• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Guided MRLS - As good as air power?

Kirkhill

Fair Scunnert WASP.
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
7,253
Points
1,160
New Precision MLRS Helps In Battle for Tal Afar

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

.....Precision has psychological effects  

"We can be accurate, we can be lethal and we can also have a very low collateral damage estimate," McGuire said. "We can engage the target without compromising the safety of the civilians nearby and also take out the terrorists or insurgencies that engage our forces."  

Operation Restoring Rights' senior U.S. officer, Col. H. R. McMaster, commander, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, weighed in on the combat effectiveness of the new system. "The GMLRS proved itself in combat in Tal Afar and provided the regiment with tremendous capability. It not only was able to hit enemy positions with a great deal of precision, but was able to limit collateral damage."  

The physical and psychological effect the system had on the enemy in Tal Afar - who was trying either to successfully defend against an attack or goad the Coalition into destroying large portions of the city - was extremely valuable, McMaster said.  


GMLRS better than smart bombs?  

The first GMLRS weapons arrived at Fort Sill, Okla., about 18 months ago and 3rd Battalion, 13th FA Regiment has been training with the system since June 2004. GMLRS was designed to reduce the amount of collateral damage in combat, giving commanders on the ground the ability to take out a terrorist or insurgent target accurately and effectively without creating the excess damage other artillery and air-dropped munitions may cause, McGuire said.  

"This (system) allows ground commanders to precisely attack small targets, even in an urban environment, with even lower collateral damage than precision bombs used by the U.S. Air Force," said Hannah.  

If the aircraft are unable to support a mission because of communication or weather issues, ground commanders will still have access to the new MLRS system, which provides the same capabilities as the air power, McGuire said.....

The GMRLS carries a 200 lb unitary HE warhead (not grenades).  The air force usually operates with 500 lb bombs and larger although it has had access to 250 lb bombs and is currently fielding a new generation 250 lb long range, precision strike, small diameter bomb.  They are going to smaller bombs because wiith precise delivery large bombs were overkill endangering civilians and forcing their own troops to stand off further from the target for safety reasons.  This increased the time necessary to enter a building after impact allowing enemy forces more time to react.  Larger bombs have been used in the past because they could not be delivered precisely on target.
 
As good as airpower ?

Interesting question . Better than Canada's current airpower ?, IMO , yes . Not trying to belittle the AF but they don't seem to deploy the heavy stuff to often .

Better than US airpower ? Not so sure . As you mentioned smaller bombs may solve the problem of "collateral damage "

I certainly think Canada needs the MLRS rocket ( the light , truck mounted version though , HIMARS ) as deep attack is a capability we really don't have . Plus MLRS can really lay down some serious FFE  ;D

Craig

 
Perhaps it would also be easier to get a couple of trucks and a few boxes of missiles into theatre on a boat than a couple of aircraft with all the associated infrastructure?
 
Gents,

To compare artillery to close air support (air power should be viewed as a theory or doctrine vice characteristic on the battlefiled)  is to compare apples to oranges.  You can't.

Artillery should be viewed as a key capability and provides a tactical level commander with flexible, all weather, firepower within a limited range. 

 
Kirkhill said:
Perhaps it would also be easier to get a couple of trucks and a few boxes of missiles into theatre on a boat than a couple of aircraft with all the associated infrastructure?

It sure would . But there is a support tail for those rockets to consider also .

Gunner , point(s) noted and taken .

Craig
 
Gunner,

I think the comparison is being made to compare GMLRS effects of precision with those of the Air Force, which may very well be a valid question.

In this day and age of the force employment concept where we want to strike and shape the enemy before we overmatch with direct fires, the commander must use all his assets the best.  Now in an area where there is considerable overlap in capability, there is considerable scope for discussion on the merits and validity of GMLRS vice air power.  Much of the same has gone on about the use of mortars vs guns in urban settings.

Some things that GMLRS can offer that air power cannot:

- multiple, simultaneous strikes
- quick reload and in action times
- all weather capability
- cheaper cost

Limitations of GMLRS:

- logistical chain vulnerability
- airspace considerations and restrictions
- vulnerability of the system

Some things that air power can provide:

- greater range
- variety of weapons
- airspace coordination much more streamlined
- self BDA

Limitations of air power:

- not all weather
- cost
- reaction time to priority engagement can be protracted.

I know for a fact there are others, and good discussion can be had on the subject.  ;)
 
I think what attracted me to the article was the issue of whether technology is driving the type of support available from the ground closer to that available from the air. 

I always understood that some of the principle advantages of artillery were all weather availability, speed of response, sustained fire.  Airpower could perhaps deliver a concentrated weight of fire.

