MLRS Systems

[lobbie111]

There are now a wide variety or MLRS systems or Multiple Launch Rocket Systems available on the current market, the pro's to these situations a number of munitions can be caried including SAM's and Ballistic missilles, there range and ability to saturate area's in fire.

But they also have a number of deficiencies such as they often require heavy maintainance, they are large and cumbersome and they require twice as many units to be an effective way of firing, and in this new modern doctrine of small scale conflicts they are usefull yet obsolete

 

[B.Smitty]

There are now a wide variety or MLRS systems or Multiple Launch Rocket Systems available on the current market, the pro's to these situations a number of munitions can be caried including SAM's and Ballistic missilles, there range and ability to saturate area's in fire.

But they also have a number of deficiencies such as they often require heavy maintainance, they are large and cumbersome and they require twice as many units to be an effective way of firing, and in this new modern doctrine of small scale conflicts they are usefull yet obsolete

Is there a question here?

The US MLRS has become a key small-scale conflict weapon with the advent of GPS-guided GMLRS unitary rockets.

It's hardly obsolete.

 

[Waylander]

SAMs in MLRS systems?
Do you have any more infos about this?

 

[eckherl]

There are now a wide variety or MLRS systems or Multiple Launch Rocket Systems available on the current market, the pro's to these situations a number of munitions can be caried including SAM's and Ballistic missilles, there range and ability to saturate area's in fire.

But they also have a number of deficiencies such as they often require heavy maintainance, they are large and cumbersome and they require twice as many units to be an effective way of firing, and in this new modern doctrine of small scale conflicts they are usefull yet obsolete

You surely realize that a MLRS battery is designed to take out whole grid squares on a map don`t you. Everything requires maintanance, the MLRS artillery units in the US have a good track record. Plus it is fun to see a flying telephone pole in the air.

 

[Apocalypse]

Are MLRSs effective against heavy armor or are they just to take out infantry and IFV/SPC's ?
I read somewhere (maybe Tom Clancy ) that MLRS dont really kill tanks, but are effective as psy-ops.

 

[Chrom]

Are MLRSs effective against heavy armor or are they just to take out infantry and IFV/SPC's ?
I read somewhere (maybe Tom Clancy ) that MLRS dont really kill tanks, but are effective as psy-ops.

Its depended on warhead type. At least later soviet-style big MLRS are quite effective against armor. Smerch is specificaly designed as anti-armor, and in the military manuals its described as "30% more effective against tank-groups then tactical nuclear strike".

 

[rickshaw]

Rockets are inherently less accurate than guns and have trajectories quite different as well, which make ridge clearances critical. They also cannot fire on reverse slopes. They occupy a particular niche but won't be replacing guns in any foreseeable future.

 

[eckherl]

Rockets are inherently less accurate than guns and have trajectories quite different as well, which make ridge clearances critical. They also cannot fire on reverse slopes. They occupy a particular niche but won't be replacing guns in any foreseeable future.

For area saturation and counter battery fire you cannot beat this type of system, I do agree that you need a combination of both, cannon and rockets, mortors are also excellant when firing on reverse slopes if they are in range.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Rockets are inherently less accurate than guns and have trajectories quite different as well, which make ridge clearances critical. They also cannot fire on reverse slopes. They occupy a particular niche but won't be replacing guns in any foreseeable future.

That would probably be why G-MLRS was invented, no?

 

[onslaught]

Its depended on warhead type. At least later soviet-style big MLRS are quite effective against armor. Smerch is specificaly designed as anti-armor, and in the military manuals its described as "30% more effective against tank-groups then tactical nuclear strike".

It would depend a little bit on where the rocket hits (which would also mean the rocket's trajectory). Armor on the top of a tank is weaker than armor on the front, or sides of the tank. So if the rockets were fired straight at a tank, you probably won't kill it. If you fire the rocket in a high arc (so it lands on top of the tank), then you have a higher cahnce of killing of tank. You'll definitely ruin some of the systems. Of course, there are accuracy issues.

 

[Waylander]

Ahm, you are aware of the fact that MLRS are rocket -->artillery<--?
So the rockets (bomblets) always have a ballistic flight path.

 

[Chrom]

It would depend a little bit on where the rocket hits (which would also mean the rocket's trajectory). Armor on the top of a tank is weaker than armor on the front, or sides of the tank. So if the rockets were fired straight at a tank, you probably won't kill it. If you fire the rocket in a high arc (so it lands on top of the tank), then you have a higher cahnce of killing of tank. You'll definitely ruin some of the systems. Of course, there are accuracy issues.

Any fairly modern anti-armor MLRS warhead is designed around self-guiding top-attack submunition. The Smerch anti-armor warhead is just that - 5 self-guiding top-attack sub-warheads. The rocket accuracy is around 150m at maximum range of 90km - and its more than enouth for self-guiding warhead. There was works to equip 'Grad" warheads with same system, but i think its still not in service. The thermobaric warheads can be also moderately effective against armor if used in big salvos and right cirumstances.

 

[rickshaw]

That would probably be why G-MLRS was invented, no?

It might be. However gunners will always regard rockets as unscientific and no matter what jiggery-pokery they use to try and improve their trajectories, they'll still have problems I suspect. :lol:

 

[Aussie Digger]

It might be. However gunners will always regard rockets as unscientific and no matter what jiggery-pokery they use to try and improve their trajectories, they'll still have problems I suspect. :lol:

I agree. The "drop shorts" will ALWAYS have problems... nfloorl:

Oh hang on, you mean the rockets? Er, never mind...

 

[rickshaw]

I agree. The "drop shorts" will ALWAYS have problems... nfloorl:

Oh hang on, you mean the rockets? Er, never mind...

You're right, it can be taken either way, which is fine by me, considering some of the nine-mile snipers and cloud-punchers that I know.

 

[Manfred]

Having been under fire from conventional artillery, I can say that it was a horrendous experiance. It sounded like the end of the world.

However, I also had a chance to observe the effects of MRLS fire, and then advance and inspect the resluts. I would much rather face 8-inch cannon fire than deal with what a massed rocket attack can do, especialy if I was trying to carry out a manuver of any kind.

Its an odd thing, the kind of reaction you have seeing that kind of destruction while it is progress. At first, you cheer; "Thats it, get the lousey so & so." But after a while, you cant help thinking; "Those poor bastards, what the hell is going on over there?"

I think rockets will have a place for a long time to come, and they have a lot of room for improvement.

 

[eckherl]

Having been under fire from conventional artillery, I can say that it was a horrendous experiance. It sounded like the end of the world.

However, I also had a chance to observe the effects of MRLS fire, and then advance and inspect the resluts. I would much rather face 8-inch cannon fire than deal with what a massed rocket attack can do, especialy if I was trying to carry out a manuver of any kind.

Its an odd thing, the kind of reaction you have seeing that kind of destruction while it is progress. At first, you cheer; "Thats it, get the lousey so & so." But after a while, you cant help thinking; "Those poor bastards, what the hell is going on over there?"

I think rockets will have a place for a long time to come, and they have a lot of room for improvement.

Yes - they are quite impressive. I would not want to be on the recieving end.

 

[Waylander]

I found it scary enough to have them flying over me.
I also can abandon the expecience to be at the impact area.

 

[Manfred]

It is especialy bad when you find out later it was your own guys shooting at you...

Since MLRS systems are supposed to be cheap, guidance is not featured on any of them yet. I wonder if it would be too expensive to give them a simple IR-seeker? A rain of 100mm warheads on the engine deck of most tanks would be crippling.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Since MLRS systems are supposed to be cheap, guidance is not featured on any of them yet.

yes and no.

gmlrs isn't mainstream, but there is the XM30/M30 and a GPS/INS guided system was used in combat by 3rd Batt, 13th Field Artillery Regiment in Iraq.

From Def Ind daily:

The U.S. Army news service reports that unitary-warhead GMLRS rockets were fired in Tal Afar west of Mosul, destroying two separate buildings from over 50 kilometers away with zero advance warning and less collateral damage than a precision bomb. The targets were two housing complexes that had been fortified and were known to house many insurgents, based on intelligence from units in the field that have been engaged from the structure or who had made contact with the terrorists around the structure. The rockets were fired on Sept. 9 and 10, killing 48 insurgents, said Maj. Jeremy McGuire, deputy of operations, Force Field Artillery, Multi-National Corps - Iraq.

Damage to surrounding buildings was described as "almost non-existent," while the target's destruction was described as "absolute."
Col. H. R. McMaster, commander of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and the senior American officer for the US-Iraqi offensive in Tal Afar (and see enemy operational background), has said that the physical and psychological effect the GMLRS had on the enemy was extremely valuable. The lack of any visual or audible clues made defense impossible, while its precision meant that enemy structures could be taken out without destroying large portions of the city as the Islamist paramilitary death squads were hoping.

A related battery of the 3-13th fired another six GMLRS rockets on Sept. 11, destroying the Mish'al Bridge and preventing its use for insurgent forces in the Al Anbar province in Western Iraq. This operation is described as Operation Sayaid (Hunter), and the purpose of the rocket attacks was to safely destroy the bridges so U.S. forces could force incoming and outgoing traffic through pre-set bottlenecks with checkpoints. As to the larger purpose and aims of Operation Hunter, see this post.
Other benefits of the 227mm M30 GMLRS, aside from those already demonstrated, include the fact that it cannot be grounded due to weather or communications issues; meanwhile, its guidance systems allow troops to call in effective anti-personnel "steel rain" or 196-pound unitary-warhead strikes from much closer distances, thus maintaining a better visual of their targets and allowing for needed support in closer quarters situations.

Britain has also purchased the GMLRS, though DID cannot establish whether these have arrived in Britain or been deployed to Iraq; we do not believe so at this time. For even longer-range strikes, the M270 MLRS system can switch out 6 MLRS rockets in the launcher for an ATACMS missile round.