Oh yes, so if they're in testing they aren't in service. We're not here to predict the future we're here to discuss facts.
I have shown you two rounds you previously knew nothing about and assumed did not exist.
It puts in perspective your claims they have not and will not create penetrators that are longer than those they currently use.
But like I've discussed, Tochka/Tender only adds to the cost.
And ATACMS is free?
Precision missile attack capability is separate in role and requirement from barrage Rocket artillery and the Russians have kept it seperate.
This means that its precision missile attack capability is completely independant from their rocket artillery and can be positioned where it is most useful and also a safer distance from the front line.
By putting ATACMs on the M270 you have created the problem that your precision missile attack capability has to operate well forward with your rocket artillery if you want to be able to use both. Using one or the other reveals the position of both so a move is needed which totally negates the reloading advantage of either.
I do see how you are confused. If you can hit the target with one rocket
instead of destroying the grid square than you can thus, destroy 12
targets with your rocket load compared to having to use 144 rockets for
the same task. It's all about maximizing efficiency. As I've said
before, the Grad is crap, paper rockets, dumb paper rockets, and long
reload. Might as well buy a Smerch.
And if the target is spread out and dug in... a barrage of rockets is just what the doctor ordered.
And you are showing your ignorance... GRAD is a delivery system. Its dumb paper rockets deliver smart GUIDED anti armour top attack sub munitions that use radar and IR sensors to find armour targets and specifically target their top armour with a self forging fragment... a payload superior in performance to any anti armour payload the M270 can deliver.
Comparing individual vehicles the Grad can take out an armoured unit with 5-6 rockets from 40km range and then move and then take out another unit with another 5-6 rockets from 30km range and then move and then take out another armoured unit with another 5-6 rockets from 35km range and then move... and guess what... it still has 22-25 rockets left.
In actual practise a Grad unit would be used and each vehicle would fire one or two rockets each so after taking out 3 armoured units each vehicle will still have more than 35 rockets left...
More importantly when the Grad units are reloading... the Russians will still have their tube artillery as well as other rocket assets that can deal with problems that come up because they didn't replace their tube artillery with rocket artillery... they recognise that rocket artillery has good features and bad features and tube artillery has good features and bad features and together you get the choice that can result in the Russian Army being able to do a better job because when they need a hammer they have several types, and if they need a scalpel then they have those too.
Because the M270 packs all that equipment on a common frame, it's
actually quite cheap, compared to placing equipment on multiple frames,
which means more and more maintenance.
Fine for the US but no other NATO country uses Bradleys do they? So it means an extra chassis and engine type added. If they could put it in a truck chassis it would be much cheaper... but they would make less profit.
So if you don't know the costs why are you even talking...like I've said
before, more equipment means more money, that is quite simple.
Like I have said before... American made = gold plated but not necessarily a better tool.
The purpose of rocket artillery is a cheap barrage weapon system that can deluge an area with HE or something more insidious (ie chem or bio). It is also useful for laying quick remote minefields.
For either role an ATACMS or Tender doesn't make sense. Grad, Smerch, and Uragan on the other hand are ideal.
Like I've said, I want actual figures, not pictorial guesstimates, when it comes to cost.
The pictures are not about cost. They are about Russian rocket platforms becoming much more flexible and capable and also unification of the heavy rocket and precision missile vehicles, and finally the precision missile vehicles getting improved capabilities. Adding land attack cruise missile and of course anti ship capability. If it can use Kh-101/-102 then that extends the range to 5,500km for land targets.
No. The difference with the ATACMS is that it's capable of being fired
from the same platform, thus it's apart of the unitary system. The
difference with the BM-30 and BM-21 is that they are not on the same
platform, they are based on different trucks, thus you'd require more
than 1 truck to do the same task as the M270.
The photos I posted above show a Smerch replacement that can fire 122mm, 220mm, and 300mm rockets in fast reloading pallets with the same chassis as the Tender/iskander... which can also use the USUK vertical launch system which means it can also fire in addition to Iskander and Tender ballistic missiles, the Brahmos/Onix/Yakhont land attack and anti ship missiles, the Klub series of land attack and anti ship cruise missiles, and the torpedo armed and sub missiles similar to ASROC, and of course the Kh-101 and Kh-102 strategic cruise missiles.
How about that for multi tasking/extra capability?
Not so. The Smerch is designed to kill squares. The M270 can do the same, with accuracy.
That is their claim but can you prove that M270s unguided rockets are more accurate than Smerchs unguided rockets?
I think the reverse is actually true... the unguided Smerch rockets should be rather more accurate than the M270s unguided rockets. With unguided rockets I am talking about concentration of HE and I think the Smerch rockets with their built in gyros will group rather better than M270 especially at extended ranges.
The Smerch is designed to kill squares. The M270 can do the same, with
accuracy. The Iskander is designed to hit stationary targets at long
range with accuracy. The ATACMS does the same thing.
Except Smerch with unguided rockets has more than twice the range of M270 with unguided rockets, and Tender has a longer range than ATACMS.
When you isolate your systems, like what the Russians did with their
BM-series and "large" caliber rockets-series, a strategic strike will
effectively neutralize your capability to do one or the other. With the
M270, a multi-role, flexible platform, take one out and the other can do
The range advantage of the Russian systems means they are less vulnerable to attack. The separation of missions means the support vehicles needed for one role are not duplicated in every unit. A strike that takes out Smerch will still have to look for the Uragan and Grad units closer to the front line. A strike that takes out an M270 battery just greatly reduced the US Armies capabilities in that sector because there is no Pershing battery or Honest John battery or tube artillery battery there because the M270 battery replaced them all.
It's spreading your beans out instead of putting them in single baskets. It's smarter, safer, and overall, more cost effective.
Don't keep all your eggs in one basket is the saying and it is the opposite of what you are trying to say. It is certainly cheaper, but if something goes wrong it is not safer or smarter or better... it was just cheaper.
The Russians have realized this and thus they've created the Tornado, a step closer to the M270.
The purpose of Tornado is the same as the purpose of Grad. Grad was cheap and light and could be bought in large numbers... and rocket artillery is most effective when used in large numbers.
Tornado is a modern more capable replacement for Grad and will be widely deployed and used. It is more flexible than Grad because there is a much wider choice of rocket types, but its low cost (especially with 122mm rockets) and light weight will allow it to be deployed in large numbers and used in places where bigger heavier systems will have trouble operating.
But like I've said, the M270 won't be the same distance from the Smerch,
it'd be farther from the Smerch than the Smerch can fire from.
What? How will the M270 battery even know where the Smerch battery is till it opens fire?
If the Smerch battery is operating 20km behind the Russian armoured units it is supporting that means that the M270 will be operating 70km or more away from the Russian armoured unit... to remain outside Smerch battery range.
That makes the M270 a useless piece of crap because operating 70km away from the Russian units it is supposed to be attacking means even the 60km GPS guided rocket it fires is useless. The only effective rocket it would have is 2 ATACMS... that is hopeless.
The purpose of the M270 is to provide fire support to the armoured units it is supposed to be supporting... that means it must get to less than 40km range from the enemy... preferably less than 30km really for a proper barrage.
It will be well within range of Smerch... but big deal... Smerch batteries wont detect it till it fires or it is spotted by recon.
It seems you think the US Army fights from a safe distance... and I am sure they would like to... but reality is something different.
This threat to the M270 is largely ignored by the US Army because they have never fought a decent enemy before.
Like I've said, Russia will not use Smerch or Tender if a Chinese tank
rush occurs in Far Eastern Siberia. They'd use Tornado and it's rapid
reload capability to spam guided AT munitions in and around where the
Chinese tanks are.
Of course they would use Smerch and Tender and Tornado. Tender would be hitting SAM sites and HQs and ammo dumps and front line airfields... and enemy rocket artillery batteries. Smerch and Tornado would be hitting enemy troop and armour concentrations and mining the ground in front of the chinese forces.
hat rapid reload capability is something the BM-series nor the Tochka/Tender has, but the M270 does have.
You make it sound like the BM series takes a week to reload. When it comes to putting down minefields 20 minutes either way is not that important. The low cost of the Tornado will mean they will likely have large numbers of these vehicles, but the Smerch is still potent anyway.
The M270 is like a Swiss knife and the BM-series/Tochka/Tender are like
everything in it. Multi-purpose, flexible, gold-plated tube arty; but
still best arty.
Swiss Knifes are crap. The scissors are rubbish and WTF do you need a nail file for? The reality is that you would be much better off with a decent sharp fixed blade knife with a decent edge. If you find you can't use this knife to get the job done use it to make a tool that will do the job better.
Swiss Army Knives are junk and are best left for Boy Scouts.