GMLRS: "the 60-kilometer sniper rifle"

[akd]

VIDEO

Hitting the target in Iraq

New missile provides close support for ground troops 40 miles away

By BOB COX

STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER

Army and Marine troops battling insurgents in the streets and urban neighborhoods of Iraq now have a potent new weapon at their disposal, thanks to the rocket scientists at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Grand Prairie.

A recently released video shows U.S. troops in an unidentified Iraqi city under fire from snipers in the upper floors of a three-story building. An Abrams tank fires several rounds with its heavy cannon at the building, with little or no effect on enemy fighters.

A few minutes later, an explosion rips through the building and eliminates the insurgents.

The close-quarters urban combat in Iraq is proving to be a perfect testing ground for the Army's M31 GMLRS, or guided multiple launch rocket system, missile. It's a satellite-guided weapon that, launched from more than 40 miles away, can deliver a lethal 196-pound, highly explosive warhead within a 16-foot-wide circle.

A close-up view of the Iraq video shows the missile streaking down onto almost the exact center of the building's roof before exploding on impact or a split-second after.

This "is a revolutionary capability for the Army," said Lt. Col. Mark Pincoski, program manager overseeing acquisition of the missiles at the Army's Redstone Arsenal at Huntsville, Ala.

Since July 2005, when the first missiles equipped with the unitary warheads were delivered to Iraq, the Army says that more than 120 have been fired in combat with a success rate of more than 95 percent.

Pincoski declined to give details about where the missiles were used. But last September, as U.S. troops battled to clear insurgents out of their stronghold in the western Iraqi city of Tal Afar, Army gunners fired eight of the guided missiles over two days, killing 48 enemy fighters, according to an Army News Service report.

In essence, the Army now has the capability to conduct its own precision airstrikes on individual targets with a weapon that it claims poses little danger to nearby troops or civilians.

"The accuracy is what's really impressed people," Pincoski said. "Soldiers in the field are so confident in its accuracy that they're willing to call in strikes that are very close" to them.

Lockheed officials are thrilled with the reviews.

"I can't tell you the praise we've received from the soldiers who've used this system," said Becky Withrow, a business-development manager for the Lockheed division. "They call it the 60-kilometer sniper rifle."

Lockheed engineers, who developed the Army's multiple launch rocket system more than two decades ago, were already working on two new guided missiles that could be used with the existing launchers when U.S. troops invaded Iraq in March 2003.

The requirements called for a precision missile that, like the original MLRS rockets, would release hundreds of individual bomblets for use against enemy troop formations and one with a single, highly explosive warhead that would target structures and equipment.

Lockheed tested missiles in the U.S. when the Army, faced with a war that was increasingly becoming a series of urban street battles against insurgents hiding inside buildings, sent out an urgent call for the unitary warhead missiles to use in combat.

The results, Pincoski said, have far exceeded expectations.

The Army's requirement was that 50 percent of all the missiles would land within a 5-meter-wide circle (about 16 feet) surrounding the exact target coordinates. Pincoski said that in the vast majority of cases, a GMLRS -- as the weapon is known to the military -- has struck targets much closer than expected.

Engineers and technicians at the Lockheed plant in Grand Prairie developed, built and tested the missiles and are working on upgrades.

About 2,700 employees work at the Dallas County facility, and the rockets are assembled at a Lockheed plant in Camden, Ark.

The missiles division, based in Grand Prairie and with another large operation in Orlando, Fla., is part of Lockheed's Electronic Systems division. The entire division had revenues of nearly $10.6 billion in 2005, 28 percent of Lockheed's total. Division revenues are up 10.5 percent for the first nine months of 2006, and its operating profit has increased 18.5 percent.

Before Lockheed had completed testing developmental versions of the unitary GMLRS in 2004, the Army ordered 486 of the missiles, all of which were delivered by the end of 2005.

Earlier this year the Army ordered 972 more, Pincoski said, for delivery by the end of 2007.

He declined to give the cost of the missiles, but based on Lockheed news releases and Army contract announcements, each missile appears to cost less than $1 million each. That's a lot of money but not when it's compared with the cost of having a $50 million F-16 fighter jet flying overhead for hours on call for an airstrike.

Operating close to Army and Marine units, artillery units equipped with M-270 MLRS launchers, tracked vehicles carrying two six-tube rocket launchers, can fire the guided missiles at targets up to 70 kilometers away (about 43 miles) within minutes of receiving data from troops on the scene. From firing to impact, at maximum range, is about two minutes.

Aimed at a specific set of Global Positioning System coordinates by the launch computer, the missile stays in contact with orbiting GPS satellites and adjusts its course as needed.

Since the advent of cannons, ground troops have relied on artillery for heavy firepower.

But even modern artillery fired by the best-trained crews has accuracy limitations; getting within 50 meters of the target by the second or third round is considered good shooting.

"Artillery, in general, has been an area weapon," said Ivan Oelrich, military weapons analyst with the Federation of American Scientists.

Laser- and GPS-guided bombs let the Air Force strike targets with considerable precision but with a higher chance of damage or casualties in a wider area.

Then there's the issue of interservice rivalries.

"The Army doesn't want to have to wait on the Air Force" to fly in and assist ground troops under fire, Oelrich said.

The 196-pound warhead "seems to be a pretty good size for the fight that's going in Iraq," Pincoski said. Soldiers on the scene have told him that the GMLRS missiles have hit their intended target while leaving buildings across a narrow alleyway unscathed, he said.

"We've had several instances where insurgents occupied buildings that were near buildings they knew we wouldn't want to damage" with artillery or airstrikes, Pincoski said. But thanks to Lockheed's rocketry expertise "we're able to hit those buildings" without damaging others.

link to article

[ November 06, 2006, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: akd ]

[Sergei]

Could they develop a version for supporting troops 10 miles away? Because it sounds a bit unpractical if you always have to position yourself 40 miles away from the target.

[birdstrike]

Yeah, those modern stand-off weapons suck. Nobody gives a sh** for the grunts that have to use them.

[akd]

I don't see a minimum range listed anywhere in the article...

[Sergei]

Originally posted by akd:

I don't see a minimum range listed anywhere in the article...

Which has to mean that it is the same as maximum range.

[akd]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by akd:

I don't see a minimum range listed anywhere in the article...

Which has to mean that it is the same as maximum range. </font>

[Sergei]

No sarcasm. Five-letter acronyms are a serious matter; shortening of military vocabulary in alphabetical ways.

[acrashb]

google:

"Minimum effective range for the GMLRS is about 10 km (6 miles). "

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/mlrs.html

[Capt. Toleran]

So... Is it in the game?

[MoNuckah]

Good to see the Military Industrial Complex is making out like a bandit with thier new toys!

[John Kettler]

akd,

And to think I deemed the GMLRS operational firing tests on "Future Weapons" scary! Be afraid! Be very afraid! Did anyone notice the seemingly dead vertical impact angle on the building after the Iraq combat shot? Definitely not a standard ballistic trajectory!

Regards,

John Kettler

[ November 07, 2006, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Beastttt]

just means that they where close enough to fire at a high angle with a guided weapon

did you see the launch angle in the video they were pushing 70 degrees to horz

and the FO would just need a laser range finder hooked up to a GPS data link

Originally posted by John Kettler:

akd,

And to think I deemed the GMLRS operational firing tests on "Future Weapons" scary! Be afraid! Be very afraid! Did anyone notice the seemingly dead verticla impact angle on the building after the Iraq combat shot? Definitely not a standard ballistic trajectory!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Stavka_lite]

And we wonder why the world is afraid of us...

[Bigduke6]

Jeez. The stuff that gets printed under the name of journalism these days. I'd say a couple of key points are missing from the story:

How much does this puppy cost? How about putting the sattelites into the sky and training people to use this silly missile. The taxpayers are shelling out for that too.

How much did it cost the Iraqi resistance to put a few guys in that building?

Which side in the conflict can afford replacement costs better?

Call it the TigerII syndrome.

[Capt. Toleran]

Um, it did say how much it cost -- about a million $ a missle. That being said, the article also mentioned that it was still cheaper than having a $50 million jet fighter on call.

[Herr Socken]

Well when you think about it you are getting a whole lot more out of a 50 million jet plane than a 1 million missle. A plane will easily be used more than 50 times before its relegated to scrap, plus it can stay on for more than just one engagement during a sortie. What I personally find the most shocking is that the journalist claims that they are still "testing" this weapon. Surely you shouldnt be sending 100's of kilograms into a built up area if you havent hammered everything out yet.

[imported_Wildman]

Its called field testing. This is the first time the weapeon has been used in actual operations and therefore will be under more scrutiny to ensure it is working as advertised.

As for cost. I'll let you all grab an AK-47 and meet them on equal terms. I'll provide you the body bag.

[SteveS]

Originally posted by Herr Socken:

Well when you think about it you are getting a whole lot more out of a 50 million jet plane than a 1 million missle. A plane will easily be used more than 50 times before its relegated to scrap, plus it can stay on for more than just one engagement during a sortie. What I personally find the most shocking is that the journalist claims that they are still "testing" this weapon. Surely you shouldnt be sending 100's of kilograms into a built up area if you havent hammered everything out yet.

Yes, but it is 95% accurate so only around 6 of the 120 odd missiles fired so far will have smashed into nearby apartment blocks. Aren't precision guided munitions great. You can fire ten times as many of them because you claim they are ten times more accurate.

[Sergei]

I would assume that the weapon is not going to be used dozen a day by any single infantry platoon. It's just another weapon in the inventory, one that can be used very flexibly when other available systems don't do the task.

But million per missile is expensive. How do they prevent them being stolen and sold in the black market, the sellers then taking a false identity and moving to Maledives?

[MikeyD]

$1m per missile's steep in anybody's book! Yikes! Just when we've almost got used to the concept of $150,000 per shot pricetags. Ah well, its only borrowed money going into the pockets of Lockheed CEOs (Thanks China!).

About that $50 million dollar jet plane line. fighter/bombers are not (usually) one-mission expendable weapons. I thought we had spend that $50m specificallly so we could drop bombs onto buildings. How much does it cost for fuel to have a nearby F16 loitering at 25,000 feet?

[flamingknives]

And training and support and logistics.

How much does it cost to storm the building or level the block with conventional artillery? A trained infantry man costs how mcuh to replace?

The satellites are up there anyway. Without them a whole heap of other stuff wouldn't work either.

[MikeyD]

"Bhooooosh..."

The sound of the GMLRS being fired?

No, the sound of all the tax dollars I'll ever pay in my life being flushed down the toilet with one shot.

And before someone uses the line "Freedom isn't free", that's just one of a loooong list of things that freedom isn't.

Sorry, I'm cranky today - its election day, which means gas prices are starting back up tomorrow.

[Xavier]

Gamey bastards!

[rudel.dietrich]

Sounds really expensive to get rid of a lone sniper...

When will the US Army ever learn that sometimes less is actualy more?

[Capt. Toleran]

I would like to see a more precise cost breakdown of a typical fighter mission.

I'm thinking:

Pilot -- maybe a million in training and several mission in support/training equipment, divided over the # of missions he will fly

Fuel cost

Parts

...and the big one...

LABOR

The support crew all have to be cared for, fed, trained, ect. They do a lot more work than people give them credit for.

So in the end, on a per-hour basis, 1 million for an almost sure thing might not be so bad, at least until they can find a hand-held, easily portable way to do it cheaper. It's meeting a support need, can others match it?

And is it in the game?