Following a recent agreement struck with the United States Department of Defense, the British Army say that they will be embarking on a five-year programme to update their M270 Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS).

UPDATE – This article has been corrected as we incorrectly reported that the range of this system was 499km, the actual range is 400km.

Upgrades will be made to 44 launchers, which are currently in-service, and will include a new armoured cab and upgraded automotive and launch mechanism components.

“The upgrades will ensure that the Army’s Land Deep Fires capability remains strong for the next three decades and that the British Army has the technological capability to quickly meet the threats of today and tomorrow.

Taking advantage of the long-standing MLRS collaboration with the US and key allies, work will start on upgrading the first tranche of launchers in March 2022 with the fleet going through production over a four-year period. The upgrades will keep the equipment in service until 2050.”

It is understood that The work will be carried out under an existing production contract with Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control with the work being carried out at Red River Army Depot and Lockheed Martin’s facility in Camden, Arkansas.

The British Army add that the UK is also developing UK-specific systems for the new launchers, including Composite Rubber Tracks, and a vehicle camera and radar system. A new Fire Control System will be developed collaboratively with the US, UK, Italy, and Finland.

“To ensure soldiers are not outranged, the Army will develop a new extended range missile with MLRS partners, to be fired from the updated launchers, which should be in-service by 2025. The Guided MLRS Extended Range (GMLRS-ER) missile will extend the Army’s reach from 84 to 150km. “

The 44 updated launchers will also be able to fire the US’s Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) which has a range of 400km and is expected in-service from 2024.

“These weapons will place the British Army at the cutting edge of global deep fires capability, ready to respond to long range air defence and missile threats presented by hostile actors.”

You can read more about this from the British Army here.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
119 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James Fennell
James Fennell
2 months ago

Also Army has announced a new high-speed medium helicopter to be jointly operated by Army and RAF and to include “a broad range of recent advances in technology, production methods and operational concepts will be used in the design of the bespoke medium helicopter that will bring maximum capability and cost saving benefits to all three services, and keep the Army at the leading edge of technology” Sounds more like the US FVL programme than the previously annouced Puma replacement programme. The word ‘design’ and ‘bespoke’ suggests it will be a completely new programme to replace maybe Bell 212, 412, Puma and… Read more »

Last edited 2 months ago by James Fennell
Captain P Wash
Captain P Wash
2 months ago
Reply to  James Fennell

I’ll bet it won’t be a Tilt Rotor, It has to replace Gazelles too, they are like little rally cars compared to Pumas.

Ron5
Ron5
2 months ago
Reply to  Captain P Wash

These are medium helicopter programs, nothing to do with Gazelle.

captain p wash
captain p wash
2 months ago
Reply to  Ron5

The report published by the MOD specifically mentioned Gazelle along with Puma and 2 others. I’m only quoting what was published.

Ron5
Ron5
2 months ago
Reply to  captain p wash

No it didn’t and no you are not.

Nate m
Nate m
2 months ago
Reply to  Captain P Wash

not even that. they look like flying glass bubbles! I can’t believe the army is still using s**t like that!

Ron5
Ron5
2 months ago
Reply to  James Fennell

There are two programs, you are confusing them. Firstly, the interim Puma replacement for an off the shelf design, and secondly, a longer term program for a brand new helo to replace both the interim’s and Merlin. The second being an international collaboration.

James Fennell
James Fennell
2 months ago
Reply to  Ron5

I’m reading the current notification.

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
2 months ago
Reply to  James Fennell

They want them in service within 3 years, it wont be a wholly new aircraft – theres no time, it will be a customised variant of an existing model.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
2 months ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

There is a real sense of pace to all of this for once which is quite exhilarating.

AndyCee
AndyCee
2 months ago
Reply to  James Fennell

The announcement did originally include the Gazelles, I recall, along with the various Bell variants and Puma.
Hopefully it means that the new aircraft can replace the Bells and Puma directly, and allow the Wildcats to take over the Gazelle liaison role by giving the AAC a similar troop carrying capability that the old Lynx provided

That would make sense, I think?

Nic
Nic
2 months ago
Reply to  AndyCee

Going by other articles some suggestion has made that the AW 149 and the Blackhawk could be in the frame , no mention of a Gazelle replacement .

AndyCee
AndyCee
2 months ago
Reply to  Nic

My mistake, Gazelle was mentioned as being in line for replacement on this site, not in the official docs. Would make sense though, to replace Gazelle with the Wildcats, and replace the wildcats in their current role with more of the new Medium helicopter… I’m not optimistic however.

Nic
Nic
2 months ago
Reply to  AndyCee

I would agree with you wildcats replace Gazelle , medium helicopter AW149/Black Hawk ? and chinook heavy lift

AndyCee
AndyCee
2 months ago
Reply to  Nic

Several options exist….no doubt UK built will be a part of it, and inter service squabbling between RAF and AAC!

Sean Crowley
Sean Crowley
2 months ago

With Drones dawdling over the horizon giving your Army real time situational awareness the UK Army with this Rocket Battery will be almost independent of the Air-force . The Australian Army must get rid of those ridiculous and hated Abrams and take the migrant soldiers who inevitably get stuck in vehicles as no Australian Soldier goes to war sitting down and stuff them in the USMC Truck version of these along with hurrying up the Reaper Drone program.

Ross Hall
Ross Hall
2 months ago
Reply to  Sean Crowley

WTF

dan
dan
2 months ago
Reply to  Sean Crowley

Dude you OK? Not making any sense.

Sean Crowley
Sean Crowley
2 months ago
Reply to  dan

Yeah , am now , was a interpretation of Jackson Pollock done literal derived through the same inspiration he used and comes pretty close to his style . But what i meant is your Army has the ability to Interdict out to 3rd Line Logistics without resorting to the Air Force. The thing about manning vehicles , well the English are not necessarily seen as timid and useless as offensive infantry its just that they’re better in a vehicle than slowing you down what with getting lost all the time and not knowing what a bayonet is for .

Tim
Tim
2 months ago
Reply to  Sean Crowley

The British are one of the few country’s that have actually us3d there bayonets in combat in recent times Iraq/Afghanistan

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago
Reply to  Sean Crowley

British infantry best close combat soldiers around, and as an aside, fixing bayonets is quite common, both training an on ops.

Daveyb
Daveyb
2 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Don’t forget house clearing….

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  Sean Crowley

I heard the Australians only got Abrams (totally wrong tank for them) because of wheeler-dealering by a retired US General.

Andrew D
2 months ago

Know there’s been talk of replacing AS90 but had been put back a few years Rockets are great but still need big guns but what type of system who knows ?

Nate m
Nate m
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

maybe they can fire HE guided munitions?

Steve
Steve
2 months ago
Reply to  Nate m

Rockets are great, but they are very expensive and so will quickly be depeated. Traditional artillary is still needed to maintain constant fire.

Nate m
Nate m
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve

i guess so but rockets need less crew then art according to the army website.

Nate m
Nate m
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve

and we have a semi-failing recruitment programme…. soooo…..

Steve
Steve
2 months ago
Reply to  Nate m

I suspect this is false economy, as total supply chain is probably longer wtih rockets, which requires more overall soliders. Plus they could stop cutting back numbers every review and have less troop number issues.

My guess is the current thinking is have lots of shinny gear but not a lot of supplies/ammo/etc and hope no we don’t have a war where it is found out yet again.

James
James
2 months ago
Reply to  Nate m

Why would we need to recruit when reducing numbers?

Nate m
Nate m
2 months ago
Reply to  James

ermm to maintain sizeable force?

James
James
2 months ago
Reply to  Nate m

Well whilst reducing the numbers recruitment isnt exactly a priority is it?

Nate m
Nate m
2 months ago
Reply to  James

so we shouldn’t reduce numbers but instead focus on increasing the size.

Graham
Graham
2 months ago
Reply to  James

You always need to recruit to maintain youth in your ORBAT, essential in the Army as fighting in close combat is a young man’s game. The RN and RAF could cope with older personnel.

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve

Traditional Arty is still expensive, an L119 fuse for the small 105mm HE rd costs just under a grand! Its all expensive, you need all variants of depth fire, and close support, both x rds FFE or “Fire mission Rocket”

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
2 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Army’s being ripped off… A 4.5 HE shell with cartridge attached and fuzed was around 600 quid if I remember correctly.
Probably a bit more now they are base bleed extended range rounds.

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Army’s always getting ripped off mate.

Daveyb
Daveyb
2 months ago
Reply to  Steve

MRLS can fired a guided rocket that contains a GPS/INS system, that allows it to fly to specific coordinate. It has an impact error measured in metres. Hence the 40km sniper moniker. However, there is also a semi-active guided rocket, that requires a 3rd party to designate the target.

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago
Reply to  Nate m

Excalibur round, 155mm, GPS guided. As for the system to replace AS90 possibly wheeled Archer.

Bloke down the pub
Bloke down the pub
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

BAE Systems Bofors have integrated the Archer 155 mm/52 artillery system onto a German Rheinmetall MAN Military Vehicles (RMMV) HX2 (8×8) platform . This would fit the bill and keep the Bae shareholders happy.

Andrew D
2 months ago

Will take a look 👍

Geoffrey Roach
Geoffrey Roach
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

ISDR Command Paper…..£ 800 million will be invested in a new automated FIRES platform…Bae already in talks .re Archer derivative.

Ron5
Ron5
2 months ago
Reply to  Geoffrey Roach

with an additional 250 million for this MLRS upgrade program.

Geoffrey Roach
Geoffrey Roach
2 months ago
Reply to  Ron5

Yes

Stand Off Rocket Man
Stand Off Rocket Man
2 months ago
Reply to  Geoffrey Roach

Up to 135 I think the number is. It’s a good looking machine if nothing else.

Geoffrey Roach
Geoffrey Roach
2 months ago

A mean, mean,good looking machine!

Nate m
Nate m
2 months ago

hmm we will lack in air we need more SAM. the stormer and reaper are good but there’s a limit to their capabilities. plus we haven’t got them is large quantities. we really on the frigates to do it. but during war the frigates are at sea protecting the carriers or other strike groups. we either need to increase frigate numbers or invest is SAMs or anti-ballistic defences like the bloodhound from few years ago.

heroic
heroic
2 months ago
Reply to  Nate m

You need to invest in a decent Spell Checker.

Nate m
Nate m
2 months ago
Reply to  heroic

ya don’t think Microsoft is willing to upgrade its b******t

Last edited 2 months ago by Nate m
Andrew D
2 months ago
Reply to  Nate m

About a year ago it was said the Army were to get Sky sabre but all gone quite on that front ,can anyone put some light on this.🤔

dave12
dave12
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAMM_%28missile_family%29

Its all going through according to wiki.

Andrew D
2 months ago
Reply to  dave12

Thanks mate

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Still happening mate. Although if we get 30 systems for 1 Regiment we will be lucky.

Andrew D
2 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Cheers we can live and hope .

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
2 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Cor I’d bite the hand off for 30.

Bloke down the pub
Bloke down the pub
2 months ago
Reply to  Nate m

I expect a Starstreak variant of Boxer will be on their wish list.

Nate m
Nate m
2 months ago

ok that’s sorts out strike fighters and heli ‘s. but what about ballistic missiles or ICBMs? we still need to defend against those.

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago
Reply to  Nate m

Concepts of ops, Stormers and land Ceptor are LLAD, albeit with land ceptor a much increased in range and capability, the interception of ballistic missiles is well past their capability in the land theatre. That takes other systems, such as those on type 45s, Astor 30 missiles along with the Samason etc. This is already been trailed but unlikely it will progress much further IMHO. The Army has never had a system which can defeat ballistic missiles, and most likely never will. The Army is more concerned about tactical considerations in the land environment, and that’s where Stormer and Land… Read more »

Nate m
Nate m
2 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

okay but during the cold we had a theatre defence system called the bloodhound protecting key targets e.g. airfields where the V bombers operated from. so what was that about?

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago
Reply to  Nate m

That was exactly that, static defence by the RAF protecting it’s bases, originally V bomber and as the system became outdated it was moved to both BAOR, then back again, to remain at a few sites in UK. The RAF regiment also operated rapier, same concept, shorter range. While the bloodhound had a decent range, it was there to defend airbases and not employed as a ground based ballistic missile system defence system.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
2 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Army had Thunderbird, 1959-1977, for wide area air defence.

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

Same as bloodhound, still army GBAD and not BMD which was the original query.

Nate m
Nate m
2 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

can’t we have a similar system like that. but designed to deal with modern threats

Daveyb
Daveyb
2 months ago
Reply to  Nate m

Yes, but it comes down to cost. The current Sampson/Aster missile combination has in trials and exercises proven itself against short and medium-ish range ballistic missiles. These were all atmospheric engagements. To do the exoatmospheric engagements you will need the Aster 30 BMD, but there has been little published progress on that front. A better design which has been proven to work against exoatmospheric targets is the SM3 missile. You would also have to ramp up Sampson’s power significantly to deal with these higher altitude targets. Sampson is a S band (2 to 4 Ghz) radar and at those heights/ranges… Read more »

Meirion X
Meirion X
2 months ago
Reply to  Nate m

A T45 would need to be positioned relatively close to the launch site.

Meirion X
Meirion X
2 months ago
Reply to  Nate m

Anti air systems like Bloodhound are obsolete!
You can only successfully shoot a ballistic missile in the boost stage, that is relatively close to the lunch site of the missile.
By the time a ballistic missile reaches our shores it is in Terminal Phase travelling at Hypersonic speed to a fixed target.
Not really possible to shoot down, maybe a rail gun in the future!
Anyway a warhead is designed to withstand re-entery heat.

Much cheaper to threaten retaliation!

Last edited 2 months ago by Meirion X
Nate m
Nate m
2 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

not entirely true the s400 or the patriot is capable of shoot down balistic missiles. I was not saying we the blood hound again. i was saying we need something similar to counteract modern balistic missiles. You should have read through my post carefully before replying.

Meirion X
Meirion X
2 months ago
Reply to  Nate m

The Patriot can shoot down short range atmospheric missiles, but Never a Hypersonic warhead in Terminal Phase!
That is why we have Trident missiles, they can not be shot down yet. They could be shot down in boost stage or mid course stage if intercepter missile is launched along the path of a missile at the right place and time.
But would Sweden allow Russia to place intercepter batteries on their territory?

Last edited 2 months ago by Meirion X
Daveyb
Daveyb
2 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

There have been at least two systems that have publicly shown that they can intercept an ICMB’s re-entry vehicle in the terminal phase, which are THAAD and SM3. However, both have had better successes intercepting the targets exoatmospherically in the mid phase.

Meirion X
Meirion X
2 months ago
Reply to  Daveyb

The THAAD’s stationed in South Korea are likely to be able to intercept high altitude DPRK missile or re-entery vehicle. But likely in boost stage interception, due to the proximity of THAAD battery.

Last edited 2 months ago by Meirion X
Daveyb
Daveyb
2 months ago
Reply to  Meirion X

From publicly available information, the SM3 has been more successful in engaging exoatmospheric targets than THAAD. But it’s still better than nothing!

Meirion X
Meirion X
2 months ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Yes, SM-3 B2 at over $20M a PoP!
With a range of 1200km.

Andy P
Andy P
2 months ago

That US missile has a very specific range…. 499km, do they fall into a different category if you can fire them 500km ???

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
2 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

Yep…INF Treaty limit is less than 500km. However if the wind is behind the rocket that would be acceptable!

Andy P
Andy P
2 months ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Cheers mate, assumed there was a reason for the 499, seemed a bit arbitrary.

