MALAYSIA TEST THEIR MESSILE
-
perhaps someone can enlighten all of us....
if MRLS is so so the good... why isnt every nation replacing their Arti guns with MRLS?? -
Worry for what... Singapore is a kiasu nation... you know what we do best...
-
cos arty is for substained fire while mrls is for giving the enemy lines a big punch, before charging into the gap.Originally posted by tripwire:perhaps someone can enlighten all of us....
if MRLS is so so the good... why isnt every nation replacing their Arti guns with MRLS?? -
I add on. . . cos to fire one 155mm shell is much much cheaper than firing a rocket.Originally posted by CenturionMBT:cos arty is for substained fire while mrls is for giving the enemy lines a big punch, before charging into the gap.
And correct me if i am wrong, but i think an 155mm shell is more accurate than a unguided rocket. -
for a very long time, no one in the west wanted to copy what was essentially a soviet weapon.....until quite recently.Originally posted by laser51088:I add on. . . cos to fire one 155mm shell is much much cheaper than firing a rocket.
And correct me if i am wrong, but i think an 155mm shell is more accurate than a unguided rocket.
Of course, the germans who were at the receiving end of the "Stalin Organ" know better and decided to copy the katyusha for their own use at the last stages of the war. It was too late, and Berlin paid the price.
The russians never consider MRL system as a replacement of arty, MRL is a supplement to arty....to be used en masse as an offensive salvo-fire weapon against area targets eg. troop/vehicle concentrations or as a defence suppression weapon against arty/mortar batteries. -
the germans had their own nebalwefer(sic)
-
yes, i think that's what they call it (dunno about the spelling tho).....Originally posted by |-|05|:the germans had their own nebalwefer(sic)
a pirated version of the katyusha.....a lesson they learn from the eastern front. -
A single MRLS vehicle launcher can fire a salvo of 12 to 16 "rocket" propelled explosive shells at one go.
While a single artillery gun can only fire a salvo of 6 shots in one minute.
Imagine the devastating power from a battery of MRLS, when compared to a battery of artillery guns.
Is an artillery shell any more accurate than a "rocket" propelled explosive shell, when both are dependent on trajectory flight ?
MRLS systems have been added into most armies, to work in tandem with artillery, and to provide saturation fire to suppress the enemy position, as well as to soften enemy objectives, or used as interdictory fire to block defined routes.
It performs most of the tasks that traditional artillery does, and perform it with a higher degree of saturation fire - much as what "carpet bombing" is being done by bombers from the air, although at lower explosive yields.
New munitions are added to make the MRLS even more deadlier, with cargo rounds also being added, as well as laser guided rocket propelled shells - with some of the shells having delayed fuse, and concrete busting effects.
The present day MRLS is a far cry from the early "Stalin Organs" of WW2 vintage.
-
isit really really true that 17million ringgit were spent just firing 48 rockets??
plus the cost of the launch vehicle, command vehicle, manpower and blah blah blah logistics... the cost of that 48 missile could easily hit 20million ringgit...
THAT works out to 416,000 ringgit per rocket fired!!!!!!! *DROP JAW*
20million ringgit for SAF FH2000 ICM rounds... SAF can fire a horrendous 100,000 cargo rounds carrying a devastating 6,400,000 bomblet!! *DOUBLE DROP JAW* compared with RMAF rockets carrying a total of 3072 bomblet... that is a huge difference...!!
other then the benefit of the MRLS rockets in terms of range... is there any other benefits of that MRLS???
bottom line:
in terms of RANGE: ASTRO 2 wins...
in terms of accuracy: i think arty is better...
in terms of firepower: i think arty is better...
in terms of mobility: i think ASTRO 2 wins unless compare with SPH or LWH... then its a tie..
in terms of economy: Arty seems more efficient...
other points...
singapore FH2000 is build locally, thus replaceable, and the shells including ICM are locally manufactured, thereby facilitating easy stockpiling, resupply and techonological flexibility to upgrade or alter...
Malaysia's A-2 on the other hand is build in brazil, sent across the entire pacific ocean, the rockets are also manufactured in brazil, futhermore, its so expensive, making stockpilling a difficult and expensive exercise, even trainning might be affected in view of the high cost....
anyone disagreed? -
aiya... no offence, but its like comparing apples with oranges lah! the only thing these 2 platforms have in common is that they're used to toss explosive projectiles. the similarities ends there...
range different, orientated for different missions / applications... can't compare like that lah...
like... if u have a target u need to take out in a hurry... counter battery against a bunch of self propelled howitzers for instance... by the time the your own towed howitzers get to return fire the enemy long gone already...
and its always good to have longer range weapons so the enemy cannot respond in kind. this point has been proven over and over again already.
don't think u'll like being on the receiving end of a bunch of rockets knowing that u can't make an effective response cos u're out-ranged. -
no doubt about it... i would hate to be on the recieving end of the MRLS and knowing that our arty cant take it out even if our arty can hit 100km range since the mobility of the A 2 would easily enable it to make a run for it before the counter battery shells hit....
this would imply that... with the increase mobility of long range platforms.. it is becoming more and more vital for all military units including infantry and armor to have fleeting legs to avoid being on the recieving ends of a massive long range attack...
it would also imply that some sort of protection from such a platform is becoming more and more urgently required...
else... everyone would sooner or later purchase huge amount of such platforms and a war of attrition will ensue..
just think.... wat if thailand also buy a hundred A 2 laucher, singapore buys 200 and indonesia buy 300 launcher??
at 90 km range... if indonesia deploys 300 A 2 launcher in sumatra... the entire peninsula malaysia can be hammered into the ground...
-
yeah... some protection is necessary for today's battlefield... at this rate, the average life expectancy of an infantryman in enemy's territory will be all of about 100 secOriginally posted by tripwire:at 90 km range... if indonesia deploys 300 A 2 launcher in sumatra... the entire peninsula malaysia can be hammered into the ground... the same amount of time it takes for a rocket to reach them...
but as u pointed out before, such rockets are immensely expensive ... and at the rate the launchers spew them out, u'll see the bottom of your defence budget before the enemy has time to rise up (or down) into the afterlife i think Huxley pointed out that this was one of the man reasons Sg balked at the idea of buying the US MLRS system previously.
but there's really little anyone can do other than take them out before they have a chance to strike... or have one of those tactical battlefield laser system to shoot down the incoming rockets (which is still in its experimental stage, is very expensive and not very mobile) -
Originally posted by CX:
got a point there!
yeah... some protection is necessary for today's battlefield... at this rate, the average life expectancy of an infantryman in enemy's territory will be all of about 100 sec the same amount of time it takes for a rocket to reach them...
but as u pointed out before, such rockets are [b]immensely expensive ... and at the rate the launchers spew them out, u'll see the bottom of your defence budget before the enemy has time to rise up (or down) into the afterlife i think Huxley pointed out that this was one of the man reasons Sg balked at the idea of buying the US MLRS system previously.
but there's really little anyone can do other than take them out before they have a chance to strike... or have one of those tactical battlefield laser system to shoot down the incoming rockets (which is still in its experimental stage, is very expensive and not very mobile)
[/b]
here's what i think....the purchase of the Astros II is for defensive use. If they plan to use it as an offensive weapon, they would have gotten the shorter range SS30/SS40 rockets where you get more rockets per launchers. If they want to launch pre-emptive strike, they can position the lauchers in johor for such a purpose, and comes H-hour, just fire salvoes of the rockets.
How to position it in Johor without being detected etc can be left to the military planners....not so difficult right, night movement, paint the trunks so that it looks like an ice cream trunk (Astros II don't look much diff from normal commercial trucks unlike US tracked MLRS) etc etc.
The reason they chose the longer range rockets is that they plan to put it far away from sg, but yet be able to move it quickly via the network of highways. So if sg arty launch pre-emptive strike, they will counter with longer range Astros II and since MLRS can blanket large target areas, shoot and scoot method with FH2000 no longer effective.
So that is why some rumours say that FH2000 is to be put on reserve when M109 version comes in service.....M109 provide armor protection to the crew unlike FH2000. Not sure about the effectiveness of M109 against anti-tank submunitions tho....seems like M109 is quite light compared to the euro SP arty. Still some protection is better than nothing.
Only problem about the AStros II is that it generates a huge smoke cloud from the backblast.....location can be detected once fired, but only useful if you can strike fast coz, its quite mobile.
just my opinion.... -
When the US Army ordered the LOCKHEED Martin Vought MRLS System, the targetted order size was for 857 systems, that will include the Launching Vehicles, Command Vehicles, Logistic Reloading Vechles, all for a total targetted price of US$1.969 Billion.
Average Unit Cost was then fixed at US$2.3 million each.
The Brazilian Astros II should be comparable in unit costs, if not lower; and given inflation at 5 percent per annum from a base period of 1999, it cannot exceed this US unit cost for the Vehicle launcher itself.
How can each firing of the MRLS cost Ringgit 20 million per salvo of 48 shells - which makes it about US$110,000 per rocket ?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m270.htm -
could be that they factored in logistics costs... and the costs of the refreshments served at the reception afterwards, and the costs which their twisted bumi caterer inflated and the costs which some corrupt higher ups siphoned off
just kidding, but one never knows -
I guess the 24 SA (Fire Finders) has to be fast enough to detect the trajectory of the rockets...IF they are within range of our 155s.Originally posted by observe:got a point there!
here's what i think....the purchase of the Astros II is for defensive use. If they plan to use it as an offensive weapon, they would have gotten the shorter range SS30/SS40 rockets where you get more rockets per launchers. If they want to launch pre-emptive strike, they can position the lauchers in johor for such a purpose, and comes H-hour, just fire salvoes of the rockets.
How to position it in Johor without being detected etc can be left to the military planners....not so difficult right, night movement, paint the trunks so that it looks like an ice cream trunk (Astros II don't look much diff from normal commercial trucks unlike US tracked MLRS) etc etc.
The reason they chose the longer range rockets is that they plan to put it far away from sg, but yet be able to move it quickly via the network of highways. So if sg arty launch pre-emptive strike, they will counter with longer range Astros II and since MLRS can blanket large target areas, shoot and scoot method with FH2000 no longer effective.
So that is why some rumours say that FH2000 is to be put on reserve when M109 version comes in service.....M109 provide armor protection to the crew unlike FH2000. Not sure about the effectiveness of M109 against anti-tank submunitions tho....seems like M109 is quite light compared to the euro SP arty. Still some protection is better than nothing.
Only problem about the AStros II is that it generates a huge smoke cloud from the backblast.....location can be detected once fired, but only useful if you can strike fast coz, its quite mobile.
just my opinion....
Another solution is to use special forces...like the Scud-Hunters of the Gulf War, these guys could be called Astro hunters....hahaha! -
i think a better way to counter the A 2 is to have a system similar to the IDF's harpy... which can loiter over a huge area... and strike at the A 2 on sight....
alternatively... we will need to gain air superiority and use the falcons to conduct CAP with A 2 hunting as a priority...
but i feel that the best method to take out the A 2 is acutally by dropping FAEs using either the storm shadow or locally developed firefly on KL for every A2 rocket lauched at us... -
Maybe can suggest standby of 4 vipers armed with Mavericks and AA missiles accompanied by a lets say EW aircraft... When the launch site detected, proceed to the site and blast it up before it/they fire one more time....Originally posted by Tango1:I guess the 24 SA (Fire Finders) has to be fast enough to detect the trajectory of the rockets...IF they are within range of our 155s.
Another solution is to use special forces...like the Scud-Hunters of the Gulf War, these guys could be called Astro hunters....hahaha!
Astro Hunters... cool... insertion into malaysia ain't that difficult...
-
what is the reload speed of the A2's ar? from totally empty to fully loaded?
-
24SA (Fire Finder) TPQ 37 has a detection range of only 50km. It will be not a good asset against Astro. If the war happen, it is very likely that the emeny will get their 1 or 2 round of fire in action before we can detect and destory it. The bad news for SG is that MY is likly to buy somemore ASTRO in 2 years.Originally posted by Tango1:I guess the 24 SA (Fire Finders) has to be fast enough to detect the trajectory of the rockets...IF they are within range of our 155s.
Another solution is to use special forces...like the Scud-Hunters of the Gulf War, these guys could be called Astro hunters....hahaha! -
To handle the threat of the ASTROS MLRS, we will need to attack it from the air, from the use of a combination of constant watch with RPVs, and our air force attacking these threats with smart weapons launched from a distance.
The ownership of an airborne battle management system similar to the US Air Force J-Stars will boost the efficiency of our strike force, and the balanced use of our assets for attack, protection, defense, and withdrawals.
Several platforms are available P-3 Orion, Boeing 707, Ebraier, Fokker (which no longer exist, but we have about 4 such planes for Coastal Patrol), or the conversion of a C-130.
-
F-16? waste deploying them like that?Originally posted by Moonstriker:Maybe can suggest standby of 4 vipers armed with Mavericks and AA missiles accompanied by a lets say EW aircraft... When the launch site detected, proceed to the site and blast it up before it/they fire one more time....
Astro Hunters... cool... insertion into malaysia ain't that difficult...
if u want a good constant response to arty i think best bet is in helicopters, but if you just wanna get something in there fast adn take out only targets in one area, the A-4SU is there for a reason. . .at least until they are replaced. . .
yep, who said arty must be thrown against mlrs, why not throw in the air assets. . but at the rate the number of targets for choppers keep popping up, the RSAF is definitely going to need more than 20 Apaches. . .
and for air battle management. . . erm, E-2C? i think they can do the job. . .they are AEW, but they can also serve to guide the air force planes to their targets and manage the skies, only thing is they must be constantly protected by other planes else i think a dimwit pilot can also shoot it down. . . -
Anyway, A2 will have the first round of fire before sg can detected and destory it. And this one round of fire will cost sg great damage. The point is how can sg destory it before it can into it first round?
-
protected? very hard especially when they are armed with BVR missiles. They just fire a volley and run... . so how do the E-2C counter that? what is the chance of evading them?Originally posted by laser51088:F-16? waste deploying them like that?
if u want a good constant response to arty i think best bet is in helicopters, but if you just wanna get something in there fast adn take out only targets in one area, the A-4SU is there for a reason. . .at least until they are replaced. . .
yep, who said arty must be thrown against mlrs, why not throw in the air assets. . but at the rate the number of targets for choppers keep popping up, the RSAF is definitely going to need more than 20 Apaches. . .
and for air battle management. . . erm, E-2C? i think they can do the job. . .they are AEW, but they can also serve to guide the air force planes to their targets and manage the skies, only thing is they must be constantly protected by other planes else i think a dimwit pilot can also shoot it down. . . -
yep, the range of the firefinders are about 50km....so unless sg gets a better upgrade, it won't be so effective against MLRS 90km away. Moreover, how does it performs against massive rocket attack.....will the large numbers of rockets overload the computing power of the system ?
Visual targetting from the air is more realistic....but then only after launching can you see the huge smoke cloud.
Tho RSAF is the top dog in SEA, its still no where near the capability of the USAF in Iraq where they had total supremacy over the airspace plus a whole host of satelites and JSTARS to help them in '91. Even with this, Scud hunting was not really a resonding success. M'sia thick vegetation is far more challenging compared to Iraq's desert terrain.
Even with the above challenges, and to his credit, the M'sian General has not ignored the possibilty of air attack. Hence, the 2nd part of the news release where he mentioned about the induction of new Shorads and manpads system.
Clearly, the entire demostration was a PR exercise and to serve as a warning that the capability gap will be narrowed. Expect more arm purchases to be announced end this year at Lima '03.