Re:
Actually you have addressed very little. This is a classic case of armchair generalship feed by a healthy dose of ignorance of the nature and purpose of Joint Fires and the weapons under discussion.
lol. Again generalities and poor attempts at personal insults without addressing specifics. Can't address non-specifics.
Firstly there is more to cost of a system than just buying one type of ammunition. Excalibur is part of a 155mm artillery system and does not supplant other types. Also your cost benchmark assumes you have to fire a minimum number of Excalibur rounds to achieve a result. What about when one round is all that is needed? Not every target needs a 203mm artillery shell (GMLRS unitary equivalent).
I'm not contending that HIMARs should supplant the howitzers in Australia's case. In fact, as I have mentioned, I understand why the army went with they did.
Secondly, its not just my cost benchmark.
Thirdly, you're assuming that 155mm can handle all targets as well. If that's case, the Americans and all the other users of the MLRS/Himars must be incredibly dumb to have the M270 and Himars. We all know how credible such assumptions are.
What you fail to recognise is what Himars can do, and its application in a well-developed army.
One applies the correct tool to the mission.
But HIMARS/MLRS cannot shoot the greater majority of missions required of field artillery? So who is going to provide those missions?
You're assuming a MLRS only arty force. That's not the contention of the rusi.org article nor mine. The consideration of weapons like 120mm mortar etc used in conjunction with MLRS has been debated on DT before and demonstrated in actual wars by armies like those of the Israelis. I'm too lazy to repeat that just to cure ignorance borne out of an incorrigible attitude.
In any case, your station that the himars cannot shoot the majority of missions required by field artillery is also incorrect.
FM3-09.22 Chapter 1 Field Artillery Mission, Roles, Capabilities, and Tasks
That it is incorrect is not surprising if one only assumes that unitary GMLRS is the only ammo for the MLRS. It is also a waste to use a HPT attack capable weapon on low value missions. Its like stating the F-35 should be used for MG ground strafing missions.
Before I can forget this statement it needs to be understood. It doesn’t make sense. Are you trying to imply that the greater lethality of the GMLRS Unitary means it can be less accurate?
Let me put it in simple terms. A smaller warhead = smaller blast radius. A larger warhead = larger blast radius. CEP = 50% of shots land within x range (which in excalibur's case = under 20m whilst for GMLRS = ~10m).
What you have failed to realise is that CEP does not equate to 100% of shots landing on a target. The chance of a excalibur hitting a target is significantly less than that of a GMLRS by virtue of the warhead size. Especially when targeting a HPT, it doesn't make sense not to maximise pk.
Of course, one can take into account factors like collateral damage etc. But what I've mentioned is on a ceteris paribus basis.
Again you are only providing a single HE effect on a point target. What about all the other missions required of artillery? Who is going to provide that when you replace SP155s with HIMARS. Also as range increases so does time of flight. It takes two minutes for a 155mm or MLRS rocket to reach a range of around 30km. GMLRS is going to take over five minutes to reach a range of 70km. I think most soldiers would prefer the established relationship of having an artillery battery within 10km of their position and providing a time of fight of under 30 seconds. This is far more than just a responsiveness issue but has a lot to do with safety and accuracy.
Again, this is borne by your assumption that an army should only have a MLRS only arty force. That is not my contention.
If time to target is the only consideration, then we can all go for a mortar only force which has better reaction time than the 155mm.
It is funny how you compare time for GMLRS at 70km range with 155mm at 30km range. Why not compare like for like.
Target at 70km range: GMLRS = 5min (assuming your numbers), 155mm = never (cos its out of range).
Target at 30km range: GMLRS = 2min (assuming your numbers), 155mm = 2min.
So which is better? lol.
Having said that, your assumption of round speed is also suspect. Understand himars round may actually travel at ~mach 2.5 (850 m/s) which is higher than mach 2 (assuming ~700 m/s muzzle velocity) for a 155mm round. That's not even taking into account fire control speed differences.
Time to target is a consideration. If you understood what himars can do, you'd realise that himars actually reduces time to target as compared to other assets eg air support (or are you arguing that Australia's army does not need air support).
I don’t know where you found this fiction. GMLRS is actually better at short ranged shots than legacy MLRS rounds because it does not have to follow a ballistic path. Also with a unitary warhead it can be used at shorter ranges with actual warhead detonation unlike legacy MLRS rockets that need to be fire to at least 10km so as to provide enough impact velocity to trigger the submunition warheads.
I didn't know that when the US army states "GMLRS’ guidance system will provide consistent, improved accuracy from the minimum range of 15 kilometers to a maximum of 60 to 70 kilometers.", they actually mean 10 km.
http://sill-www.army.mil/famag/2003/MAR_APR_2003/MAR_APR_2003_PAGES_17_19.pdf
The 155mm can be used as a direct fire weapon firing at chickens 2km away. However, that's not what its designed for either.
The GMLRS was not designed for short-ranged shots. It was designed for long-ranged shots (now in excess of 90km).
The closer one sites an arty to the FLOT, notwithstanding the benefits, the higher risk it exposes the arty battery to counter-fire missions. That's another benefit of the longer ranged himars.
Now as I mentioned above MLRS rockets have no problems with clearing crests nicely at long range because their apogee is very high. But at short and medium (with a close crest) it has real problems with clearing crests. MLRS was actually designed to have a low apogee so as to stay under the field of regard of Soviet counter battery radars.
The flight path is a function of launcher elevation. If one chooses to minimise apogee, then greater round velocity at lower elevation can be equal to same or higher range for lower round velocity at higher elevation. However, that does not mean M270 or himars can't use high elevation to fire rockets. If the M270 or Himars uses max elevation, are you saying that the apogee will then be low? That would indeed be truly illogical.
You don’t understand what crest means. For a M26 MLRS to clear a 6,000 foot high crest said hill needs to be 5km away the rocket will not land at a range less than 25km.
I checked several dictionaries for the definition of crest as a verb
Crest - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
It means what I intended it to mean. As you appear to have a problem with English, I will state it in a easier to understand manner. A MLRS rocket can go higher than a 6000 foot high mountain to hit a target behind it. I'm not stating it can hit ALL targets behind it (as there will be a blind spot) but the original contention that it can't hit ANY targets behind it is incorrect.
It’s not doctrine it’s servicing targets.
You appear again to have problems understanding english.
Doctrine:
Doctrine - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
- Fundamental Government Policy
- Military principle/strategy
Are you really saying the decision not to employ MLRS is neither in Australia's case ie not doctrine?
That article is not an attempt at total cost of ownership analysis, just cost of a particular type of target engagement. It doesn’t take into account cost of acquisition, cost of training, etc or engagement cost of providing anything other than point target destruction. If you start shooting four GMLRS rockets at $600,000 a fire mission to provide sustained suppressive fire frontages to protect your own infantry compared to six 155mm HE rounds at $3,000 a fire mission you may notice a difference in your bank account at the end of the day.
First para:
"he looks at the comparative cost-effectiveness of cannon, rocket and mortar precision capabilities"
Other para:
In today’s resource-constrained environment, just a minor difference in unit manning, multiplied by the number of units in the Army, can make a considerable financial and force structure difference.
Article conclusion:
The deployment of GMLRS rockets coupled with the 120mm or 122mm guided mortar would provide the deployed forces with in-depth, timely, accurate, lethal and affordable fire support, without having to rely on other expensive platforms.
If you understood what 120mms can do in sustained fires, you'd realise how absolutely clueless the response was. Tot I'd address this.
