Since the new Foreart HIMARS can be built in four configurations, I thought it might be fun to explore all of them, plus a few more.
As many of you know, the ATACMS version has an extra sprue for the ATACMS missile and the most of the pod parts. Unfortunately it relies on the original sprue for the pod braces, making it impossible to build two whole pods. Or is it?
I built the ATACMS pod as in the instructions, and then assembled the remainder of the parts for the GMLRS pod.
It doesn’t have to go to waste. All you have to do is add a few pieces of angle front and rear, and you can put it in one of the available MLRS kits, saving their pods for a possible reload diorama.
Or…you can simply add the necessary framework to finish out the pod, essentially giving you two pods for every ATACMS HIMARS kit you purchase. I’ve decided to go that route:
Great save adding the frame. Looks good!
Looks good.
Sounds like it is impossible using the parts in the kit.
What sizes of Evergreen did you use?
KL
No. You’re still using all the parts in the kit. Just adding more. 
Top angles: .060
Bottom angles: .080
Other braces: .010 x .060
Not done yet, but it’ll require one more wider strip. I’m thinking .010 x .100
Top plate requires .080 half round and some rod.
That’s pretty awesome. I’ll keep this in mind when I decide to build this HIMARS kit.
Look for the ATACMS when you decide. They come with both missiles, so you can build either version. I needed a bunch of them. Now I have more than I need.
I’ll build the ATACMS version, but having a complete MLRS pod is a plus to add on the side.
Yesterday I posted a link to a story about the PrSM’s operational debut. As it turns out, I’ve been working on several of them for a customer. I don’t post everything I do on here or it would be quite boring. 
Here are two of them in progress - the shape and proper scale diameter are dead on.. To their right is the kit’s ATACMS for comparison.
This is something I probably will have to make a mold of
I may as well post the cradle for it as well. I’ve got 3D printed wheels for it.
Interesting. It looks like the kit rounds are quite over scale, unless I have misunderstood your post?
I have the ATACM’s version on order, so this is of interest to me!
The ATACMS missile on the right is correct. I used to build larger version for Lockheed Martin Missile Division with their pods, and have posted photos here which you can find.
The photo was simply to show the size difference between the PrSM and the ATACMS.
Two PrSM’s fit side by side in a modified pod.
OK, thanks! I thought I’d probably misunderstood!
The Precision Strike Missile’s (PrSM) size and slenderness is caused by the miniaturization of microchips and electronic technologies over the decades, resulting in two Precision Strike Missiles of about the same performance as one older ATACMS for the size. Thus, a HIMARS can fit two slimmer PrSMs and a MLRS can fit four compared to one ATACMS per HIMARS and two ATACMS per MLRS.
The PrSM is about to get a new guidance seeker, allowing it to target moving objects, including enemy ships for an anti-ship role, something the older ATACMS can’t do. Also, there are discussions of increasing the PrSM’s range to 500-1,000 kilometers (or even miles), much further than ATACMS.
There’s also the ER GMLRS - which I have also built, but I won’t be able to show it for two weeks as I’m on a job. It’s a good thing spring break is next week or I wouldn’t have been able to accept it.
I showed the wrong cradle earlier - it’s actually for the GMLRS, which you can see here:
You can’t tell from my photo, but the framework is made from hollow square tubing, as on the real thing.
I’ve also got photos for the ATACMS and PrSM rockets somewhere…
The ER GLMRS can be made by by modifying the kit rockets.
Yes, the “energetics” (or whatever fancy term they use these days) of rocket propellant is better now with new technologies. A company is even 3D-printing rocket fuel, hence longer ranges for missiles. In addition, the miniaturization of electronics and microchips means that they are smaller and lighter than decades ago, meaning thinner and lighter missiles that can travel further.
The US and NATO have usually not been into large ballistic land missiles, hence the need to increase its range of surface-to-surface weapons that essentially aren’t that large or far-reaching compared to other nations.
How does one translate into the other?
KL
Whaddaya know, something else we have in common! I also built Tomahawks, SICBM, B83 bombs, Peacekeepers, Tridents, and Polaris. Large versions, too: 1:1 scale.
KL
I’m not sure that qualifies is having something in common. I didn’t build big bombs. I just used them. I was on one of the last green light teams in the Army. We were qualified on the XM 129 commonly known as the Special Atomic Demolition Munition. As for Tomahawks, I would’ve had them under my control as the Fires Officeri in Special Operatioms Command Korea if the balloon had gone up there, along with anything else Fires related on pen or in the sea.
But like the MUTT, I never heard them called Tomahawks. We called them.TLAMs.
3D-printed rocket fuel can be denser and produced in a lot less time…maybe. It’s a “new science” right now…
It was a joke.
The SADM wasn’t a “big” bomb, the B83 was.
TLAM were a subset of the Tomahawk program. When building them we didn’t know if they were going to be used for TLAM, TSAM, or GLCM. I still remember one of the good ol’ boy production supervisors who always called them “Tommyhawk”. And although we were making SM-ER SAMs we were still using tooling from the 1950s and everybody called them Terriers, or “Terrayas”.
KL