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

[Zarvan]

The high-mobility artillery rocket system (HIMARS) is the newest member of the multiple-launch rocket system (MLRS) family.

HIMARS is a highly-mobile artillery rocket system offering the firepower of MLRS on a wheeled chassis.

In January 2011, the US Army placed a $139.6m contract with Lockheed Martin for 44 combat-proven HIMARS, bringing the total launchers to 375.

1. HIMARS is able to launch its weapons and move away at high speed.

2. The HIMARS artillery rocket launcher can aim at a target in just 16 seconds.

3. HIMARS has successfully test fired the new extended range guided rocket GMLRS, with a range of more than 70km.

4. HIMARS is capable of launching the entire MLRS family of munitions, including the extended-range rocket.

http://www.usarmy4life.com/u-s-feared-long-range-high-mobility-artillery-rocket-system/

@Horus

 

[Basel]

The high-mobility artillery rocket system (HIMARS) is the newest member of the multiple-launch rocket system (MLRS) family.

HIMARS is a highly-mobile artillery rocket system offering the firepower of MLRS on a wheeled chassis.

In January 2011, the US Army placed a $139.6m contract with Lockheed Martin for 44 combat-proven HIMARS, bringing the total launchers to 375.

1. HIMARS is able to launch its weapons and move away at high speed.

2. The HIMARS artillery rocket launcher can aim at a target in just 16 seconds.

3. HIMARS has successfully test fired the new extended range guided rocket GMLRS, with a range of more than 70km.

4. HIMARS is capable of launching the entire MLRS family of munitions, including the extended-range rocket.

http://www.usarmy4life.com/u-s-feared-long-range-high-mobility-artillery-rocket-system/

@Horus

Are those better then Russian and Chinese systems in terms of range, type of warheads, guidance, accuracy and rate of fire?

 

[Zarvan]

Are those better then Russian and Chinese systems in terms of range, type of warheads, guidance, accuracy and rate of fire?

Let's invite some Chinese members here and also some other guys
@cirr @Deino @Arsalan and others

 

[Natan]

Rule #1 of bad journalism: use as much emotional words as possible, i.e. "most feared" e.t.c.

 

[Penguin]

HiMars (vehicle) is MLRS (vehicle) 'light'. Identical rockets, canisters and packs are used.
Both can fire a variety of available rocket munitions, with unitary or submunition warheads, with varying ranges: 32km, 35km, 38km, 39km, 45km, 60km, 70km and 84km. Can also accommodate the 300km ATACMS ballistic missile. Will, in future fire a 500km ATACMS replacement missile, fullfilling the U.S. Army's Long-Range Precision Fires (LRPF) requirement, which will be thinner and sleeker, increasing loadout to two per pod, doubling the number able to be carried by M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS launchers.
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System#MLRS_rockets_and_missiles[/URL]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-140_ATACMS

 

[Arsalan]

Let's invite some Chinese members here and also some other guys

@cirr @Deino @Arsalan and others

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.

 

[Zarvan]

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.

The kind of weapons it can carry I don't think A-100 can fire those

 

[Arsalan]

The kind of weapons it can carry I don't think A-100 can fire those

For example?

All these carry a vast variety of munitions, almost matched with each other in terms of capability and performance.

 

[Zarvan]

For example?

All these carry a vast variety of munitions, almost matched with each other in terms of capability and performance.

It can fire ballistic missiles

 

[Arsalan]

It can fire ballistic missiles

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.

 

[LeGenD]

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.

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.

 

[Arsalan]

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.

Actually, if you read the complete post, i have mentioned this very point and cited this as an advantage of HIMARS. However my argument is not that of a comparison between these systems but about how calling HIMARS the most feared MBRL is inaccurate.

But i understand you point and agree with it. I have mentioned this in above post already.

 

[LeGenD]

Are those better then Russian and Chinese systems in terms of range, type of warheads, guidance, accuracy and rate of fire?

HIMARS have precision-strike capability in all weather conditions.

Armament package includes GMLRS x 6 (or) TACMS x 1

With TACMS, range is 300 km.
With GMLRS, range is 70 km.

Actually, if you read the complete post, i have mentioned this very point and cited this as an advantage of HIMARS. However my argument is not that of a comparison between these systems but about how calling HIMARS the most feared MBRL is inaccurate.

But i understand you point and agree with it. I have mentioned this in above post already.

HIMARS is a cost-effective weapon system and very convenient to field in large numbers for demanding situations of the battlefield. It can be configured to fire both standard and long-range tactical missiles and is incredibly accurate. An entire battalion of HIMARS - armed with TACMS and GMLRS - would devastate any advancing column from a long distance. HIMARS is also very fast and agile, so much easier for the entire battalion to issue a concentrated and well-coordinated attack and then retreat to safety. So when you look at it from operational point-of-view, HIMARS justifies its hype.

 

[Basel]

HIMARS have precision-strike capability in all weather conditions.

Armament package includes GMLRS x 6 (or) TACMS x 1

With TACMS, range is 300 km.
With GMLRS, range is 70 km.


HIMARS is a cost-effective weapon system and very convenient to field in large numbers for demanding situations of the battlefield. It can be configured to fire both standard and long-range tactical missiles and is incredibly accurate. An entire battalion of HIMARS - armed with TACMS and GMLRS - would devastate any advancing column from a long distance. HIMARS is also very fast and agile, so much easier for the entire battalion to issue a concentrated and well-coordinated attack and then retreat to safety. So when you look at it from operational point-of-view, HIMARS justifies its hype.

It seems US have realised effectiveness of these system bit late, as China already have similar range or better range guided rockets.

 

[Dash]

It seems US have realised effectiveness of these system bit late, as China already have similar range or better range guided rockets.

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