Netfires - Tube Artillery - MLRS

[B.Smitty]

Not really, the 105 range isn't all that great -- 11,400m (charge 7); 14,000m (charge 8); 19,500m (M913 rocket assisted projectile -- and my spies tell me that has accuracy problems) and with the new 120 rounds edging toward a 13 click range and a RAP in the works, the advantage of the 105 is fading rapidly, my bet is that it'll be out of the inventory within 10 years, replaced by the M777 as production of that ramps up and it gets cheaper; that and the NLOS-C.

...

You should grow to love the 120 because it's going to be around for a long time while I suspect the 105's days are numbered.

Do new 105mm guns like the Denel G7 and the proposed BAE V2C2 gun, with their 32km range using BB rounds, change anyones thinking on the future of the 105mm howitzer?

[Ken White]

Do new 105mm guns like the Denel G7 and the proposed BAE V2C2 gun, with their 32km range using BB rounds, change anyones thinking on the future of the 105mm howitzer?

I'd go with the V2C2 105, the 120 Mortar and MLRS with no 155. However, the US Army isn't headed that way.

The long range 105 offers lighter weight and lower cube for ammo, a significant advantage. The 120 Mortar offers Infantry Cdrs excellent firepower and reasonably decent range with a more capable shell than the 105. The MLRS offers volume of fire/ HE, far more range and better accuracy than any 155 is likely to reach. However, there are some 155 advantages and that seems to be the way the US is going.

[B.Smitty]

I'd go with the V2C2 105, the 120 Mortar and MLRS with no 155. However, the US Army isn't headed that way.

The long range 105 offers lighter weight and lower cube for ammo, a significant advantage. The 120 Mortar offers Infantry Cdrs excellent firepower and reasonably decent range with a more capable shell than the 105. The MLRS offers volume of fire/ HE, far more range and better accuracy than any 155 is likely to reach. However, there are some 155 advantages and that seems to be the way the US is going.

MLRS only offers better accuracy when using guided munitions right? Unguided MLRS is far less accurate than unguided 155mm. Also, isn't munition cube for MLRS much higher than for 155mm?

I'd like to see us develop a smaller, guided rocket for MLRS; essentially something permitting more shots per pod, with smaller effects and hopefully cheaper per shot. A GPS-guided Israeli LAR-160 might be one option. Or the LockMart P-44. Or even a guided-GRAD.

155mm and 105mm seem complementary. 155mm (in 52 cal) has greater range, and far more ongoing munition development than 105mm. OTOH, 105mm is useful when ammo cube/weight is of critical importance (e.g. Afghanistan)

[William F. Owen]

I'd like to see us develop a smaller, guided rocket for MLRS; essentially something permitting more shots per pod, with smaller effects and hopefully cheaper per shot. A GPS-guided Israeli LAR-160 might be one option. Or the LockMart P-44. Or even a guided-GRAD.

IIRC, IMI has developed GPS and laser guidance packs for all artillery rockets over 70mm. They certainly have the mature technology to do it.
Even their trajectory corrected stuff is pretty accurate and pretty cheap.

[B.Smitty]

IIRC, IMI has developed GPS and laser guidance packs for all artillery rockets over 70mm. They certainly have the mature technology to do it.
Even their trajectory corrected stuff is pretty accurate and pretty cheap.

I read about their trajectory corrected stuff. Do you know how this works? Does it use a modified rocket that accepts guidance commands in flight? Or is it just using radar data from the previous, unguided shot to refine the next, unguided shot?

The later would presumably be less accurate, but perhaps a better complement to GPS guided rounds than the former.

[Fuchs]

Assuming it's still the old course correction stuff:

1. radar tracks projectile/rocket
2. computer predicts miss, calculates required correction
3. radio tells projectile to brake
4. projectile begins to brake at perfect time to minimize range error (creating a roughly circular dispersion; dispersion left/right is usually smaller than in range for unguided munitions)

Sorry, don't remember the correct arty terms for "range" & "left/right".


The simple correction for follow-on munitions has been used with modern rocket artillery afaik since at least the 70's and merely makes registering unnecessary (the first rocket can be set to timed self-destruct in order to maintain surprise for the full salvo).

[B.Smitty]

Assuming it's still the old course correction stuff:

1. radar tracks projectile/rocket
2. computer predicts miss, calculates required correction
3. radio tells projectile to brake
4. projectile begins to brake at perfect time to minimize range error (creating a roughly circular dispersion; dispersion left/right is usually smaller than in range for unguided munitions)

Interesting.

I wonder how the cost of a course correcting rocket compares to one using GPS/INS guidance?

[SethB]

MLRS only offers better accuracy when using guided munitions right? Unguided MLRS is far less accurate than unguided 155mm. Also, isn't munition cube for MLRS much higher than for 155mm?

I'd like to see us develop a smaller, guided rocket for MLRS; essentially something permitting more shots per pod, with smaller effects and hopefully cheaper per shot. A GPS-guided Israeli LAR-160 might be one option. Or the LockMart P-44. Or even a guided-GRAD.

155mm and 105mm seem complementary. 155mm (in 52 cal) has greater range, and far more ongoing munition development than 105mm. OTOH, 105mm is useful when ammo cube/weight is of critical importance (e.g. Afghanistan)

Unguided MLRS isn't particularly accurate, nor is the range that far. Even the extended range munitions can't get much further than some of the newer 52 caliber pieces. That said, you can fit a lot of submunitions in a small number of rockets. A pack of MLRS weighs something like 5,000 pounds and isn't small at all.

A smaller rocket would be something like NLOS but if it was just a grid seeker then there might have been fewer developmental issues. I've yet to meet someone who is willing and able to explain the differences between rockets and shells when they impact, with regards to penetration and terminal effect. If anyone has any insight I would appreciate it.

[Sumtingwong]

Seth,

I was an MLRS gunner about 15 years ago. At that time, the MLRS had a couple of different munitions that we worked with regularly. One was a missile, the other were rockets--submunitions in each. Shells explode on impact, the rockets release the submunitions in an air-burst at a specified altitude. MLRS doesn't have to be accurate, it is an area weapon.

[SethB]

Check. I'm going to be an MLRS guy here in a few months.

DPICM isn't used in either theater right now, which marginalizes the system from the start. The M31 provides a 51.5 pound HE warhead and is a PGM, so it has more use in current operations. The dud rate on older DPICM systems was 4% and they are now going to >1% dud rates in order to prevent UXB on the battlefield.

Danger close on MLRS is 2,000 meters. That is more than three times are far as tube artillery. With M30 or M31 you can get a lot closer. M30 uses a guidance system and DPICM.

There are a number of missiles as well, but with a 70-300km range (depending on which missile we are discussing) they are in a completely different class and employed much differently.

Which brings me to my initial thought when I opened this thread several years ago. There are a number of different fire support systems that have different advantages, disadvantages and methods of employment.

[SethB]

I'd go with the V2C2 105, the 120 Mortar and MLRS with no 155. However, the US Army isn't headed that way.

The long range 105 offers lighter weight and lower cube for ammo, a significant advantage. The 120 Mortar offers Infantry Cdrs excellent firepower and reasonably decent range with a more capable shell than the 105. The MLRS offers volume of fire/ HE, far more range and better accuracy than any 155 is likely to reach. However, there are some 155 advantages and that seems to be the way the US is going.

What about the limitations of the smaller shell? Not only can you fit less explosive or payload, but the incremental modernization of the 155 means that M795 from the DPICM family has an ECR of about 100M while M1 for the 105 is still only 35 meters? (Accepting that ECR is a somewhat dated term).

Can the difference be made up with accuracy and near precision munition, or massed fires? Is that the kind of thing that MLRS and HIMARs should focus on and leave more flexible and responsive fires to DS and organic FA and MTR units?

And for that matter should we have an anti-tank projectile for the 120?

ETA: What do you think of the M119A3 with DFCS?

[Ken White]

What about the limitations of the smaller shell? Not only can you fit less explosive or payload, but the incremental modernization of the 155 means that M795 from the DPICM family has an ECR of about 100M while M1 for the 105 is still only 35 meters? (Accepting that ECR is a somewhat dated term).

have no idea what ECR stands for...

Comparing the M795 with an M1 shell is apple / kiwi fruitish. Compare the bursting radius of the 795 (roughly 50m kill, 100m casualty) and the newer M913, M915, M1130 and Denel LR 105 with prefragmented shell can equal that. However, bursting / casualty radii are very dependent on fuze type, ground type, angle of arrival and thus range as well as other things -- bottom line is that the 105 is generally less potent than the 155 all things considered. That applies not only to HE but to submunition carriers, PGMs, Illum, WP -- all of 'em...

