M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS Developments

JWilly said:
What seems to be missing from the HIMARS ammo suite provided to Ukraine to date is a round specifically engineered to destroy modern Class 1 steel bridges with reinforced concrete decks...even though bridges are a key target category.

Certainly we've seen plenty of HIMARS bridge hits resulting in holes punched in decks, but I'm not aware of instances where one hit has caused failure of the underlying structure of a Class 1 bridge. Holes in decks can be patched quickly for light- or medium-weight traffic.

How much more effective would the ATACMS warhead be for that target category?

Perhaps what's needed by users in conflicts similar to the Ukrainian conflict, subject to the same deployment limitations as currently apply in that conflict, is an 80km-range version of ATACMS.
Click to expand...
ATACMS can carry a 1200lb warhead about a hundred miles.
 
sferrin said:
ATACMS can carry a 1200lb warhead about a hundred miles.
Click to expand...
Now, that! Would be very handy indeed having an MGM-140 with a very powerful warhead but relatively short range. It would be perfect for Ukraine.
 
I don’t think the US Army has 500 HIMARS. That is just a shocking number. That’s like replacing all of their Grads one for one with GPS guided rockets. That’s 3000 rockets in one single salvo; the AFU is operating with 4% of that number.
 
NMaude said:
What about an M26 (The US has hundreds of thousands of surplus M26 rocket-motors in storage) rocket used as a booster to launch a SPEAR 3?
Click to expand...

You could do that, like Ground Launched SDB1, but Spear will be an expensive munition. And I suspect the difficulties in acquiring targets at that range (you could be talking 200km) and then delivering a rocket accurately, in time, to deploy Spear, that then motors in at under m1.0 for a considerable distance (i.e. taking some more time) to then successfully acquire a target, a target that could have moved a significant distance during all the engagement time, with its expensive, but still short ranged sensors would be exceptionally difficult if not downright impossible. Ultimately you're going to need eyes on the target throughout the engagement to get Spear in the right area at the right time, and by doing that you've pretty much removed the need for as complex, and probably rare, a munition as Spear.

Personally I think Ground Launched SDB that reuses M26 motors, but is aimed at fixed targets is probably as good as it gets at present, and is certainly far cheaper than any other solution.
 
Josh_TN said:
I don’t think the US Army has 500 HIMARS. That is just a shocking number. That’s like replacing all of their Grads one for one with GPS guided rockets. That’s 3000 rockets in one single salvo; the AFU is operating with 4% of that number.
Click to expand...

US has around 440 HIMARS....mind you they've got over 1,000 M270 as well...
 
sferrin said:
ATACMS can carry a 1200lb warhead about a hundred miles.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's with a large submunition warhead. The only fielded version with a unitary warhead, Block 1A Unitary, carries a 247kg (544 lb) warhead to 300 km (187 miles). That's the range that makes it concerning, apparently.
 
NMaude said:
This has actually been successfully tested by Boeing so I'm wondering why it hasn't been implemented?
Click to expand...
It's a genuine mystery...you'd hope somewhere in the US or Sweden they're building them as fast as possible to take the pressure off the GMLRS stockpile.

It was seen again at AUSA in the last few weeks. But I do wonder that as the years have gone by if the number of available M26 rockets has declined or the remaining years they have of safe operation has reduced to make large scale conversion unfeasible..

Thing is....M26 rockets could be churned out for pennies...and SDB1 is a $25k munition...even with the coupling its far cheaper than GMLRS can ever be, admittedly with some advantages and disadvantages, its a real surprise that someone hasn't gone for it...
 
timmymagic said:
Thing is....M26 rockets could be churned out for pennies...and SDB1 is a $25k munition...even with the coupling its far cheaper than GMLRS can ever be, admittedly with some advantages and disadvantages, its a real surprise that someone hasn't gone for it...
Click to expand...

Well I hope someone brings this Zelensky's attention and gets him to contact Boeing.
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
Well I hope someone brings this Zelensky's attention and gets him to contact Boeing.
Click to expand...
To be honest I'd hope the UK and US would look favourably on it as a way of increasing stockpiles and reducing costs, plus some of the advantages it brings over GMLRS could have some utility.
 
Ground launched SDB with old M26 rockets is a little redundant with GMLRS-ER. Plus those motors have to approaching their sell by date.
 
Josh_TN said:
Ground launched SDB with old M26 rockets is a little redundant with GMLRS-ER. Plus those motors have to approaching their sell by date.
Click to expand...
Not really. MLRS/SDB is far more versatile than GMLRS-ER. More range, better warhead, more approach angles, etc. etc.
 
Josh_TN said:
Ground launched SDB with old M26 rockets is a little redundant with GMLRS-ER. Plus those motors have to approaching their sell by date.
Click to expand...
I'd agree about the motors...but...it will be dramatically cheaper than GMLRS or GMLRS-ER though, whilst perfectly capable of servicing most of the targets.
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
Ground launched SDB with old M26 rockets is a little redundant with GMLRS-ER. Plus those motors have to approaching their sell by date.
Click to expand...
Not really. MLRS/SDB is far more versatile than GMLRS-ER. More range, better warhead, more approach angles, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

It's not that clearcut.

Range for MLRS SDB is quoted as 150km, which is the same as GMLRS-ER. Warhead in an SDB 1 is 206 pounds with either 36 lbs of HE (penetrator warhead) or 147 lbs HE (low-frag blast warhead) while GMLRS Unitary and the ER version are using a ~195lb warhead with 51 lbs of HE. And they have demonstrated vertical arrival with GMLRS-ER.

So basically, GLSDB gets you some ability to do very low angle arrival for stuff like cave entrances and maybe to fly dogleg approaches. But it's also slower than a semi-ballistic GMLRS-ER round and more mechanically complicated because you need to separate the booster and unfold the fins in flight, etc.

I'd love to see unit costs for both but it is really hard to find apples-to-apples comparisons.
 
TomS said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
Ground launched SDB with old M26 rockets is a little redundant with GMLRS-ER. Plus those motors have to approaching their sell by date.
Click to expand...
Not really. MLRS/SDB is far more versatile than GMLRS-ER. More range, better warhead, more approach angles, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

It's not that clearcut.

Range for MLRS SDB is quoted as 150km, which is the same as GMLRS-ER. Warhead in an SDB 1 is 206 pounds with either 36 lbs of HE (penetrator warhead) or 147 lbs HE (low-frag blast warhead) while GMLRS Unitary and the ER version are using a ~195lb warhead with 51 lbs of HE. And they have demonstrated vertical arrival with GMLRS-ER.

So basically, GLSDB gets you some ability to do very low angle arrival for stuff like cave entrances and maybe to fly dogleg approaches. But it's also slower than a semi-ballistic GMLRS-ER round and more mechanically complicated because you need to separate the booster and unfold the fins in flight, etc.

I'd love to see unit costs for both but it is really hard to find apples-to-apples comparisons.
Click to expand...
SDB can come around from the back side and has a penetrating warhead.


 
TomS said:
I'd love to see unit costs for both but it is really hard to find apples-to-apples comparisons.
Click to expand...

It's going to be hard for Ground Launched SDB to cost more than half of the cost of GMLRS, let alone GMLRS-ER. It will come with some disadvantages though, you have to wonder if the Russian's would have had more success intercepting them than GLMLRS for example. But I think its a viable product. Lots of nations are going to be looking at HIMARS and M270 again and most cannot afford to fill their armouries with GMLRS at >$160,000 a pop. Even the US can't....they've only got 3 reloads for each launcher that they have...god knows what the Poles think is going to fill the 200 HIMARS and 300 Chunmoo they're looking at...
 
In regards to the MLRS SDB assuming those ~400,000 M26 rocket-motors haven't expired they are bought and paid for already so effectively free, the SDB I is $US25K apiece and the only thing new that needs to be made is the adapter to mate the SDB I to the M26 rocket-motor so the new round would be a little over $US25K a pop.

On another note has there been any consideration to mating the SDB II to an M26 rocket-motor?
 
timmymagic said:
Josh_TN said:
Ground launched SDB with old M26 rockets is a little redundant with GMLRS-ER. Plus those motors have to approaching their sell by date.
Click to expand...
I'd agree about the motors...but...it will be dramatically cheaper than GMLRS or GMLRS-ER though, whilst perfectly capable of servicing most of the targets.
Click to expand...

I feel like savings wouldn’t be that great - you’d either have to update the launcher fleet to interface with the glide bombs or else rebuild the rockets such that they could be fed targets with the existing launcher hardware and software. And if you’re integrating SBD with old M26 rockets, you aren’t buying much if any range over the new ER rounds and you’re shipping less HE in a slower package. From what I’ve read the ERs aren’t going to be dramatically more expensive than the existing rounds. SBD doesn’t seem worth the hassle of integration when you have hundreds of 5th gen fighters that can be delivering them already.
 
Josh_TN said:
I feel like savings wouldn’t be that great - you’d either have to update the launcher fleet to interface with the glide bombs or else rebuild the rockets such that they could be fed targets with the existing launcher hardware and software.
Click to expand...

The Boeing/SAAB team will have already thought of these issues and dealt with as they've successfully demonstrated the concept years ago.

Josh_TN said:
And if you’re integrating SBD with old M26 rockets, you aren’t buying much if any range over the new ER rounds and you’re shipping less HE in a slower package.
Click to expand...

It's more flexible that the GMLRS and for example as far as I know the GMLRS can't perform dog-leg manoeuvres like the SDB I can.

Josh_TN said:
SBD doesn’t seem worth the hassle of integration when you have hundreds of 5th gen fighters that can be delivering them already.
Click to expand...
Fifth generation fighters aren't the end all and be all and the Russian invasion of Ukraine proves the need for such a system. The MLRS-SDB would be perfect for Ukraine short of getting the ER version and ATACMS.

On another note I'd love to see the same thing attempted with the SDB II.
 
Josh_TN said:
SBD doesn’t seem worth the hassle of integration when you have hundreds of 5th gen fighters that can be delivering them already.
Click to expand...

If you have it you don't need to risk a $100 million dollar aircraft every time you want to take out a target. Also the rocket launcher will have a shorter reaction time.
 
Also for one few million dollar jet.

You can get a few dozen launchers and a couple hundard of each of say 4 different missiles. GMLRS, GMLRSER, GMLSDB, PRSM/ATACAM.


Also you can do cheap SEAD work with them as well.

The Newer SDBs do have a anti radiation function that allows them to lock onto jammers and radars irc.

Fire a couple at an enemy SAM site right before an SEAD attack on the same site?

Oh that will make lives so much FUN for those operators.
 
MBDA is looking at UK and Polish funding of Land Precision Strike Missile.
This mates Brimstone seeker to a new longer CAMM technology incorporating missile of larger diameter to accommodate existing Brimstone seeker systems.
 
Firefinder said:
The Newer SDBs do have a anti radiation function that allows them to lock onto jammers and radars irc.
Click to expand...
They don't. SDB2 (Stormbreaker) utilises a tri-mode seeker (SAL, MMW and IIR) with GPS and INS. To attack a missile defence system in a SEAD or DEAD role it would need the host platform, or other networked asset, to locate the enemy system and then launch at it relying on the MMW to correctly identify the system and attack, or a datalink for man in the loop with the IIR to select a target, or illumination for the SAL mode to work. You could use it just GPS/INS only but realistically you'd want the main sensors to be available.

It's a totally unrelated weapon to the the SDB1. So Boeing aren't going to be expending any effort sticking it on an M26 rocket...SDB1 is GPS/INS or SAL only. Not much use against an AD system unless you know its precise location prior to launch.

SDB1 is made by Boeing
SDB2 is made by Raytheon
 
NMaude said:
In regards to the MLRS SDB assuming those ~400,000 M26 rocket-motors haven't expired they are bought and paid for already so effectively free, the SDB I is $US25K apiece and the only thing new that needs to be made is the adapter to mate the SDB I to the M26 rocket-motor so the new round would be a little over $US25K a pop.
Click to expand...
I think a fair few will be life expired or already dismantled. But new production of a new M26 wouldn't be an enormous cost. Not sure how complex the adaptor and release mechanism would be but it would add a bit to the cost. Latest figures for SDB1 have it at c$40,000 per unit.
NMaude said:
On another note has there been any consideration to mating the SDB II to an M26 rocket-motor?
Click to expand...
Never seen any, but as SDB2 is fairly new I suspect it would take a while. Plus Boeing, the manufacturer of SDB1, is working with Saab on GLSDB, can't see them being that keen on mating up a competitors (Raytheon's) product.
 
Firefinder said:
Also for one few million dollar jet.

You can get a few dozen launchers and a couple hundard of each of say 4 different missiles. GMLRS, GMLRSER, GMLSDB, PRSM/ATACAM.


Also you can do cheap SEAD work with them as well.

The Newer SDBs do have a anti radiation function that allows them to lock onto jammers and radars irc.

Fire a couple at an enemy SAM site right before an SEAD attack on the same site?

Oh that will make lives so much FUN for those operators.
Click to expand...

I think you were referring to the MBDA SPEAR 3.
 
zjz said:
Firefinder said:
Also for one few million dollar jet.

You can get a few dozen launchers and a couple hundard of each of say 4 different missiles. GMLRS, GMLRSER, GMLSDB, PRSM/ATACAM.


Also you can do cheap SEAD work with them as well.

The Newer SDBs do have a anti radiation function that allows them to lock onto jammers and radars irc.

Fire a couple at an enemy SAM site right before an SEAD attack on the same site?

Oh that will make lives so much FUN for those operators.
Click to expand...

I think you were referring to the MBDA SPEAR 3.
Click to expand...
MBDA Spear (not SPEAR 3, thats the UK MoD Programme name) does not have anti-radiation homing. It has a dual mode MMW and SAL seeker head, with GPS and INS navigation alongside. Like SDB2 it relies on the host platform to detect any hostile emitters prior to firing. The missile would then use its sensors and datalink to prosecute the target.

There is another Spear variant in development called Spear-EW, but that operates as a stand in jammer or decoy. It will have sensors that can detect and classify emissions, but not for the purposes of homing to destroy but to actively jam.

The UK did use the very interesting ALARM missile for SEAD/DEAD, but retired it some time ago when it needed an expensive MLU. Spear will in effect become a SEAD/DEAD munition, but not in the traditional homing on emissions manner.
 
NMaude said:
aonestudio said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1591150601156857857
View: https://twitter.com/in20im/status/1591150601156857857
Click to expand...

That is NOT good news.
Click to expand...

That was inevitable - anything sent into Ukraine has to be assumed compromised after some period of time. Which goes for both sides, by the way...

The post seems a bit odd though, as one would assume at least one of the GMRLS to have malfunctioned and crashed. And recovery would be a top priority for technical intelligence. So - propaganda to make people feel good? An attempt to scare off other weapon donations?

At least for the US/NATO, one has to assume that some version of mass-produced guided MRLS will be coming from the Russians/Chinese in the next 5-10 years. The difficulties Russia is facing now will be faced by Western forces in the future, but at least we get a chance to learn from Russia's experience to plan for that.
 
Is that the same as this M31?

Maybe some similarities but I would say not. It could be the front end of an non precision guided M26 ?
 

Attachments

  • 1F117EC8-3FBF-4FF7-A4B0-3F632FAFDAFC.jpeg
    1F117EC8-3FBF-4FF7-A4B0-3F632FAFDAFC.jpeg
    305.6 KB · Views: 30
Last edited:
DrRansom said:
NMaude said:
aonestudio said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1591150601156857857
View: https://twitter.com/in20im/status/1591150601156857857
Click to expand...

That is NOT good news.
Click to expand...

That was inevitable - anything sent into Ukraine has to be assumed compromised after some period of time. Which goes for both sides, by the way...

The post seems a bit odd though, as one would assume at least one of the GMRLS to have malfunctioned and crashed. And recovery would be a top priority for technical intelligence. So - propaganda to make people feel good? An attempt to scare off other weapon donations?

At least for the US/NATO, one has to assume that some version of mass-produced guided MRLS will be coming from the Russians/Chinese in the next 5-10 years. The difficulties Russia is facing now will be faced by Western forces in the future, but at least we get a chance to learn from Russia's experience to plan for that.
Click to expand...

Just like how the US Army learned from 1st Chechnya to pull off 2003, really.
 
Moose said:
Some random twitter account who posts a lot of Russian propaganda posted some blurry photos with no sourcing. Maybe don't overreact.
Click to expand...

If that's Russia's Foreign Material Exploitation lab, I'm not losing a lot of sleep. Pretty sad set of lab bench equipment.

Also, reverse engineering technology like this isn't as straightforward as sounds. And with GMLRS, all they will learn is that it's GPS guided, which they knew already. Having access to a copy won't allow them to easily design some special countermeasure to GPS.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom