2nd MAF ASTROS II MLRS regiment are operational!!!!!
-
You seem to think that RPVs can find target easy......
Well that's not really true especially in jungle terrain even with thermal imagers!
With NFOV cameras, the RPVs is better at watching over a small area or axis of movement.
You want to search bigger areas you need panoramic cameras OR better still SAR.
SAR equipped Heron (hee hee) maybe better suited for the job. -
Originally posted by gary1910:
NO TACTICAL VALUE???
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]
errr, I guess you should ask the Iraqis who have survived an MLRS rocket attack what they feel first before making that kind of statement. No offence, but that statement stinks of sourgrapes. I may have some doubts about the ICM payload's effectiveness in forested areas, and even about its dud rate (if you read the "lessons learned" report from the divisions which participated in OIF, you'd understand), but never discount its fearsome firepower, even at ranges above 40km. They can still place massive firepower at a target further than that. What I feel is, how many rockets will be needed? Definitely much more, and it may not be economical on the logistics supply chain. But dont make it sound as if it CANT HIT YOU FROM MORE THAN 40KM.
What I feel may be the REAL archilles heel in their 'system' is their target acquisition capability. Are they able to acquire their target, track it long enough, and pass the information efficiently enough to the ASTROS II? How capable is their arty fire control system? -
That is precisely the point i was trying to put across..that we should not discount the MLRS threat. Regarding Gun arty verus MLRS..i do not think it is an issue since they are complementary and each serves a different purpose anyway.Originally posted by YourFather:NO TACTICAL VALUE???
errr, I guess you should ask the Iraqis who have survived an MLRS rocket attack what they feel first before making that kind of statement. No offence, but that statement stinks of sourgrapes. I may have some doubts about the ICM payload's effectiveness in forested areas, and even about its dud rate (if you read the "lessons learned" report from the divisions which participated in OIF, you'd understand), but never discount its fearsome firepower, even at ranges above 40km. They can still place massive firepower at a target further than that. What I feel is, how many rockets will be needed? Definitely much more, and it may not be economical on the logistics supply chain. But dont make it sound as if it CANT HIT YOU FROM MORE THAN 40KM.
What I feel may be the REAL archilles heel in their 'system' is their target acquisition capability. Are they able to acquire their target, track it long enough, and pass the information efficiently enough to the ASTROS II? How capable is their arty fire control system? -
What gary said is correct. The reason those Iraqi's were pummeled was generally because their exact location was known, in the desert (no cover) were generally poorly organized (bunched together and hence tended to get wiped out in one hit), non moving, and generally had no way of striking back (hence the Americans could just camp there and fire away with impunity without have to shoot and scoot.)Originally posted by YourFather:NO TACTICAL VALUE???
errr, I guess you should ask the Iraqis who have survived an MLRS rocket attack what they feel first before making that kind of statement. No offence, but that statement stinks of sourgrapes. I may have some doubts about the ICM payload's effectiveness in forested areas, and even about its dud rate (if you read the "lessons learned" report from the divisions which participated in OIF, you'd understand), but never discount its fearsome firepower, even at ranges above 40km. They can still place massive firepower at a target further than that. What I feel is, how many rockets will be needed? Definitely much more, and it may not be economical on the logistics supply chain. But dont make it sound as if it CANT HIT YOU FROM MORE THAN 40KM.
What I feel may be the REAL archilles heel in their 'system' is their target acquisition capability. Are they able to acquire their target, track it long enough, and pass the information efficiently enough to the ASTROS II? How capable is their arty fire control system?
At 89km, the ASTROS II is nothing more then an area weapon, where it would probably hit everything BUT the target. Which would most likely turn out to be civilian targets and the like. Given the urban nature of fighting future combat here, those long range ASTROS II commanders will end up fragging an awful lot of civillians on both sides if they decide to fire from extreme range. Imagine submunitions falling over one map grid square of JB. More likely their civvies will sustain more damage then actual military hard targets (though an SM1 tank isn't exactly hard).
Yes the ASTROS II can hit stuff beyond 40 clicks, but it's accuracy is such that tatically it is for all pratical reasons, pretty usless. Maybe unless they want to use it as some form of poor man's WMD.
Hence forth, to be really effective, more tatically useful and less hedious, they will have to move their ASTROS an awful lot closer and far more vulnerable.
Unless SAF really screws up like the Iraqi army in responding to the MLRS, to expect a stellar preformance from a one-shot, slow reloading system like the ASTROS II is pretty optimistic on the malaysian side. Maybe the assume anything fired south would hit something of tatical value?
As said, Sg is better off, and probably is, waiting for guided rocket technology to mature before buying those expensive-butt systems to show off.
The truth is, in terms of equipment-parity, the Malaysians are always on the losing end when it comes to getting new hardware to top Singapore. This is because they usually have to spend tons of $$$ on stuff just to match up. or slightly suceed Singapore's headstart, and all Singapore has to do is to camp out, wait for new technologies to cheapen and mature before leapfrogging ahead once again. Unless they want to turn a inordinate amount of their GDP towards defence to superceed the SAF, diplomancy and rethoric has always been their forte, and avenue of choice. As long as the Malaysians have enough guns to make sure Singaporean victory can never be bloodless, and Singaporean has enough military advantage over Malaysian to rein them in, the balance of power is preserved. -
I think ST has answer for me quite clearly, let me some give example, If the Astros 2 were to fire toward the SG to disable our airfields at range of 80km , the probability of hitting civilian targets is extremely high which mean int'l outcry against the use and yet might not able to achieve it military objectives.Originally posted by YourFather:NO TACTICAL VALUE???
errr, I guess you should ask the Iraqis who have survived an MLRS rocket attack what they feel first before making that kind of statement. No offence, but that statement stinks of sourgrapes. I may have some doubts about the ICM payload's effectiveness in forested areas, and even about its dud rate (if you read the "lessons learned" report from the divisions which participated in OIF, you'd understand), but never discount its fearsome firepower, even at ranges above 40km. They can still place massive firepower at a target further than that. What I feel is, how many rockets will be needed? Definitely much more, and it may not be economical on the logistics supply chain. But dont make it sound as if it CANT HIT YOU FROM MORE THAN 40KM.
What I feel may be the REAL archilles heel in their 'system' is their target acquisition capability. Are they able to acquire their target, track it long enough, and pass the information efficiently enough to the ASTROS II? How capable is their arty fire control system?
If MY is invaded, for example a coy of troop just outside the outskirt of a MY town , this time it might hit a MY town rather the coy of enemy troops.
And becos of the reloading recapability of Astros 2, they will have to quickly scoot and avoid been targeted by arty fire, I sure by then SAF will send in UAVs, Attack helos and even a bn of soldiers to hunt them down.
CHARGE!!! -
The Russian Smerch system also have to be manually loaded aided by crane ...and it must be done tube by tube.
Even so, it takes only 36mins to reload. There are 12 tubes to be reploaded...so about 3min per tube on average. See the loading is done from the back.
http://arms.ashst.com/artillery/smerch.htm
The Astros 2 rockets are loaded in one go coz the rockets comes in the container that houses the rockets.
The loading is done at the side.
I would put the reloading process as being much, much faster compared to the russians....perhaps about 6mins.
I don't consider that slow.
BTW, 1 300mm rocket can deliver tens of submunition. The blast from the submunitions can blanket 1 sqkm.
With that type of coverage, what's a few metres ?
The Brazillians are not that backward afterall, i would think the accuracy of their system would be somewhat closer to the Russian's Smerch at 0.3%.
The buyers like Iraq (inthe 80s), Qatar, Saudi Arabia, certainly can afford and have access to other MLRS system from the Russia, US or even China. They have chosen the Brazillian system.
As for system from China...well mostly sold to banana republics in Africa....so don't compared them with the Brazillians.
[/url] -
I suspect the ASTROS II is popular because it makes a good poor man's MLRS.
The point on ASTROS inprecision stands, it's not a matter of covering a large area, but actually hitting the right things that matters. As I said, risking having hundreds of submunitions fall on civillian areas along with the target when fired from extreme range is not a very good option for ASTROS commanders. The reason why the MLRS was so effective against Iraqi forces was generally because they didn't move much, didn't shoot back, and were caught flat footed in the open desert with no cover from the incoming submunitions. I doubt this kind of factors apply in the heavily forrested and urbanized landscape. As the russians rapidly discovered when using MLRS in recent times. Sometimes calling down precise, one round fire is far more effective.
Hence, ASTROS at extreme range is generally ineffective as a tatical weapon. It would be pratically useless for trying to root out an armoured force in an urban area, worse if friendlys are close to their targets. For it to be useful is to bring it closer into the fight and that would mean rapid mincemeatation by Sg arty.
More likely, I suspect the ASTROS II system could serve the malaysians more as a desperate last ditch system which they use when all else fails. Their best bet is to use it only when they are absolutely sure of wiping out a large number of enemy as possible, in which case would entail firing on a concentration of enemy forces at relatively short arty range. In which it would probably work very well, and with rather spectular results. Hence forth, it's no surprise ASTROS II will be will sought after by Sg munitions in any future conflict. -
It also be good to know that another vulnerability of MLRS systems is that they stick out like a sore thumb signature wise on launch. Outgoing mail is many, many times easier to track on counterbattery radar and the launcher will be located in short order. Now they have to worry about incoming mail, which could arrive in any form, arty, airpower or extended range smart munitions.
That's why a couple of minutes of reloading time is an eternity in battle. The traditional reason why MLRS are generally employed (and most useful) in situtations where the enemy cannot strike back.
Used within the range of tubed guns where it is more precise, the ASTROS will find it impossible to reload safely. To stay still for 4-6 min while under counterbattery fire is sucide. Hence the ASTROS has to learn to stay hidden in any situtation or it's toast. It's no wonder weapon for sure. -
i prefer to keep the discussion to the technicals rather than baseless rhetorics....
A quote from Maj-Gen Robert H. Scales Jr, Chief Instructor of Artillery School-Fort Sill (USA).
Quote"This is the key lesson of the war. The American ratio was eight to one SP to towed. Iraqi artillery was one to ten. Before the ground war began, Iraqis detached most truck primers and employed these to haul supplies. As a result the Iraqi artillery could not displace between missions. The Iraqis hoped to compensate for their lack of mobility by bunkering guns and ammunition ... In previous wars, this was an effective technique because towed artillery is a most difficult target to destroy with indirect fire.... However, the appearance of MLRs and bomblet ammunition (smart ammunition too - parenthesis mine) has changed the equation radically. With a single point of explosion, to cause damage fragments must strike an equilibrator, gun sight or propellant storage to kill a towed gun - a very unlikely prospect. A two-third maximum range with dumb ammunition (as against smart-parenthesis mine) the probability is about one in two thousands. But with multiple impacts from bomblets ammunition delivered with less than 50 meters error thanks to CM Radars, position locating devices, digital fire control, etc., the probability of incapacitating a gun is about one in ten for each volley fired, about one in three for a single MLR pod ... Remember today the radius of error is now smaller than the radius of effect for indirect fire - that is the real technological revolution in modern ground warfare - not precision munitions as the popular Press attests....' -
double post
-
6 mins huh.....obviously you have not seen a tech squad change a engine on the field before.....Originally posted by observe:The Russian Smerch system also have to be manually loaded aided by crane ...and it must be done tube by tube.
Even so, it takes only 36mins to reload. There are 12 tubes to be reploaded...so about 3min per tube on average. See the loading is done from the back.
The Astros 2 rockets are loaded in one go coz the rockets comes in the container that houses the rockets.
The loading is done at the side.
I would put the reloading process as being much, much faster compared to the russians....perhaps about 6mins.
I don't consider that slow.
BTW, 1 300mm rocket can deliver tens of submunition. The blast from the submunitions can blanket 1 sqkm.
With that type of coverage, what's a few metres ?
The Brazillians are not that backward afterall, i would think the accuracy of their system would be somewhat closer to the Russian's Smerch at 0.3%.
The buyers like Iraq (inthe 80s), Qatar, Saudi Arabia, certainly can afford and have access to other MLRS system from the Russia, US or even China. They have chosen the Brazillian system.
As for system from China...well mostly sold to banana republics in Africa....so don't compared them with the Brazillians.
[/url]
The concept of Astros 2 is completely different from the Russian,
you need remove unhook all electrcal & mechanical couplings , remove the giant old tubes and replaced all of them and hookup the couplings.
Look at the size of that , it is at least 6x2m, even larger than a MBT engines. It is very similar to removing & replacing an engines from MBT which ususally take abt at least 45min to an hour. Go check it out.
The russian concept is like reloading a gun, no mechanical and electrical to unhook and rehook, therefore it is totally different.
CHARGE!!! -
*ahem*
Your very post betrays you.
Note that the probability of taking out a target is still one in three, or just over 33 percent. After which the system has to reload, making it unable to fire for six to ten minutes (american MLRS). In that period of time, a tubed battery supposedly 3 times less effective, can fire off how many salvos? Less then able to make up for it's lower sucess rate I think so. One expensive-butt MLRS pod appears to be more effective then a volley of guns, but in reality it is far from it. It compensates by scattering as much as it can in one salvo, but loses that edge in long reload times. Of course the assumption being made that tube guns are using conventional warheads trying to plink point targets. Would the numbers stack up more if the tube guns were using submunition rounds as well?
If anything, the number talies up that in indirect fire, a tubed gun still ultimately takes out a target at a higher rate by virtue of it's far higher rof. Baseless rethoric? I think not. That's why MLRS complement, and not replace tubed pieces.
If you want something taken out fast with little fuss, by all means MLRS, but whoever heard of MLRS attrition battle? Against a displacing enemy, how effective are your rockets? In the long run, is it cost effective or pratical?
Based on the assumptiuon that the MAF has anywhere near the capacity, ammunition logistics and general efficency of the Americans shooting at stationary targets that are awaiting their fate (aka. iraqis), and can get their pieces close enough without getting toast. Of course, we assume that the MAF can also achieve as well as the americans with less rockets per salvo and an inherently inferior system against an enemy that is far more organized and dangerous then the iraqi army.
I think not. The facts speak for themselves.
Unfortunately this Maj. Gen. falls myopically short on his expected evolutionary assumption that the real revolution was in reduced error for indirect fire. I'll go with the press on this one. Why risk unit and crew driving up to mail an unguided munition with a limited range when you can plink the same target from far away with no risk to yourself? The true revolution is in precision guided, smart munitions. And ballastic guns can only get that much more precise, but smart munitions beat them flat off. It's only a matter of time as the firearm replaced the sword.
This is of course, no sour-grapes thread on malaysia ASTROS II bashing. All many have been trying to point out for a long time is that this wonder weapon is no war-winning wonder weapon at all and is just a very long ranged arty piece that shoots rockets. And for some reason it dosen't seem to sit down well with a paper tiger.
In the end war is a pratical affair, there is no space for frills or toys that work less then they promise. In itself the ASTROS II is impressive, but certainly not extraordinarly impressive in any light, certainly not in the light some paper tiger wants to put it in. Like any weapons systems it has it limitations, and as we have found out, they can be serious ones. It is far from a bao-ka-liao weapons systems. -
Well, the rockets are certainly not engines and if they come in the containers, all electrical/mechanical connections have already been pre-connected in the container. I suppose the external connections would be much reduced if the rockets have all been preconnected within the container.
Afterall, you don't change engines regularly...hence 45min is acceptable.
But you do reload the MLRS launcher often, hence design criteria would have to take that into account.
As for the part on the Maj-Gen....well, he has all the access to all data whereas you have none. Afterall he made it to Maj-Gen and has also written the official American history of Gulf War - 'Certain Victory - The US Army in the Gulf War'.
...whereas you, like me, can only post on the net for kids to read.
-
33 per cent is bloody effective. And on what basis did you assume that tube arty was only 3 times less effective? If you read his quote CAREFULLY, "A two-third maximum range with dumb ammunition (as against smart-parenthesis mine) the probability is about one in two thousands." which puts the dumb munition at around 650 times LESS effective than rocket arty. Also note that due to less ammo being put down on the target instantaneously, tube arty's 'shock' value is much less than rocket arty. Its lethality is also similiarly lesser as troops will have time to find cover after the initial barrage, and so the subsequent barrages will achieve much lesser effect.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:*ahem*
Your very post betrays you.
Note that the probability of taking out a target is still one in three, or just over 33 percent. After which the system has to reload, making it unable to fire for six to ten minutes (american MLRS). In that period of time, a tubed battery supposedly 3 times less effective, can fire off how many salvos? Less then able to make up for it's lower sucess rate I think so.
If anything, the number talies up that in indirect fire, a tubed gun still ultimately takes out a target at a higher rate by virtue of it's far higher rof. Baseless rethoric? I think not. That's why MLRS complement, and not replace tubed pieces.
Based on the assumptiuon that the MAF has anywhere near the capacity, ammunition logistics and general efficency of the Americans shooting at stationary targets that are awaiting their fate (aka. iraqis), and can get their pieces close enough without getting toast. Of course, we assume that the MAF can also achieve as well as the americans with less rockets per salvo and an inherently inferior system against an enemy that is far more organized and dangerous then the iraqi army.
I think not. The facts speak for themselves.
Unfortunately this Maj. Gen. falls myopically short on his expected evolutionary assumption that the real revolution was in reduced error for indirect fire. I'll go with the press on this one. Why risk unit and crew driving up to mail an unguided munition with a limited range when you can plink the same target from far away with no risk to yourself? The true revolution is in precision guided, smart munitions. And ballastic guns can only get that much more precise, but smart munitions beat them flat off. It's only a matter of time as the firearm replaced the sword.
First posters in this forum tried to discredit the MLRS lethality at ranges beyond 40km. Then it got to MLRS was less lethal then tube arty. I wonder what next... Are we not able to face reality that they have an arty system more lethal than ours? (That's not to say that its totally appropriate for our region, or that it can be effectively used by them). But to say that its not lethal or whatever, that oh, our Primus will beat their Astros, this just stinks..... -
What makes you think they are stupid enuff to sit there after a fire mission and wait for us to attack them? Oh, that is, if we have enuff reach with our Primus to attack them in the first place? On the other hand, have we considered the Astros' capability to engage our TPQ-47s? And our Primus? (though our Primus, with their extremely fast 'pack up and go' ability would be much less vulnerable to counter battery fire)Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:It also be good to know that another vulnerability of MLRS systems is that they stick out like a sore thumb signature wise on launch. Outgoing mail is many, many times easier to track on counterbattery radar and the launcher will be located in short order. Now they have to worry about incoming mail, which could arrive in any form, arty, airpower or extended range smart munitions.
That's why a couple of minutes of reloading time is an eternity in battle. The traditional reason why MLRS are generally employed (and most useful) in situtations where the enemy cannot strike back.
Used within the range of tubed guns where it is more precise, the ASTROS will find it impossible to reload safely. To stay still for 4-6 min while under counterbattery fire is sucide. Hence the ASTROS has to learn to stay hidden in any situtation or it's toast. It's no wonder weapon for sure. -
Ahem... I beg to differ, after all he is the chief of Artillery. I seriously urge you to take his statement in context. Considering the overall effectiveness of smart munitions versus indirect fire error zone munitions, and playing into account the current trend of technological development. It is quite safe to say that smart munitions, not ballastics, is the way of the future.Originally posted by observe:As for the part on the Maj-Gen....well, he has all the access to all data whereas you have none. Afterall he made it to Maj-Gen and has also written the official American history of Gulf War - 'Certain Victory - The US Army in the Gulf War'.
...whereas you, like me, can only post on the net for kids to read.
Lest you assume that I have no acess to data, I can assure you that I have researched quite extensively into this subject. For further reading, I urge you to read "The Future of War" by George and Meredith Friedman to fully understand the implications of the impact of smart technology on warfare beyond CNN hype. The implications are real, and are here to stay.
Consider the following. Inherently inprecise, ballastic weapons rely on producing as many projectiles as possible to ensure a a single hit. Hence you have guns firing in volleys, submunition rounds and the like, which as simply permutations of one theme: Produce as many projectiles as possible to get a hit with unguided weapons. The MLRS preformance in the war is not revolutionary, it was evolutionary. And even with an incredibly wasteful load of over 600 submutions per rocket and 12 rockets per pod, it only manages to gasp out a 33 percent hit rate, wasting most of the explosive power in the shell by splattering flat ground. The truth is, most of the bomblets simply miss entirely or worse, go dud.
The MLRS system is not more accucrate, it's simply a instant arty barrage packed into a pod. It is not revolutionary, it is simply ballastic weapons taken to it's logical, and senile extreme. Is this the revolution you are looking for? Maybe if you have had no experience with smart weapons. If the MLRS was the revolution the army was looking for, I dred to wonder what would have happened if they parked those things short of Bagdad and fired in their revolutionary arty to destroy the key targets there. Apparently they didn't do that.
With smart munitions you don't have to have big-butt launchers belching out hundreds of rounds and scattering hundreds of thousands of submunitions (with a high dud rate) to suppress a target. Instead of mailing ever increasing amounts of explosives to the enemy just to kill him, with most of it being wasted, you can now apply the right amount of firepower per target.
Logically, it is obvious that the development and use of smart munitions was the weapons revolution of our time. It's obvious the Maj. Gen. statements are quite easy to dismiss in the context of an expert in turboprop propulsion looking at a jet plane and saying "it has no propeller". To take him at his word simply because "he should know what he's saying" is prehaps dumping common sense for blind faith. Whatever happened to the experts during Vietnam which proclaimed long before AAM technology was mature, that all fighters should go gunless then? Plenty believed them.
To put it in prespective, try imagining Desert Storm or Iraqi Freedom without MLRS, would it still work? Now try ommiting smart munitions. Now that would make a difference.
Smart technology is the way to go, and it's something the SAF is chasing with quite a lot of zeal instead of getting every increasing numbers of guns to shoot every increasing numbers of rounds and rockets.
The arty of the future? It's in precision guided missile arty dude. -
Pre-connectedOriginally posted by observe:Well, the rockets are certainly not engines and if they come in the containers, all electrical/mechanical connections have already been pre-connected in the container. I suppose the external connections would be much reduced if the rockets have all been preconnected within the container.
Afterall, you don't change engines regularly...hence 45min is acceptable.
But you do reload the MLRS launcher often, hence design criteria would have to take that into account.
Obviously you have no engineering background, how could the tube stay in place when the veh move w/o mechanical couplings to hold them !!!!
Where does the tube get it power from for firing w/o the power from the veh batteries.
and lastly where does the electrical signal that needed for firing!
All these need to be hookup to vehicles, no such thing as pre-connected in this case.
CHARGE!!! -
The Primus was designed for highly mobile running arty battles, and zapping at things a lot closer to it then traditional guns. Kind of a semi-close indirect support need that the SAF had required for a long time that other SPs just could not provide.Originally posted by YourFather:What makes you think they are stupid enuff to sit there after a fire mission and wait for us to attack them? Oh, that is, if we have enuff reach with our Primus to attack them in the first place? On the other hand, have we considered the Astros' capability to engage our TPQ-47s? And our Primus? (though our Primus, with their extremely fast 'pack up and go' ability would be much less vulnerable to counter battery fire)
Heh, sure the Astros will pack up and run after a fire mission, but as stated before, launching sticks it out like a sore thumb, far, far more then normal gun arty. And since it takes a while to reload, and can't reload on the move like SPs, it better run forrest run until it finds some place to hide. Heck, you don't have to counter battery them, those extended range JDAMs from from CAS would fit the job nicely.
I never intended this as a Primus vs. ASTROS II pitch, only that you have misconstrued it this way. I only pointed out that the Primus has far less of "white elephant" quotent then the ASTROS II. And would probably be far more revelant to you grunts in your order of battle. Comparing the two systems in terms of tatical usefulness hardly consitutes a my dad can beat you dad thing.
If would be fallacious to assume this system would also have anything near the capability of the american MLRS system. The ASTROS is a far smaller system, with only four rockets one needs to note.
As stated, this is far from a case of sour grapes, more like wet blankets on the overwhelming zeal of a certain paper tiger on the MAF's latest toy. Will the ASTROS II work in battle, certainly, but it takes far more thinking, planning, and organization then just launching rockets that fly 89km. Many things he failed to take into account. And maybe the MAF as well when they bought these systems along with tons of other hardware that consitutes their jumbled equipment big shopping spree for last year.
My personal opinion? I feel the MAF didn't weight in everything that well when it decided to get the ASTROS II. It looks great in their propangada flicks but I wonder if that thing is as good as it is cranked out to be, especially when the impression I am getting from their protractors is that the only thing you need to do is to point and shoot and automatic sucess is assured. What about attrition, logistics, maintence and keeping those darned things from getting blown to bits in the first place. It in same thread, I wonder what's up with them getting hardware of so many different makes.
If the SAF is wanting to aquire MLRS capability, (and probably is considering so) it is doing so carefully and waiting for the technology to mature, or is actively developing some on it's on. Especially in the area of network centric fire mission coordination (think TOT capability, everytime from every assigned gun in the SAF), guided rockets, and the like. In which case would certainly inspire a case of sore grapes up north who had just spent millions on an less-well thought out system.
So there. -
What make you think that the Astros 2 is a correction rockets or a even a controlled rocket system?Originally posted by observe:The Brazillians are not that backward afterall, i would think the accuracy of their system would be somewhat closer to the Russian's Smerch at 0.3%.
The buyers like Iraq (inthe 80s), Qatar, Saudi Arabia, certainly can afford and have access to other MLRS system from the Russia, US or even China. They have chosen the Brazillian system.
As for system from China...well mostly sold to banana republics in Africa....so don't compared them with the Brazillians.
[/url]
From your link,Designing of rockets with effective and comparatively cheap control (correction) systems based on new principles began in the 1970s...........The first MLRS with controlled rockets was Smerch. The rocketÂ’s trajectory correction system comprises a gas-dynamic angular stabilization system and a rocket warhead separation moment correction system.
http://www.milparade.com/2002/51/03_02.shtml
The Smerch was developed in the 80s & went into service in 1988 much later than Astros, Astros 2 was developed in the 70s & went into service in 1982.
Therefore Astros 2 could not be controlled rockets MLRS since Smerch is the first MLRS with controlled rockets based on your link.
Even the correction rockets is questionable, since it was developed in the 70s at the same time as Astros 2. Did the Brazilian developed it or was it somebody else?I think not.
In conclusion, the Astros 2 is not electronic controlled rockets, whether it is a correction rockets is questionable unless you could provide me with proof?
Therefore a CEP of 1% is not really far fetched as you think, as the matter of fact, it might not even be better than the Chinese WS-1B system which come later I think.
CHARGE!!! -
Originally posted by observe:
One question, when is this report based on ? GW1 or GW2?
i prefer to keep the discussion to the technicals rather than baseless rhetorics....
A quote from Maj-Gen Robert H. Scales Jr, Chief Instructor of Artillery School-Fort Sill (USA).
Quote"This is the key lesson of the war. The American ratio was eight to one SP to towed. Iraqi artillery was one to ten. Before the ground war began, Iraqis detached most truck primers and employed these to haul supplies. As a result the Iraqi artillery could not displace between missions. The Iraqis hoped to compensate for their lack of mobility by bunkering guns and ammunition ... In previous wars, this was an effective technique because towed artillery is a most difficult target to destroy with indirect fire.... However, the appearance of MLRs and bomblet ammunition (smart ammunition too - parenthesis mine) has changed the equation radically. With a single point of explosion, to cause damage fragments must strike an equilibrator, gun sight or propellant storage to kill a towed gun - a very unlikely prospect. A two-third maximum range with dumb ammunition (as against smart-parenthesis mine) the probability is about one in two thousands. But with multiple impacts from bomblets ammunition delivered with less than 50 meters error thanks to CM Radars, position locating devices, digital fire control, etc., [b]the probability of incapacitating a gun is about one in ten for each volley fired, about one in three for a single MLR pod ... Remember today the radius of error is now smaller than the radius of effect for indirect fire - that is the real technological revolution in modern ground warfare - not precision munitions as the popular Press attests....'
[/b]
Current US MLRS has maximum range for normal rocket is above 32km, the extended range which was first field in 1998 is 45km.
It has a 33% of success at 2/3 of maximum rangefor a single pod of 6 rockets(21km for normal rocket or for ext range rocket 30km).
Logically at range of 80km , the success rate will be even lower !!!!
Based on report of 50m error, The CEP will be either 50/21000=0.23% or 50/30000=0.16%.The former is more likely.
The report tell how "good" Astros 2 with CEP of 1% is in term of tactical value, afterall the report is based on US technology(with CEP of 0.2-0.3%), not Brazilian.
Another quote from your link:Firing small- and large-caliber rockets featuring traditional aeroballistic configurations and with mean deviations from the target of about ~1%X of the firing range and a consistency of up to 1/150 becomes ineffective at a range in excess of 40 km.
That is why the US never developed any unguided LR rocket above 45km!!Edited: One US MLRS pod is 6 rockets, one lanucher with two pods.But result still stand.
CHARGE!!!
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mlrs/index.html -
Let me try to put this across slightly:
With submunitioned rounds, an MLRS can blanket one grid square of a map with submunitions, that is 1sq/km, a grid a thousand meters by a thousand meters.
Yet it's odds of taking it's target out of action was only one out of three, despite scattering thousands of submunitions over an area of a typical map grid. It two of the three cases, it missed bad enough that despite blanketing 1sq/km, the target remained in action, despite scattering 600+ submunitions per rocket, for 12 rockets. The reason it manages to achieve such a sucess rate is by virtue of sheer submunition load.
Any more illusions about it's precision?
Of course, this is just with american MLRS, try to imagine it with the far inferior ASTROS II system on extended rounds at 89km. Not something they want to shoot at anything less then division sized. -
Actually, if u just grp a whole battalion of artillery and concentrate fire onto a particular area.... no diff from MRLS right? somemore can sustain fire longer and more accurate...
Im juz talking shit.... ive no idea abt artillery. -
[quote]
Pre-connected
Obviously you have no engineering background, how could the tube stay in place when the veh move w/o mechanical couplings to hold them !!!!
Where does the tube get it power from for firing w/o the power from the veh batteries.
and lastly where does the electrical signal that needed for firing!
All these need to be hookup to vehicles, no such thing as pre-connected in this case.
firstly, if the Astros rockets were designed like the Russian Smerch, it would take 12mins to reload the 4 SS60/SS80 tubes from the back.
For an arty system. the design engineers would have taken this reload time as one of their design parameter.
They have chosen to house the rockets in container pods....which means it is more expensive than the russians method. On the plus side, the rockets would not be exposed to the vagaries of the weather hence prolonging the lifespan. With the rockets in the container and prewired within the container, the external wirings from the container to the launch vehicle would have been much reduced....almost like plug-and play.
As analogy, to change the harddisk within you computer would require you to open the chasis, unplug the IDE cable, power supply blah blah. Then you insert the new HD and plugin all the cables again, fasten the screws....this would be like changing you engine in the armoured vehicle. If you don't do this often, its acceptable to have a process that takes this long.
However, if you envisage that you will change the HD routinely, you will be better off getting a removable HD drive. You preconnect the drive into your PC, mount the HD into the cassete that comes with the removable HD. Now you can change your HD quickly by inserting the cassete into the drive....
That would be they way, the containerised rockets work.
Reloading the MLRS launchers is a routine activity, and the engineers would have work something like that into the rocket loading mechanism.
I would say the containerised rocket pod allows this "plug-and-play" method with minimal fastening and connections to the launch vehicle.
Its more expensive than russia's exposed rockets method, therefore the added expense have to be justified by design benefits.
As i said, using the russian method(which surely have been considered by the Brazillian engineers) would result in 12mins of reload time.
I would put 6mins of reload time needed for the Astros as resaonable.
The US MLRS takes only 3min to reload and they too house their rockets in container pods.
You have a very naive view of the Brazillian engineers....they are not that stupid to adopt a reloading method that is worst off compared to the russian way.
Now, back to the controlled rockets,
While the design of the Astros may be earlier, but who is to say that the will not be any improvements to the rockets. Afterall, the rockets is just the ammo, you can change the rocket design anytime when new technologies have been tested and proven. -
to ST,
say what you like, i would prefer to base my conclusions on a credible source like the Maj-Gen.
I think it would serve the SAF much better if the capability of the Astros is known accurately.
All this speculation, many without any basis or proof, only leads to misinformation. Try going into battle thinking that MLRS is useless, only to find out that all you know and has spew out in this forum as BS! It would be too late, my fren. -
One question, when is this report based on ? GW1 or GW2?
Current US MLRS has maximum range for normal rocket is above 32km, the extended range which was first field in 1998 is 45km.
It has a 33% of success at 2/3 of maximum rangefor a single pod of 6 rockets(21km for normal rocket or for ext range rocket 30km).
Logically at range of 80km , the success rate will be even lower !!!!
Based on report of 50m error, The CEP will be either 50/21000=0.23% or 50/30000=0.16%.The former is more likely.
The report tell how "good" Astros 2 with CEP of 1% is in term of tactical value, afterall the report is based on US technology(with CEP of 0.2-0.3%), not Brazilian. [Mr. Green]
Another quote from your link:
quote:Firing small- and large-caliber rockets featuring traditional aeroballistic configurations and with mean deviations from the target of about ~1%X of the firing range and a consistency of up to 1/150 becomes ineffective at a range in excess of 40 km.
That is why the US never developed any unguided LR rocket above 45km!
You keep bringing this CEP and doubting the Astros accuracy...to put things in perspective, let me paint a simple scenario...(i have provided this info in a previous thread on Astros). I hope i don't scare you with it.
1 Astros launcher - 4 SS80 rockets.
Each rockets can provide area saturation with anti-personnel, anti-amour submunition to 1 sqkm.
1 regt with 18 lauchers - 72 rockets
2 regt with 36 launchers - 144 rockets in one salvo.
From the first launch, 144sqkm will be saturated with blasts from submunitions.
Therefore, to blanket an area of 640sqkm, it will require 5 salvoes.
Time from launch to a target 89km away - 2 min
Reload time - 6 min
Time taken for 5 salvoes - 34min.
Assuming if you do survive the first barrage, and recover from the shock....you have 32min to mount a response, else within the next 32min, an area of 640sqkm will be reduce to wasteland.
This is their version of "Shock and Awe"....coming from the MLRS.
The tube arty will followup with sustain arty fire.
That is why MLRS and tube arty are complementary.
Now tell me, would CEP be important here. Don't muddle yourself with the leaves when what you need is a helicopter view.
[/b]