M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS Developments

Forest Green said:
MihoshiK said:
OTOH, until the Ukranians let it slip by accident nobody knew for sure that GMLRS could hit moving targets...
Click to expand...
I'm honestly surprised the US hasn't done that (officially), because it's very doable.

www.roketsan.com.tr

Roketsan - TRLG-230 Laser Guided Missile

www.roketsan.com.tr www.roketsan.com.tr
Click to expand...

They have funded several streams to develop low cost fire-forget seekers for MLRS like weapons. That is where they want this to evolve over time so I highly doubt you will ever see a SAL seeker on the weapon.
 
Firefinder said:
Friendly Reminder that the US Military has no reason to tell the...

COMPLETE truth bout its gear abilities.

Since these type of small surprises can, has, and will come in handy in war.
Click to expand...

I know a couple of guys who have been with 101 Reg. Royal Artillery who use M270B1 with GMLRS....they have never said what the range is (it does depend on some conditions, geograhical and weather) but they have confirmed that it is substantially further than the published range...and the key word they emphasised is 'substantially'....

There was also a US artillery officer recently who mentioned in a public forum engaging a target in Afghanistan at well over the range mentioned earlier in order to carry out the strike and still be a significant distance behind the frontline, far beyond direct fire or even some artillery systems...
 
Last edited:
I can't imagine Grey Eagle UAVs are an easy integration item nor that they would have a much more significant survival rate than TB-2s.
The ATACM have obvious advantages and the launchers are already present, though they seem to have the AFATDS antennas and radios removed so they might not have an off the shelf capability to employ that missile.
 
Josh_TN said:
I can't imagine Grey Eagle UAVs are an easy integration item nor that they would have a much more significant survival rate than TB-2s.
The ATACM have obvious advantages and the launchers are already present, though they seem to have the AFATDS antennas and radios removed so they might not have an off the shelf capability to employ that missile.
Click to expand...
I think the CAESAR and NERO packs are the relevant reason. This would help geolocate enemy transmitters for summary combustion. It would also provide electronic attack support for aircraft and HIMARS/ATACMS strikes. Plus longer range recon ability.
 
Josh_TN said:
The ATACM have obvious advantages and the launchers are already present, though they seem to have the AFATDS antennas and radios removed so they might not have an off the shelf capability to employ that missile
Click to expand...
The only thing AFATDS does is receive the target data from what ever sending it, radar, spotters, plane, etc...

You can still handload in the coordinates since the system is notoriously finicky.
 
timmymagic said:
I know a couple of guys who have been with 101 Reg. Royal Artillery who use M270B1 with GMLRS....they have never said what the range is (it does depend on some conditions, geograhical and weather) but they have confirmed that it is substantially further than the published range...and the key word they emphasised is 'substantially'....

There was also a US artillery officer recently who mentioned in a public forum engaging a target in Afghanistan at well over the range mentioned earlier in order to carry out the strike and still be a significant distance behind the frontline, far beyond direct fire or even some artillery systems...
Click to expand...
From 2009:

Lockheed Tests Improved GMLRS Rocket

The US Army's guided multiple-launch rocket system (GMLRS) has been successfully test fired 92km by Lockheed Martin. The test, which was designed to test recent reach and accuracy improvements, saw the GMLRS rocket successfully fired from a high-mobility artillery rocket system (HIMARS
www.army-technology.com www.army-technology.com

The US Army’s guided multiple-launch rocket system (GMLRS) has been successfully test fired 92km by Lockheed Martin.
Click to expand...
 
I am rather baffled about claims it was used to hit a target in Crimea when I thought the US hadn’t supplied any ATACMS? Also claimed it has been stripped of some of its more sophisticated software.
 
Flyaway said:
I am rather baffled about claims it was used to hit a target in Crimea when I thought the US hadn’t supplied any ATACMS? Also claimed it has been stripped of some of its more sophisticated software.
Click to expand...

It's an invention of the TwitOSINT world.

Ukrainian officials are saying the Crimean attack was SOF or partisans (or likely a combination -- one big mission of US-style Special Forces was to organize and lead partisans).
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Not quite ATACMS, but related:




View attachment 682318
View attachment 682319

https://twitter.com/x/status/1551214341801787393
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/AndreiBtvt/status/1551214341801787393
Click to expand...

We have a post about the Standard Manufacturing Trailing Arm Drive vehicle, which was the proposed chassis for the self-propelled LW-MLRS. Basically HIMARS ahead of its time and with a novel mobility platform instead of a standard truck chassis. I believe there was a push to use the TAD vehicle for a number of applications within the US Lightweight Divisions.

 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Not quite ATACMS, but related:
Click to expand...
So did the AT2 and XM29 (SADARM) rocket actually get produced?
Click to expand...

The original AT2 rocket (36 scattered AT mines) was fielded by some users (UK, maybe Germany, not sure about the US). I think it was subsequently withdrawn because of the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines. (AT2 wasn't technically an AP mine but had antihandling features that made it act like one.)

The SADARM round and the Terminal Guidance Warhead round were both based on the AT2 rocket, which was slightly different from the regular MLRS rocket. Neither MLRS-SADARM nor MLRS-TGW were ultimately fielded.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
The original AT2 rocket (36 scattered AT mines) was fielded by some users (UK, maybe Germany, not sure about the US). I think it was subsequently withdrawn because of the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines. (AT2 wasn't technically an AP mine but had antihandling features that made it act like one.)

The SADARM round and the Terminal Guidance Warhead round were both based on the AT2 rocket, which was slightly different from the regular MLRS rocket. Neither MLRS-SADARM nor MLRS-TGW were ultimately fielded.
Click to expand...
Shame, they sound like they could have been really useful.
 
 
Last edited:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Anything more on the Terminally Guided Warhead? Looks like a kind of proto-BAT.
Click to expand...

Some description here:
The MLRS TGW program is a multinational cooperative development effort begun under a 1983 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. ... The program is to develop a target-sensing submunition and warhead for attacking armored targets at distances up to 30 kilometers or more.
Click to expand...

MLRS is an all weather, indirect fire system with up to 12 rockets. The objective of the MLRS TGW program is to develop a target-sensing submunition for attacking armored targets at extended range. The submunition is to be an all-weather weapon that will use the standard MLRS rocket motor to propel a warhead to the target area where the warhead will dispense three terminally guided submunitions. Each submunition will contain a seeker that is to activate the submunition’s independent guidance and control functions and search for and engage the target.

Congress directed that MLRS TGW and two other target-sensing submunitions be reviewed and that a single option be selected. The Department of Defense selected another system in March 1991.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain the shape used in the drawings is not exactly representative. Note that LTV's brochure is probably earlier than this report by several years (~1985?). I think the other two systems mentioned in the report are SADARM and BAT, with SADARM being selected for MLRS, then cancelled in FY94, along with TGW.

Development timelines are scattered through this page -- basically, it began around FY84 and was finally killed in FY94.

 

Attachments

  • 1660228183084.png
    1660228183084.png
    106.9 KB · Views: 56
  • 1660228213125.png
    1660228213125.png
    123.9 KB · Views: 56
TomS said:
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
Not quite ATACMS, but related:




View attachment 682318
View attachment 682319

https://twitter.com/x/status/1551214341801787393
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/AndreiBtvt/status/1551214341801787393
Click to expand...

We have a post about the Standard Manufacturing Trailing Arm Drive vehicle, which was the proposed chassis for the self-propelled LW-MLRS. Basically HIMARS ahead of its time and with a novel mobility platform instead of a standard truck chassis. I believe there was a push to use the TAD vehicle for a number of applications within the US Lightweight Divisions.

Click to expand...
..still do not understand why the TAD vehicle was abandoned, and the trailer, six shooter MRLS also still makes sense IMHO.
 
jsport said:
..still do not understand why the TAD vehicle was abandoned, and the trailer, six shooter MRLS also still makes sense IMHO.
Click to expand...

I have my doubts about the reliability of the TAD -- it used high-pressure hydraulics to send power from the engine to a pair of hydraulic motors, which then drove the wheels via chain drives on each side of the vehicle. This seems like an inherently fragile system to me.
 
Last edited:
high-pressure hydraulic motors may or may not have been robust enough at the time but they certainly are mature enough now. Chain drives are and have been robust enough.

a trailer MRLS still makes sense as current tracked systems are heaavy expensive and complex while 6x6 trucks can not rally leave the road. An 8x8 truck would have road speed and genuine off road capability.
 
Tracks made more sense when the rockets being fired had a max range of around 30km and the artillery units needed to operate with the maneuver units. The combination of GLMRS with wheels makes for a very light and mobile system that likely doesn't particularly need an off road capability - if you can shoot 80km, how far off a road do you ever have to be? You're already as far back the log train.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Tracks made more sense when the rockets being fired had a max range of around 30km and the artillery units needed to operate with the maneuver units. The combination of GLMRS with wheels makes for a very light and mobile system that likely doesn't particularly need an off road capability - if you can shoot 80km, how far off a road do you ever have to ever be? You're already as far back the log train.
Click to expand...
An MRLS needs as much operational flexibility as possible regardless of range of rockets. Short range rockets still have their place. Regardless of range , roads are much easier to watch by short range and long range UAVs, satelites and even spies both IMINT and electronic collection.
 
jsport said:
Josh_TN said:
Tracks made more sense when the rockets being fired had a max range of around 30km and the artillery units needed to operate with the maneuver units. The combination of GLMRS with wheels makes for a very light and mobile system that likely doesn't particularly need an off road capability - if you can shoot 80km, how far off a road do you ever have to ever be? You're already as far back the log train.
Click to expand...
An MRLS needs as much operational flexibility as possible regardless of range of rockets. Short range rockets still have their place. Regardless of range , roads are much easier to watch by short range and long range UAVs, satelites and even spies both IMINT and electronic collection.
Click to expand...
I think an argument could be made that using 6x6 trucks results in such a simplification of logistics and movement that they have a superior operational flexibility to begin with (along with a lot more theater/strategic mobility if you're shipping them somewhere). You could easily drive a HIMARs 100-200 km back and forth over night to shoot and scoot; you're not doing that with a tracked vehicle. Though the US does use both still, so there must be scenarios they envision for the tracks.

As for short ranged rockets, the US does not operate those; the older cluster rockets have been demilled or sold off. Don't know if anyone still has them in inventory but I think NATO only uses M30/31 rockets now.
 
Josh_TN said:
jsport said:
Josh_TN said:
Tracks made more sense when the rockets being fired had a max range of around 30km and the artillery units needed to operate with the maneuver units. The combination of GLMRS with wheels makes for a very light and mobile system that likely doesn't particularly need an off road capability - if you can shoot 80km, how far off a road do you ever have to ever be? You're already as far back the log train.
Click to expand...
An MRLS needs as much operational flexibility as possible regardless of range of rockets. Short range rockets still have their place. Regardless of range , roads are much easier to watch by short range and long range UAVs, satelites and even spies both IMINT and electronic collection.
Click to expand...
I think an argument could be made that using 6x6 trucks results in such a simplification of logistics and movement that they have a superior operational flexibility to begin with (along with a lot more theater/strategic mobility if you're shipping them somewhere).
Click to expand...
HIMARS made some sense for budgetary reasons not operational ones.
Josh_TN said:
You could easily drive a HIMARs 100-200 km back and forth over night to shoot and scoot; you're not doing that with a tracked vehicle. Though the US does use both still, so there must be scenarios they envision for the tracks.
Click to expand...
The reason why all TAD vehicles were considered was for empowered light motorized divisions. HIMARS does not qualify as it is a heavy not offroad vehicle.
Josh_TN said:
As for short ranged rockets, the US does not operate those; the older cluster rockets have been demilled or sold off. Don't know if anyone still has them in inventory but I think NATO only uses M30/31 rockets now.
Click to expand...
Cluster munitions are prohibitd so can not be sold, but have not heard that the short rang mission has been scrapped. That would be startling.
 
jsport said:
Josh_TN said:
jsport said:
Josh_TN said:
Tracks made more sense when the rockets being fired had a max range of around 30km and the artillery units needed to operate with the maneuver units. The combination of GLMRS with wheels makes for a very light and mobile system that likely doesn't particularly need an off road capability - if you can shoot 80km, how far off a road do you ever have to ever be? You're already as far back the log train.
Click to expand...
An MRLS needs as much operational flexibility as possible regardless of range of rockets. Short range rockets still have their place. Regardless of range , roads are much easier to watch by short range and long range UAVs, satelites and even spies both IMINT and electronic collection.
Click to expand...
I think an argument could be made that using 6x6 trucks results in such a simplification of logistics and movement that they have a superior operational flexibility to begin with (along with a lot more theater/strategic mobility if you're shipping them somewhere).
Click to expand...
HIMARS made some sense for budgetary reasons not operational ones.
Josh_TN said:
You could easily drive a HIMARs 100-200 km back and forth over night to shoot and scoot; you're not doing that with a tracked vehicle. Though the US does use both still, so there must be scenarios they envision for the tracks.
Click to expand...
The reason why all TAD vehicles were considered was for empowered light motorized divisions. HIMARS does not qualify as it is a heavy not offroad vehicle.
Josh_TN said:
As for short ranged rockets, the US does not operate those; the older cluster rockets have been demilled or sold off. Don't know if anyone still has them in inventory but I think NATO only uses M30/31 rockets now.
Click to expand...
Cluster munitions are prohibitd so can not be sold, but have not heard that the short rang mission has been scrapped. That would be startling.
Click to expand...
Didn't the US actually re-equip M270 artillery units with M142s? I suppose that could be for operational cost reasons but the launchers were already paid for.

Both M270 and M142 operate as independent brigades outside/above the BCT/division level for some time now, as far as I know. As such I don't really see why you would need them to have tactical mobility or any kind of short ranged projectile (which they don't seem to have - M30/M31 minimum range seems to be 15km per wiki). I guess one advantage of the tracked vehicles besides local off road capability would be resilience to CB fires, on top of larger magazines. That might make for more persistence closer to the front if that's what you needed. But it seems rather superfluous to me in the age of GLMS, GLMS-ER, and ATACMS/PrSM.

I notice no one is buying M270 now; just M142.
 
Josh_TN said:
jsport said:
Josh_TN said:
jsport said:
Josh_TN said:
Tracks made more sense when the rockets being fired had a max range of around 30km and the artillery units needed to operate with the maneuver units. The combination of GLMRS with wheels makes for a very light and mobile system that likely doesn't particularly need an off road capability - if you can shoot 80km, how far off a road do you ever have to ever be? You're already as far back the log train.
Click to expand...
An MRLS needs as much operational flexibility as possible regardless of range of rockets. Short range rockets still have their place. Regardless of range , roads are much easier to watch by short range and long range UAVs, satelites and even spies both IMINT and electronic collection.
Click to expand...
I think an argument could be made that using 6x6 trucks results in such a simplification of logistics and movement that they have a superior operational flexibility to begin with (along with a lot more theater/strategic mobility if you're shipping them somewhere).
Click to expand...
HIMARS made some sense for budgetary reasons not operational ones.
Josh_TN said:
You could easily drive a HIMARs 100-200 km back and forth over night to shoot and scoot; you're not doing that with a tracked vehicle. Though the US does use both still, so there must be scenarios they envision for the tracks.
Click to expand...
The reason why all TAD vehicles were considered was for empowered light motorized divisions. HIMARS does not qualify as it is a heavy not offroad vehicle.
Josh_TN said:
As for short ranged rockets, the US does not operate those; the older cluster rockets have been demilled or sold off. Don't know if anyone still has them in inventory but I think NATO only uses M30/31 rockets now.
Click to expand...
Cluster munitions are prohibitd so can not be sold, but have not heard that the short rang mission has been scrapped. That would be startling.
Click to expand...
Didn't the US actually re-equip M270 artillery units with M142s? I suppose that could be for operational cost reasons but the launchers were already paid for.
Click to expand...
Josh_TN said:
Both M270 and M142 operate as independent brigades outside/above the BCT/division level for some time now, as far as I know. As such I don't really see why you would need them to have tactical mobility or any kind of short ranged projectile (which they don't seem to have - M30/M31 minimum range seems to be 15km per wiki).
Click to expand...
Anything under 30km would likely be considered a short range or even possibly defensive fires or as you state, CB fires. That requirement will not go way. Old 8" guns had direct fire defensive fire rds, for instance. MRLS will nnot fire dirct fire but short range still matters. Defensive fires for any unit, including those not near roads would be a reason for offroad MRLS ops. Independant BDEs only means that batterys or even vehicle sets can be delegated down to fwrd units if need be.
Josh_TN said:
I guess one advantage of the tracked vehicles besides local off road capability would be resilience to CB fires, on top of larger magazines. That might make for more persistence closer to the front if that's what you needed. But it seems rather superfluous to me in the age of GLMS, GLMS-ER, and ATACMS/PrSM.

I notice no one is buying M270 now; just M142.
Click to expand...
IMHO It is scary to forget numbers of lower cost rockets or gun rds for close/near ops, especially if an adversary is able to sneek up for whatever reason. Relying exclusively on victory from boutique and expensive one shot wonders seems short sighted.

So again, an ability to support light units in complex terrain w/ offroad MLRS still seems lacking.
 
jsport said:
IMHO It is scary to forget numbers of lower cost rockets or gun rds for close/near ops, especially if an adversary is able to sneek up for whatever reason. Relying exclusively on victory from boutique and expensive one shot wonders seems short sighted.

