Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 1/16/2006 10:26:12 AM EDT
the us army just told the air farce fuck off we can have the same accuracy as your expensive jdams but cheaper.

the terrorists hiding in builds in iraq just got very very very unlucky 200 pound warhead youch.


www.strategypage.com/htmw/htart/articles/20060116.aspx


No More Unguided MLRS Rockets

January 16, 2006: The U.S. is no longer buying unguided rockets for its 227mm MLRS multiple rocket system. All future purchases will be guided rockets. The primary guided rocket is the M30, carrying a 200 pound high explosive warhead, and using GPS for navigation. That means that at maximum range (over 60 kilometers), each rocket will still land within 10-20 feet of the aiming point. This gives MLRS the same accuracy as JDAM bombs. With the 60 kilometer range, one MLRS vehicle (carrying twelve rockets) or a HIMARS truck (carrying six rockets) can provide smart bomb accuracy for any troops within range. The smaller (200 pound) warhead is often preferred, particularly for urban fighting (where adjacent buildings may contain civilians.)



The bomblet version of the M30 warhead (carrying 404 bomblets), will no longer be used, mainly because the dud rate on the bomblets could not be pushed below one percent. That meant that each bomblet rocket would leave at least four live bomblets (the others having self destructed after a given period of time) left lying around, that tend to kill and maim civilians and friendly troops. In any event, the 200 pound high explosive warhead did the kind of damage the troops were most often looking for. The new rockets have a shelf life of 15 years. Some unguided training rockets will still be bought, but these have no warhead and a much shorter range. They are used just so the troops can practice a live launch of rockets.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:36:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:40:08 AM EDT
Pretty sure they didn't tell the AF to fu** off. Good that they can now take over some of those missions but they will never have the reach that the Air Force has.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:41:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 10:45:30 AM EDT by Max_Mike]
Apples and oranges…

When MLRS can hit targets 2000 miles away then they can tell the Air Force to piss off. JADAM can kill targets you cannot get MLRS near. I bet Army special forces put their money on Air Force JADAM... MLRS is not going to be real relevant to them most of the time..

Kinda preposterous to compare a tactical artillery piece with limited range to a weapon that can be used almost anywhere in tactical or strategic roles.

The Air Force and JDAM ain’t got nothing to worry about.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:44:08 AM EDT
They wont be telling the AF to fuck off.

The smallest air dropped JDAM is 250 pounds. Considering the MLRS is a rocket and therefore probably has the same percentage of warhead weight as explosive as a bomb does (unlike rifled artillery shells that had to have thicker walls and therefore less explosive) the small JDAM still has probably about a 10 percent bigger bang.

And you dont have to figure out how to lift a launcher into firing range. Not a concern in Iraq but important in Afghanistan.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:44:42 AM EDT
You need to double check your cost figures. 500lb JDAM is dirt cheap.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:46:05 AM EDT


They can't discontinue the "steel rain"!!!!

Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:50:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
They wont be telling the AF to fuck off.

The smallest air dropped JDAM is 250 pounds. Considering the MLRS is a rocket and therefore probably has the same percentage of warhead weight as explosive as a bomb does (unlike rifled artillery shells that had to have thicker walls and therefore less explosive) the small JDAM still has probably about a 10 percent bigger bang.

And you dont have to figure out how to lift a launcher into firing range. Not a concern in Iraq but important in Afghanistan.



Oh it is a concern in Iraq as well unless you can put a MLRS on every corner of a 120K grid spread over the entire country. They are not enough MLRS units to cover a 5% of Iraq.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:52:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ScottS:
You need to double check your cost figures. 500lb JDAM is dirt cheap.



Compared to previous guided weaponry ANY JDAM is dirt cheap . . . only the cost of the guidance system strapped to a dumb bomb. Unlike the cruise missile . . . several mil a pop for those babies.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 10:55:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jame_Retief:

Originally Posted By ScottS:
You need to double check your cost figures. 500lb JDAM is dirt cheap.



Compared to previous guided weaponry ANY JDAM is dirt cheap . . . only the cost of the guidance system strapped to a dumb bomb. Unlike the cruise missile . . . several mil a pop for those babies.



One thing I think I can guarantee is a JDAM guidance system strapped to a dumb bomb is going to be a hell of a lot cheaper than a MLRS guided rocket.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 11:05:41 AM EDT
Getting rid of the Anti-Personnel rocket is a big mistake, talk about neutering its effectiveness against troops that are spreadout.

For the record a less than 1% dud rate is nearly impossible, almost all other US munitions have a dud rate that hovers around at least 5% minimum. Sounds like some PC motherf#cker wanted this particular warhead done away with.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 11:06:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
They wont be telling the AF to fuck off.

The smallest air dropped JDAM is 250 pounds. Considering the MLRS is a rocket and therefore probably has the same percentage of warhead weight as explosive as a bomb does (unlike rifled artillery shells that had to have thicker walls and therefore less explosive) the small JDAM still has probably about a 10 percent bigger bang.

And you dont have to figure out how to lift a launcher into firing range. Not a concern in Iraq but important in Afghanistan.



Oh it is a concern in Iraq as well unless you can put a MLRS on every corner of a 120K grid spread over the entire country. They are not enough MLRS units to cover a 5% of Iraq.



Yeah but MLRS launchers do have either wheels or tracks, depending, and in Iraq thay can get almost anywhere with them.

In Afghanistan there is a lot more territory you cannot drive to within 120k of.
And if you have to fly it in- that kind of negates the advantage.

They need to see if they can make one with a bigger warhead and a shorter range. Or at least a heavier warhead, with tungstin in it, for bunkers.

And a thermobaric round might be fun too.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 11:33:21 AM EDT
JDAMs are dirt cheap. The guidance unit is only a few thousand dollars and it straps on to cheap dumb bombs.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 11:36:57 AM EDT
what i meant by telling the af to f off is for missions that require rapid real quick support as in troops under fire from a building or something and that mlrs is in range it will be quicker i think.



and for longer range mlrs atacks i think the mlrs can handle them out to 150 kilometers with the atacms. 1 big fat rocket that is very accurate.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 11:37:58 AM EDT
Beavis: huh huh huh you keep saying "strap on."
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 11:41:03 AM EDT
The last firm numbers I saw were ~$17000 per kit in late 1998. The latest estimates I've seen with some upgrades was still less than $30k.

Pretty pictures -
www.boeing.com/defense-space/missiles/jdam/jdamspec.htm

Link Posted: 1/16/2006 1:13:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:24:56 PM EDT
BTTTTTTTTTTT



Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:27:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By brassburn:
Now all they'll need is for someone to remove the ROE that makes any mosque and Pakistan a "get out of jail free" zone.



Fixed it.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 6:33:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crazyhorse705:
what i meant by telling the af to f off is for missions that require rapid real quick support as in troops under fire from a building or something and that mlrs is in range it will be quicker i think.

and for longer range mlrs atacks i think the mlrs can handle them out to 150 kilometers with the atacms. 1 big fat rocket that is very accurate.



The AF has never liked the CAS mission anyway, so I will doubt they care. THeir doctrine supports interdiction. Army doctrine wants CAS but always uses its own a/c platforms for interdiction.

Marines use HELOs for CAS why can't the army?
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:00:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:

Originally Posted By crazyhorse705:
what i meant by telling the af to f off is for missions that require rapid real quick support as in troops under fire from a building or something and that mlrs is in range it will be quicker i think.

and for longer range mlrs atacks i think the mlrs can handle them out to 150 kilometers with the atacms. 1 big fat rocket that is very accurate.



The AF has never liked the CAS mission anyway, so I will doubt they care. THeir doctrine supports interdiction. Army doctrine wants CAS but always uses its own a/c platforms for interdiction.

Marines use HELOs for CAS why can't the army?




have you heard they have the apache they just dont use it enough that and the a-10 horny hog.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:04:07 PM EDT
Wont the MLRS not be all-weather capable?
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:08:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ClayP:
Wont the MLRS not be all-weather capable?



So is JDAM, all-weather capability was one of the reasons for the program.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:10:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By crazyhorse705:

Originally Posted By LonePathfinder:

Originally Posted By crazyhorse705:
what i meant by telling the af to f off is for missions that require rapid real quick support as in troops under fire from a building or something and that mlrs is in range it will be quicker i think.

and for longer range mlrs atacks i think the mlrs can handle them out to 150 kilometers with the atacms. 1 big fat rocket that is very accurate.



The AF has never liked the CAS mission anyway, so I will doubt they care. THeir doctrine supports interdiction. Army doctrine wants CAS but always uses its own a/c platforms for interdiction.

Marines use HELOs for CAS why can't the army?




have you heard they have the apache they just dont use it enough that and the a-10 horny hog.



I know they have apaches. They always use them for interdiction in major combat. Unlike Marines who will do CAS with their cobras.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:11:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mcantu:
JDAMs are dirt cheap. The guidance unit is only a few thousand dollars and it straps on to cheap dumb bombs.



Its the associated costs of the plane needed top fly it to the target that may have been considered.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:35:28 PM EDT
the best part about the JDAM is that you dont have to depend on the air force pilot to put it where its supposed to go. the AF sucks at CAS* and with the JDAM all they have to do is push the button, a luxury we prevously could only enjoy in the rare instance a laser guided bomb was being used.

* A-10 pilots are exempt from my above statement. for reasons i cant explain they care about CAS making them a unique and treasured commodity. ill pass on AF CAS anytime i have the option in favor of NavAir or MarineAir unless they tell me i can have A-10s
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:54:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:

Originally Posted By mcantu:
JDAMs are dirt cheap. The guidance unit is only a few thousand dollars and it straps on to cheap dumb bombs.



Its the associated costs of the plane needed top fly it to the target that may have been considered.



bingo we have a winner i was thats what i was saying yeah jdam dirt cheap the bird that brings said jdam not so cheap.the mlrs just uses gas if it even has to move.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 7:59:06 PM EDT
imagine how much more dangerous the 82 and 101st airborne just got with this new rocket.


when the 82nd or 101st goes out now they have the himars which can be carried by the c-130 the airbornes work bitch. 6 mlrs rockets that our guided would put a damper on any ones parade.



this is the best thing going for light mobile units.bet the spec ops guys wish they had these when they went in to afganistan in 2001 guide rocket 1 each to a cave hole ouch.

now only if these came in thermobaric warhead.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:19:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2006 8:20:17 PM EDT by DvlDog]
think of the all-weather capability this gives. when CENTAF weather at Shaw AFB SC gives a forcast that screws you out of CAS you will still have MLRS on your side. on more than one occasion in the mountains near the paki border the AF told us "no" so our guys had to fly Cobras in weather way below minimums risking themselves and their aircraft to be there for us because the AF didnt want to take off and land in it. 3min after take off an F-16 is above the shitty weather while the cobra guys are down there in it risking CFIT. its bullshit, and knowing MLRS will be there for us from the army will be very comforting.
Link Posted: 1/16/2006 8:40:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DvlDog:
think of the all-weather capability this gives. when CENTAF weather at Shaw AFB SC gives a forcast that screws you out of CAS you will still have MLRS on your side. on more than one occasion in the mountains near the paki border the AF told us "no" so our guys had to fly Cobras in weather way below minimums risking themselves and their aircraft to be there for us because the AF didnt want to take off and land in it. 3min after take off an F-16 is above the shitty weather while the cobra guys are down there in it risking CFIT. its bullshit, and knowing MLRS will be there for us from the army will be very comforting.




that sucks donkey balls that the air farce could not help you guys out good thing you had cobras that were willing and able to help.

and with this new addition to mlrs maybe you guys wont have to rely so much on air support and if the weather is bad them not showing up.the mlrs dont give to craps about weather give it the cordniates they will blow the shit sky high.


im glad this is now comming on line something they should have had back in 2001 just took them awhile.
Link Posted: 1/17/2006 6:57:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/17/2006 6:58:20 AM EDT by ScottS]

Originally Posted By crazyhorse705:

Originally Posted By WildBoar:

Originally Posted By mcantu:
JDAMs are dirt cheap. The guidance unit is only a few thousand dollars and it straps on to cheap dumb bombs.



Its the associated costs of the plane needed top fly it to the target that may have been considered.



bingo we have a winner i was thats what i was saying yeah jdam dirt cheap the bird that brings said jdam not so cheap.the mlrs just uses gas if it even has to move.



Buzzer, we have a loser who doesn't understand sunk costs. The airplanes are already bought and paid for. Their cost isn't figured in, as shifting to GMLRS will not "save" the money already spent on the airplanes. They're there, and will fly. The cost of the airplane doesn't figure into the cost of delivery of the weapon, any more than the cost of the MLRS vehicle does.

That being said, I have no opinion on the relative "value" of GMLRS vs JDAM to the war fighter, and any discussion on this vs that is just stupid. Both arrows will be in the quiver, to be used at the appropriate time. No one is choosing one and discontinuing the other. Nice to have more options.
Top Top