Naval Version of MLRS

[koxinga]

From a materials handling point of view, I'm sure it'd be possible to come up with a transport mechanism that can bring up a loaded pallet then stow an expended one, but I wonder what kind of magazine arrangements you'd need ?

There is no need to speculate, this is how the Chinese did it with their Jianghu Type 053H1 516 converted to a one-off fire support ship (5 x 50/122mm MRLS).

Here is a series of photos showing the under-deck reload system, which is basically what you described.

 

[koxinga]

Some context on the 516. It is a one-off conversion circa 2005-2006, with 5 x MRLS, based on the Type 81 system. No further units are expected and the Jianghu's are being scrapped or sold to third world clients upon being paid-off.

 

[My2Cents]

There is no need to speculate, this is how the Chinese did it with their Jianghu Type 053H1 516 converted to a one-off fire support ship (5 x 50/122mm MRLS).

Here is a series of photos showing the under-deck reload system, which is basically what you described.

This appears to be a technology demonstrator, rather than a serious design.

• There is only one set of reloads. Granted it is not a large ship and the reloads are bulky, always a problem with MLRS.
• If you look closely at the 1st picture and the pictures in the second post it is likely that only the #4 launcher just ahead of the aft gun turret has a loader.
• The launcher shown in the 3rd photo of the 2nd post clearly does not have a loader.
• No indication what they did with the empties. Given the location even levering them over the side will be time consuming. Not a problem if they are loaded and unloaded dock side.

 

[kato]

• If you look closely at the 1st picture and the pictures in the second post it is likely that only the #4 launcher just ahead of the aft gun turret has a loader.

It's actually the two forward launchers that don't have a loader, while the three aft do. The Z position launcher has a loader starboard forward, the X and W launchers have a loader between them on the starboard side (feeding both?).

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The USN did actually design a magazine arrangement for a sea based MLRS trainable launcher in the 1980s. The pods were very space efficent and this LFS proposal had a very large magazine, 900 rockets per launcher with different ship configurations (some with a single and some with double launchers). The MLRS rocket is quite space efficent by naval standards. Then in the 1990s MLRS was proposed as a VLS application using the tech that later became GMLRS (ie self guided). Unfortunately this was canned by Congress.

 

[My2Cents]

It's actually the two forward launchers that don't have a loader, while the three aft do. The Z position launcher has a loader starboard forward, the X and W launchers have a loader between them on the starboard side (feeding both?).

Looked again at the picture http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=6019&d=1371960592 You are right about the Y position launcher, having a loader, but the other loader is clearly limited to the X position, and the W position does not have one.

 

[Michael Scott]

Naval MLRS on LCAC

I don’t know ether. I have often wondered if you could put these rockets systems on self-propelled barges to support both amphibious landing and for brown water operations at a reasonable cost. They could be brought to the area where they are needed buy a ocean going tug (you could lash eight at a time), and then they could operate on their own. I think it would be a cheap and flexible approach to shore bombardment and follow up ground support.

A nifty idea would be to use a few standard ISO shipping containers mounted on LCAC hovercraft. One would be for diesel power and fire control and the rest would carry the rockets. The conversion wouldn't need to be permanent, so the LCACs could still be used in landing operations. The ISO containers would be stored inside the LHDs when not needed.

Another way to do it would be a fire-support mission module for the new littoral combat ships; those are intended to be modular ships anyway.

 

[Gambit]

French upgraded MLRS system at sea ?

See SNAFU!: French studying putting MLRS on their amphibs to augment Naval Guns!

11/01/2016 – Airbus Defence and Space, acting on behalf of the French defence procurement agency DGA, recently completed a 'Naval LRU' study covering adaptation of the fire control system of the LRU / Upgraded MLRS unitary launch rocket system for use on French Navy Mistral-class LHDs.

The possibility of using the LRU / Upgraded MLRS on a Mistral-class LHD or equivalent ship to fire GMLRS M31 guided rockets at on shore targets opens up very interesting possibilities for military users. The GMLRS rocket offers a range (more than 75 km) and precision (less than 5 m error) far superior to that of fire support systems currently deployed by European naval forces.

The study, which covered only one aspect of the larger issue of navalising the LRU/ Upgraded MLRS system, addressed the question of the operation of the European Fire Control System (EFCS) on a moving platform in different sea states and examined the modifications that would be required to allow initialisation of the system and its munitions. The study defined and compared several solutions, established the feasibility of system modification without major hardware changes and proposed a roadmap leading to a demonstration.

The study was performed jointly by Airbus Defence and Space teams in Friedrichshafen and Elancourt, with support from Sagem and KMW.
Illustration of the LRU system in operation at sea on a Mistral-class LHD

 

[OPSSG]

^ Please post an introduction about yourself, so that forum members can pitch a response at the right level for you. And please read the forum rules - we expect posts to contain more than 1 line from members and copy pasting articles or blog posts alone (without your own commentary) is not acceptable.

Further to your post, I don't think that this French study will yield a tactically significant capability for the French forces - seemingly only against miserable and incapable opponents, with no counter fire capability.

The contract award is public record and first surfaced in September 2015 but it was awarded one year ago (December 23rd 2014). The value of the contract awarded to Airbus Defence & Space is 333,330 euros ($363,356 USD). The official aim of the contract is "Adapting the LRU system fire control for use on BPC" (Adaptation de la conduite de tir du système lru à une utilisation sur bpc). BPC is an acronym for command and projection vessel (Mistral class) while LRU is an acronym standing for unitary rocket launcher.

I have a limited understanding of naval matters but as I see it, to fire these rockets, the high value LHD (a capital vessel) would have to come within range of shore based artillery or rocket systems (not to mention shore based guided missile systems). Sanitisation of shore based threats by a naval task group for a LHD to come near, may not be a non-trivial task, against capable enemies (even capable insurgent groups).

It could suggest that the French Navy is on the lookout for coastal/land attack systems. It was reported that the French Navy found its current 76mm and 100mm guns to be insufficient in both range and lethality following operations in Libya (during which it conducted coastal fire support missions). Naval gun fire and rocket systems are useful and have a place in many scenarios - but without more context - a report of a test, is just a test. By the way, a state client is paying Sagem to develop better naval gun fire support software that is tied to a radar. That is an interesting development but unfortunately, there is limited public domain information available.

France is poised to enter a new era in defense strategy as threats and geopolitical factors have evolved at home and around the world, said Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian, recently. He also called for “strategic patience” in long-term policy. Without some background on the reasoning behind these studies (other than to satisfy client vanity), it is hard to understand the testing and development route ahead from this one reported test. The newsy blog you cite is less than credible to people with common sense, as he has his pet hobby horse theories that are less than logical.