James
James
2 months ago
Reply to  Andy P

Seems like a made up figure to me, wonder what the real range is!

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
2 months ago
Reply to  James

Exactly 499 km IAW the INF treaty of course! Not a km more! … 😁😂

Martin
Martin
2 months ago

About time

heroic
heroic
2 months ago

With a range of 499KM’s, It’s a good job Adolf didn’t have them.

Ron5
Ron5
2 months ago
Reply to  heroic

V2’s?????

James
James
2 months ago

500km range is a fair old buffer zone for any ground forces with these nearby.

What would be used to see that far for targetting?

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
2 months ago
Reply to  James

Usual recon assets, you wouldnt be shooting at units but identified staging posts such as rear command buildings, fuel and ammo dumps.

Steve
Steve
2 months ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

Would be interesting to know how accurate it is at that type of range. Being able to hit the ground at 500km is one thing, but being able to hit a target at that range is another.

Ron5
Ron5
2 months ago

Radar system?

Pacman27
Pacman27
2 months ago

Why don’t we just buy new and put it on boxer, this sounds remarkably like another very expensive LEP

lets keep these for training purposes but buy new for the operational force.

unless this is ridiculously cheap to upgrade I just wouldn’t do it, there must be something better out there we can buy off the shelf

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago
Reply to  Pacman27

HIMARS is an option, not for the armoured BCTs but the light role BCTs and the “deep fires” BCT.

BB85
BB85
2 months ago
Reply to  Pacman27

The boxer chassis is extremely expensive for a vehicle that should not be on the front line. The upgrade sounds like they will replacing just about everything apart from the original chassis and because we are piggy backing off the US program that is already maturing it will not turn into Warrior 2.0.

Paul.P
Paul.P
2 months ago

Excellent! A big capability gap addressed.

Peter Crisp
Peter Crisp
2 months ago

Knowing the opposition has a bunch of these in an area must be a real moral killer. I would not want to be on the receiving end of a strike by these as they seem like they could really mess up my day.

Stand Off Rocket Man
Stand Off Rocket Man
2 months ago

Why 44? Why can’t we have 40 or 45 or better still 50. A nice round number! Who comes up with the numbers?

AndyCee
AndyCee
2 months ago

According to Think Defence there were originally 64 vehicles bought, 4 of which have been converted to repair/recovery so there should be 60 available unless any have been disposed of.

Assume some have been cannibalised for parts maybe? 44 should mean that the two RA regiments (1 regular, 1 AR) should be fully equipped. Not sure but I think they each have 2 or 3 batteries and some Exactor launchers as well? Can anyone confirm?

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago
Reply to  AndyCee

26 has 3 x Btys of MLRS and 1 x Exactor on trailers. The MLRS are GMLRS rockets, pretty effective. Good to see newer and better rockets for deep strike.

AndyCee
AndyCee
2 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

How many launchers per battery? 6 or 8, I guess?

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago
Reply to  AndyCee

6 but if 26 are like most other RA units prob 4 will be used the others will be gun park static. My bro is 7RHA and they used to have 3 x 6 gun Btys, but now 2 x 6 gun Btys but still only able to get 4 guns per Bty out for training and exercises.

Steve R
Steve R
2 months ago

I misread the title at first as “Britain to double the NUMBER of its M270 rocket artillery” and got excited then. Silly me!

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago

44, that’s good as there was I believe 34 that are currently in use, so an uplift of numbers from stored assets and an increase in tech and rockets/range/accuracy. All good stuff, but as many of us have eluded to on many occasions, the RA are the future battle winners, they will dictate future tactics. The RA, properly funded and equipped are the formation which has the depth fire/Close support, AD, UAV, ISTAR etc and now all they need is a decent, low cost, loitering UAV, able to drop ordnance, or become a “suicide” drone as used in the Azerbaijain/Armenian… Read more »

AndyCee
AndyCee
2 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Would the Watchkeeper fit the task for the loitering UAV? Or would the Army need to consider something else?

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago
Reply to  AndyCee

Not 100% sure but it’s a little old and chunky nowadays and has never quite acheived the status and capability it could have. But you can get better effects with smaller and more advanced UAVs nowadays.

AndyCee
AndyCee
2 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

A fair point. Be interesting to see what happens.
My other worry is the MLRS upgrade being the same life extension complexity of warrior and challenger. Hopefully as it’s basically what the US are already doing it’s a little more de-risked

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago
Reply to  AndyCee

It shoulnt be as the main effort will be the rockets and the firing data computers, with better comms. But then again I’m sure the Army will pay over the odds as per usual mate.

AlexS
AlexS
2 months ago
Reply to  AndyCee

Watchkeeper capability is to do battlefield recon, they have a radar able to detect vehicles and even people, besides EO.

Daveyb
Daveyb
2 months ago
Reply to  AndyCee

Yes, that was one of the reasons it was bought for. However, in a peer vs peer conflict I would not expect them to last long.

Deep32
Deep32
2 months ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Do the Ground stations control them via a sat link, or are they controlled via something else?

DaveyB
DaveyB
2 months ago
Reply to  Deep32

The drones are controlled in two ways, although you can use either. A ground station will use an encrypted data-link for direct line of sight control. The direct link is usually used for take-off and landings. Once airborne, the operator can switch over to an encrypted satellite data-link. This is more for when the drone is flying out of line of sight. The satellite link can also be used for take-off and landings.

Deep32
Deep32
2 months ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Cheers mate, a better understanding now.
How susceptible to jamming are they? Just wondering how much use they would be in a contested environment against a peer advisary with equal capabilities?
Only I don’t think using things like Predator against caves or sandpits gives a true reflection of their effectiveness, or lack of it!!!

Daveyb
Daveyb
2 months ago
Reply to  Deep32

The best way to look at it is, how did Iran manage to capture the US RQ-170 Sentinel UAV? In theory as the aircraft was being controlled via a satellite link. It should have been really hard to hack, especially as the data between the satellite and UAV is encrypted. I suspect it was down to the fact that the UAV has an upper and lower aerial that is used for the command link. Normally when out of sight of the ground station, the UAV will be using the upper aerial to talk to the satellite. The satellites transmitter’s received… Read more »

Deep32
Deep32
2 months ago
Reply to  Daveyb

Cheers for taking the time to explain, good dit. With what you say being the case, doesn’t inspire a great deal of confidence in them. Imagine then that we will need a combo of stealthy UAVs and more discrete data links to ensure some survivability.

John Clark
John Clark
2 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

More positive news and the raft of newly announced programmes with relatively short times for service introduction does seem to mean they are really addressing the issues.

I am ‘cautiously’ very happy with the progress in transitioning our Armed forces to a high tech leaner, mobile strike force….

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago
Reply to  John Clark

Me too, here’s hoping.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
2 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Yes, but where is my new RA Regiment firing Loitering munitions or HIMARS alongside GMLRS?

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago

Loitering munitions and UAVs are the way forward for the RA. They will also need a Boy or two of anti-UAV AD but I may be stretching my imagination to far!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
2 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

A boy or two! LOL. Never mind a battery, an entire regiment alongside the Sky Sabre and Starstreak Regiments, so each BCT can have a batteries worth. Even that is thin.

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago

Bloody sausage fingers and I phones, plus auto correct equals gibberish!!!!!

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
2 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Sounds like the ISR paper mate.

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago

😂

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
2 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

I’ve read one of the batteries in suspended animation will be reactivated, taking the regiment to 4 fire batteries of GMLRS.

Airborne
Airborne
2 months ago

Back to square Brigades mate sorry BCTs…

AlexS
AlexS
2 months ago

I wonder if artillery in 10-30km range is in way out with proliferation of missiles like Spike NLOS.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
2 months ago

I managed to find this post which I remembered seeing some time ago.
Are we looking to do the same?

USMC says goodbye to tanks and hello to long-range fires
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/usmc-says-goodbye-to-tanks-and-hello-to-long-range-fires