M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS Developments

An Iskander probably costs more than a HIMARS launcher anyway and that Launcher has probably done >$100m of damage since it entered the war - pyrrrhic victory.
 
Last edited:
HIMARS systems have been almost certainly destroyed in the previous period, it's just there was no clear daylight footage of it (it's not like the russians would or should bother to have drones over every target destroyed). A few weeks ago i saw pictures on twitter of mangled HIMARS systems being discharged for repairs.
View: https://twitter.com/MyLordBebo/status/1756980135595577361
Damaged does not equal destroyed.
 
So in other words it was a sitting duck.
When you Tally up the number of enemy MLRS, artillery pieces, SAM systems (Buk-M2, Tors, Pantsirs etc.), counter battery radars, EW complexes, ground control stations, ammo dumps, large concentrations of personnel and even helicopter bases (ATACMS) we've seen HIMARS wipe on video, 1 dead launcher is not a bad innings. It's like bowling someone out after they've scored 1600 runs.:cool:
 
Last edited:
Damaged does not equal destroyed.
The point is, for whatever HIMARS (and whichever other western weapon) systems damaged/destroyed that happens to be filmed by the russians and released, there would be others destroyed/damaged that aren't on camera or pictures. Pretty sure there were claims of destroyed HIMARS in the past and i think pictures taken from afar, which were always denied by the western propaganda.
 
The point is, for whatever HIMARS (and whichever other western weapon) systems damaged/destroyed that happens to be filmed by the russians and released, there would be others destroyed/damaged that aren't on camera or pictures. Pretty sure there were claims of destroyed HIMARS in the past and i think pictures taken from afar, which were always denied by the western propaganda.
Yah... mainly because Russia claimed to have destroyed more than were sent within the first few weeks. And equally, all those videos we've seen of HIMARS blowing up Buk systems, troop concentrations, helicopter bases, enemy artillery etc. - there were probably more off video.
 
Russia has claimed ti have destroyed more Himars then their been made even if you add in the M270 numbers to the build amount.

Which is kinda impossible to actually do.

Throw in the fact that its kinda obvouis between a destroy Decoy and Real Mccoy?

Namely the Big O fireball as seen in the confirm video from the diesel going up along with what looks to be rockets going off.

And leaving out tge obvouis errors in how tge vehicles look...

Like a few claims was missing the Pod loading gear which cannot be removed so we can ignore that.

We can get a decent warm and fuzzy feeling on how many been deleted.

Which looks to be 1 destroyed, and 3 damage to depot level confirmed.

Compare to how much Russia stuff been sent to the big scrapyard in the sky?

Thats not a bad ratio. Sucks but its been over a year of fighting, surprised more havent been destroyed. Like the US Figured those things life expectations was a few weeks if they were lucky.
 
Pretty sure there were claims of destroyed HIMARS in the past and i think pictures taken from afar, which were always denied by the western propaganda.

Up till now all of those M142s Russia claimed to have destroyed turned out to be very accurate decoys, it turns out the Ukrainians are very good at making realistic decoys plus the Russians, as pointed out by other posters, claimed to have destroyed more M142s than the Ukrainians were supplied with.
 
It should also be noted that a lot of the same 6x6 truck chassis were donated as M777 prime movers, and that could also generate some false positives.

It is very hard to find and identify a launcher that is this small a road mobile. It is probably even harder to document the destruction if you do. I suspect this is not the first kill, just the first documented one, though the casualties are probably only a handful.
 
It should also be noted that a lot of the same 6x6 truck chassis were donated as M777 prime movers, and that could also generate some false positives.

It is very hard to find and identify a launcher that is this small a road mobile. It is probably even harder to document the destruction if you do. I suspect this is not the first kill, just the first documented one, though the casualties are probably only a handful.
I've seen a Czech RM70 mistaken for a Patriot Launcher too.
 
The destruction of a counter-battery radar is good as it means the Ukrainian batteries in that area don't have to worry so much being bombarded.
 
Another Russian SA-11 Gadfly battery destroyed by a GLMRS shot, how many SA-11 batteries destroyed does that make now?
 
Folks, I know the war in Ukraine is interesting for many of us but constantly posting tweets, comments etc that have very little or sometimes nothing to do with the thread topics is becoming really annoying. For example, the posts above referring to targets being hit is hardly relevant to the discussion on "M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS Developments" unless one was talking about some new form of rocket, warhead or targeting system.

Continued activity such as this will result in formal warnings and various bans.
 
Why not to look in dedicated GLSDB thread?
 
US Army conducted a live fire experiment with a newly upgraded M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, on March 27, 2024.Known as a legend in the field, the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (M270 MLRS) is a highly mobile, automatic system that fires surface-to-surface rockets and missiles from the MLRS® Family of Munitions (MFOM). Lockheed Martin is modernizing existing systems to protect soldiers with combat-proven reliability for decades to come. The company is upgrading launchers with new 600 HP engines, a fire control system, and an improved armored cab for customers, including the United Kingdom, Italy, and the United States, to ensure capability and support through 2050.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmnxQr4ue6A
 
Re:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmnxQr4ue6A



The video shows bog-standard if upgraded M993 Carrier Vehicles with M269 LLMs.

So what the heck is the illustrated vehicle? It resembles a stretched Bradley fitted with the Loader Launcher Module - albeit with some extra gubbins scabbed onto that M269.
 

Attachments

  • M270-upgrade.jpg
    M270-upgrade.jpg
    67.8 KB · Views: 8
Re:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmnxQr4ue6A



The video shows bog-standard if upgraded M993 Carrier Vehicles with M269 LLMs.

So what the heck is the illustrated vehicle? It resembles a stretched Bradley fitted with the Loader Launcher Module - albeit with some extra gubbins scabbed onto that M269.
I was wondering the same
 
Looks like it is just some kind of fictional vehicle. In fact the the launch cells do not even match the pods of a MLRS; they seem to more resemble PAC-3. Though it is weird that still is associated with the video.
 
Re:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmnxQr4ue6A



The video shows bog-standard if upgraded M993 Carrier Vehicles with M269 LLMs.

So what the heck is the illustrated vehicle? It resembles a stretched Bradley fitted with the Loader Launcher Module - albeit with some extra gubbins scabbed onto that M269.
Artstation artist title is Homo Front
 
Friendly Reminder that the US Military has no reason to tell the...

COMPLETE truth bout its gear abilities.

Since these type of small surprises can, has, and will come in handy in war.
In 1991, the Iraqis laid out their defenses based on what Janes said the ranges of the 120mm guns were.

They were expecting the US to have to stop at the AT ditches at 1.5-2km.

The US started engaging at about 3km on the move.



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.
ATACMs with a 500lb HESH warhead and good INS.



Ground launched SDB with old M26 rockets is a little redundant with GMLRS-ER. Plus those motors have to approaching their sell by date.
That's okay, Ukraine is going to use them in the next 6 months or less.



Apparently it had broken down and that's the only reason it was in one spot long enough to target.
That will get you every time...
 
Plus those motors have to approaching their sell by date.

The Ukrainians will use them as fast as they get them. As for GMLRS-ER making the GLSDB redundant I should point out the GLSDB is significantly cheaper also the concept of the GLSDB could be extended to include the SDB2.
 
Last edited:
I'm still confused as to why Raytheon hasn't made an interstage for the Stormbreaker.

It shouldn't be hard and I can't see why the adapter for the SDB1 hasn't had a SDB2 compatible variant designed (It wouldn't cost the DOD much money).
 
It shouldn't be hard and I can't see why the adapter for the SDB1 hasn't had a SDB2 compatible variant designed (It wouldn't cost the DOD much money).
SDB2 has a completely different tail shape.

And good luck getting Boeing to design something for a Raytheon product.
 
SDB2 has a completely different tail shape.

I'm aware of that, that's why I mentioned adapting the adaptor to mate with an SDB2.

And good luck getting Boeing to design something for a Raytheon product.

Does Boeing make the adaptor or does SAAB? If it's the latter it shouldn't be an issue. But given the success of the limited sue of the GLSDB in Ukraine so far I could see the US DOD finally take official interest in the missile and perhaps do a dual-source contract with Boeing and Raytheon in regards to the adaptor section.

On another note wouldn't the SDB1's launcher lugs be removed from the GLSDB variant as not only aren't they needed they add drag to its' airframe. Also what about encapsulating the SDB1 with a clamshell fairing (With an ogival nose) to extend the GLSDB's range by reducing drag, the clamshell fairing would split and seperate just before the adaptor unclamps and releases the SDB1.
 
The U.S. Army has expressed no interest in GSDB. While it might be a desirable solution for Ukraine, I doubt the Army wants a glide weapon with old rocket motors. GMLRS-ER extends range without the more vulnerable flight profile in a longer lasting munition. SDB-2 would be much more expensive than any of above and waste a lot of the GBU-53s capabilities if ground launched at a known target.
 
The U.S. Army has expressed no interest in GSDB. While it might be a desirable solution for Ukraine, I doubt the Army wants a glide weapon with old rocket motors. GMLRS-ER extends range without the more vulnerable flight profile in a longer lasting munition. SDB-2 would be much more expensive than any of above and waste a lot of the GBU-53s capabilities if ground launched at a known target.
It can engage moving targets like TELs in all weather. TEL for anything within range is now fair game, even if it's on the move after the shot revealed the TEL location.

If the Russians don't have any TELs for (missile type) they can't fire any more. No matter how many (missile type) they have in stockpiles.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom