Thomas C. Theiner Profile picture
May 29, 2022 β€’ 26 tweets β€’ 9 min read β€’ Read on X
Angry thread about M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS 🧡

and a bit about BM-27 Uragan and BM-30 Smerch too.

Angry, because every M270 and M142 thread I have seen on twitter so far is FULL OF MIND BOGGLING ERRORS... because all of them (!) use as source of their "knowledge" the

1/n ImageImage
error-filled M270 wikipedia article... πŸ€¦β€β™‚οΈπŸ€¦β€β™‚οΈ

Let's dive in. First: M270 and M142 are technologically decades ahead of their Soviet-era counterparts: BM-27 Uragan and BM-30 Smerch. See the red arrows I painted? Yes, those are optical sights...

2/n ImageImage
Uragan and Smerch have to be sighted optically... and in the case of the Uragan soldiers have to adjust elevation and deflection by turning wheels.

Even Uragan's two outriggers have to be lowered and emplaced by muscle power.
3/n
Optical sights means that it takes the 10-12 minutes to measure and prepare a launch sites and sight a launchers.

Firing dumb rockets with optical sight also means that the Uragan and Smerch's accuracy is atrocious... i.e. when a Smerch fires its 12 rockets,
4/n ImageImage
then the circular error probable (CEP) is 170 meter. This means only 50% of rockets fall within a 170 meter radius of the actual target... the other 50% will come down even further away than 170 meter from the target.

Meanwhile US GLMRS missiles have a CEP of 5 meters.
5/n
This is the reason russian forces fire mostly rockets with cluster munitions. They know they can't hit a target, so they saturate the area around a target with cluster munitions, hoping that at least something will hit...

Photo: remnants of Uragan cluster munition rockets.

6/n Image
And reloading the Uragan and Smerch is a time-consuming drag... It takes 20 minutes to reload a Uragan and it takes 5x russians 40 minutes to load 12x rusty rockets into a Smerch.

7/n
Ukraine also uses Uragan and Smerch, but russia has bombed Ukraine's rocket factories and as no allied nation produces Uragan or Smerch rockets, Ukraine desperately needs M270 and/or M142 launchers with their more accurate missiles.

8/n
Besides the accuracy of their missiles, what else makes the M270 and M142 so much better?

For starters: the speed of reloading. Both use rocket pods pre-loaded at the factory with either six GMLRS missiles of the same type or one ATACMS missile. Trucks bring the pods to

9/n Image
predesignated ammo supply points, where M270/M142 exchange their used pods for new ones in 5 minutes thanks to their built in cranes.
Meanwhile the truck is already on its way to get more pods.

And if you're in a hurry - the M270 can reload its pods simultaneously.ously.
10/n
And how do the M270 and M142 aim their missiles?

Well, with a top-secret tool called "keyboard". This must sound like magic to russian soldiers with their sights and collimators.
All M270s in US/NATO service and all M142 fire GPS-guided missiles, which are aimed via the

11/n Image
M270A1's Improved Fire Control System (IFCS - left photo) or the M142's Universal Fire Control System (UFCS - right photo).

Since 4QFY21 the M270A1's IFCS is being replaced by the Common Fire Control System (CFCS), which will allow upgraded M270A2 to fire the

12/n ImageImage
future Precision Strike Missile (PrSM). Which brings us to the types of missiles that exist (or existed or will exist) for the two systems:

β€’ M26
β€’ M28
β€’ M30/M31
β€’ M39/M48/M57
β€’ PrSM

13/n Image
The M26 series were unguided, cluster munitions rockets. The US Army acquired 506,718 and used around 17,000.
The M26 and the extended range M26A2 were carrying M77 submunitions, which had a fail rate of more than 5%. The M26A1 was an extended range version of the M26

14/n
carrying the more advanced M85 submunitions with a dud rate of about 4% (pictured).
However in 2008 the Bush administration instituted a policy to retain and use only cluster munitions with a dud rate of less than 1% or less after 2018.

15/n Image
Already in 2007 the US Army had begun a program to dismantle its M26 rockets by 2019 and by 2012 98,904 M26s had been dismantled.

In 2017 the Trump administration canceled the Bush administration's cluster munitions policy and as of 2022 it is unknown if - and if yes,

16/n
how many - M26 rockets are are still in US possession. However the US Army (and all NATO allies) have no M26 rockets in their active stockpiles for at least the last 10 years.

The M28 series are a reduced range practice rounds of no interest to us.
17/n
The M30 series consists of two GPS-guided missiles (GMLRS) with different warheads:

β€’ M30 - with M101 cluster munitions (2% duds)
β€’ M30A1 - Alternative Warhead, with 160,000+ Tungsten balls - it is like a giant shotgun

From 2004 to 2009 the Army bought 2,475 M30,

18/n Image
but because of the 2% fail rate of the M101 cluster munitions the army stopped buying the M30 in 2009 and focused on developing the M30A1.
All M30s cluster warheads were scheduled to be replaced by M30A1 Alternative Warheads by 2019.

19/n
As of 2022 it is unclear if, and if yes how many, M30 missiles are still in the US arsenal.

The M31 and M31A1 are variants of the M30 GMLRS missile with unitary high-explosive warheads.

Lockheed Martin produces about 11,000 M30A1 and M31A1 GMLRS missiles per year, and the

20/n
US military has as of 2022 at least 60,000 GMLRS in its arsenal.

In 2022 the M30A2 (aka XM403) and M31A2 (aka XM404) will replace the two A1 variants in production.

As the US does not plan to give Ukraine the longer range ATACMS missiles I will dicuss them only in brief:

21/n Image
β€’ M39 - with M74 cluster munitions (the "steel rain" of Desert Storm) - only non GPS-guided ATACMS
β€’ M39A1 - longer range, GPS-guided M39 variant with reduced M74 payload

The Army planned to have both either dismantled or rebuilt as M57 by 2020.

22/n
β€’ M48 - with unitary warhead, 176 produced in 2001-04, of which 58 were used during OEF/OIF
β€’ M57 - with unitary warhead, improved CEP, and new fuze, 513 produced 2004-13, 47 used

It is likely only the M57 (new and rebuilt M39/M39A1) remain in the US military's arsenal.

23/n
As of 2022 Lockheed is in the process of modernizing the ATACMS missiles to extend their service life until the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) enters service in 2027.

All of this tells us that Ukraine will receive M30A1, M31, and M31A1 missiles.

24/n
People tweeting that Ukraine will get M26 rockets, M30 missiles, XM403/404 missiles, GMLRS ER missiles, etc. don't know what they are talking about.

And yes, the arrival of M270 or M142 will be a turning point, as my next thread will show.
russian troops are doomed.

25/n Image
Part II of this thread - including maps about how the situation at the front will change with the arrival of M270A1 or M142 systems - begins with this tweet:

β€’ β€’ β€’

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
γ€€

Keep Current with Thomas C. Theiner

Thomas C. Theiner Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @noclador

Mar 8
These are the πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carriers.

First, as you can see in this picture, only one actually carries aircraft. The UK barely had enough money to buy the F-35B for one. For the other the Blairites expected the US Marine Corps
1/9 Image
to provide the required aircraft, because the two carriers were bought so the Royal Navy could fight alongside the US Navy against China in the Pacific.

But the US does NOT want the British carriers anywhere near its carrier strike groups, because the UK carriers would slow
2/9
down a US carrier strike groups, as the UK did not have the money for nuclear propulsion.
And as the UK doesn't have the money for the ships that make up a carrier strike group (destroyers, frigates, submarines) the UK expected the US Navy to detach some of its destroyers and
3/9 Image
Read 9 tweets
Mar 8
πŸ‡¬πŸ‡§ decline: Only one SSN is operational, three are no longer fit for service and got no crews. One carrier has no air wing and has been sent to rust away. The other carrier only has an air wing when the RAF cedes a third of its fighters. Only 1 destroyer is operational. The
1/5
frigates are falling apart. New Type 31 frigates won't get Mark 41 VLS or bow Sonar. The RAF took 48 of its Eurofighters apart, because it got no money for spares. The army has just 14 155mm howitzers. The Ajax vehicle is injuring the troops it carries. The Warrior IFVs are
2/5
outdated and falling apart. They amphibious ships are not deployable / crewed for lack of funds. The UK has not anti-ballistic missile system (e.g.Patriot). There is only money for 12 F-35A, the smallest F-35A order on the planet. The tank force is at its smallest since 1938.
3/5
Read 5 tweets
Mar 4
International Law is worthless paper if you cannot and will not back it up with military power.

Dictators do not care for international law. But they fear the US Air Force. The moment the US signaled it would no longer back "international law" putin annexed Crimea and Assad
1/10
gassed his people. International Law is what defence laggards hide behind to not have to spend for their own security (hoping the US will save them from their irresponsibility) .

European politicians like to grandstand about "international law" but NO European nation has the
2/n
the means (nor the will) to the enforce it. European politicians grandstanding about international law always do so in the belief that the US will enforce their balderdash.
So European politicians lecturing the US about "international law" now are utter morons, because they
3/n
Read 10 tweets
Feb 21
All this "NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war in Ukraine" is ridiculous, because:

β€’ of course NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war IN (!) Ukraine,
β€’ because that is not how a NATO-russia war will be fought. NATO, even just European NATO,
1/4
fields: 244 F-35, 403 Eurofighter, 183 Rafale, 177 modern F-16, 3 Gripen E, and 896 older fighter types.
A total of 1,906+ fighters (without the US Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force; and with more new fighters entering European service every week).

russia, when counting
2/4
generously can't even put half that fighter strength into the field, and the 1,010 modern European NATO fighters would devastate russia's fighter force.

With NATO air supremacy comes absolute dominance of the battlefield. Every russian moving near the front would get bombed
3/4
Read 4 tweets
Feb 15
Gripen fans keep hyping the Gripen with fake claims & as long as they do, I will counter them:

Scandinavian Air Force officer about the Gripen E: It can either be fully fueled or fully armed or flown from short runways. Never can 2 of these things be done at the same time.
1/25 Image
The Gripen fans keep claiming that the Gripen has a better range than the F-35 and can fly from short runways... then admit that its max. range can only be achieved with external fuel tanks, which weigh so much that the Gripen E can no longer fly from short runways.
2/n
External fuel tanks also mean: the Gripen becomes slower, the radar cross section increases (making detection more likely), the fuel consumption increases,... and even with all 3 external fuel tanks the Gripen E carries 1,340 kg less fuel than the F-35A carries internally.
3/n
Read 25 tweets
Feb 2
Gripen fans continue to spam my mention with claims how fantastic Sweden's Bas 90 and Gripen combination is... and that it would work for Canada's North too...

Ok, let's quickly compare Canada's three northern territories (Yukon, Northwest, Nunavut) and Sweden... ...
1/6
Land area:
πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺ 450,295 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦ terr.: 3,593,589 km2 (173,860 sq mi)

The land area of just the three territories (without Canada's 10 provinces) is already 8 times bigger than all of Sweden...
(In total Canada's land area is 9,984,670 km2
2/6
(3,855,100 sq mi) or 22 times Sweden).

Population:
πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺ 10.61 million
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦ terr.: 0.13 million

Sweden's population is 81.6 times bigger than that of the three territories... and if you look at population density:
πŸ‡ΈπŸ‡ͺ 23,6/km2
πŸ‡¨πŸ‡¦ terr.: 0,013/km2
3/6
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(