M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS Developments

[Voltzz]

Anything more on the Terminally Guided Warhead? Looks like a kind of proto-BAT.

a bunch of picture i have of TGW

 

[Forest Green]

What is the image 2nd to last showing relative to the thing with the wings?

 

[Voltzz]

What is the image 2nd to last showing relative to the thing with the wings?

I put two of the pictures next to each other and scaled them correctly to show how its arranged. Although afaik the warhead picture is incomplete because it was suppose to have 6 sub-munitions with 3 in a circle/triangle and the other 3 behind them. Also in the image of the submunition you can see that the wings are made up of thin stripes for folding

 

[Forest Green]

Ah, I see, that is part of the actual MLRS rocket carrying the winged missiles.

 

[Voltzz]

Ah, I see, that is part of the actual MLRS rocket carrying the winged missiles.

this image shows a slightly different submunition, but it should clear up the position of the submunitions in the missile

 

[Voltzz]

Diehl experimental guided MLRS rocket. It was apparently successfully fired multiple times in tests by the Bundeswehr. The projects seems to have been absorbed by GMLRS when Diehl joined that program.

 

[Voltzz]

CORECT (COntraves Rheinmetall Enhanced CorrecTion/COntraves Rheinmetall Enhaced Correction for Trajectories/COntraves REferenced Correction for Trajectories) (late 90s/early 2000s)

Oerlikon Contraves GmbH and Rheinmetall W&M GmbH are developing a system known as COntraves REferenced Correction for Trajectories (CORECT) to determine a rocket's trajectory using GPS data and then to correct the trajectory using a system of strap-on thrusters. Rockwell Collins is providing the GPS receivers and the integration support. This system uses multiple GPS antennas mounted at regular intervals around a high speed rotating rocket. The antenna signals are then routed through a combiner so that more or less continuous GPS signals are provided to a Rockwell GPS Embedded Module (GEM) III receiver. An integration computer compares precomputed rocket trajectory data with the actual GPS position data. The computer uses up to 32 thrusters mounted around the rocket to apply real time corrections to the rocket's trajectory. Trajectory aiding is provided to the GPS receiver to aid in reacquisition after launch and to improve tracking performance. The other significant portion of this navigation system is the use of a magnetic sensor to measure roll angle based on the rocket's attitude with respect to the Earth's magnetic field. The initial probability estimates for CORECT indicate a great deal of promise for improvement of circular error probable (CEP) at the target. Tests of this system have been conducted using a GPS simulator and a rotating antenna fixture to simulate the rotation of the rocket. Individual tests of the thrusters have also been performed. In June of 1997, a successful live firing of a missile using CORECT was performed through which a significant end-game improvement (400 m at 20 km) was demonstrated. This program shows innovation because it provides a relatively easy way to add GPS guidance to an existing rocker. The next phase of this program is the development of the final modular system.

CORECT was planned both in a strap-on variant for easy upgrading of rockets and in a variant integrated with the fuse.

 

[aonestudio]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSoUYB_DMu0

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1667462016372703234

 

[Scott Kenny]

How do you have figures about something that doesn't exist? No one has purchased GLSDB, therefore it has no recorded cost...

"According to the U.S. army's budget, it will pay about $168,000 for each GMLRS in 2023."
reference 1: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...for-himars-to-keep-up-with-ukraine-war-demand Reference 2: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ts-but-not-ones-able-to-reach-far-into-russia

Given that GMLRS uses most of the same components of GLSDB, that's a decent target number. Same rocket, same guidance electronics. For that matter, just using GMLRS numbers is a reasonable level of comparison, though we lose out on the extended range and explosive mass equivalence.

Comparing the non-existent GLSDB and the M982 is disingenuous. One doesn't exist and the other has a third the range (150 vs 50 km), so it's apples to oranges in two ways. GLSDB would have a range comparable to the Navy's aborted LRLAP, which costs around $1 million FY2016 which are the latest figures, but I think GLSDB would have cost less than the near "Tomahawk missile" costs of the 100 nmi ranged CLGP.

That is a particularly poor choice of reference, since the FY2016 prices are after Zumwalt class production was stopped at 3 ships and the unit buy went to almost nothing. Compare the initial FY2015 costs of M982 that included development costs ($260k) to the FY2016 "buy one more" prices ($68k). FY2015 costs for LRLAP were $477k, and given that LRLAP is effectively a rocket boosted M982, costs for a large production run would likely have dropped to something under $200k. Maybe under $100k, considering that the FY2004 estimated cost per round in a large production run was $35k ($46k in 2016 dollars per the inflation calculator, but I don't think they would have gotten that cheap).

Now, yes, there is a difference in ranges. I was trying to keep to the same guidance and control methods, and something close to the same explosive weight. Excalibur has a 12lb explosive weight, while GLSDB has a 35lb explosive weight. APKWS may be a better comparison in terms of explosive weight, but then the range doesn't come close and neither does method of guidance.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Comparing the non-existent GLSDB and the M982 is disingenuous. One doesn't exist and the other has a third the range (150 vs 50 km), so it's apples to oranges in two ways. GLSDB would have a range comparable to the Navy's aborted LRLAP, which costs around $1 million FY2016 which are the latest figures, but I think GLSDB would have cost less than the near "Tomahawk missile" costs of the 100 nmi ranged CLGP.

That is a particularly poor choice of reference,

No, it isn't. It perfectly illustrates that reactive artillery and active artillery's differences in initial acceleration are the major motivators of munition end cost. Ceteris paribus, reactive artillery piece will always be better for deploying a PGM if you want to save money. Mortars can come closer to reactive artillery because they are typically subsonic and low impulse, too.

A high starting acceleration drives cost of precision guided weapons into the (fiscal) stratosphere. That typical AAA shells are often smaller calibers than reactive shells doesn't help things either, but even in the same form factor not needing shock hardened electronics really reduces costs quite significantly.

The question was "how much cheaper would guided shells be than rockets". The answer is "the same or more".

There are, besides maybe mortars, essentially zero cases where an active artillery piece can be cheaper than a reactive artillery piece in deploying a precision guided weapon of otherwise identical characteristics. Not without discovering some sort of electrical component which becomes more resistant to damage the harder it is thrown, anyway.

Precision guided weapons fired from cannons are good for extending the lifespan of existing artillery complexes, to a point, which is usually around 105-122mm calibers. They are extremely bad for new weapon complexes when a missile can be procured for less money per kill pretty much all the time. Even missiles falter in the face of silly robots like Coyote, though, which I guess you can call a missile even if it isn't reactive artillery.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Comparing the non-existent GLSDB and the M982 is disingenuous. One doesn't exist and the other has a third the range (150 vs 50 km), so it's apples to oranges in two ways. GLSDB would have a range comparable to the Navy's aborted LRLAP, which costs around $1 million FY2016 which are the latest figures, but I think GLSDB would have cost less than the near "Tomahawk missile" costs of the 100 nmi ranged CLGP.

That is a particularly poor choice of reference,

No, it isn't. It perfectly illustrates that reactive artillery and active artillery's differences in initial acceleration are the major motivators of munition end cost. Ceteris paribus, reactive artillery piece will always be better for deploying a PGM if you want to save money. Mortars can come closer to reactive artillery because they are typically subsonic and low impulse, too.

A high starting acceleration drives cost of precision guided weapons into the (fiscal) stratosphere. That typical AAA shells are often smaller calibers than reactive shells doesn't help things either, but even in the same form factor not needing shock hardened electronics really reduces costs quite significantly.

The question was "how much cheaper would guided shells be than rockets". The answer is "the same or more".

There are, besides maybe mortars, essentially zero cases where an active artillery piece can be cheaper than a reactive artillery piece in deploying a precision guided weapon of otherwise identical characteristics. Not without discovering some sort of electrical component which becomes more resistant to damage the harder it is thrown, anyway.