As emphasis in the current operations shifts away from sustained fire and weight of fire to precise fires in waiting the air force has had a lead in precision delivery but the only way they can get rounds on target in a timely fashion is to keep aircraft circling, an expensive proposition.  Artillery can keep the rounds at seconds notice for low cost.  With GMRLS ranges of 70 to 100 km and ATACM ranges of 300 km ( I believe), and the launchers being closer to FEBA than an airfield is likely to be found perhaps the range advantage of aircraft is being reduced.

The other item of confluence was the technology of the delivery platforms: as fighter-bombers like the CF-18 are being challenged by UCAVs, as UAV technology improves generally, as GMRLS technology improves, when do systems like the GMRLS start being seen as single usage UAVs - as replacements for some of the CF-18 roles?

If the GMRLS is just an aerial delivery platform then couldn't the payload potentially be as varied as the payloads carried by the CF-18 (allowing for the 200 lb weight limitation)?

No answers.  Just questions from an interested amateur.

Cheers :)
 
Just a follow-up for you Kirkhill....



Matthew.  :salute:

==================================================================================================================

New Precision MLRS Helps In Battle for Tal Afar
US Army
Mon, 26 Sep 2005, 09:04

BAGHDAD: The newest addition to the Army's artillery arsenal was successfully fired this month during Operation Restoring Rights in Tal Afar, Iraq, and Operation Sayaid in Iraq's Al Anbar Province. 

The Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System destroyed two insurgent strongholds from a distance of more than 50 kilometers away. Battery B, 3rd Battalion, 13th Field Artillery Regiment fired eight guided rockets in Tal Afar Sept. 9 and 10, killing 48 insurgents, said Maj. Jeremy McGuire, deputy of operations, Force Field Artillery, Multi-National Corps - Iraq. 

Battery A, 3-13 FAR fired another six rockets Sept. 11, destroying the Mish'al Bridge and preventing its use for insurgent forces in the Al Anbar province in Western Iraq, McGuire added. 

Battery tests GMLRS Unitary rockets 

Last month B Battery, 3/13th FAR conducted the first in-theater tests of GMLRS Unitary rockets, according to Lockheed Martin. These rockets were designed to greatly reduce collateral damage by providing enhanced accuracy up to 70 kilometers away, according to the defense contractor. 

When the GMLRS was used in Tal Afar Sept. 9 and 10, damage to surrounding buildings was almost non-existent and the target's destruction was absolute, said Capt. Robert J. Hannah, 3-13th FAR. 

"This system is something the artillery community has been working on for some time," McGuire said. "It was tested in the continental United States, and now we've demonstrated in Iraq that we're extremely effective with it." 

Precision has psychological effects 

"We can be accurate, we can be lethal and we can also have a very low collateral damage estimate," McGuire said. "We can engage the target without compromising the safety of the civilians nearby and also take out the terrorists or insurgencies that engage our forces." 

Operation Restoring Rights' senior U.S. officer, Col. H. R. McMaster, commander, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, weighed in on the combat effectiveness of the new system. "The GMLRS proved itself in combat in Tal Afar and provided the regiment with tremendous capability. It not only was able to hit enemy positions with a great deal of precision, but was able to limit collateral damage." 

The physical and psychological effect the system had on the enemy in Tal Afar - who was trying either to successfully defend against an attack or goad the Coalition into destroying large portions of the city - was extremely valuable, McMaster said. 

GMLRS better than smart bombs? 

The first GMLRS weapons arrived at Fort Sill, Okla., about 18 months ago and 3rd Battalion, 13th FA Regiment has been training with the system since June 2004. GMLRS was designed to reduce the amount of collateral damage in combat, giving commanders on the ground the ability to take out a terrorist or insurgent target accurately and effectively without creating the excess damage other artillery and air-dropped munitions may cause, McGuire said. 

"This (system) allows ground commanders to precisely attack small targets, even in an urban environment, with even lower collateral damage than precision bombs used by the U.S. Air Force," said Hannah. 

If the aircraft are unable to support a mission because of communication or weather issues, ground commanders will still have access to the new MLRS system, which provides the same capabilities as the air power, McGuire said. 

Urban combat requires precision 

Before sending ground troops into Tal Afar during Operation Restoring Rights, there were a number of buildings that needed to be destroyed in preparation. Two separate targets were successfully destroyed by the guided MLRS system. The missiles were fired from an area more than 50 kilometers away. 

The targets were two housing complexes that had been fortified and were known to contain at least 40 insurgents, McGuire said. 

"Each of the targets (was) pre-planned," said Maj. James Daniels, Regimental Fire Support Officer, 13th FAR. "Before we fire on a target, we have to prove the structure is linked to the insurgency, using intelligence from units in the field that have been engaged from the structure or have made contact with the terrorists around the structure." 

Troops on the ground engaging the enemy will also benefit from the missile system's small blast radius and effectiveness, improving their survivability and safety. The troops will be able to maneuver closer toward their aggressors to maintain a better visual of their targets, said Sgt. 1st Class Paul Luketich, senior fire control non-commissioned officer, FFA, MNC-I. 

"Basically, it's a safer munition for our troops and nearby civilians, but a more deadly munition for the insurgents," Luketich said. "It's the best munition in the arsenal today." 

'GMLRS can save lives' 

The intent of Coalition forces in combative situations is not to demolish an entire city block to eliminate a single insurgent or group of terrorists. Their intent is to purge the country of insurgency to help stabilize security and improve the quality of life for the citizens of Iraq, McGuire said. 

This new missile system helps that cause dramatically, McGuire said. Commanders on the ground will have another option to engage the enemy with, allowing them to make better-informed decisions focused on the safety of innocent civilians as well as effectively countering Iraq's insurgency, McGuire said. 

"We're engaging terrorists who are reckless and have no regard for civilian life, as they have demonstrated day-in and day-out," McGuire said. "It's very difficult for us to make the population believe that our choice is the best. 

"It's very important that we've come up with this weapon. It will help the commanders make the call that will not only accomplish the mission and keep the population safe, but rid the country of terrorists as well." 


URL of this article:
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_003525.php

==================================================================================================================
 
I think the comparison is being made to compare GMLRS effects of precision with those of the Air Force, which may very well be a valid question.

STA Gunner,

I think both of our points are valid as I stand by my comments on the utility of comparing MLRS vs CAS.  Certainly the validity of use of a GMLRS vs a large air delivered munition is not in question.

See you at BTE??

Cheers!
 
Not me, buddy.

Our colleague, my replacement, has the honour of attending.

Cheers
 
Seen.  I haven't seen him since Bosnia in 01.  I'll keep my eye out for him.

Cheers!
 
I came across this article in the December National Defence Magazine - it covered everything from Viper Strikes mounted on helos and UAVs to ATACMS and Naval Gunfire Support. An overview.

One quote stood out in the context of this thread - "HIMARS reduces ground troops' reliance upon close-air support to protect them from enemy fire."

HIMARS is the truck mounted version of the MRLS system.

The Army is cooperating with the Marine Corps in developing the high mobility rocket system. HIMARS, a Lockheed Martin product, is mounted on a wheeled chassis. It can be transported by C-130 Hercules aircraft, which can take off and land on relatively unimproved airfields, and it can fire all rockets and missiles in the current and future MLRS family of munitions, said HIMARS Deputy Product Manager John Andrews from Redstone Arsenal, Ala.

HIMARS fulfills a critical Army and Marine Corps need for increased long-range lethality for early-entry forces and improved, faster deployability, he said.

In addition, HIMARS reduces ground troops' reliance upon close-air support to protect them from enemy fire. "The Air Force and half of the Marine Corps believe that air power is the only way to provide fires," said Marine Maj. William D. Rice, his service's precision-fires liaison at Redstone. "But air can't operate in bad weather. HIMARS can help pick up that slack. It doesn't worry about the weather."

The Marine Corps received its first two HIMARS in 2002, and the Army in June equipped its first unit-the 3rd Battalion, of the 27th Field Artillery Regiment at Fort Bragg, N.C.-with the system. Eventually, the two services expect to acquire more than 900 of them.

The Marines, however, have an amphibious issue with HIMARS, Rice conceded. "There's no problem putting the system on a ship," he said. "Where it gets hairy is putting the rockets on a ship." The Navy, he said, wants to be sure that if a rocket is dropped while on board a ship, it won't explode.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/dec1/Services_Focus.htm
 
"ATACMS' extreme accuracy, ease of integration with other systems and vertical impact to limit collateral damage make it an irreplaceable weapon for the Joint commander." 
300 km range, vertical delivery, 500 lb warhead, 3-10m CEP.

"The system has a much more efficient logistical footprint, while expanding the traditional target-set for Army TACMS."  More efficient than what? Perhaps the original TACMS?

If we had access to the HIMARS system then this round would be available to the arty in addition to the 70 km, 200 lb warheads of the GMRLS.  It makes for an interesting adjunct/alternative to Canadian air support.

Lockheed Martin Receives $47 Million For Production of Unitary Army Tactical Missiles
 
 
(Source: Lockheed Martin; issued Oct. 11, 2006)
 
 
 
DALLAS, TX. --- Lockheed Martin has received a $47 million contract from the U.S. Army for the purchase of Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) Block 1A Unitary missiles in order to replenish the use of this system in recent activities in theaters of operation. 

Work on the contract will be conducted at the company's facilities in Dallas and Horizon City, TX. Delivery of the missiles is scheduled for second quarter 2008. 

The ATACMS Block 1A Unitary Missile is combat proven in joint operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and is the latest addition to the current ATACMS family of munitions. The ATACMS Unitary variant provides for precision attack with limited collateral damage out to 300 kilometers for high-payoff, time-sensitive targets. 

“Combat-proven ATACMS adds to the concept of "joint fires interdependence" by offering the right munition to achieve the right effect at the right time, regardless of the color of the uniform you're wearing. 

“The Army's first surface-to-surface, long-range, all-weather, precision attack capability used in combat, ATACMS provides the Joint Force Commander an immediately available, lethal asset to attack time-sensitive and high value stationary or fixed targets in both open and constrained environments (complex/urban terrain). ATACMS will continue to provide a Joint complementary option by its inclusion in the air tasking order for planned attack and defeat of high value targets and/or in a support role to provide Joint suppression or destruction of enemy air defenses. 

“Its precision reach affords the ability to provide responsive, long-range lateral supporting fires as well as shaping fires that set the conditions for decisive victory. This flexibility enables support of non-standard and direct support missions in addition to the more traditional role of general support to a corps or Joint Task Force. Evolving tactics and techniques will enhance its utility well into the foreseeable future," said Col. Gary S. Kinne, TRADOC Capability Manager for Rocket and Missiles Systems at Fort Sill, OK. 

The ATACMS Block IA Unitary also has vertical impact capability, which translates in limited collateral damage. The system has a much more efficient logistical footprint, while expanding the traditional target-set for Army TACMS. 

"The soldiers who use ATACMS tell us frequently that it is simply an outstanding weapon system," said Rick Edwards, vice president - Tactical Missiles at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. "ATACMS' extreme accuracy, ease of integration with other systems and vertical impact to limit collateral damage make it an irreplaceable weapon for the Joint commander." 

The Army TACMS Unitary missile is a responsive, all weather, long-range missile, with a high explosive, single burst warhead fired from the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) family of launchers, including the MLRS M270A1 launcher and the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launcher. 

"We are proud to be asked to fulfill a supplemental requirement for our Army customer," said Greg Kavanagh, ATACMS program director at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. "More than 192 months of on-schedule and on-cost production of the ATACMS system is a record that speaks for itself." 


Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment
of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2005 sales of $37.2 billion. 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.16851726.1133540294.Q5BzxsOa9dUAAHeSPdQ&modele=jdc_34
 
As an Air Force guy who has been involved with CAS, BAI and all the other Air missions I can say that I definately believe we could use an MLRS or HIMARS capbility.  CAS is great when avail, however it is expensive to keep planes in the air.  One method being used in A-Stan by the US is employing B52, B1 and even Navy P3 Orions in the CAS role.  The primary weapon used is the JDAM, for example a B52 can carry 24, orbit all day overhead and drop as needed.  24 JDAMS on fighters would require anywhere from 8 - 12 jets.  B52 more cost effective.  The US Navy was using their P3 sub-hunters converted to carry Mavericks AGM, JSOW and JDAM, that's a platform with alot of endurance.

The army needs a long range arty system like HIMARS/MLRS, but what our Air Force needs is JDAM/JSOW capability.  I understand it is coming in the next CF18 mod.

We should have the total package, MLRS/HIMAR, attack hyelos, supported by JDAM/JSOW CF18.  Why not outfit our CP140 Auroras with JDAM/JSOW.  Hey, I am in favor of new tanks for the army, new SP arty (PH2000) would be nice.  Bottom line, even thought we have a small military, it can be effective, small but lethal if properly equipped! :bullet: :bullet: :cdn:
 
Of course the ultimate and logical end state would be a force of converted ICBMs in the prairies armed with Common Aero Vehicle's (CAV's) capable of deploying conventional bombs and hypersonic kinetic energy penetrates anywhere on Earth in >30 min. The Navy could join the fun with ships and converted SLBM's launching similar weapons with a response arriving in about 10 min.

Considering the CAV would be doing re entry at about Mach 20 before deploying the weapons, the actual warheads would not have to be very large to cause a vast amount of damage. Even if it slowed down to "just" Mach 5, a simple metal rod with a seeker at one end and tail fins at the other would devastate any bunker, trench line or practical vehicle.
 
Back
Top