Thomas C. Theiner Profile picture
May 30, 2022 27 tweets 10 min read Read on X
M270 MLRS or M142 HIMARS?

Which of the two will Ukraine receive?
And how will this change the war?

A missile artillery thread 🧵

1/n Image
In my last thread I explained the differences between the:

🇺🇸 M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS
🇷🇺 BM-27 Uragan and BM-30 Smerch

and looked at what missiles are available for the M270 and M142. I suggest you read it before continuing with this thread.

2/n
The US has two multiple launch rocket systems:

M270 MLRS and M142 HIMARS

Both have a crew of three, both fire the same missiles, both do not need a Fire Direction Center to compute their missions.

3/n Image
The M142 HIMARS exists in only one version. No updates so far - this version is called M142A0.

The M270 MLRS exists in three versions:
• M270A0
• M270A1
• M270A2

You can distinguish the A1/A2 from the earlier A0 by the GPS antenna on the launcher (red arrow).
4/n Image
The M270A0 can only fire the M26 series, M28 series training rockets, and M39 rocket (photo: a M28 launch). As of 2022 no country fields the M270A0.

The M270A1 can fire all current missiles, but its processing power is too slow to fire the future PrSM missile.

5/n Image
Therefore Lockheed Martin is currently overhauling and upgrading 160 stored M270A0 with new engines, transmissions, launcher-loader modules, and the new Common Fire Control System (CFCS) - this version will be known as M270A2.

These 160 new M270A2 will equip the currently

6/n
active ten US Army and US Army National Guard artillery battalions, which all use the M270A1.

When these 160 M270A2 have been delivered Lockheed will begin to overhaul and upgrade the existing fleet of 225 M270A1 launchers to the new M270A2 standard.

7/n Image
Once the overhauled M270A1 leave the Lockheed facilities as M270A2 the Army will raise new artillery battalions and increase the number of launchers per battalion.

All this means that Ukraine can only get either M142 or M270A1 launchers, because the M270A0 can't fire the

8/n
GPS guided GMLRS missiles in the US inventory, while the M270A2 is the pinnacle of US military tech and its CFCS is top secret.

This leaves the M270A1 as only possible M270 variant, and luckily Lockheed is right now delivering the first M270A2 to US Army artillery units,

9/n Image
which are concurrently retiring their M270A1.

As for the M142: more than 540 have been produced so far and the US Army and Marine inventory is around 450 systems, with approximately 335 in active units.

In short: the US could donate a lot of either system to Ukraine,

10/n Image
as of both 100+ are available and as both systems can be replaced by the US defense industry.

The main difference between the two systems is that the M142 carries only one missile pod. As pods contain the same 6x missiles (either 6x M30A1, 6x M31, or 6x M31A1) this somewhat
11/n
limits a artillery commander's options... unless he has two M142 loaded with different missiles.

The M270A1 carries two pods and so can fire unitary warheads (M31/M31A1) and alternative warhead (M30A1) rockets in the same fire mission.

Photo: a M31 launch in Iraq
12/n Image
Both systems can fire a LOT more missions per hour than russian systems.

As mentioned in my earlier tweet it takes 20+ minutes to reload the Uragan (photo) and 40+ minutes to reload the Smerch.

M142 and M270A1 reload time: 5 minutes.
13/n Image
Then the russians have to measure and set up their firing positions, plot a fire mission with their outdated maps, sight their launchers optically (photo) - this and their slow reloading time mean that the russians can fire one volley per hour at best...

14/n Image
The M142 and M270A1 need 1 minute to stop, set up and fire their missiles:

drone spots a russian target - sends GPS coordinates to the M142 - gunner enters GPS coordinates into the UFCS - launches missiles - moves on.

A M142 or M270A1 can fire 5-6 volleys per hour (!).
15/n Image
Not only are M142 and M270A1 faster to reload, quicker to fire, and massively more accurate than russian rocket launchers - their missiles also fly further than russian missiles.

Officially GMLRS missiles have a range of 70 km... I can tell you that this is not true.
16/n
Just how much further their real range is I cannot disclose, but the russians are about to make painful discoveries soon.

We now know which launchers and missiles Ukraine will receive... now let's look at how these missiles will deliver a lot of hurt to the russians.

17/n Image
Let's look first at the Kherson front.

I used @Nrg8000's brilliant maps for these:
• in the 1st image I added two blue circles with the range of M777 howitzers with M795 projectiles
• in the 2nd image I added a yellow circle with the "official" range of a M31A1 rocket

18/n ImageImage
Just one M142 or M270A1 can not only fire at almost every russian position in Kherson Oblast, it can also hit the choke points of russia's two supply lines:
• the Antonovskiy Bridge near Kherson and
• the Kakhovka Dam near Nova Kakhovka

19/n
Send up a drone:
• find russian supply point - hit it with a M30A1
• find a russian command post - hit it with a M31A1
• find a russian battery - give it a taste of both
• find russian infantry - one M30A1 will hit them with 160,000 scorching hot, 3 Mach fast shrapnels

20/n
Now let's look at Kharkiv.

In blue the range of a M777 with M795 projectile, and in green the range of a self-propelled CAESAR howitzer.

In yellow the "official" range of where a M270A1 or M142 can make the russian's life hell.
21/n ImageImage
The entire russian supply line using the railway from Vovchansk to Kupiansk is in range. The russian supply point at Kupiansk, which supplies the russian salient at Izyum is in range.

And there is no need to worry about counter battery fire: M142 and M270A1 fire their
22/n
missiles so quickly that whatever russia fires in return will hit long after both vehicles are gone.

The M142 crew doesn't even have to get out of their vehicle to reload. The only risk to them are drones. So both vehicles need air defense close by.

23/n Image
And now we look at the Donbas front. Two M777 in blue and one CAESAR in green... and compare this to what one M270A1 or M142 can cover.

A handful of M142 moving constantly around in the Donbas area, stopping only to fire or reload can hit attacking russian troops anywhere.

24/n ImageImage
If a russian battery or air defense system is spotted deep behind russian lines - drive closer to the frontline, fire the missiles, move back out of russian artillery range.

Then reload and repeat.
25/n Image
M270A1 and/or M142 are definitely going to change the dynamics of this war.

Every russian attack will get smited, every russian supply point will get destroyed. And we already know that russia can't move further than 80-90 km supply points.

26/n Image
But Ukraine needs a lot of M270A1 or M142. As @nicholadrummond already said: 48x launchers is the minimum. Plus lots and lots of missiles, and drones to spot every russian position.

Send this to Ukraine NOW and we can wrap this war up before Ukraine's independence day.

27/n Image

• • •

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

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 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:

• of course NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war IN (!) Ukraine,
• 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:
🇸🇪 450,295 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
🇨🇦 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:
🇸🇪 10.61 million
🇨🇦 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:
🇸🇪 23,6/km2
🇨🇦 terr.: 0,013/km2
3/6
Read 6 tweets
Feb 1
Saab loooves to tout the claim that the Gripen can "operate from dispersed air bases".

They do that, because they know no one of you knows what it means. And every time I see someone regurgite "dispersed air bases" (or "road runways" or "short runways") I know I am dealing
1/36 Image
Image
Image
Image
with someone, who knows absolutely nothing about the topic.
So allow me to take you on a deep dive into what "operating from dispersed air bases" actually means.
Let's start with Såtenäs Air Base in Southern Sweden - the most important Swedish air base.
2/n Image
When the Viggen entered service, Såtenäs received it first.
When the Gripen entered service, Såtenäs received it first.
When the Gripen E entered service, Såtenäs received it first.

In the 1950s Sweden developed the Bas 60 system, which would have dispersed the Swedish
3/n Image
Read 36 tweets
Jan 20
The 11th Airborne Division is the least likely to be used to invade #Greenland.
The division's deputy commander is Canadian. He is responsible for Operations. The 11th would have to arrest part of their own officers, before being able to plan a Greenland invasion.
Also
1/6
there are just 8 C-17 Globemaster aircraft at Elmendorf Air Force Base. The USAF would need to fly a dozen more up to Alaska, which of course Canada would notice. Then to reach Greenland the C-17 would have to cross Canada's North, which NORAD's Canadian officers would report
2/6
to the Canadian and Danish governments.

It is much more likely the US will inform allies that a brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg will fly to the Middle East, which means the air route will take them right over Greenland. And at Fort Bragg you also have the
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!

:(