U.S. MOST FEARED LONG RANGE, HIGH MOBILITY ARTILLERY ROCKET SYSTEM

[Basel]

It all depends on theatre requirements nothing to do with its delay. There is a particular reason why it's been made air mobile.

US is an expeditionary military which need air lift capable systems, while China is not in that position now, may be in future they may go for expeditionary force capability.

 

[Penguin]

One short coming that can be quickly pointed out is the small number of missiles/rockets it carries per vehicle. The number stands at 6 only (range ~70km). Comparatively, the Chinese A-100 MBRL carries 10 missiles (range ~100Km), the Russian BM-30 carries 12 rockets (range ~90Km). The one advantage the US system have (and to be honest, it was built around that advantage) is the weight of the system. At around 11 tons this is transportable by a C130 aircraft. Both of the other two systems mentioned above are much heavier. In this category, the Russian Tornado is a better competitor as it is also built as a light MBRL. Even though it also carries 6 rockets just like the US HIMARS it still beats the US in range as well as vehicle mobility (better top speed and range).

The last but a very important factor to consider is the rocket accuracy. Again, the Chinese and Russians do not lag behind is not lead the HIMARS in this regard as well and can be called even. All of these can also fire a similar looking variety of munition so I don’t think one system is at an advantage over the other based on that.

All these things considered, I will say that HIMARS is a pretty impressive system but calling it the WORLDS is a bit too much.

You might have 12 rounds (2x6) on a tracked MLRS and 6 on a wheeled Himars. However, I think the practical comparison is between BM-30 and A-100 and tracked MLRS as wheeled Himars is simply a light version for expeditionary forces.
Easy way to compansate for fewer missiles per wheeled vehicle: put more vehicles in a battery. Also, do not under estimate the advantage of the loading system employed in MLRS and Himars: they can independently pick up six packs preposition somewhere in the field and load them without assistance. So, they can shoot, quickly reposition and reload on the way. Quick reloading - in a static position - means a higher sustained/continuous rate of fire. Shoot and scoot, aided by rapid in/out of action times and quick launcher laying, translates to survivability, in environments where launched are monitored by arty/rocket locating radars and where counter battery fire can be expected.

This is copied in the Chinese SR-5 MRL

Oo Bahi!!
We are talking about HIMARS MBRL system here sarkarr!! Check the title

HIMARS is the acronym for High Mobility Artillery Rocket System. In MBRL configuration it will carry 6 rockets. For the tactical missile role, it can be converted to carry a SINGLE MGM140 but that makes it a different system. I am just commenting on what was being claimed in the OP.

It can fire ATACMS from single round pod. ATACMS is a ballistic missile. That leaves the launcher vehicle unchanged.

HIMARS is a light-weight artillery solution. I am not sure why you are comparing it with heavyweights like Chinese A-100 and Russian BM-30.

American have developed and fielded two mobile rocket launch systems; M270 MLRS and HIMARS.

M270 MLRS = heavy duty and long-range
HIMARS = Lightweight and mobility

Your comparison is not fair.

Better comparison would be Chinese SR-5
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/sr5.htm

LIMAWS(R) will provide the Royal Artillery's fire support to the British Army's light and rapid reaction forces.
The chassis selected for the LIMAWS(R) is a 6x4 Supacat chassis.
The vehicle is designed and built with four lifting points so it can be carried underslung by a Chinook CH-47 helicopter. The total vehicle weight, including a 2.3t rocket pod, is approximately 9t.
LIMAWS(R) is fitted with a computerised fire control system supplied by Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control Systems and which is of proven design and is also installed on HIMARS vehicles and on the tracked version of MLRS.
LIMAWS(R) is fitted with a new lightweight launcher. The launcher is pivoted at the rear of the vehicle chassis. The elevation system is hydraulically powered. There is no traverse turntable as in MLRS but the boom reloading system is of similar design. In a typical firing mission, the target data is transmitted to LIMAWS(R) from a battlefield command post.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/limaws

The HIMARS vehicle weighs approximately 24,000lb (10,886kg) compared to more than 44,000lb (19,958kg) for the MLRS M270 launcher. HIMARS retains the same self-loading and autonomous features installed on the MLRS.

HIMARS is operated by a crew of three - driver, gunner and section chief - but the computer-based fire control system enables a crew of two or even a single soldier to load and unload the system. The fire control system includes video, keyboard control, a gigabyte of programme storage and global positioning system. The fire control computer allows firing missions to be carried out in automatic or manual mode.

In a typical mission, a command and control post would transmit the selected target data via a secure data link to the HIMARS on-board launch computer. The computer then aims the launcher and provides prompt signals to the crew to arm and fire a pre-selected number of rounds. The launcher can aim at a target in just 16 seconds. It is possible for the crew to select preprogrammed multiple mission sequences which have been stored in the computer.

Two advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM) were successfully fired by the HIMARS launchers in March 2009....
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/himars/

By comparison:
A loaded BM-30 launch vehicle weighs 43.7 t.
An A-100 launch vehicle weighs 45 t.
The SR-5 launch vehicle weighs 25 t

 

[Arsalan]

You might have 12 rounds (2x6) on a tracked MLRS and 6 on a wheeled Himars. However, I think the practical comparison is between BM-30 and A-100 and tracked MLRS as wheeled Himars is simply a light version for expeditionary forces.
Easy way to compansate for fewer missiles per wheeled vehicle: put more vehicles in a battery. Also, do not under estimate the advantage of the loading system employed in MLRS and Himars: they can independently pick up six packs preposition somewhere in the field and load them without assistance. So, they can shoot, quickly reposition and reload on the way. Quick reloading - in a static position - means a higher sustained/continuous rate of fire. Shoot and scoot, aided by rapid in/out of action times and quick launcher laying, translates to survivability, in environments where launched are monitored by arty/rocket locating radars and where counter battery fire can be expected.

This is copied in the Chinese SR-5 MRL


It can fire ATACMS from single round pod. ATACMS is a ballistic missile. That leaves the launcher vehicle unchanged.


Better comparison would be Chinese SR-5
http://www.military-today.com/artillery/sr5.htm

LIMAWS(R) will provide the Royal Artillery's fire support to the British Army's light and rapid reaction forces.
The chassis selected for the LIMAWS(R) is a 6x4 Supacat chassis.
The vehicle is designed and built with four lifting points so it can be carried underslung by a Chinook CH-47 helicopter. The total vehicle weight, including a 2.3t rocket pod, is approximately 9t.
LIMAWS(R) is fitted with a computerised fire control system supplied by Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control Systems and which is of proven design and is also installed on HIMARS vehicles and on the tracked version of MLRS.
LIMAWS(R) is fitted with a new lightweight launcher. The launcher is pivoted at the rear of the vehicle chassis. The elevation system is hydraulically powered. There is no traverse turntable as in MLRS but the boom reloading system is of similar design. In a typical firing mission, the target data is transmitted to LIMAWS(R) from a battlefield command post.
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/limaws

The HIMARS vehicle weighs approximately 24,000lb (10,886kg) compared to more than 44,000lb (19,958kg) for the MLRS M270 launcher. HIMARS retains the same self-loading and autonomous features installed on the MLRS.

HIMARS is operated by a crew of three - driver, gunner and section chief - but the computer-based fire control system enables a crew of two or even a single soldier to load and unload the system. The fire control system includes video, keyboard control, a gigabyte of programme storage and global positioning system. The fire control computer allows firing missions to be carried out in automatic or manual mode.

In a typical mission, a command and control post would transmit the selected target data via a secure data link to the HIMARS on-board launch computer. The computer then aims the launcher and provides prompt signals to the crew to arm and fire a pre-selected number of rounds. The launcher can aim at a target in just 16 seconds. It is possible for the crew to select preprogrammed multiple mission sequences which have been stored in the computer.

Two advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM) were successfully fired by the HIMARS launchers in March 2009....
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/himars/

By comparison:
A loaded BM-30 launch vehicle weighs 43.7 t.
An A-100 launch vehicle weighs 45 t.
The SR-5 launch vehicle weighs 25 t

Bro what i wrote is NOT to COMPARE the systems, they are in different league but at the end of the day, they are all MBRLs. That considered, is it really fair to call HIMARS as THE MOST FEARED MBRL as in my opinion, there are more capable ones available, though quite different in configuration but a similar role nonetheless. At best, HIMARS can be called the most feared LIGHT WEIGHT MBRL and that too will need an argument to settle the claim.

P.S. Thanks for the detailed post and sharing all the different features of the system in detail. An interesting read. You also mentioned SR5 from China, again, an excellent system from what little we know about it and a further question mark on whether HIMARS is actually THE BEST OPTION out there.

 

[Penguin]

Bro what i wrote is NOT to COMPARE the systems, they are in different league but at the end of the day, they are all MBRLs. That considered, is it really fair to call HIMARS as THE MOST FEARED MBRL as in my opinion, there are more capable ones available, though quite different in configuration but a similar role nonetheless. At best, HIMARS can be called the most feared LIGHT WEIGHT MBRL and that too will need an argument to settle the claim.

P.S. Thanks for the detailed post and sharing all the different features of the system in detail. An interesting read. You also mentioned SR5 from China, again, an excellent system from what little we know about it and a further question mark on whether HIMARS is actually THE BEST OPTION out there.

Well, you can also view it this way: it is one of just two MBRLs in the US inventory and the only wheeled one. If it is the only MBRL in non-armour units then - to the extent that it is fearted at all - it automatically is the most feared. Conclusion: it doesn't say feared by whom or how that was established to be the case. Advise: don't work up a sweat over some off-the-cuff remark that isn't at all important. Note: the US MLRS familiy of system may very well be the most effective, but not necessarily because of many rockets or range (i.e. by its fire control, low manning requirement, rapid independent reload capability, mobility, survivabililty, etc.) . Whether or not that makes it the most feared, I don't know.

 

[Arsalan]

Well, you can also view it this way: it is one of just two MBRLs in the US inventory and the only wheeled one. If it is the only MBRL in non-armour units then - to the extent that it is fearted at all - it automatically is the most feared. Conclusion: it doesn't say feared by whom or how that was established to be the case. Advise: don't work up a sweat over some off-the-cuff remark that isn't at all important. Note: the US MLRS familiy of system may very well be the most effective, but not necessarily because of many rockets or range (i.e. by its fire control, low manning requirement, rapid independent reload capability, mobility, survivabililty, etc.) . Whether or not that makes it the most feared, I don't know.

The point in red is what is important. Understood and agreed with.

 

[LeGenD]

Bro what i wrote is NOT to COMPARE the systems, they are in different league but at the end of the day, they are all MBRLs. That considered, is it really fair to call HIMARS as THE MOST FEARED MBRL as in my opinion, there are more capable ones available, though quite different in configuration but a similar role nonetheless. At best, HIMARS can be called the most feared LIGHT WEIGHT MBRL and that too will need an argument to settle the claim.

P.S. Thanks for the detailed post and sharing all the different features of the system in detail. An interesting read. You also mentioned SR5 from China, again, an excellent system from what little we know about it and a further question mark on whether HIMARS is actually THE BEST OPTION out there.

Chinese SR5 system is a 25 ton vehicle. Therefore, not ideal for airlift.

Although SR5 is multi-barrel, it is designed to fire armaments of standard ranges only (50-70 km on average). Full reload time is 10 minutes and crew requirement is 5 per unit.

HIMARS is a 15 ton vehicle; suitable for airlift. Advantage in portability.

HIMARS is designed to fire both standard and long-range missiles, so range is not an issue with it. Full reload time is 5 minutes and crew requirement is 3 per unit.

Their are additional qualitative differences to consider such as onboard systems, functions, holistic efficiency, cost-effectiveness, build quality, and operational capability in diverse environments. HIMARS is actually battle-tested and fully capable of operating in harsh environments of the world.

When you look at HIMARS from both quantitative and qualitative angles, and the threat it poses to to an adversary as a platform (a large formation), HIMARS probably outshines competition.

 

[Nike]

Chinese SR5 system is a 25 ton vehicle. Therefore, not ideal for airlift.

Although SR5 is multi-barrel, it is designed to fire armaments of standard ranges only (50-70 km on average). Full reload time is 10 minutes and crew requirement is 5 per unit.

HIMARS is a 15 ton vehicle; suitable for airlift. Advantage in portability.

HIMARS is designed to fire both standard and long-range missiles, so range is not an issue with it. Full reload time is 5 minutes and crew requirement is 3 per unit.

Their are additional qualitative differences to consider such as onboard systems, functions, holistic efficiency, cost-effectiveness, build quality, and operational capability in diverse environments. HIMARS is actually battle-tested and fully capable of operating in harsh environments of the world.

When you look at HIMARS from both quantitative and qualitative angles, and the threat it poses to to an adversary as a platform (a large formation), HIMARS probably outshines competition.

the only drawback for himars is the price