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
Carl S       7/27/2007 8:12:24 AM
You are thinking inside the box there.  Theres no law of nature requiring a single pod or magazine.    There is also no imutable reason the ammo carrier has to be seperated from the launcher for long periods.  In the cannon artillery, towed or SP, we positioned the ammo vehicals according to requirements.  A rocket or missle launcher system with the same degree of flexibility would be vastly more usefull than the current systems I am familar with. 

When we worked the US Army MLRS of the 1980s & 90s into our fire plans its configuration as a one trick pony (well maybe two trick) was more than anoying at times.  Tac Air with PGM or rotor aircraft often had to resorted to where the long range MLRS did not have the appropriate ammo or precision for the targets.
 
Quote    Reply

murabit821       7/27/2007 8:35:09 AM
in Slovak case costs

Slovakian SP MLRS  RM70 MODULAR
 (price 2mil usd (year 2007 ) price  including logistic vehicles )

122/227mm
maximal range: 122mm (20km) 227mm  (various)
rounds 28x 122mm or 6 x 227mm


crew 3
weight 23t (without rocket block 20t)
8x8 tatra 815
lenght 9,2m
width 2,6 m
hight  2,6 m



Slovakian SP howitzer  ZUZANA 
(price 2,7 mil usd in year 2001)

155mm
maximal range 39,6 km
rounds 40
5-6 rounds per minute

crew 5
weight 29 t
8x8 tatra 815 (engine in rear)
lenght 13m
width 3,05 m
hight  3,5m


Battery and Battalion C2 and TA are same , Zuzana system is expensive and complicated  than MLRS MODULAR,
when is something constructed more complicated , than need more maintance
MLRS MODULAR compare to this ZUZANA is just  armoured truck 8x8 with Rocket block and crane  (plus GPS and PC)
in ZUZANA case training is of course more expensive ,  (i dont no actualy costs ,  Soldiers  also in training units dont know)
5 member crew compare to 3 crew , repairmen trainig is expensive (for ZUZANA you need Gun repairman )
Driver do no need driving training, just small week course (Slovakian army recruit drivers from civilian truck drivers ) and ZUZANA and MLRS MODULAR are aproximately civilian trucks with some different (8x8,  that in case ZUZANA, engine in rear make some difficult for drivers who are habitual listen engine (in Zuzana you miss engine  )
Zuzana is bigger than this MLRS MODULAR and weight more , than transport of MLRS MODULAR become easier
Zuzana and MLRS MLRS have aproximately same roads ability, offroad MLRS are better , because less weight
tactial radious on road ZUZANA (750km) MLRS MODULAR  (1000km)

also Slovakia have a lot of cheap 122mm un guided rockets in storages


i am wonder on 122mm JROF (GPS guides) price and precision , actualy i dont know
that 122mm rockets are more close to "replaced artilery round" than 227mm rockets



 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       7/28/2007 3:11:19 AM

You are thinking inside the box there.  Theres no law of nature requiring a single pod or magazine.    There is also no imutable reason the ammo carrier has to be seperated from the launcher for long periods.  In the cannon artillery, towed or SP, we positioned the ammo vehicals according to requirements.  A rocket or missle launcher system with the same degree of flexibility would be vastly more usefull than the current systems I am familar with. 
I don't actually understand this.  A pod containing mixed natures means heroic assumptions about the relative need for different types.  If you get this wrong you end up with a stak of part used pods.  I suspect this is the reason that to date pods have been single nature, you might still end up with a part pod (although with dumb munitions the fireplanning application can be designed to round off to the whole pod (been there, done that).  The pods with less required natures can be supplied to meet actual demand.  The only problem is the time taken to unload and reload a pod.
Gun ammo is different, you bcan have mixed nature ULC,and flatracks with ULCs containing differnt natures (either mixed or single nature ULCs).  The point is that with flatracks and ULCs the bty can swap ULCs around using their MHE or manually consolidate the contents of a ULC.

 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       7/28/2007 11:49:55 PM

You are thinking inside the box there.  Theres no law of nature requiring a single pod or magazine.    There is also no imutable reason the ammo carrier has to be seperated from the launcher for long periods.  In the cannon artillery, towed or SP, we positioned the ammo vehicals according to requirements.  A rocket or missle launcher system with the same degree of flexibility would be vastly more usefull than the current systems I am familar with. 
I don't actually understand this.

Think real hard about this part

"Theres no law of nature requiring a single pod or magazine."
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       7/29/2007 4:32:33 AM

Theres no law of nature requiring a single pod or magazine.    There is also no imutable reason the ammo carrier has to be seperated from the launcher for long periods.  In the cannon artillery, towed or SP, we positioned the ammo vehicals according to requirements.  A rocket or missle launcher system with the same degree of flexibility would be vastly more usefull than the current systems I am familar with. 
These are all statements of the obvious and irrelevant.  The point under discussion is whether or not a mixed nature MLRS pod is a good idea.  Mixed nature means the pod holds rockets with warheads of two or more different types.  If you are using a lnchr, eg M270 SPLL, which carries two pods then you can have a mixed load, one pod with one type of warhead the other pod with another type, no rocket science here.  However, newer light weight launchers are only holding one pod, which is an added complication. 
The problem with a mixed nature pod is that it's virtually impossible to predict the balance of natures that will be expended.  This will lead to part used pods, which either have to be abandoned or taken along for the ride.  Given the limited number of pods that a truck can carry this could become a logistic drag real soon.  With single nature pods you can always plan to shoot the entire pod, although with more expensive munitions this may not be very popular.  With single nature pods you can minimise the number of part used ones left over, and make adjustments in the logistic system to deliver pods with the more used warheads.  Topping up part used pods in the field has not been an option as far as I know. 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S       8/3/2007 11:09:04 AM
"These are all statements of the obvious and irrelevant.  The point under discussion is whether or not a mixed nature MLRS pod is a good idea. "

Sorry, I completely missed the statement limiting the initial discussion to mixed pod desireablity.   I see the use multiple ammo types from the same launcher as subject to engineering  & procedural solutions.  The same as so many other evolutionary advances in artillery of the 20th Century.  Using the examples of thirty year old MLRS technology to say it is to hard seems a bit silly to me.
 
Quote    Reply

neutralizer       8/3/2007 11:54:44 PM

"These are all statements of the obvious and irrelevant.  The point under discussion is whether or not a mixed nature MLRS pod is a good idea. "

Sorry, I completely missed the statement limiting the initial discussion to mixed pod desireablity.   I see the use multiple ammo types from the same launcher as subject to engineering  & procedural solutions.  The same as so many other evolutionary advances in artillery of the 20th Century.  Using the examples of thirty year old MLRS technology to say it is to hard seems a bit silly to me.
Actually its not really procedural or engineering its logistic.  Having procedures for dumping part used pods and having a salvage group retrieve them to wherever, then having re-engineered pods that enable launch tubes to be removed and replaced in the field.  Technically this is possible, whether its logistcally sensible and an effective use of logisitc resources is debateable. 
Actually the tube swapping is potentially being simplified because guided munitions don't need to be in tubes that are aligned in the launch assy with high precision (some assumptions here).  However, given the manpower implications I'm not sure that there would be great enthusiasm to re-create A&T pls/tps in btys as there was with HJ and Lance!  Neverthless, given the cost of guided munitions it offers advantages but whether these outweigh the costs is moot. 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/5/2007 9:52:48 AM
A 155 mm shell cost 1200 $.
And they are more efficient to penetrate ground of building with the steel strentgh of the shell envelop.
Unguided shell are also more accurate than unguided rockets.
Different use.Rockets are good to care submunitions or to replace high caliber shells.
 
Quote    Reply

murabit821       8/5/2007 5:44:47 PM
and what about guided rounds cost ?

that how much can cost 122mm guided rocket compare to 155mm guided shell



 
Quote    Reply

Jeff_F_F    Can tube artillery replace rockets?   8/10/2007 7:18:24 PM
This is crazy : 100 mile range from a 155mm gun tube?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics