Russia only envisioned use of nuclear weapons in a large-scale global conflict, the likelihood of which was believed to be "negligible" at the time. [49]

http://www.nti.org/learn/countries/russia/nuclear/

 

Are you a troll trying to confuse ZH readers?

 

In reply to by MK ULTRA Alpha

HRH of Aquitaine 2.0 I Write Code Tue, 02/20/2018 - 03:08 Permalink

For what? Random donkeys? The poorest country I visited in Europe was Bulgaria. Tough fucking place. I mean that place made where I grew up look like heaven. When you see stick fences and donkeys pulling wagons on one side of the border and go across the line, into Greece, and see whitewashed houses with tile rooves, beautiful flowers, Mercedes. That border crossing was the most memorable, for me. Huge disparities between Bulgaria and Greece. That was like going from the third world into the first.

In reply to by I Write Code

Golden Showers Tue, 02/20/2018 - 03:05 Permalink

Does it come with depleted uranium?

Naturlich!

I'll take one billions worth.

Sold!

And then 2 percent of everything ever done in Romania (which wasn't much) just got flushed down the fucking toilet.

Romania is stupid. Its on the Danube. It's a perfect location and buffer zone between Russia and it is NATO. Why should Romania have to pay for this dumb ass missile truck bullshit? I dunno. But it sounds like winning.

not dead yet Tue, 02/20/2018 - 03:26 Permalink

Wonder where they are getting that kind of cash. 12 easy payments? Most likely be "military aid" where they get weapons instead of cash to buy them. With cash they could go out and by non American stuff or, heaven forbid, not buy weapons at all.