It's UAE, so I'd say it's broadly American.
I don't think reloading is a problem, it takes like 5 minutes to get all the rockets out, then it drives back to base for reloading. What would the ammo truck even look like? May as well just buy another MLRS truck.
Can be rearmed by a support vehicle in about 30 minutes. The support vehicle has two cranes each reloading two pods of the system.
Pic. rel. is the supply vehicle (but with a different payload variant)
I don't even understand the point to MLRS reloading trucks, at least not for wheeled systems.
The launcher truck is a truck with rockets on it.
The reloader truck is a truck with rockets it can't fire on it.
Turn the reloader trucks into launcher trucks and I don't see the downside.
Even when you're talking about continuous operation within a 100km radius of the railhead/port/factory. It's a tiny reduction in availability from the launcher trucks doing their own reload runs, in exchange for significantly more tubes pointed downrange when fully loaded.
And I look at the Jobaria and if it's doing it's own reloading runs you're squeezing a lot more missiles down a road than any other way.
The reloading trucks aren't a one man team. You need at least three for 24 hour operation with one sleeping, one driver, and one guard at all times.
And the launcher trucks only need a 3 man crew as well, it's just type the coordinates in and press the button so it's still just that driver/guard/spare combo.
Ideally I think a 6 man crew might be better with an enlarged twincab, a roofmount, V-shaped hull, etc to deal with insurgents and commandos. But launcher or reloader, same crew requirements.
That thing has such awful mobility, might as well just slap a bunch of grads on a train car.
Yeah I'm not really sure "Can't be trusted to put the right numbers into the FCS" but "Can be trusted to handle live rockets" aren't mutually exclusive.
It's basically a truck driver gig either way. It's not like they're doing their own recon or picking their own targets like SParty.
Drive here
Type these numbers in
Press this button
Drive back.
It's UAE, so I'd say it's broadly American.
I don't think reloading is a problem, it takes like 5 minutes to get all the rockets out, then it drives back to base for reloading. What would the ammo truck even look like? May as well just buy another MLRS truck.
>Americans finally figure out they need some cheaper, lighter, more mobile platforms for MRLS >moron nations start getting uppity becuase they have bigger, slower MLRS
You realize that's going to have an on-road speed of 100kph just like every other truck in the world right? It's 0-60 might be a bit lower fully loaded, but the top speed will be the same.
Well it looks like it's more stable when firing than Russian crap so maybe it's more useful, ie, one of those rockets is bound to hit?
Honestly though if you're not doing guided rockets at a minimum you're wasting budget and manpower IMO. But, who knows? If you put Western MICs on the project of making dumb rocket MLRS as accurate as possible maybe they'd be surprisingly effective.
This thing is based off the Grad right? Do they still have to load it one rocket at a time?
It's UAE, so I'd say it's broadly American.
I don't think reloading is a problem, it takes like 5 minutes to get all the rockets out, then it drives back to base for reloading. What would the ammo truck even look like? May as well just buy another MLRS truck.
Can be rearmed by a support vehicle in about 30 minutes. The support vehicle has two cranes each reloading two pods of the system.
Pic. rel. is the supply vehicle (but with a different payload variant)
I don't even understand the point to MLRS reloading trucks, at least not for wheeled systems.
The launcher truck is a truck with rockets on it.
The reloader truck is a truck with rockets it can't fire on it.
Turn the reloader trucks into launcher trucks and I don't see the downside.
Even when you're talking about continuous operation within a 100km radius of the railhead/port/factory. It's a tiny reduction in availability from the launcher trucks doing their own reload runs, in exchange for significantly more tubes pointed downrange when fully loaded.
And I look at the Jobaria and if it's doing it's own reloading runs you're squeezing a lot more missiles down a road than any other way.
Costs of trucks with one driver vs the whole MLRS team
It's a manpower thing
The reloading trucks aren't a one man team. You need at least three for 24 hour operation with one sleeping, one driver, and one guard at all times.
And the launcher trucks only need a 3 man crew as well, it's just type the coordinates in and press the button so it's still just that driver/guard/spare combo.
Ideally I think a 6 man crew might be better with an enlarged twincab, a roofmount, V-shaped hull, etc to deal with insurgents and commandos. But launcher or reloader, same crew requirements.
How'd you come to that conclusion?
Not everyone is smart enough to be trusted to actually be allowed to lob rockets at shit.
Most morons can drive a truck and perform simple to moderately complex labor, even with heavy machinery.
Yeah I'm not really sure "Can't be trusted to put the right numbers into the FCS" but "Can be trusted to handle live rockets" aren't mutually exclusive.
It's basically a truck driver gig either way. It's not like they're doing their own recon or picking their own targets like SParty.
Drive here
Type these numbers in
Press this button
Drive back.
It was designed by South African expats
RIP Gerard Bull.
Man is my fricking spirit animal.
Imagine dropping a grenade on it with an aliexpress drone, whole explosion would probably kill the drone as well.
>Americans finally figure out they need some cheaper, lighter, more mobile platforms for MRLS
>moron nations start getting uppity becuase they have bigger, slower MLRS
UAE doesn't have huge manpower reserves. The firepower of x4 conventional MLRS with the crew of x1 makes sense in that context.
how do you reload it
that's for the two poor conscripts that have to crew it to find out
patiently
What does a huge vehicle like this achieve that you can't do safer and with less weight with multiple smaller vehicles?
An erection you fricking nerd.
You miss the point of HI(gh)M(obility). That would be bombed to shit as soon as the rockets left the tubes.
Worth it.
You realize that's going to have an on-road speed of 100kph just like every other truck in the world right? It's 0-60 might be a bit lower fully loaded, but the top speed will be the same.
A ten tonne truck is not a dirt bike.
You can always tell South African design. I wonder if they even realise how much they had an aesthetic?
>I wonder if they even realise how much they had an aesthetic?
phrasing.
I believe the technical term is "frick the polar bears."
what's the carbon footprint of a single volley?
250m radius approximately
Meanwhile Ukraine is getting FV-103's with brimstones jerry rigged on the back.
Fun times.
That thing has such awful mobility, might as well just slap a bunch of grads on a train car.
has around the same mobility as any fully-loaded tractor-trailer with a delicate load
why not stack the rockets vertically in a regular shaped trailer and be more space efficient?
Well it looks like it's more stable when firing than Russian crap so maybe it's more useful, ie, one of those rockets is bound to hit?
Honestly though if you're not doing guided rockets at a minimum you're wasting budget and manpower IMO. But, who knows? If you put Western MICs on the project of making dumb rocket MLRS as accurate as possible maybe they'd be surprisingly effective.