M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS Developments

Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Hopefully they'll bring 'steel rain' aka 'grid square removal system' back too.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is the dud rate.

Had a classmate that was a USAF ordnanceman. Even worked on the F117s. He said that the nukes were the least stressful thing to work with, in terms of risks of accidental boom (the paperwork is a different story). Those little "smurf bombs," the little blue practice bombs that come 6 to a rack with 4x rockets, were what he hated. Said the smurf bombs would blow if you looked at them wrong.

The more resistant something is to unintentional triggering, the higher the dud rate.

So I suspect that just like the CBU-107s, the US new "Steel Rain" is going to be dropping thousands of tungsten darts on target. Only one detonation trail (plus whatever redundancies there are), just to split the case open.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The problem with that is the dud rate.

Had a classmate that was a USAF ordnanceman. Even worked on the F117s. He said that the nukes were the least stressful thing to work with, in terms of risks of accidental boom (the paperwork is a different story). Those little "smurf bombs," the little blue practice bombs that come 6 to a rack with 4x rockets, were what he hated. Said the smurf bombs would blow if you looked at them wrong.

The more resistant something is to unintentional triggering, the higher the dud rate.

So I suspect that just like the CBU-107s, the US new "Steel Rain" is going to be dropping thousands of tungsten darts on target. Only one detonation trail (plus whatever redundancies there are), just to split the case open.
Click to expand...
Warfare is warfare at the end of the day, dud rate or not. If we tie our hands behind our back, what happens against an enemy who does not? We lose, simple as that. Remote de-mining technology has improved to the extend where dud rate is less of a problem anyway.
 
Forest Green said:
Warfare is warfare at the end of the day, dud rate or not. If we tie our hands behind our back, what happens against an enemy who does not? We lose, simple as that. Remote de-mining technology has improved to the extend where dud rate is less of a problem anyway.
Click to expand...

Cluster munitions are extremely unlikely to make a decisive difference in a conflict. If there is a horrible weakness in U.S. artillery, it is in the mediocre nature of its tube artillery, not the lack of cluster munitions in its TBMs.
 
Josh_TN said:
Cluster munitions are extremely unlikely to make a decisive difference in a conflict. If there is a horrible weakness in U.S. artillery, it is in the mediocre nature of its tube artillery, not the lack of cluster munitions in its TBMs.
Click to expand...
The Ukraine War has proven the worth of cluster munitions in attacking both SAM complexes and air bases, to ignore that is like ignoring the impact of drones.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1801566272901001264
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1801566272901001264
 
LRASM / JASSM ER ground launched with gmars would be a very competitive system. Not only for the mlrs role but also the planned new deep strike missile for germany and france from an performance side of view.
 
Forest Green said:
The Ukraine War has proven the worth of cluster munitions in attacking both SAM complexes and air bases, to ignore that is like ignoring the impact of drones.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1801566272901001264
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1801566272901001264
Click to expand...

I’ve no doubt the ATACMs cluster rounds are more effective than the unitary harpoon warheads against spread out targets. But that missile is out of production and I doubt using only unitary warheads would change the outcome in a significant way, especially given the larger scale of launchers and missiles the U.S. would have.
 
Josh_TN said:
I’ve no doubt the ATACMs cluster rounds are more effective than the unitary harpoon warheads against spread out targets. But that missile is out of production and I doubt using only unitary warheads would change the outcome in a significant way, especially given the larger scale of launchers and missiles the U.S. would have.
Click to expand...
It changes the outcome because you need to send many missiles to do the job of one, which costs many times more, making it economically inefficient and resource inefficient.
 
Forest Green said:
It changes the outcome because you need to send many missiles to do the job of one, which costs many times more, making it economically inefficient and resource inefficient.
Click to expand...

I do not think it’s “many more”. The current strikes against S300/400 sites rarely seem to damage more than a TEL or two, in addition to the radar. Also for the U.S., GMLRS-ER would nearly cover the same range band as the early model ATACMs with the larger payload. You could afford to target each SAM element individually.
 
Josh_TN said:
I do not think it’s “many more”. The current strikes against S300/400 sites rarely seem to damage more than a TEL or two, in addition to the radar. Also for the U.S., GMLRS-ER would nearly cover the same range band as the early model ATACMs with the larger payload. You could afford to target each SAM element individually.
Click to expand...
So 2 TELs, a radar and a ground station, that requires 4 missiles without cluster munitions, that's $6m instead of $1.5m. The $4.5m difference, which buys ~1,500 artillery shells. It's also not just cost constraints, there's production limits too.

The ATACMS variant with 300xM74 munitions travels 300km. A GMLRS-ER could carry 404 DPICM munitions or ~150 M74 munitions in the same package, so the same metrics apply to new missiles as old.
en.wikipedia.org

M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

What about on an airfield, you can take out a SAM battery and several aircraft with one cluster warhead.
 
Forest Green said:
So 2 TELs, a radar and a ground station, that requires 4 missiles without cluster munitions, that's $6m instead of $1.5m. The $4.5m difference, which buys ~1,500 artillery shells. It's also not just cost constraints, there's production limits too.

The ATACMS variant with 300xM74 munitions travels 300km. A GMLRS-ER could carry 404 DPICM munitions or ~150 M74 munitions in the same package, so the same metrics apply to new missiles as old.
en.wikipedia.org

M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

What about on an airfield, you can take out a SAM battery and several aircraft with one cluster warhead.
Click to expand...

How many objects damaged by a missile depends on the footprint of the target and the fragmentation pattern. Target’s sufficiently close together can still be killed with unitary warheads; targets widely dispersed might still fall outside the footprint of any one missile. I doubt most SAM sites are so dispersed that a single 500 lb warhead is needed for every single vehicle element.

I would not think GLMS could care anything like a payload of hundreds of munitions. Do you have a source? The warhead weight is something like 200 lbs and the diameter around only 9”.
 
Josh_TN said:
How many objects damaged by a missile depends on the footprint of the target and the fragmentation pattern. Target’s sufficiently close together can still be killed with unitary warheads; targets widely dispersed might still fall outside the footprint of any one missile. I doubt most SAM sites are so dispersed that a single 500 lb warhead is needed for every single vehicle element.
Click to expand...
Any sensible SAM site would be dispersed such, unless the warhead has cluster munitions.
Josh_TN said:
I would not think GLMS could care anything like a payload of hundreds of munitions. Do you have a source? The warhead weight is something like 200 lbs and the diameter around only 9”.
Click to expand...
I provided the source at the link, see the M30 warhead. This is for the existing GMLRS, which can delivery it 92km, so it stands to reason GMLRS-ER, which carries the same unitary warheads, could also carry the same cluster warhead.
en.wikipedia.org

M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
  • M30 rockets carrying 404 DPICM M101 submunitions. Range: 15–92 kilometres (9.3–57.2 mi). 3,936 produced between 2004 and 2009. Production ceased in favor of the M30A1.[62] The remaining US Army M30 rockets have been converted to the M31 (unitary warhead) variant.[21]
Click to expand...

On M74s, the ATACMS is stated as carrying 300 (weighing 174kg total) 300km, which is probably an artificial imitation on range, given the heavier 227kg unitary warhead goes 300km also. Half this number would be 150, weighing 87kg.
en.wikipedia.org

M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
M39A1 (ATACMS BLOCK IA) missile with GPS-aided guidance. The missile carries 300 M74 Anti-personnel and Anti‑materiel (APAM) bomblets. Range: 20–300 kilometres (12–186 mi). 610 M39A1 were produced between 1997 and 2003.
Click to expand...
 
The Old Cluster Rockets had a 50 meter radius spread of the grenade size submunitions which basically gave a 100 to 115 meter diameter on average kill circle.

IE if you in that Circle you have having a very very bad day if you not in a MBT or better yet a proper bunker. Cause that MBT will be out of action due to multiple broke optics and like. While defense set ups like Trenches be useless due to how likely the spread will put alot of grenades into a decent chunk of it. Heaven help the unarmor stuff cause those submunitions were a plastic casing that had tungsten BBs molded into it and full with alot of high explosives. Anything without MRAP level of armor is going to be shredded.

And the wide spread gives you sone leeway in accuracy. Miss by 20 meters so what you still bout 30 meter inside the kill zone.

A 200 or 300 kg warhead even with a Tungsten BB casing is only going to effect a 30 meter circle in the best cause scenario. IE you firing on flat ground that big. Any hills, berms, trenchs, Trees, what ever will cut that effectiveness in half if not more. Sure if you manage to put it next to a target it will basically flip a MBT if you dont hit it.

But you need be very close if not actually hit it to be effective. Miss by 5 meters you basically missed by a kilometer.

Just the Nature of the sets up.

Each weapon has its yse case and while they can cover between each other.

There is a notable effectiveness drop.

Using a Patriot system as an example, cause I know it, the site is a 300 meter plus circle base around tge radar With Each piece, Radar, TEL, Command etc, being bout 50 meter apart when using cables.

You can Spread out over a few hunder meters by datalinkage.

But the 50 meter spread alone is enough that a 300kg warhead lacks tge bang to reliably damage beyond what it hit.

And for all SAM you always want to target 2 things.

The Radar and Command vehicle. Remove those and the TELs are just expensive lawn ornaments.Niether of those are easy or quickly made so once they are gone, they are gone for the war. Even better if you manage to get some of the crew. Those people are not easy to train up either, removing them from play will hamper options across the board as much as removing the Radar will.


Then you need to consider the Manufacturing angle.

For 1 Unitary warhead you can get 2.5 Cluster weapons of tge same weight class. Cause a cluster weapon uses slightly less then half the explosive amount then a unity warhead. And its always been the explosive filler that limits weapons production but the casing or anything.

Thats a few of tge upsidesyou need to consider with clusters.

It is another handy tool in the box with its own usage cases it does very well it.

And its the commanders job to determine which tool is useful for the job at hand.

Cause sure you can use the wrench as a hammer but it will never be as good as an actual hammer.
 
I mean theorie says there is a possibility of having the ability to fit 2 JASSM ER per pod.
timmymagic said:
Translation from X
"At Eurosatory, first models of the MBDA-Safran proposal on the “French Himars” program, aka Long Range Land Strike (FLP-T)"

Seen here in the image to the left alongside the MBDA JFS-M proposed for Germany...and something else with a booster and waht appears to be a wing on top...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1802603366364684465
View: https://x.com/VincentLamigeon/status/1802603366364684465
Click to expand...
It looks interresting. More conventional like EXTRA or GMLRS and Not Like GMLRS-ER.
Lets wait and see what they say are the capabilitys of that missile.
 
Looks like JFS-M has dropped from 3 a pod to 2.
 
kqcke for you said:
I mean theorie says there is a possibility of having the ability to fit 2 JASSM ER per pod.

It looks interresting. More conventional like EXTRA or GMLRS and Not Like GMLRS-ER.
Lets wait and see what they say are the capabilitys of that missile.
Click to expand...
kqcke for you said:
Different point of view which makes the missile in the left look more like a cruise missile.
View attachment 732148
Click to expand...

Really short wings for a cruise missile though, very intriguing
 
Well that settles the range question for LPS then...because thats not a 80km missile....thats more like 150km with the second stage...

Does it imply there is an unboosted version for other platforms as well....

EDIT - It's been confirmed it is in fact based on Spear....so it should have very long range, far beyond 150km...given its twice as long as Spear, and slightly wider its probably at least 250-300km
 
Last edited:
Interestingly the Israeli Elbit which has been pushing its PUL's system for the German requirement with a localised truck after being successful with an initial 5 ordered as a stopgap for systems donated to Ukraine, has been touting at Eurosatory that it will have an open missile control architecture and so be able to fire GMLRS and PrSM missiles in addition to its standard load of IMI's Accular/Predator Hawk missiles. Its seen as the leader in the race with the Rheinmetall-Lockheed Martin bid trailing.

Rheinmetall and Lockheed Martin have been pushing back against this hard claiming it "if Germany was to opt for PULS they could not gain access to our missiles."

www.defensenews.com

Citing missile mismatch, Lockheed snarls at HIMARS challenge in Europe

"If Germany was to opt for PULS, they could not gain access to our missiles,” a Lockheed Martin exec said, referring to a competing system from Elbit.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
WatcherZero said:
Rheinmetall and Lockheed Martin have been pushing back against this hard claiming it "if Germany was to opt for PULS they could not gain access to our missiles."
Click to expand...

Think that pretty much ends the discussion to be honest...

Genuinely can't believe that anyone is opting for Israeli weapons in Europe after clear warnings from suppliers that they will not allow compatability, Israeli embargo on supply of weapons like Spike to Ukraine....and the fallout from the current Israeli-Palestine conflict...
 
On one hand I understand why Germany or others might choose PULS over HIMARS or similar, as Poland has seen the wait for new HIMARS is quite long. Hard to blame countries for choosing an option that they can get in a reasonable timeframe...

On the other side, how is there not a standard for rocket interface yet? Poland will be operating HIMARS and Chunmoo's, France is looking at their own solution, and you have other players like the PULS trying to break into the market. I can see a future where if a manufacturer like Lockheed says if you want our missiles you have to buy our launcher that manufacturer is slowly phased out for more adaptable rocket systems. After all with a seemingly NATO wide shortage on munitions, the ability to fire a wide variety of rockets would allow an operator to vastly increase their inventory and not depend on a single manufacturers line.
 
Honestly can't understand why Lockmart is taking this stance, unless they're really afraid of some proprietary info getting out. They'll make money on the launchers, but making your ammo compatible with multiple systems after it basically already IS the standard is just good business sense.
Selling just the missiles will make them a ton of money.
 
MihoshiK said:
Honestly can't understand why Lockmart is taking this stance, unless they're really afraid of some proprietary info getting out. They'll make money on the launchers, but making your ammo compatible with multiple systems after it basically already IS the standard is just good business sense.
Selling just the missiles will make them a ton of money.
Click to expand...
They probaly just want to kill Puls in europe. GMARS more or less offers all of Puls advantages with the MFOF. After all if Puls wins it could mean less GMLRS ( GMLRS-ER, PrSM) are bought. Still if GMARS does have the capability for longer missiles then i don't see a reason for Puls. Both EXTRA and Predator Hawk are not really better than GMLRS, GMLRS-ER, Atacms and PrSM.
 
Now this is interresting. But where does that fit in with everything. Do they want to go "full" autonomes with LPS, JFS-M and that missile? Whats with there M270 and GMLRS? What replaces GMLRS then? It
Trans: „“French Himars”: for post-2030, Thales and ArianeGroup are working on a strike capacity at 1,000km (vs. 150km max for the Himars), with a ballistic munition capable of reaching Mach 5....“
https://twitter.com/x/status/1803390852250620098
View: https://x.com/VincentLamigeon/status/180339085225062009

Edit: can't find the link right now but an older report said that safran and MBDA an AASM version which is ground launched. Probaly that what Safran is showing at its stand? I mean it would be a big missile as even the smallest AASM kit takes a 250kg / 550Ib Mk.82.
 
Last edited:
kqcke for you said:
Now this is interresting. But where does that fit in with everything. Do they want to go "full" autonomes with LPS, JFS-M and that missile? Whats with there M270 and GMLRS? What replaces GMLRS then? It
Trans: „“French Himars”: for post-2030, Thales and ArianeGroup are working on a strike capacity at 1,000km (vs. 150km max for the Himars), with a ballistic munition capable of reaching Mach 5....“
https://twitter.com/x/status/1803390852250620098
View: https://x.com/VincentLamigeon/status/180339085225062009

Edit: can't find the link right now but an older report said that safran and MBDA an AASM version which is ground launched. Probaly that what Safran is showing at its stand? I mean it would be a big missile as even the smallest AASM kit takes a 250kg / 550Ib Mk.82.
Click to expand...
Hmmm... Mach 5, 1000km range, ballistic and fits in a HIMARS-sized launcher?? Or difference launcher?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom