+SR5+220+mm+or+122+mm+multiple+launcher+rocket+system+Norinco+-+China+Venezuelan+Marines+announce+new+artillery+group+(1).jpg) |
| Chinese SR5 Truck Mounted Universal Multiple Rocket Launcher multiple System (MLRS) System pic via Chinese Military Review. |
Answer. Korea.
China is looking to change that if we ever tangle and their latest truck mounted universal MLRS system will probably be a big part of any future war plans.
Much has been made of the idea of US forces hearing enemy fighters overhead, but just as concerning should be the whistle of enemy artillery. Historically communist forces believed and relied heavily on huge numbers of gun and missile fire to overwhelm forces in the field and reduce cities to rubble.
Luckily the US Army already has in service the weapon system that should be able to keep enemy artillery at bay (if we can see them approaching in time), the ATACMS.
This is one of those weapon systems that hasn't gotten the attention it deserves but might prove invaluable in the future.
Its quite obvious to me (despite the protests of Elements of Power Blog) that the ground forces of the US are going to have to be prepared to shape the battlespace without assistance from air power. The ATACMS (built by Lockheed...they really should sector off other divisions to protect them from the coming drama) can do that. Instead of begging the USAF to put that division thats approaching on their target list, Commanders can simply dial up their own long range rocket artillery to help thin the herd.
Whether we're actually fighting the Chinese or their "stuff" we will eventually cross swords. It would be best to make any corrections in strategy/procurement now, while we have the time, instead of in the heat of battle.
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=en&ie=UTF8&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_6936250_1.html&usg=ALkJrhjuvAQ_StL4ncsOQwB5DtpCGY0HhA
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware until today that the Chinese have been working on this for quite awhile. This is the Singapore version:http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1935.html
Unfortunately by the time you get a radar lock Rocket Art has already exhausted its munitions, it is to late to return fire, and your infantry are dead. I see Rocket-art being vital in winning artillery engagements through providing saturation fire. An example of a modern artillery system designed to saturate large areas is the jobaria system. An example of a modern russian IFV designed to clear infantry whilst escorting tank manuever forces is the BMPT terminator which has 3 gunners, 1 driver, 1 commander and 2x30mm cannons, ATGMs and a large main cannon. In terms of artillery CAS I do prefer integrating short range mortars like NEMO/AMOS/SRAMS for close fire support/illumination/smoke etc..etc.. for its responsiveness and accuracy.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.military-today.com/artillery/jobaria.htm
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/bmpt.htm
ATACMS can decimate enemy forces before they're in range of our own...and that includes enemy artillery.
Deleteif we have enough intel and its an attempt by our forces to stop an enemy advance then ATACMS should be enough (if we have enough) to literally stop the attack or make it much less effective.
2x30mm Grenade launchers +2x30mm cannons, and coaxial 7.62-mm gun.
DeleteHypothetically say they are 20-40clicks out of their front line, how will you get a target location to issue a fire mission when they haven't fired their payload yet? Satellites(well they would just shoot those down), aeroplanes(and if your SEAD isn't good enough)? Then what if their forces are protected by SHORAD systems like Pantsir-s1 that can shoot down those missiles?
DeleteHIMARS launches 24"x13' x 180nm-range ATACMS or 6x rockets.
ReplyDeleteMLRS launches 2x ATACMS or 12 rockets.
Picture two MLRS launchers on an LCU-F close inshore and always moving to avoid reverse-battery, carrying plenty of reloads. You want fire-support for the GCE, there it is.
Moving around just outside of tank-gun-, mortar, ATGM, with a low-profile hard-to-hit air-draft of 10-feet you'd have a reach inland of 170nm.
A potent 'Land-Attack' system at 400-tons displacement by 19knots and 1500nm range
...as the July article in the PROCEEDINGS suggested.
Unarguable fire-support for the GCE !
but overkill for missions that are assigned to the MEU. thats why i suggested that the idea be pitched to military sealift command.
Deleteits not going to gain traction with the MEU, that means that it will have to tag along with the MEB or MEF. which means that significant dedicated fire support will be available.
the idea isn't bad. the concept for operations is.
What "significant dedicated fire-support" will be available from what ?
DeleteSSNs ?
DDGs ?
FFGs ?
Wait, it would be from the ARG-attached CSG ?!
SEALIFT ships for inshore fire-support ? Wow !
We'll just paint the silhouette of an LCS on her sides to 'fool them'.
And you are calling using a GCE-organic HIMARS (half-size MLRS) system "overkill" ?
This is all quite confusing stuff...
everytime i attempt to toss a little reality your way, you start with the foolishness.
Deletelet me explain again. despite the talk from HQMC, the MEU is not available nor is it capable of performing the full spectrum of operations that the idiots in that shop keep talking about.
a resisted landing is out of the question.
its not even in the playbook.
your heavy lift LCU is not needed for the MEU.
forcible entry is the domain of the MEB or MEF. deploying that many Marines means that the Navy will deploy at least one carrier and probably more to assist with the effort. that includes its attached escort as well as the escorts that are attached to the MEB/MEF.
what does that mean? it means that we'll have enough firepower available to take the beach. one SSGN will have enough Tomahawk cruise missiles to handle the job. probably more than one would be assigned to such an undertaking. so you're talking about well over 300 Tomahawk cruise missiles being launched from 2 subs. that doesn't count the escorts. Super Hornets can hit their targets which means that at least 100 airplanes are involved from the carriers and we haven't gotten to what the air force can throw into the fight...and the USAF will want a piece of this mythical action....last we need to add in the Harriers and cobras that will launch from the gators.
long story short you have a boat that is tailored for use with our largest formations, you put forward an idea to launch rockets from those ships and i contend that its payload would be better served by carrying more cargo to shore and all this adds up to this concept being better pitched to the sea lift command and not the Marines.
What if that "talk from HQMC" reflects their will to reassert unambiguous full-spectrum amphibious-assault capability as part of the effort to re-emphasize that USMC is not USA ?
ReplyDeleteWhat if your repeated assertions of what an MEU is not 'supposed to do' are all based on past (objective) incapabilities to suddenly execute such a rapid amphibious maneuver due to the missing tactical link of a fast heavy-lift LCU-F that allows a GCE First Wave while keeping the ARG/MEU out most shore-defenses' reach.
There seems little virtue in continuously talking down the MEU's capabilities based on a persistent painfully incomplete capabilities-roster. There are options now. Instead of quoting super-annuated 'gospel' based on technical incapacities (deficiencies'?), I'd look to integrate opportunities like LCU-F to boost the MEU's portfolio of plausible potent actions.
Your position seems a bit like saying women can't fly serious combat-missions until you see some 5'7" "goldilocks" on CNN with half her A-10 tail-feathers missing laconically remarking on the sluggish controls on the way back to base.
Try working LCU-F into the MEU. And then try to stop in your mind the inevitable cascade of 'can do' scenarios most Marines won't be able to resist.
And why you'd suggest that the MEB should do without LCU-F is puzzling.
Desert-&-mountains-tested but rather ship-borne, by 2013 it's all about strengthening the capability and thus standing of an amphibious-operations-centric USMC - from the MEU on upwards...
the MEU has approx 2200 Marines. 4 tanks. 30 or so MTVRs...120 HUMMWV....15 -20 AAVs...now explain to me how a battalion of Marines are going to conduct forcible entry?
Deleteanything short of enlisting Superman, Ironman, Batman or the Incredible Hulk means that forcible entry is beyond its capabilities.
your analogy to a female flying an A-10 is irrelevant. facts are. having said all that the MEU also has along for the ride 2 LCACs and 2 LCUs. they're not combat loaded and retain the flexibility to onload whatever is needed to perform the missions that the MEU might realistically be expected to accomplish.
how are you going to strengthen the MEU? add personnel? aircraft? armor? its all balanced now and it all works. reinventing a wheel that isn't broken reminds me of hope and change without direction.
the country is getting a taste of that type of planning and we're all hurting because of it.
...not if you are having visions of D-day.
ReplyDeleteBut to 'shape' a local reality while additional assets approach at flank-speed - yes.
And to 'shape', it needs to happen suddenly and thus without announcing your intentions by sitting on the horizon waving flags for a bit.
You need to be able to afflict virtual attrition.
And the more fast heavy-lift LCU-Fs - the more likely the success within the limits of an MEU.
You want more First-Wave punch, bring two MEUs, etc., etc.
You want more GCE-punch try self-deployment of LCU-Fs from the nearest land- or sea-base.
Deterrence is about plausible capability. Your vision of planting the ARG so close in as to allow trundling wheeled and tracked APCs to shore on their own bottoms for a dozen miles or so seems astonishingly evasive of the very realistic specter you outline in other threads on the evils of potent shore-defenses.
Whatever the First-Wave size required, if you deploy it suddenly from way offshore, you stand a fair chance of avoiding smoking heeling will-be hulks...
And that sounds like realistic eyes-wide-open planning alright.
It does compare favorably with the (apparently) APC-centric ARG-killing vision you seem to prefer.