Precision guided weapons fired from cannons are good for extending the lifespan of existing artillery complexes, to a point, which is usually around 105-122mm calibers. They are extremely bad for new weapon complexes when a missile can be procured for less money per kill pretty much all the time. Even missiles falter in the face of silly robots like Coyote, though, which I guess you can call a missile even if it isn't reactive artillery.

You completely ignored why I said THE FY2016 DATA was a poor choice of reference.

Not that LRLAP was a bad comparison, just the FY2016 data.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Guys, there is an M270 thread for GMLRS and HIMARS stuff....good to keep it all there. You never know I might beat TomS to the draw and do a chart on compatible munitions over the years one of these days...

That was to address a question about what was cheaper, a guided cannon projectile versus a guided rocket/missile.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Comparing the non-existent GLSDB and the M982 is disingenuous. One doesn't exist and the other has a third the range (150 vs 50 km), so it's apples to oranges in two ways. GLSDB would have a range comparable to the Navy's aborted LRLAP, which costs around $1 million FY2016 which are the latest figures, but I think GLSDB would have cost less than the near "Tomahawk missile" costs of the 100 nmi ranged CLGP.

That is a particularly poor choice of reference,

No, it isn't. It perfectly illustrates that reactive artillery and active artillery's differences in initial acceleration are the major motivators of munition end cost. Ceteris paribus, reactive artillery piece will always be better for deploying a PGM if you want to save money. Mortars can come closer to reactive artillery because they are typically subsonic and low impulse, too.

A high starting acceleration drives cost of precision guided weapons into the (fiscal) stratosphere. That typical AAA shells are often smaller calibers than reactive shells doesn't help things either, but even in the same form factor not needing shock hardened electronics really reduces costs quite significantly.

The question was "how much cheaper would guided shells be than rockets". The answer is "the same or more".

There are, besides maybe mortars, essentially zero cases where an active artillery piece can be cheaper than a reactive artillery piece in deploying a precision guided weapon of otherwise identical characteristics. Not without discovering some sort of electrical component which becomes more resistant to damage the harder it is thrown, anyway.

Precision guided weapons fired from cannons are good for extending the lifespan of existing artillery complexes, to a point, which is usually around 105-122mm calibers. They are extremely bad for new weapon complexes when a missile can be procured for less money per kill pretty much all the time. Even missiles falter in the face of silly robots like Coyote, though, which I guess you can call a missile even if it isn't reactive artillery.

You completely ignored why I said THE FY2016 DATA was a poor choice of reference.

Not that LRLAP was a bad comparison, just the FY2016 data.

Why?

DOD buys munitions at such tiny rates that mass production reduction costs really never enter into it except for the biggest orders of dumb ammunition. The last few years of recorded costs for M982 Excalibur are around $180k per unit, for instance. Even the boom years of GWOT's averaged $28k higher than your estimate and the last time DOD bought them in the near quintuple digits, it was around $10k higher than your $68k.

https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY20/PROC/A/6600E80100_16.pdf

These things are not cheap.

The major driver of cost for CLGPs is the man hours needed to assemble such a compact munition and the shock hardening of the electronics, for production and R&D, respectively. The ease of assembly of a rocket versus a CLGP, and the lack of R&D cost for their electrical components (they can use commercial chips and often do) to be matured, makes them very effective and amenable to mass production. Far more than any CLGP has ever been.

You'd need to seriously overhaul how CLGPs are produced to see any sort of gains in their unit costs, at least when it comes to comparable rocket artillery, because you aren't going to be able to reduce the cost of the electronics R&D in producing shock hardened components. It's actually a decent argument for something like the USS Vesuvius's dynamite guns but that's just a cold launch rocket or a torpedo tube these days.

Conversely, cannon shells are denser, which means more can be stowed in a particular arrangement, as ammunition density is higher, which is about their only serious use argument. LRLAP had a similar range to GMLRS but was nearly a meter shorter. No one seems willing to foot the bill for this, obviously, since apparently even buying new-old warships to carry more of the big rockets is cheaper in practice. This is rather different for a widespread howitzer which can already fire a CLGP (Copperhead) and has explicit storage zones for them.

Anyway this thread is about Starstreak, not the merits of CLGPs versus guided missiles. The point is that CLGPs are somewhat counter-intuitive in that their small size belies their extreme relative costs versus rockets. It's a bit like a warship in that making the guided projectile bigger makes it cheaper, at least to a point, and what you lose in munition density with a rocket you gain in lower unit costs per stowed kill.

The economical choice will always be firing a guided missile versus a burst of CLGPs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Comparing the non-existent GLSDB and the M982 is disingenuous. One doesn't exist and the other has a third the range (150 vs 50 km), so it's apples to oranges in two ways. GLSDB would have a range comparable to the Navy's aborted LRLAP, which costs around $1 million FY2016 which are the latest figures, but I think GLSDB would have cost less than the near "Tomahawk missile" costs of the 100 nmi ranged CLGP.

That is a particularly poor choice of reference,

No, it isn't. It perfectly illustrates that reactive artillery and active artillery's differences in initial acceleration are the major motivators of munition end cost. Ceteris paribus, reactive artillery piece will always be better for deploying a PGM if you want to save money. Mortars can come closer to reactive artillery because they are typically subsonic and low impulse, too.

A high starting acceleration drives cost of precision guided weapons into the (fiscal) stratosphere. That typical AAA shells are often smaller calibers than reactive shells doesn't help things either, but even in the same form factor not needing shock hardened electronics really reduces costs quite significantly.

The question was "how much cheaper would guided shells be than rockets". The answer is "the same or more".

There are, besides maybe mortars, essentially zero cases where an active artillery piece can be cheaper than a reactive artillery piece in deploying a precision guided weapon of otherwise identical characteristics. Not without discovering some sort of electrical component which becomes more resistant to damage the harder it is thrown, anyway.

Precision guided weapons fired from cannons are good for extending the lifespan of existing artillery complexes, to a point, which is usually around 105-122mm calibers. They are extremely bad for new weapon complexes when a missile can be procured for less money per kill pretty much all the time. Even missiles falter in the face of silly robots like Coyote, though, which I guess you can call a missile even if it isn't reactive artillery.

You completely ignored why I said THE FY2016 DATA was a poor choice of reference.

Not that LRLAP was a bad comparison, just the FY2016 data.

Why?

DOD buys munitions at such tiny rates that mass production reduction costs really never enter into it except for the biggest orders of dumb ammunition. The last few years of recorded costs for M982 Excalibur are around $180k per unit, for instance. Even the boom years of GWOT's averaged $28k higher than your estimate and the last time DOD bought them in the near quintuple digits, it was around $10k higher than your $68k.

https://www.dacis.com/budget/budget_pdf/FY20/PROC/A/6600E80100_16.pdf

These things are not cheap.

No, they're not.

I will also not that the last few years have had a significant increase in the guidance methods of Excalibur, going from pure GPS to GPS+laser to what sounds like the full Stormbreaker triple-mode seeker, which is obviously a much more expensive chunk of hardware than a simple GPS guidance chip. The trajectory shaping option was a software upgrade, so was relatively inexpensive and I believe was back-fitted to all shells in inventory. And don't forget inflation.

• GPS+Laser was an incorporation of existing technology (M712 Copperhead), though I'm guessing it required a redesign of the physical shell body for to make space for the laser seeker.
• Stormbreaker is a $200k weapon, when the basic GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb 1 is a $40k weapon (both costs from FY2021). So I'd expect the Excalibur HTK to be on the order of $225-250k, assuming that the Stormbreaker seeker was already sufficiently hardened for cannon launch. And more if they had to spend development money hardening the components.
• I don't have an estimate on costs for the trajectory shaping, though the cost per shell gets spread across all shells in inventory because it was a software revision that could be applied to all Excalibur rounds.
• Inflation. What cost $68,000 in 2015 would cost $85,395.34 in 2022 per Westegg Inflation calculator.

DOD budget tends to include parts and support costs for a unit. The $68k comes from Raytheon and the Foreign Military Sales costs. Note that the FY2015 cost per shell for Excalibur was $259k across 7500 rounds purchased, while the very next year FY2016 cost per shell had dropped to $68k.

The major driver of cost for CLGPs is the man hours needed to assemble such a compact munition and the shock hardening of the electronics, for production and R&D, respectively. The ease of assembly of a rocket versus a CLGP, and the lack of R&D cost for their electrical components (they can use commercial chips and often do) to be matured, makes them very effective and amenable to mass production. Far more than any CLGP has ever been.

You'd need to seriously overhaul how CLGPs are produced to see any sort of gains in their unit costs, at least when it comes to comparable rocket artillery, because you aren't going to be able to reduce the cost of the electronics R&D in producing shock hardened components. It's actually a decent argument for something like the USS Vesuvius's dynamite guns but that's just a cold launch rocket or a torpedo tube these days.

Conversely, cannon shells are denser, which means more can be stowed in a particular arrangement, as ammunition density is higher, which is about their only serious use argument. LRLAP had a similar range to GMLRS but was nearly a meter shorter. No one seems willing to foot the bill for this, obviously, since apparently even buying new-old warships to carry more of the big rockets is cheaper in practice. This is rather different for a widespread howitzer which can already fire a CLGP (Copperhead) and has explicit storage zones for them.

Anyway this thread is about Starstreak, not the merits of CLGPs versus guided missiles. The point is that CLGPs are somewhat counter-intuitive in that their small size belies their extreme relative costs versus rockets. It's a bit like a warship in that making the guided projectile bigger makes it cheaper, at least to a point, and what you lose in munition density with a rocket you gain in lower unit costs per stowed kill.

The economical choice will always be firing a guided missile versus a burst of CLGPs.

So why are people looking at CLGPs for CRAM and anti-drone, and not missiles?

 

[Kat Tsun]

So why are people looking at CLGPs for CRAM and anti-drone, and not missiles?

Institutional brain rot? Why did the USN look at a CLGP, instead of something simpler and cheaper, like a Mk 41 adapted for GMLRS or NATACMS which could fit inside the oodles of Mk 57 PVLS of the Zumwalt? They did downsize the NRL and other knowledge institutions.

Like I said, it's counter-intuitive that CLGPs are more expensive than missiles per target engagement. They're small, tiny projectiles, like a rocket, and they hit things too. The rocket is more expensive because it's bigger. It's the same thing with ships: people assume small ships are cheaper than big ones, because it's counter-intuitive that making a warship larger will also make it cheaper.

A Starstreak proper would be a lot cheaper than trying to adapt the supersonic darts of the Starstreak to be fired from a 35mm Oerlikon.

 

[Voltzz]

Lockheed, Rheinmetall pair up to build Europe-made rocket launcher

The companies have an eye on the business of replacing the Bundeswehr's MARS 2 weapons.

www.defensenews.com

The GMARS solution proposed by the two companies – with the G denoting Germany – would be similar to HIMARS, but with a much larger chassis, provided by Rheinmetall, and a double loadout capability with two rocket pods instead of one, Bromberg said.

The chassis would be based on Rheinmetall’s protected, off-the-shelf HX 8x8 to maximize both parts’ commonality and interoperability with the existing, and growing, HX fleet, a Rheinmetall spokesperson said in a June 23 email. It would be built in Vienna and measure about 12 meters long, although the dimensions are still being finalized, they said. A HIMARS truck measures about 7 meters long.

Lockheed’s launcher-loader component would then be integrated onto the back of the truck, with overall integration efforts taking place in Germany.

“It’ll be our entrée into the European market with a European-produced version of rocket artillery … that can be offered throughout Europe,” Bromberg said.

Some components of the system would have to be procured from the United States through so-called combined foreign military sales and direct commercial sales, he noted. The Rheinmetall truck would be procured via direct commercial sale, he added.

The industry pair is also in conversation with German weapons maker Diehl for additional elements to be made locally, per Bromberg. “We’re in industry discussions right now about what can be produced or assembled in Europe, in terms of rockets,” he said.

Rheinmetall is interested in providing rocket motors, “which is a very viable option,” Bromberg said. Meanwhile, Diehl could provide some of the warheads along with Lockheed components. Those discussions haven’t ended yet, but Lockheed and Diehl are “well on our way to establishing what that relation is,” he noted.

Once under contract, the initial five GMARS systems could be delivered for testing and acceptance as early as 2025. “Then, if the Germans wanted to have additional capability in the interim, they could request from the U.S. government to buy straight HIMARS, and then use that for a stopgap,” Bromberg said.

Rheinmetall could have the chassis ready for integration within months of a contract signature, the company spokesperson said.

Should Germany choose to support its production, GMARS will feature about 80 percent commonality with the HIMARS munitions packages and logistics chain, Bromberg noted. It will require three personnel to operate, the same as HIMARS.

“We know that our HIMARS munitions will fire off anything GMARS that we do with Rheinmetall,” Bromberg said. “We know Germany has already been approved to fire these rockets on their older systems. So this will be a natural transition, as we present a new launcher to fire our munitions.”

 

[timmymagic]

DOD buys munitions at such tiny rates that mass production reduction costs really never enter into it except for the biggest orders of dumb ammunition

That is not true.

Look at JDAM, APKWS, PGK or SDB1...

If the DoD is buying at tiny rates what on earth is the rest of the World doing....

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1672584127026176001

View: https://twitter.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1672584127026176001?s=20

 

[Kat Tsun]

DOD buys munitions at such tiny rates that mass production reduction costs really never enter into it except for the biggest orders of dumb ammunition

That is not true.

Look at JDAM, APKWS, PGK or SDB1...

If the DoD is buying at tiny rates what on earth is the rest of the World doing....

Closing their indigenous factories and consolidating defense industries across political blocs internationally, obviously. Ukraine suggests even with 1980's level of accuracy like that brought on by Crusader or Paladin still requires millions of shells to be expended per year.

 

[Flyaway]

Ukraine appears to be a step closer to obtaining the U.S.-produced Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) short-range ballistic missiles, which can hit targets at about 200 miles away with a significantly more powerful kinetic punch than any other precision guided weapon in Kyiv's arsenal today.

Ukraine Situation Report: U.S. Warming To Sending ATACMS

The Biden administration appears to be closer to sending Ukraine two weapons it has long-sought, ATACMS and cluster munitions.

www.thedrive.com

 

[timmymagic]

Another one for @TomS list of M270/HIMARS potential payloads....

TD has done a good write up on it a while ago that includes the GMLRS bits, but didn't have the FFLMM munition.

Land Precision Strike - Think Defence

Land Precision Strike will rapidly engage relocatable high value targets in warfighting and lower intensity operations

www.thinkdefence.co.uk

From DSTL's The Science Inside 2022

"Deep Fires Rocket Systems: A single platform with multiple effectors, capable of independent precision targeting of threats out to 150km. Dstl is working with industry to develop a missile to engage high value, time sensitive moving targets (Land Precision Strike) and a dispensing rocket payload that provides target acquisition, kinetic and non-kinetic effect against multiple dispersed targets (long range area effect)."

LPS we've seen already. The Dispensing Rocket Payload is GMLRS-ER with Outrider UAS and a new FFLMM, a development of the Fury munition that uses LMM components. This could mean the arrival of Thales lo-cost seeker head for the FFLMM and by default LMM...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1676531411421913089

View: https://twitter.com/JakOSpades/status/1676531411421913089


GMLRS-ER with payloads

https://imgur.com/58trqZH

View: https://i.imgur.com/58trqZH.png


Slide 1

https://imgur.com/8is6Erz

View: https://i.imgur.com/8is6Erz.jpg


Slide 2

https://imgur.com/Ez3lWdU

View: https://i.imgur.com/Ez3lWdU.jpg

Outrider UAS

Outrider has been around for a while. It was developed by Lockheed Martin UK and is ITAR free. Believe it is the ex Insyte/Hunting Engineering that developed it.

Lockheed Martin Unveils a New Lightweight Canister Launched Unmanned Aircraft System at the Defence and Security Equipment International Exhibition (DSEI)

Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) unveiled a new small unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that has been designed and developed in the UK at the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI). OUTRIDER...

news.lockheedmartin.com

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaHDOETFOvw


New FFLMM - Development of Fury/FFLMM - Marketed in the US by Textron as Fury

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mecLCLmFiR8

 

[TomS]

So, one rocket dumps three ISTAR drones over the target area and then the next rocket delivers three submunitions based on the drone targeting data. Interesting CONOPS.

 

[timmymagic]

So, one rocket dumps three ISTAR drones over the target area and then the next rocket delivers three submunitions based on the drone targeting data. Interesting CONOPS.

Thats a bit that I'm not sure on. The cutaway GMLRS-ER looks like it has 2 payload sections that can each accomodate 3 rounds. Fury isn't a big munition, and granted the one seen on the slides is a 'Enhanced Fury' with new folding wings, possibly slightly longer body (although I suspect that might be the change in seeker). Fury is 680mm long, by 70mm diameter. If this seeker increases length to say 700mm I'd still have thought there was space for 2 sets of 3 in a GMLRS-ER....similar story with Outrider in terms of size, even in its parachute slowed release container. In a 7 metre long munition I think its 2 racks of 3.

Fury has a glide range of c10km from 10,000 release, but from a higher release point, like it could get easily from this system you might get 30km+ with the longer wings...with the Outriders searching for targets before hand you could effectively cover a huge area.

 

[TomS]

Fury is 680mm long, by 70mm diameter. If this seeker increases length to say 700mm I'd still have thought there was space for 2 sets of 3 in a GMLRS-ER

Very rough pixel-counting suggests the straight-sided warhead section of ER GMLRS is about 4 calibres long, so ~40 inches or just over 1 meter.

 

[timmymagic]

Fury is 680mm long, by 70mm diameter. If this seeker increases length to say 700mm I'd still have thought there was space for 2 sets of 3 in a GMLRS-ER

Very rough pixel-counting suggests the straight-sided warhead section of ER GMLRS is about 4 calibres long, so ~40 inches or just over 1 meter.

Just the 3 then...

Wonder if they'll use the additional spave to extend the Outrider...could be interesting if they also included a Switchblade 300 style warhead as well, so that when their search for targets is complete they could also have a secondary use as a loitering munition.

 

[Voltzz]

In 1995 the German company Wegmann was working on making the M270 (MARS in German service) air-transportable in the C-160 Transall. For that purpose they developed a quick detach mechanism to allow for the vehicle and launcher to be transported in separate planes. There were also some smaller changes to the vehicle cabin necessary to make it fit. Three planes could in this configuration transport two M270. As far as i can tell this project never went anywhere.
Source

 

[Forest Green]

Two pod HIMARS.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1687503051798761472

View: https://twitter.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1687503051798761472?s=20

 

[TeourdBeourglaer]

https://www.stripes.com/branches/ar...s-marcos-balikatan-exercise-9923537.html[/URL

http://They were "Training" all HIM...c to Hypersonic RAM/SCRAMJET powered AShM...)

 

[jsport]

http://They were "Training" all HIM...c to Hypersonic RAM/SCRAMJET powered AShM...)

says unreachable

 

[GTX]

Two pod HIMARS.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1687503051798761472

View: https://twitter.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1687503051798761472?s=20

Also an autonomous/uninhabited version I see.

 

[GTX]

US Approves $975 Million Military Sale of HIMARS MLRS to Australia | Defense News August 2023 Global Security army industry | Defense Security global news industry army year 2023 | Archive News year

US Approves $975 Million Military Sale of HIMARS MLRS Multiple Launch Rocket System to Australia

www.armyrecognition.com

 

[timmymagic]

Another load of good info from Gabrielle Molinelli on the UK's plans for M270 recapitalisation and improvement.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1693918982179352958

View: https://twitter.com/Gabriel64869839/status/1693918982179352958


Confirms what we know already...

• GMLRS continues
• GMLRS-ER
• PrSM
• LPS...which must be the CAMM/Brimstone mash-up

But whats unclear is the 'Area Effects Demonstrator - Alternative Payloads'. Is it one thing, or multiple?. Could be the Alternate Warhead, resurrection of SMArt? But also could be the FFLMM and Outrider combination mentioned a few posts earlier...or a mix. AW I would have thought would just be incorporated in the GMLRS and GMLRS-ER purchases without too much fanfare.

EDIT: It does appear that it is the FFLMM and Outrider combination. That is going to be very interesting.

Hopefully we'll also be looking at GLSDB when it sees combat, its utility as a cheaper long range munition to bulk stocks out could be very useful, and at least keeping abreast of JFS-M which could offer a cheaper and complimentary long range capability alongside PrSM.

Either way its good news, all launchers upgraded to A2 standard, near doubling of fleet (including recovery), huge increase in capability and range...

EDIT: To add....I'm surprised there hasn't been mentioned of Soucy's Composite Rubber Tracks in relation to M270 in UK service. It would appear they would make perfect sense, particularly with lower vibration. Although its a tracked vehicle we're not expecting it to negotiate piles of rubble in destroyed towns so the CRT makes a whole lot of sense.

 

[Apophenia]

...
EDIT: To add....I'm surprised there hasn't been mentioned of Soucy's Composite Rubber Tracks in relation to M270 in UK service. It would appear they would make perfect sense, particularly with lower vibration.

Composite tracks for British Army M270s did get a mention in connection with the upgrade announcement back in 2021. Though no mention of Soucy then (new tracks were made to sound more like a domestic British programme).

 

[timmymagic]

Composite tracks for British Army M270s did get a mention in connection with the upgrade announcement back in 2021. Though no mention of Soucy then (new tracks were made to sound more like a domestic British programme).

If it's CRT's it would have to be from Soucy. The only UK track manufacturer is William Cook, who do everything and also export a lot. They only do normal tracks. The CRT from Soucy is the only one out there that will handle the weights from AFV's.

William Cook Group

Cook Defence Systems is the world’s leading independent designer and manufacturer of tracks for armoured vehicles.

www.william-cook.co.uk

 

[timmymagic]

Additional info on the UK M270 recapitalisation courtesy of Gabi.

Small snippet of detail on the Land Precision Strike requirement (LPS, cross posted on the Asraam thread)....range is said to be 150km (93 miles)...which is a big lift on the 80km I was expecting from the LPIF programme that preceded LPS. Real gamechanging capability...moving targets prosecuted at 150km in any weather....

https://twitter.com/x/status/1694636973112045834

View: https://twitter.com/Gabriel64869839/status/1694636973112045834?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

 

[Forest Green]

"...against moving targets."

Oh, that's new and unexpected.

 

[timmymagic]

"...against moving targets."

Oh, that's new and unexpected.

LPS with the Brimstone seeker was always going to be used against moving/relocatable targets. It is after all the Brimstone seekers raison d'etre. But the 150km range is close to double what I was expecting....be interesting to see if they also have the EO/IR head in addition to MMW/SAL. The whole kill chain will have to be fast though at longer ranges, the Brimstone seeker will cover a decent area, but a target could, in the time it takes the missile to arrive, move out of the engagement box...there will have to be a 2 way datalink to allow updates.

 

[jsport]

 

[aonestudio]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1698703196028326064

View: https://twitter.com/RyszardJonski/status/1698703196028326064