Posted on 10/27/2016 6:01:45 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Whatever the first picture was , it is a photoshop. That missile did not come out of that launcher, no way in hell.
Fact is, research and engineering never goes out of style.It’s very important.
So the Army wants to reincarnate coastal artillery - cool!
Nope, not Photoshop. The launcher is an MLRS which can launch multiple types:
Not a photoshop. That is a genuine ATACMS launch.
Adopt the Tomahawk and/or harpoon for land based firing they are already pretty much containerized just need a sturdy enough rolling platform ... problem solved.
geez is this really rocket science....badump dum...be here all week folks.
What is loaded in the left chamber? One heckuva double-barrelled shotgun!
The ATACMS is meant to be a tactical missile system, so the range advantage of the Tomahawk doesn’t count.
And being a ballistic missile, it goes several times faster than the Harpoon and Tomahawk.
http://www.military-today.com/missiles/atacms.htm
I see what they did. They put the six tube MLRS pod on one side, and the one tube ATACMS pod on the other side. I had not seen that before.
When I saw the MLRS in the field, both sides were the six tube pods. Did not think about fitting separate pods at the same time.
“the Army has largely neglected the artillery”
The Army has DESTROYED the Field Artillery branch.
Sure it did.
MLRS was originally designed to hold two “six packs” of 203mm unguided rockets. Then they came up with ATACMS, which replaced each six-pack with a single, longer range guided missile. They kept the six-pack appearance on the missile module so the enemy couldn’t easily see what they were packing.
All of the missiles have the “six-pack” appearance. The right module might hold an ATACMS or six 203mm rockets.
“Nope, not Photoshop. The launcher is an MLRS which can launch multiple types:”
So the endcap on the single-missile pod has indents for six rockets just like the pod that actually holds six rockets?
Good Maskirovka.
They didn’t destroy us, just decimated us. Direct support artillery (units that directly support manuever forces) are largely intact, just somewhat fewer gun tubes per battalion. General support artillery is about 1/3 of what we had in 2003.
This has caused three separate but related problems:
1) Lack of ability to mass fires. The carnage has been in general support artillery. Instead of a Corps Artillery of 2-3 Brigades per Corps, we have a single brigade per corps. This limits the ability of the Army to reinforce units with extra artillery when they need to mass fires on an enemy.
2) Reduction in available firepower. HIMARS systems have partially replace MLRS (M270) systems (post #1 has pics of both). HIMARS systems are easier to move strategically by air, MLRS are tracked and not road bound like the HIMARS. The tradeoff is that HIMARS systems can carry one pod, MLRS carries two. So a HIMARS battalion has half the firepower of an MLRS battalion.
3) Less flexibility. Fewer systems, fewer people, reduce the amount of individual systems strategic, operational, and tactical planners and their commanders at all levels can use for each operation. With fewer systems comes the requirement to pick and choose who gets fire support and who doesn’t. Someone, somewhere will be left out. Murphy dictates that they are the one who will need it the most.
You have to get close to a pod to see what is actually in it. Fortunately, as a last resort, when you plug the pod into a launcher, it tells you what kind: rocket, missile, or training pod, it is. Loading the wrong pod is high on the list of MLRS/HIMARS crew no nos.
Why not a rail gun?
With the power required to fire one, each gun would need it’s own power generating station. Not exactly feasible.
Like the Air Force has disdained ground support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.