Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Artillery Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Can MLRS replaced Gun Artilery ?
murabit821    5/12/2007 6:23:41 PM
What you mean , when gun artilery be replaced with MLRS in Slovakia we have MLRS which can fire both 122mm and 227 rockets is lookd like HIMARS but you can install MLRS pod with one ATACMS or 6x 227mm or 122mm pod with 28 rockets, also new kind of 122mm rocket was purchase with GPS guide system that this system can fire ATACMS , 227mm rockets, 122mm rockets and guided 122mm rockets
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
doggtag       8/10/2007 8:11:33 PM
Why is it crazy to see such ranges from tube artillery?
 
It should be inherently obvious that it'll be only a matter of time 'til better aerodynamics, better metallurgies, better propellants for both firing and explosive filler, better electronics that can withstand the launch stresses, and better servos to pack into the shell yet have enough oomph in their little motors to still be able to redirect the shell in flight...
 
It's called progress, and it shouldn't be all that difficult to actually expect we will one day no longer even be firing unguided ammunition, except for the bullets of small arms (which, given enough progress, nanotechnology may even allow guided, homing microshells).
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       8/11/2007 4:08:33 PM
Tis true. Some of the new technologies are trickling down from the program to provide precision guidance to the Navy's up and comming 200+ mile railgun.
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       8/11/2007 4:10:18 PM
But I have to wonder, if you have technology that can give a 155mm round 100 mile range, what can a 64Mj railgun be made to do?
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid       8/12/2007 4:07:48 PM

But I have to wonder, if you have technology that can give a 155mm round 100 mile range, what can a 64Mj railgun be made to do?

Was listed to be about 500km ranges for the 64 Mj railgun. We even had a thread on it back in '05

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/8-6263.aspx

Mind you, I'd love to see a variant of the 16inch gun railguns. I believe it would be referred to as a strategic artillery at that point.

 
Quote    Reply

olive-greens       9/6/2007 9:36:36 AM
Towed gun artilery? Definitely NO!
 
SP gun artillery? I am intrigued by murabit821's contention that MLRS are cheaper. Even if they are approximately the same cost, I would be interested in knowing. What are the weaknesses in MLRS replacing SP guns? Is there something in a SP team's specific brief that MLRS cannot fullfill at all?
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       9/7/2007 10:50:19 AM
"
Is there something in a SP team's specific brief that MLRS cannot fullfill at all?
 
"

Sustained volume of fire.  If for some reason you have to sustain a large mass of ammo on a target group the nuances of transporting and loading the rocket ammo interferes.  Since PGM are making such large scale sustained ammo expendentures less necessary its not a pressing problem.

Attacking hard targets.  Buildings ans common bunkers or entrenchments require a projectile/fuze that will enter the structure.  None of the MLRS or other rocket ammo available to me a decade ago was suitable for this.  The submunition distribution type and HE rocket projectiles were of little real value against a common reinforced concrete building or a properly built timber, steel, & earth bunker.  Common cannon HE projectiles with the fuse set to delay are fairly usefull vs such targets.  PGM cannon projectiles even more so.  There may be rocket projectiles for MLRS that now have decent penetrating ability, and which are available.  If so I'd like a update on them.

Cannon have a relatively high flexibility in ammo.  It takes just a minute or so to switch from firng one type to another, and with a little planning you can change back & forth in seconds.  Its easy to fire mixed ammo as well.  The rocket artillery are a bit more limited in ammo available, and the use of pods of uniform ammo types makes changing quickly problematic.  This was the core of the earlier dialoge between Nuetralizer & I.  Its within the current engineering capability to build a much more flexible firing and ammo handling system for rocket artillery.   With the same flexibility and variety of ammo as cannon MLRS systems would have the advantage in general firepower.  But I'm not aware of progress in that direction.
 
Quote    Reply

tenX    time on target   9/15/2007 4:16:03 PM
An advantage that tube arty has over missiles is the ability to do Time on Target missions.  This is a WWII invention where multiple shots from multiple guns are timed to land at the same time.  Supposedly captured Germans would say they thought the Allies had automatic cannons!  Arty that can vary the charge can even do this from an individual piece.  I suppose this could be done with multiple MLRS launchers, but not as easily.

TenX out
 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F       9/15/2007 7:16:28 PM
TOTs should be possible from rocket batteries. Only the first round is usually TOT anyway. All that matters is a known time of flight and the ability of the launch crew to control the time that the rocket is launched, which I can't immagine not being possible. Any round with a predictable ballistic trajectory will have a predictable TOF. TOT standards are +/- 3 seconds which should certainly be doable.
 
Weaknesses of rockets are rate of fire due to long reload time, cost per round, and ammunition flexibility. The last would be overcome if it was decided to go to an all rocket artillery force since the only reason it is a weakness is the choice to only use rockets for a few sorts of missions while using tube artillery for others. However part of the reason that many missions are reserved for tube artillery instead of MLRS is that those missions cannot be fired as effectively by a given number of MLRS launchers as they can currently be fired by the same number of artillery tubes. Ironically, the main one that comes to mind is smoke missions. I say ironically since the WWII nebelwerfer was originally designed for smoke missions, but it was based on a different paradigm than the MLRS: rocket artillery firing large volumes of simple rockets used for suppression and saturation attacks rather than rocket artillery firing fewer long range highly accurate rockets for precision attacks against high value targets.
 
Perhaps a worthwhile question should be whether it is appropriate to build a modern equivalent of the nebelwerfer/kateyusha firing PGM rockets or at least rockets with enhanced accuracy.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       9/16/2007 3:49:53 PM
"TOT standards are +/- 3 seconds which should certainly be doable."

As a 2d Lt FDO I once had my rounds land five seconds behind the other batterys in the bn TOT.  The wounds from that embarrasment still ache.
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    Tube Artillery   9/17/2007 5:54:14 PM
Try loading canister and hitting the company of bad guys at 200 meters with a MLRS
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics