MLRS HIMARS: no superiority yet
Today, a lot of media and freelancers rushed to discuss the topic of HIMARS. How advanced is this MLRS, how we are hopelessly behind the United States in development, how else the USSR reached a conceptual dead end in creating artillery systems.
I liked the opinion of one "expert", who suggested that the USSR created MLRS, the main task of which was to create a fire shaft, and the United States concentrated on creating high-precision systems that could change the situation with surgically accurate strikes.
That is - a club against a sword.
Well, yes, the same old song that they have everything highly intellectual, and we are barbarians, because we have everything from the category of “we will throw corpses”. Their rockets fly along the line and hit the spot, we have to bombard the area with hundreds of shells to get at least some effect.
Strange approach, strange thinking. Those who today praise HIMARS as weapon almost the doomsday, they are a little overplayed in amerokonnichestvo. And I dare to continue my reflections of a month ago ( M142 HIMARS and M270 in Ukraine: find and neutralize) about how far we are behind the Americans.
In fact, even those who today praise and extol HIMARS agree that the installation does not represent anything breakthrough and ultra-modern.
“In itself, from the point of view of technology, the M270 at that time did not represent something that would be an order of magnitude superior to its competitors - on the contrary, the impressive results of its combat use were dictated primarily by advanced tactics and an extremely competent concept. The installation did not have a radical superiority in range over Soviet weapons (relatively speaking, 30 km versus 20 km) - its trump card was accuracy, mobility and constant work in conjunction with reconnaissance equipment.
Actually, everything. I will not voice the author of the quote, so as not to advertise the next champion of the West.
Indeed, the main advantage that HIMARS demonstrated in Ukraine is primarily associated not with stunning breakthrough developments, but with competent application.
The fact that the Armed Forces of Ukraine has a significant advantage over the Russian army in terms of the use of unmanned reconnaissance vehicles is a fact that only a fool will dispute. Ukraine has at its disposal a sufficient number of UAVs, which it tries to use as efficiently as possible. And uses. The wreckage of the Ukrainian intelligence drones, probing our air defense, were collected near Kursk, Belgorod and even Voronezh.
Getting accurate intelligence is a big step towards success. Further, the competent use of MLRS, which was expressed in the discharge of Russian air defense systems with older Uragan MLRS missiles. Then there was the strike with HIMARS missiles.
The result is the destruction of Russian military installations in Nova Kakhovka.
Here let me quote myself a month ago.
“HIMARS hits targets quite well at a distance of 5 to 70 km, but it’s hard to call the system accurate after the Afghan events. Guided projectiles - yes, but how accurate they are, we will be able to find out a little later, when 4 installations arrive in Ukraine, and if ours do not smash them on the way, then perhaps we will be able to get information about the professional suitability of this MLRS.
We've received the information, and we have to admit that, yes, HIMARS projectiles fly quite accurately. However, I would not fight in hysterics about the fact that everything is gone. Yes, the destruction of an ammunition depot by six shells is an indicator of a job well done, it is an indicator of the quality of rockets, but who said that there is something unique in this event?
This moment must be considered in volume. And how many objects and targets were destroyed by Tornadoes, Hurricanes, Tornadoes? Of course, we will never wait for data from our Ministry of Defense in this regard, therefore we have to engage in wanging of the lowest rank, but in any case, I am sure that the combat effectiveness figures for Tornadoes and Hurricanes are an order of magnitude higher than those of HIMARS.
Simply because there are more of them.
It is clear that the successful use of HIMARS is also due to the fact that the MLRS was directed clearly on the command of knowledgeable specialists. It is clear as daylight that the Ukrainian artilleryman, not taken from the Grad, so successfully put the missiles on target. I do not want to say that the Americans and the British did it (although such a scenario is quite possible), I mean that the Ukrainian artillerymen simply had to be trained by those who know how to properly and effectively use the complex.
After all, over 30 years of use (the debut of the M270 took place in 1991 in Iraq), the Americans have accumulated quite worthy experience. Both the M270 and HIMARS have been and have been used successfully. It is in combination with intelligence. Yes, in Iraq in 1991 there was no such set of reconnaissance UAVs, but there were reconnaissance groups of the MTR, which perfectly complemented the picture received from satellites and aircraft. And according to the specified coordinates, high-precision M270 projectiles flew quite successfully.
And someone, having used the experience gained in Iraq and Afghanistan, generously shared it with the Ukrainians. Agree, such a technique as a combined strike by different MLRS at different times, to distract and defuse air defense systems, has not been observed before. Until recently, all the Armed Forces did was, with maniacal persistence, they tried to break through the air defense with launches of the same “Points U” and MLRS shells. with varying degrees of efficiency.
And so - prompted and it turned out.
“So, four M270s and four M142s will end up in Ukraine. With M31A1 guided projectiles. Could such a number of MLRS have an impact on the situation at the front? There is only one answer - none.
Yes, the loss of an ammunition depot is unpleasant. Some channels in the telegram from the other side happily squealed that the Russian army had begun a shell shortage, which pretty much amused normal people. Logistics is not our strongest trump card, but I am sure that the issue of a shortage of shells will not arise soon.
I don’t want to count how many similar warehouses the pilots and rocket men have destroyed since the beginning of the NMD, but much more than the Ukrainians have. And nothing, for some reason the artillery of the Armed Forces of Ukraine did not stop. And here is one warehouse - and that's it, all Russian artillery was left without shells ...
This is really funny.
“Precise strikes with guided missiles? Yes, of course, this is quite possible. Here, the highly mobile HIMARS, twice as light and faster than the M270, is capable of "sword thrusts".
It all happened, it could not have been otherwise. A high-precision corrective missile - it exists for that, in order to fly where it is necessary, and not where it will turn out.
But rushing to sing the praises of HIMARS is still too early. This, as already mentioned, is a good multiple launch rocket system that can be turned into an OTRK with good missiles, but nothing more.
Yes, there are nuances that have not been given due attention.
The first is the invisibility of the system. Yes, in the stowed position HIMARS is very difficult to distinguish from a truck, both from a satellite and from an UAV, here the hope is only for the operator's big eyes, in Ukrainian conditions FMTV is still different from KrAZ.
But since HIMARS is used mainly at night, alas, with the detection of a problem.
The second is batch reloading. It's just a flurry of rave reviews, oh, what a MLRS, 2,5 minutes - and it's ready to shoot again! And our Tornado-S needs to be charged for 20 minutes ...
And here the question arises: why then did TWO vehicles fire at Novaya Kakhovka, each of which fired three missiles? Yes, zero sense in such high-precision fire raids in quick reloading, you need to quickly launch and quickly hit the road until you arrive at the launch site!
Therefore, half of the b / c each car shot. It's simple, no one wants to take risks.
So HIMARS, having fired all 6 missiles, will not go anywhere, it will go to a reserve position, where it will change the launch container. Quiet, calm and at a considerable distance from the launch point. Because the container should not be thrown into the field, but sent to the factory, where rockets will be loaded from it again.
By the way, that one is still a headache for the commander of the MLRS. It's probably on him. But you can’t leave the container, it’s clearly a loss of property, because if everyone starts to scatter the TPK, then where can they be found?
No, of course, if we are talking about a military operation, when, in the style of the Russian army, there is heavy fire to suppress everything, such a system will be very, very good. But when it comes to point injections - sorry, but a quick reload is absolutely nothing. Shot 2-3 missiles - and that's it, run.
Yes, the use of corrected and high-precision projectiles such as the GMLRS M30, capable of hitting targets at a distance of up to 70 km, increases the potential of the system, as many say, but without using the words "exceptionally accurate", "excellent" and so on.
A system capable of hitting a target at a distance of 70 km with a minimum number of projectiles. Not one, but the minimum. Less than, say, the "Hurricane" and "Smerch" will need. Perhaps the same as required by "Tornado-S".
The template by which the Armed Forces of Ukraine will continue to operate is clear: relying on intelligence data received from UAVs, from saboteurs and “moles” remaining in the occupied territory, to inflict verified strikes on army infrastructure facilities. Yes, of course, American assistants will generously supply the Armed Forces with data from their satellites and provide satellite tracking of missiles using GPS.
And this will not be a mass application (which is what some "Russian" authors expect), but a single one. HIMARS is expensive. It is very expensive, because no matter how some dream about “saturation of the Ukrainian army with M270 MLRS and HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems”, “transfer of a significant part of the installations to the command of the army as brigade-level fire weapons” and “suppression of numerically superior, but much less technologically advanced Soviet-style artillery” - it will remain in dreams.
HIMARS has been well tested in Afghanistan and Syria as a MLRS. But the Afghan Taliban and the Syrian pro-government forces are, frankly, not rivals. The practice of using it against armed formations that were not capable of repelling such strikes was being worked out.
A new stage has begun in Ukraine: actions against the army, which is armed not only with air defense, but also with counter-battery systems. And here HIMARS will have only such a method of application - "hit and run".
There are "thinkers" who argue that this method of work remains precisely the Russian artillery, despite its superiority in the number of barrels. But no, the tactic of creating superiority in certain areas cannot be reversed with multiple HIMARS installations.
Even a few dozen HIMARS will not give superiority, since they will be hunted in all directions. The installations are already used as covertly as possible, at night. If Russian intelligence is as effective as Ukrainian intelligence, then HIMARS calculations will begin to have problems of a certain nature.
And this is despite the advantage of the Armed Forces in terms of obtaining intelligence.
What will be the outcome? In principle, the same as a month ago: HIMARS must be caught and destroyed, because this is a fairly modern and combat-ready artillery system with the possibility of being used as an OTRK.
The use of HIMARS with the MGM-140 ATACMS missile is a question. For some it's a matter of time, for others it's just a matter of time. The question is whether the United States decides to transfer these missiles to Ukraine.
It's actually 50/50 here. A full combat test for tactical missiles designed to suppress air defense systems and operational-tactical units of the enemy army is a great temptation. But this is really a separate issue that only time will help to solve.
With the advent of those who believe that HIMARS is the weapon of tomorrow and the "wonder weapon", there is a great desire to object. Not because I am confident in the absolute triumph of Soviet weapons, but almost all Russian weapons are Soviet with certain modernizations in the style of modernity. The fact is that HIMARS is a good MLRS, with great capabilities, but it is good precisely within the framework of the doctrine for which it was created.
And the use of HIMARS in the first place is counter-battery firing at enemy artillery and air defense based on intelligence in the “hit and run” style. And nothing else.
For such a concept, you do not need many barrels, like the Hurricane or Tornado, six are enough, but with accurate shells. But HIMARS is not a weapon of total superiority. This is indeed a tool for delivering precision strikes, but even for such weapons systems, the rule of quantity applies.
Ten HIMARS will not be able to do anything against 30 "Tornado-S" even with better satellite intelligence. Network-centric warfare, satellites that guide missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles based on which shooting is carried out - this, of course, is tomorrow. And in that tomorrow, of course, there will be no place for the massive use of artillery. The sword will change the club. And they will fight just like that, destroying the enemy with precisely measured blows.
But it will only be tomorrow, and today the massive artillery fire, sweeping away everything in the area of the offensive of its army, is a reality that cannot be avoided yet. Even if the United States and its allies take the risk of taking such a step as the mass transfer of the HIMARS MLRS to Ukraine, all the same, even a few dozen of these MLRS will not be able to change the course of events.
Simply because no matter how effective a single “miracle weapon”, as practice has shown, it is not able to change the course of events. Even the first use of atomic weapons, as you remember, did not bring the expected effect. Yes, the world was horrified, but Japan did not capitulate.
To expect that Bayraktars, HIMARS, Javelins will be able to bring victory to the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the confrontation that has begun is to amuse oneself with unrealizable plans. Victory is brought not only by modern weapons, the victory is brought by a complex of weapons and the ability to use them.
It should be translated: the competent use of not so modern weapons will negate the presence of single, but ultra-modern weapons systems on the other side.
Therefore, I repeat: HIMARS and M270 will not be able to exert a great influence on the events in Ukraine precisely because of their small number. However, these are serious systems, and detection and destruction of them should be one of the top priorities for the Russian army.
Unless, of course, the events of Novaya Kakhovka do not need to be repeated to fully understand the situation.
Information