The question is does that difference impact tactically enough to justify the added weight of gun and shells plus charges. My vote would be no, it does not -- but then I'm a light guy...

The difference is made up by using MLRS / GMLRS -- and to be developed MRS rocket / missiles and launchers. Which offer more range and damage potential than will any 155 shell or possible improvement thereof.

Can the difference be made up with accuracy and near precision munition, or massed fires? Is that the kind of thing that MLRS and HIMARs should focus on and leave more flexible and responsive fires to DS and organic FA and MTR units?

Not an artillerist but my vote would be yes; perhaps if enough stuff is available to mass; yes.

And for that matter should we have an anti-tank projectile for the 120?

Yes

ETA: What do you think of the M119A3 with DFCS?

I think we should've bought the M118.

[SethB]

Doctrinally ECR is twice the radius at which you can expect one shell fragment per meter. There are other measures of lethality now.

As for ammunition choice, I'm not entirely sure what is current for the M119/105MM. Saw some stuff on the Denel ammunition that was very, very impressive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the M118 is just separate loading version the M119? And it looks like a longer tube...

The V2C2 is also an impressive piece of hardware (usual qualifiers about things that aren't finished yet apply) and it should be noted that none of the current 105MM shells are rated for the high MVs, which means new and hopefully improved rounds would have to be part of the package.

DPICM has pros and cons, but I think there is a lot of need for standard HE. The decision to prohibit DPICM use in Iraq and Afghanistan was apparently made not long after the wars started.

What did you think of the LAV III with a howitzer attached?

[Ken White]

Doctrinally ECR is twice the radius at which you can expect one shell fragment per meter. There are other measures of lethality now.

Number of fragments is a poor indicator of lethality; too many other variables. The old bursting radius criteria was obtained by popping off rounds in the center of concentric circles of silhouettes and estimating potential kills versus potential wounds. All such estimates are just that; munition effects are too unpredictable to be precisely stated. Not a prob, really, the estimates are adequate for planning purposes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the M118 is just separate loading version the M119? And it looks like a longer tube...

Longer tube, different shell, greater range, British (original) version. We insisted on the shorter tube and the old chamber due to vast stocks of older 105mm Ammo on hand. Economic choice versus combat effectiveness choice. Logical on the surface but could have been better worked around IMO.

...but I think there is a lot of need for standard HE.

Agree.

What did you think of the LAV III with a howitzer attached?

Yes with the Denel 105 (or similar) in a turret, no for the M777 piggy back. Though I'm not a fan of the LAV. It was a stopgap purchase of the cheapest available system due to the US Army's failure to develop wheeled vehicles after WW II.

Our northwest Europe experience in 1944-45 left the Army with many bad legacies...

[kaur]

(Experimental) Light Mechanized Infantry Regiment.

Order of Battle

Regimental Admin and Logistics Center

Battalion HQ

Light Mechanized Infantry Company
6x 8x8 ATV w/QJZ8912.7mm HMG
3x 8x8 ATV w/W87 35mm AGL
3x 8x8 ATV w/PP93 60mm Mortar
9x 4x4 ATV

Heavy Mechanized Infantry Company
3x Type 96 Main Battle Tank
3x Type 86 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV)
3x ZBD97 IFV

Fire Support Company
1x Company HQ FAV
1x FAV w/Minigun
1x FAV w/HJ-8 ATGM FAV
3x FAV w/W99 82mm Automortar
3x FAV w/Type 87 25mm/SAM
3x FAV w/QJZ8912.7mm HMG
3x FAV w/W87 35mm
1x 4x4 ATV w/JS 12.7mm Sniper Rifle

Artillery Battery
Battery HQ/Fire Direction Center
3x 82mm Mortar
3x PTL02 105mm Wheeled Anti-Tank Gun
3x 107mm Multiple Rocket Launcher ATVs

Recon Platoon
1x Command Jeep with 2x HN-5 MANPADS
2x Dune Buggy Jeeps w/Heavy Machinegun/HJ-73 ATGM
1x 4x4 ATV with PF98 120mm Recoilless Rifle
1x 4x4 ATV

Electronic Warfare Detachment

UAV Detachment

Medical Detachment (at least two 4x4 ATV ambulances)

http://www.china-defense.com/pla/lmr/lmr-6.html

http://www.china-defense.com/pla/lmr/lmr-3.html