So again, an ability to support light units in complex terrain w/ offroad MLRS still seems lacking.
Click to expand...
GLMS isn't "boutique"; its the only thing these platforms fire in NATO service. The US has built 50,000+ of them and they cost about the same per round as a full up Javelin system with the guidance unit attached. I'm not sure what you mean about an adversary sneeking up - if anything that seems to be a bigger problem for the system that was placed closer to the battlefield.
 
Josh_TN said:
jsport said:
IMHO It is scary to forget numbers of lower cost rockets or gun rds for close/near ops, especially if an adversary is able to sneek up for whatever reason. Relying exclusively on victory from boutique and expensive one shot wonders seems short sighted.

So again, an ability to support light units in complex terrain w/ offroad MLRS still seems lacking.
Click to expand...
GLMS isn't "boutique"; its the only thing these platforms fire in NATO service. The US has built 50,000+ of them and they cost about the same per round as a full up Javelin system with the guidance unit attached. I'm not sure what you mean about an adversary sneeking up - if anything that seems to be a bigger problem for the system that was placed closer to the battlefield.
Click to expand...
you bunched ATACMS and Prsm w/ GLMS, as A and P are not in the same category this bunching is deceptive.

rockets are for supporting units not for their own sake so MRLS need to protect the units they are supporting from being surprised.
 
I was pointing out the wide variety of long range weapons available or soon to be available to a single platform, but even the 80km weapons have more than enough reach to hit a wide area of frontage. I'd also argue these weapons are specifically designed to be offensive, not defensive, which is why they aren't assigned to BCTs or BTGs in US/Russian units.

I disagree; I think guided MLRS is absolutely for its own sake at the operational or theater level. The longer ranged guided missiles are organized at a higher echelon than even brigade or division sized units and providing close fire support to subunits does not appear to be how they are intended to be used by the US or currently used by Ukraine or Russia. For the current belligerents that's a job for Grad or medium caliber tube artillery, for the US, tube artillery only.
 
jsport said:
Cluster munitions are prohibitd so can not be sold, but have not heard that the short rang mission has been scrapped. That would be startling.
Click to expand...

The US has withdrawn the vast majority of cluster weapons from inventory. It has decommissioned all of the M26 rockets and rebuilt the M30 guided DPICM cluster rounds into either M30A1 rounds with Alternative Warheads (HE with tungsten frags) or M31A1 GMLRS with unitary warheads.

jsport said:
rockets are for supporting units not for their own sake so MRLS need to protect the units they are supporting from being surprised.
Click to expand...

The Ukrainians seem to be using GMLRS for independent operational or strategic strikes, not direct support of ground combat units.
 
Artillery is catergorized world wide generally as Direct Support or General Support both are for offensive and defensive purposes. US and NATO doctrine seems pretty clear. Long range missiles such as Prsm and ATACMS are ballistic missiles for deep battle, ie another category. When a launch vehicle is used for both then the chain of command is made quite aware of the difference. just trying to teach here. "Close Fire support" is in DS or GS, which is different from deep battle interdiction. Higher echelon is generally to give flexible deployment to cdrs. These hypersonics are exclusively for deep (not DS GS) battle are also at higher echelon but for that different reason.

NATO jettisoned medium cal rockets for cost and complexity w/ only small unguided warheads. Non Russian Guided 125mm rkts are still around in the ME.
German MARS medium cal rkt is going/in Ukraine so the mission is still around.
Artillery for its own sake it like saying CAS is for the A-10's sake.
 
TomS said:
jsport said:
Cluster munitions are prohibitd so can not be sold, but have not heard that the short rang mission has been scrapped. That would be startling.
Click to expand...

The US has withdrawn the vast majority of cluster weapons from inventory. It has decommissioned all of the M26 rockets and rebuilt the M30 guided DPICM cluster rounds into either M30A1 rounds with Alternative Warheads (HE with tungsten frags) or M31A1 GMLRS with unitary warheads.

jsport said:
rockets are for supporting units not for their own sake so MRLS need to protect the units they are supporting from being surprised.
Click to expand...

The Ukrainians seem to be using GMLRS for independent operational or strategic strikes, not direct support of ground combat units.
Click to expand...
GMLRS is apparently accurate enough in the highly dispersed Ukr battlefield to justify independent operational or strategic strikes but as the Ukrs go on the offensive it will go back to offensive support and if the Russians go on offense they will be back to defensive support. If a mobile BTG HQ is close to one's trenches even if it is 15kms away, a GMLRS makes sense. However, on this confused battlefield, what exactly defines what "independent operational or strategic strikes" are can be viewed as more than a little vague.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom