2nd MAF ASTROS II MLRS regiment are operational!!!!!
-
quote.
..."The idea and use of MLRs appears to be gaining more ground - especially so after the Gulf War - 1991 - where these multi-rocket launchers played havoc with Iraqi targets. Some diehards like the Bofors and others had doubted the ballistic performance and accuracy of the rocket launchers - but apparently they did not appreciate the saturation of the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area) which these multiple rockets could cause with the instant shower of steel (time wise). A conventional gun could do this but in a slower manner - and hence the effect would be partially lost.
Yes, strictly from ballistic point of view it is a moot point if the rocket launchers could be just a ballistically sophisticated as well tried workhorse i.e., the single barrelled gun. But sometimes the accuracy has to be traded for fire effect and surprise - and that's exactly what the rocket launchers do. Even the armour is not safe against the shower of steel which emanates from the rocket launchers - and it is almost instantaneous - It puts the fear of God in the opponents heart."
http://www.defencejournal.com/dec99/field-artillery.htm
An MLRS is not a replacement of the howitzer. It complements it. -
For those who failed to see my intention.......i do not have any "malice" intention towards any of u guys here.....my sole purpose is to bring MMF contents to you since the MMF exco/admin are a bit paranoid (abt having a huge nos Sg onboard).
According to somebody in MMF......someone at acig mentioned abt Malaysia finacing AVIBRAS tactical missile programmes.
** To gary....Brazilian failed to launched their own rocket coz the US via UN told them to scrapped SONDA rocket programmes.As a footnote after WW2 a nos of Nazi's rocket/missile genius went to Brazil. -
It is useful if LR version is guided, the SS60-80 are not so tactically.Originally posted by observe:quote.
An MLRS is not a replacement of the howitzer. It complements it.
As for the longer range rockets, actually I meant the SS-150 (based on the Astros-II), the SS-300, and the SS-1000 (based largely on the Sonda rockets) was never developed even till now.
The AV/MT-300 is actually a cruise missile rather than a rocket ,as the report said it might be continue development of the X-300 of the late 80s.
Anyway, I tot there is UN embargo for sales of weapons exceed certain range.
CHARGE!!!
-
Quoting the US is not correct as they are not the Authority of MLRS.
The Russians are the GURU in this MLRS technology.
Currently i think nobody has guided rockets. However, technology for controlled rockets is available. This technology is available for 300mm rockets (like the Smerch and Astross ?)
With controlled rockets, the accuracy is about 0.3-0.4% of the firing range.
With another technolgy called electronic adjustment of rockets fire,
the accuracy becomes about 0.25-0.3% of firing range.
http://www.milparade.com/2002/51/03_02.shtml
Assuming the Russians have brought the accuracy to 0.3%, and the Chinese (with questionable quality control) has 1-1.5%.
I would say the Brazillians (with the help of ex-Nazi scientist), would be somewhere in between coz their systems is sophisticated enough to have electronic fire control system.
In either case, MLRS is suppose to provide AREA SATURATION with DPICM. -
i think there are too many guessing here...
lets just take the fact that the CEP aint known for the ASTROS2 and leave it at that....
as far as i see... you cant win a war based on A-2 alone... i mean... face it.. prior to shooting their A-2s at us... the MAF better be ready for any SAF backlash which would be harsh and merciless to say the lease...
such readiness by MAF would require troops deployment, supplies and other movements that would simply trigger an SAF pre-emptive strike...
the question here would be... how would MAF ensure that it survives a pre-emptive strike from SAF before it can even think about the possibility of launching A-2 at singapore (if they survived in the first place)
another problem is ... irreguardless of the range of A-2... the MAF frontline troopers would be within SAF arty's range for the massacre. that is an undeniable fact.. due to the close proximity of the 2 nation... -
tripwire....hhmmmmmm.........did i sense some sort of insecurity on ur part???? I dont like the notion some of u trying to make my posting as part of ur wet dreams
Those who have served knows that MAF and SAF may have some "issues" but just.....issues....that's it!!!!
Tell me one good reasons to share more stuffs with u guys if in the end......it comes to this (wet dreams) -
In the end it stills boils down to the quality of each side's arty core. Having fany toys does not automatically give you the upper hand, and of course, no war is won by arty alone. The MAF is only as strong as their weakest link.
Anyway, in the absence of rocket arty, tube batteries can also create their own "steel rain" bombardment. Known as Time On Target where different batteries fire their guns at different intervals to make sure that all of them land on the target at almost the same instant. Something I'm quite sure the Singapore tube batteries love to do. -
I love to say..." do you know how many arty pieces MAF really bought???"..... but i'm not in the mood to start one of those who got the biggest and strongest dick thread
-
I think at best for the Astros 2 is correction rockets system,but I doubt so, those ex-Nazi scientist has only experience with the V2 unguided rockets and there is no mentioned of any correction, radio controlled form of guidance for the Astros 2 at all.Originally posted by observe:Quoting the US is not correct as they are not the Authority of MLRS.
The Russians are the GURU in this MLRS technology.
Currently i think nobody has guided rockets. However, technology for controlled rockets is available. This technology is available for 300mm rockets (like the Smerch and Astross ?)
With controlled rockets, the accuracy is about 0.3-0.4% of the firing range.
With another technolgy called electronic adjustment of rockets fire,
the accuracy becomes about 0.25-0.3% of firing range.
http://www.milparade.com/2002/51/03_02.shtml
Assuming the Russians have brought the accuracy to 0.3%, and the Chinese (with questionable quality control) has 1-1.5%.
I would say the Brazillians (with the help of ex-Nazi scientist), would be somewhere in between coz their systems is sophisticated enough to have electronic fire control system.
In either case, MLRS is suppose to provide AREA SATURATION with DPICM.
The Chinese system has a command truck equipped with a radio communications and data transmission system; a firing and control computer and simulation trajectory system; a global positioning system; a gyro-theodolite directional system plus infrared ranging system; a field meteorological detection system; and a communication control unit, so it is pretty sophisticated.
As for the true LR guided rocket system, will be US new extended range guided rocket GMLRS which has a range of more than 70km. The GMLRS rocket has a GPS (global positioning system) and inertial guidance package and small canards on the rocket nose to enhance accuracy. The Russian and the Israeli are also developing LR GPS guided rockets. The CEP will be in term of meters even at long range of 100km. This will be the future of LR rocket system.
CHARGE!!! -
then why bring it up???Originally posted by HARIMAU:I love to say..." do you know how many arty pieces MAF really bought???"..... but i'm not in the mood to start one of those who got the biggest and strongest dick thread
politicians on both sides of the causeway are trying to undo years of misunderstanding and tactless remarks but loose cannon like u trying to inflame passion in an online forum frequented by singaporeans...
u knew u would get unfriendly comments with this sort of posts... your intentions are not to share info... its to show off and start another pissing contest stinking with nationalist rhetoric on both sides. -
Good post! Really, some here dont seem to realise that the rocket arty is really complementary to the tube arty. As you said, the tremendous instantaneous firepower that it can deliver is unsurpassed, and can cause much more casualties than the tube arty. However, for suppression purposes, the tube arty is better due to the duration of its fire, something the rocket arty lacks.Originally posted by observe:quote.
..."The idea and use of MLRs appears to be gaining more ground - especially so after the Gulf War - 1991 - where these multi-rocket launchers played havoc with Iraqi targets. Some diehards like the Bofors and others had doubted the ballistic performance and accuracy of the rocket launchers - but apparently they did not appreciate the saturation of the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area) which these multiple rockets could cause with the instant shower of steel (time wise). A conventional gun could do this but in a slower manner - and hence the effect would be partially lost.
Yes, strictly from ballistic point of view it is a moot point if the rocket launchers could be just a ballistically sophisticated as well tried workhorse i.e., the single barrelled gun. But sometimes the accuracy has to be traded for fire effect and surprise - and that's exactly what the rocket launchers do. Even the armour is not safe against the shower of steel which emanates from the rocket launchers - and it is almost instantaneous - It puts the fear of God in the opponents heart."
http://www.defencejournal.com/dec99/field-artillery.htm
An MLRS is not a replacement of the howitzer. It complements it.
By the way, I do believe that Gary has a point. For 50km and above, the amount of ammo needed to 'service' a given target area would require much more ammo than that required for the sub-40km range, and this 'might' impose an un-necessarily heavy burden on its logistics resupply system. I was surprised that the SS-80 wasn't guided, though the SS-150 as you stated, was. The reduction in rockets needed to service a target, in my opinion, would have paid for the increase in per rocket cost....... -
It has been mentioned that the ASTROS is manually reloaded and is slow to reload but exactly how is it reloaded, one tube at a time or swap the empty tubes rack for a full one? What about other rocket artillery system like the american MLRS?
Thanks for answering my questions. -
what wet dream?? more like i just burst your fantasy....
as far as i concern... you can drop dead... i dont give a damn about you wanna share anything... its your choice...
but just because you wanna share ... doesnt mean we have to share and follow your imagination.... -
Again another posting based on speculation and in accurate facts......brother the SS80 rounds is damn huge....heavy some more.....heard about ASTROS reload and resupply vehicles???They dont called it MLR system for nothing
-
MLRS reload takes forever, they better shoot and scoot if they can, or risk getting blown to kingdom come. The logistical support of any MLRS "system" reflects it's very vulnerability. You don't have to take out the launcher to take them out. Firing a shell into the midst of the ASTROS system means that chances are some critical link in the "system" will be taken out.
-
Look at the picture below with crane and personnel from the resupply veh, therefore manual, no autoloading. There is why they are slow, by looking at the pictures , I am not surprise that it would take an hour to reload all four rockets.Originally posted by LXC:It has been mentioned that the ASTROS is manually reloaded and is slow to reload but exactly how is it reloaded, one tube at a time or swap the empty tubes rack for a full one? What about other rocket artillery system like the american MLRS?
Thanks for answering my questions.
Whether they are remove and replace all 4 rockets tubes at go or one by one , I have no idea.
CHARGE!!! -
I can almost imagine all of them blasting apart violently from a hit by some stray arty shell or smart bomb.
Tatically that thing is a one shot wonder, after which it becomes a liability where the crew has to scoot and reload. And of course, reloading on the move is only a remote possibility. Of course, now you have to divert resources to defend what is an inaccucrate, one shot system because it is too precious or expensive to lose.
Is it any surprise MLRS systems traditionally have been used in situtations of superiority where they are not expecting any incoming mail? Something prehaps a certain army failed to consider?
I wonder which is cheaper, and has more tatical value as well? 18 Primus or 18 ASTROS II? Which is easier to replace? Requires less manpower?
Sometimes you get good results if you set modest goals, instead of getting what appears to be at first, the biggest gun in the region. -
No way that the Astros could be reloaded on the move , look at the gaint tubes from the picture I have posted.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Tatically that thing is a one shot wonder, after which it becomes a liability where the crew has to scoot and reload. And of course, reloading on the move is only a remote possibility. Of course, now you have to divert resources to defend what is an inaccucrate, one shot system because it is too precious or expensive to lose.
You see that the resupply veh has hydraulic stands for stabilization during reloading.
The whole process for reloading is I believe almost like changing the engine from a MBT, steps I believe as follow:
1.Remove all electrical couplings and maybe even hydraulic couplings from the tubes.
2.Remove all mechanical coupling from the tubes.
3.Hookup the steel cable to the tubes.(1 by 1 or four at a go)
4.Move the resupply veh to the side of the lanuchers and lower the stabiliser stand to the ground.
5. Using the crane, hookup to the steel cable and remove the empty tubes.This must be done slow to prevent accident.Afterall it is damn big!
6. Repeat step 1-5 but in the reverse order to place the new tubes with rockets.
As you can see , the whole process should take at least 45mins to more than one hour.
CHARGE!!! -
what i dont understand is if what you say is true and that MLRS system is useless, why is Singapore looking into acquiring MLRS?? R we jealous of other countries having it 1st?
Also looking at the Primus 1st hand. i realise there are some weak links in the chain..but i wont elaborate since it is a known problem also. -
Have you read thru all the posting in this thread, at range below 40km, a gun arty is better than a rocket in term of cost, accuracy, reliability & efficiency.Originally posted by rancour5:what i dont understand is if what you say is true and that MLRS system is useless, why is Singapore looking into acquiring MLRS?? R we jealous of other countries having it 1st?
Also looking at the Primus 1st hand. i realise there are some weak links in the chain..but i wont elaborate since it is a known problem also.
At range above 40 km, which some gun arty could not reach but rockets could. But a LR unguided rockets like Astros 2 has poor accuracy( 1-1.5% CEP) i.e. has no tactical value.
Unless you are talking abt the latest GPS guidance LR rockets, then is worthwhile to have.
SAF is smart to wait for this latest trend to mature before getting a rockets system.
CHARGE!!! -
What I say is true, what I have been trying to point out for a long time already is that MLRS has it's place in the arty battle, but it's hardly any war winning weapon with mythical capabilities as paper Tyger would like to have us believe.Originally posted by rancour5:what i dont understand is if what you say is true and that MLRS system is useless, why is Singapore looking into acquiring MLRS?? R we jealous of other countries having it 1st?
Also looking at the Primus 1st hand. i realise there are some weak links in the chain..but i wont elaborate since it is a known problem also.
MLRS systems have several severe drawbacks namely slow reload times and heavier logistical burderns to keep it in the fight. Malaysia ASTROS II system may be able to deal out firepower but the seneriao where many malaysian forumers seem to keep in their demented fantasies of their MLRS being able to smite Singapore and her armed forces with impunity is prehaps not a little simplistic. As many have pointed out, the ASTROS is far from a wonder weapon.
MLRS has it's time and place. While capable of serious firepower, many other issues such as reloading, avoiding counter battery, and avoid getting blow to bits to boot. In terms of system vulnerabilities, MLRS systems are far more fragile then normal pieces. You can't just buy MLRS piecemeal and shoot a few rounds into the sea and think you have even a slightly credible rocket arty ability. If you don't have what it takes to upkeep an MLRS, and the upkeep is very heavy, all you have is a multimillion dollar one shot white elephant. -
Originally posted by gary1910:
As the lightest SP gun in the world, the Primus has in effect lower range and ammo capacity then other heavier SPs. This supposedly inherent design "defiency" is more deliberate and calaculated. We had created the Primus to suit our own needs as a near frontline arty support piece placing emphasis on unit protection, precision and running high mobility arty operations, to literally shoot and scoot to a whole new level and intensity.
Have you read thru all the posting in this thread, at range below 40km, a gun arty is better than a rocket in term of cost, accuracy, reliability & efficiency.
At range above 40 km, which some gun arty could not reach but rockets could. But a LR unguided rockets like Astros 2 has poor accuracy( 1-1.5% CEP) i.e. has no tactical value.
Unless you are talking abt the latest GPS guidance LR rockets, then is worthwhile to have.
SAF is smart to wait for this latest trend to mature before getting a rockets system.
[b]CHARGE!!!
[/b]
The longer ranged battles will be handled by our older, and non SP pieces like the Fh2000. The Primus will be many, many times more useful in providing arty support to highly mobile forces.
In short any enemy has a potential nightmare arty battle to fight with Sg, they are all recieving precise fire and their attentions are split between trying to supress the Primus fire, or those from our less mobile guns.
In short, the ASTROS II was never any system to match up to the disparity between MAF and SAF arty, it will be more useful, and probably used more as a terror weapon fired in the general south (unless they have some war on Orang Utans in their own jungles) in hopes of hitting something Singaporean, military or not. Unless the MAF gets some guided rockets, the ASTROS II remains a white elephant with more terror, then tatical use. -
I feel that without a very effective intelligence system, the MRLS are pretty useless. So a very good communications system is very important. Anyway there arent many pieces in service so they wont pose much of a threat. The enemy would have to first discover our force moving through the thick jungles. Then they will have to decide if its REALLY worth firing the rockets at the target. Then they would need adequate air defense at the MRLS location...
So basically... if our forces just move quickly and carefully, they shouldnt be discovered too often. Jamming communications would help delay info. transmitted to the artillery pieces. with this methods, i think troops shouldnt suffer too many casualties to MRLS fire. -
If the SAF is on the offensive, we will need to "attack" MAF objectives held by the MAF. Attacking and overrunning the preivously MAF-held objectives, we will be exposed to pre-determined defensive fire that the MAF would obviously have planned.Originally posted by V1NS@niTY:I feel that without a very effective intelligence system, the MRLS are pretty useless. So a very good communications system is very important. Anyway there arent many pieces in service so they wont pose much of a threat. The enemy would have to first discover our force moving through the thick jungles. Then they will have to decide if its REALLY worth firing the rockets at the target. Then they would need adequate air defense at the MRLS location...
So basically... if our forces just move quickly and carefully, they shouldnt be discovered too often. Jamming communications would help delay info. transmitted to the artillery pieces. with this methods, i think troops shouldnt suffer too many casualties to MRLS fire.
No point just walking around in the jungle right?? -
hmm... i didnt exactly mean for the troops to "walk" in the jungle. I meant to use the cover of the jungle to advance forward quickly so as to reduce being spotted by the enemy and to reach the objective asap.
Obviously the MAF will expect an attack on an important target.... so it will have to be up to our RPVs .. scouts .. aircraft to find and neutralize them.