Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Missiles & WMDs

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces

Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence

Naval Version of MLRS

This is a discussion on Naval Version of MLRS within the Missiles & WMDs forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by kato It's actually the two forward launchers that don't have a loader, while the three aft do. ...

LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 3 votes, 4.33 average.
Old June 24th, 2013   #46
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,104
Originally Posted by kato View Post
It's actually the two forward launchers that don't have a loader, while the three aft do. The Z position launcher has a loader starboard forward, the X and W launchers have a loader between them on the starboard side (feeding both?).
Looked again at the picture http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/at...9&d=1371960592 You are right about the Y position launcher, having a loader, but the other loader is clearly limited to the X position, and the W position does not have one.
My2Cents is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2013
This message has been deleted by Bonza. Reason: one liners deleted as per forum rules
Old March 17th, 2014   #47
Just Hatched
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 1
Naval MLRS on LCAC

Originally Posted by rip View Post
I don’t know ether. I have often wondered if you could put these rockets systems on self-propelled barges to support both amphibious landing and for brown water operations at a reasonable cost. They could be brought to the area where they are needed buy a ocean going tug (you could lash eight at a time), and then they could operate on their own. I think it would be a cheap and flexible approach to shore bombardment and follow up ground support.
A nifty idea would be to use a few standard ISO shipping containers mounted on LCAC hovercraft. One would be for diesel power and fire control and the rest would carry the rockets. The conversion wouldn't need to be permanent, so the LCACs could still be used in landing operations. The ISO containers would be stored inside the LHDs when not needed.

Another way to do it would be a fire-support mission module for the new littoral combat ships; those are intended to be modular ships anyway.
Michael Scott is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2016   #48
Just Hatched
No Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: lausanne
Posts: 1
French upgraded MLRS system at sea ?

See SNAFU!: French studying putting MLRS on their amphibs to augment Naval Guns!

11/01/2016 – Airbus Defence and Space, acting on behalf of the French defence procurement agency DGA, recently completed a 'Naval LRU' study covering adaptation of the fire control system of the LRU / Upgraded MLRS unitary launch rocket system for use on French Navy Mistral-class LHDs.

The possibility of using the LRU / Upgraded MLRS on a Mistral-class LHD or equivalent ship to fire GMLRS M31 guided rockets at on shore targets opens up very interesting possibilities for military users. The GMLRS rocket offers a range (more than 75 km) and precision (less than 5 m error) far superior to that of fire support systems currently deployed by European naval forces.

The study, which covered only one aspect of the larger issue of navalising the LRU/ Upgraded MLRS system, addressed the question of the operation of the European Fire Control System (EFCS) on a moving platform in different sea states and examined the modifications that would be required to allow initialisation of the system and its munitions. The study defined and compared several solutions, established the feasibility of system modification without major hardware changes and proposed a roadmap leading to a demonstration.

The study was performed jointly by Airbus Defence and Space teams in Friedrichshafen and Elancourt, with support from Sagem and KMW.
Illustration of the LRU system in operation at sea on a Mistral-class LHD
Gambit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2016   #49
Super Moderator
OPSSG's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3,299
^ Please post an introduction about yourself, so that forum members can pitch a response at the right level for you. And please read the forum rules - we expect posts to contain more than 1 line from members and copy pasting articles or blog posts alone (without your own commentary) is not acceptable.

Further to your post, I don't think that this French study will yield a tactically significant capability for the French forces - seemingly only against miserable and incapable opponents, with no counter fire capability.

The contract award is public record and first surfaced in September 2015 but it was awarded one year ago (December 23rd 2014). The value of the contract awarded to Airbus Defence & Space is 333,330 euros ($363,356 USD). The official aim of the contract is "Adapting the LRU system fire control for use on BPC" (Adaptation de la conduite de tir du système lru à une utilisation sur bpc). BPC is an acronym for command and projection vessel (Mistral class) while LRU is an acronym standing for unitary rocket launcher.

I have a limited understanding of naval matters but as I see it, to fire these rockets, the high value LHD (a capital vessel) would have to come within range of shore based artillery or rocket systems (not to mention shore based guided missile systems). Sanitisation of shore based threats by a naval task group for a LHD to come near, may not be a non-trivial task, against capable enemies (even capable insurgent groups).

It could suggest that the French Navy is on the lookout for coastal/land attack systems. It was reported that the French Navy found its current 76mm and 100mm guns to be insufficient in both range and lethality following operations in Libya (during which it conducted coastal fire support missions). Naval gun fire and rocket systems are useful and have a place in many scenarios - but without more context - a report of a test, is just a test. By the way, a state client is paying Sagem to develop better naval gun fire support software that is tied to a radar. That is an interesting development but unfortunately, there is limited public domain information available.

France is poised to enter a new era in defense strategy as threats and geopolitical factors have evolved at home and around the world, said Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, recently. He also called for “strategic patience” in long-term policy. Without some background on the reasoning behind these studies (other than to satisfy client vanity), it is hard to understand the testing and development route ahead from this one reported test. The newsy blog you cite is less than credible to people with common sense, as he has his pet hobby horse theories that are less than logical.
“Terrorism is the tactic of demanding the impossible, and demanding it at gunpoint.”
Christopher Hitchens

Last edited by OPSSG; January 30th, 2016 at 07:45 AM.
OPSSG is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:24 AM.