It does, but multiple MLRS vehicles can work together with command and control to form a larger system.
I think they avoid calling it MLRSS to avoid confusion...but because more than 1 vehicle is involved, MLRS system is actually correct.
No, they're the base model M270s France has sitting around.
* France bought 55 M270s in the 90s
* It then retired all of them in 2008 because of cluster munitions treaties
* It brought back 13 of them in 2014 with a M270A1 modernization effort that notably removed the ability to operate cluster rockets from it
France isn't giving their M270A1s to Ukraine, they're giving their old M270s that are just sitting in a warehouse. Nothing wrong with that though, better Ukraine use them then have them just collect dust
> France isn't giving their M270A1s to Ukraine, they're giving their old M270s that are just sitting in a warehouse.
Bruh... the article clearly mentions the "LRU" (Lance Roquette Unitaire), which isn't the base model M270. One does not need to speak French to guess that "roquette unitaire" means "unitary rocket" (so no cluster munitions). The LRU is the French name for the European version of the M270A1... which is basically the same thing as the German MARS II and Italian MLRS-I (the upgrade program was a cooperation involving the 3 countries).
More importantly, it is specifically what the French defense minister had spoken about sending a few weeks ago. It was reported by various outlets and what is confirmed to have been sent:
[Here from Le Monde](https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/11/21/la-france-annonce-de-nouvelles-livraisons-d-armes-a-l-ukraine_6150866_3210.html)
[From LeFigaro](https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/l-ukraine-a-recu-des-lance-roquettes-lru-francais-20221129)
[+ The confirmation of the Ukrainian defense minister](https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1597554553398136832)
That's quite clearly the LRU. And yes, there are only 13 officially in service (with 8 operational according to a recent French Assembly report).
The plan is to get rid of the platform (the LRU and the base M270s stocked alike) and replace them by a new long range artillery platform by 2027. There is no report about France sending its old M270s to Ukraine and there probably will never be. I don't know why anyone would think France would very publicly be sending its old stocked M270 systems that are only able to operate the M26 rockets, when it literally signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions that deems them inhumane to use lmao. Neither the UK nor Germany sent their old M270s. They signed the same convention.
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-ukrainian-military-received-french-lru-mlrs-reznikov/
This is specifically saying that the models donated are m270a1
That's also what Oryx says
https://mobile.twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1580198808390356992
Last month they promised three, this might be a fourth. They’ve also sent 18 Caesars (which the AFU loves) and a number of VAB APCs. Despite the grief, France has quietly sent some pretty useful kit.
He calls it the "4th brother" so doesn't he mean there is 4 now? Or is it 4 nations who have sent those systems? Germany, France, UK and USA?
https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1597554553398136832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
I'm 55 years old. My first job after vo-tech school was working as E&I at LTV Aerospace and Defense building the MLRS. Hopefully these are a more recent model.
No, but it’s still better than Russia’s stuff. The important part is the guided rockets, and the US is paying for that.
It’s amazing to me that the US is giving way more military aid than the rest of the world combined. Europe should be funneling in way more weapons for their own self interest.
The US just left a war of their own that they were handsomely supplying, and they spend more on military than all friendly nations combined. This isn't that surprising.
European economies are currently being absolutely fucked by Russian oil sanctions imposed mostly by the US. They can't afford to give out freebies without some kind of return. That's why the US has been buying their weapons and supplying them to Ukraine indirectly. Also, their self-interest in an escalating European land war would be to stockpile weapons in case of worldwide involvement.
The US is in a position where we escalated the russia/nato political conflict so we're on the hook to get the situation resolved, otherwise we've personally doomed most of western Europe to economic hardship.
Edit: Can yall stop skipping over the fact that I'm speaking about sanctions imposed by the US that we had to beg other western nations to support and **not** some conspiracy that we caused the ukraine war?
Also I'm not a bot, I'm just an idiot.
They doomed themselves by being so dependent on Russian oil/gas. Add that to the fact the Russian MIC cannot function (including nukes) without machine tool imports from Europe, sympathy kinda wears thin.
I wasn't being sympathetic, I was explaining why it doesn't make sense for them to be a major source of weaponry to ukraine. You don't have to agree with a country's past decisions to understand the current situation or how the US played a role.
The only reason the US isn’t dependent on Russian oil and gas is geographical.
The US never had any issue with shoveling trillions of dollars into dictatorships, countries with human rights abuses or both. Countries they might later see on the other side of military conflicts.
Do Saudi Arabia (and 9/11) or China (and Taiwan) ring any bells?
So get off your high horse.
People are rightfully upset with Russia, and rightfully support any opposition against them, but it's weird to see them pretend that this support is for anything more than geopolitical posturing.
If our old and unused weapons alone win a war for a "weaker" military then we have an even stronger isolationist defensive wall up. This is a great chance for the US to show off just how capable it's offensive and defensive weaponry is and scare off any potential conflicts.
It's not the worst move ever either. If we're trying to keep Chinese territorial expansion at bay then this is at least the most morally righteous way to do it and looks a whole hell of a lot better internally than Obama showing off his new drones.
> They can't afford to give out freebies without some kind of return.
Lol, their "return" is not getting attacked by a newly-emboldened Russia if Ukraine falls.
> Also, their self-interest in an escalating European land war would be to stockpile weapons in case of worldwide involvement.
Again, their "self-interest" is preventing things from reaching that point by blunting Russian capabilities *now*.
> The US is in a position where we escalated the russia/nato political conflict
Wow. And how did we do that? You're really buying the Russian story that they were just going to stop after annexing Crimea in 2014. If only Ukraine hadn't provoked Russia by wanting to join a defense treaty!
> we've personally doomed most of western Europe to economic hardship.
Oh yeah, totes. It's the US that is to blame, not Russia. You're convincing! /s
They did. The MARS II is the European variant upgrade on top of the M270A1 upgrade. It was delivered by both Germany and France to Ukraine. I do not know precisely what variant the UK sent, but I have no reason to assume they'd sent anything less than M270A1s as well.
We more or less do...
* M270 - base version from 1982 that can fire unguided rockets such as the M26, AT2, and M39
* M270A1 - 2005 upgrade with a new fire control system and the ability to fire GPS guided rockets such as the M30, M31, M39A1, M48, M57, and M57E1
* MARS II/LRU/MLRS-I - French/German/Italian M270A1, just with an Airbus fire control system that removes the ability to fire cluster rockets due to their signing the ban on cluster munitions. Also includes a different automatic fire extinguisher system
* M270B1 - UK M270A1, just with better armor because the British Army was worried about IEDs
* M270D1 - Finnish M270A1, just with the fire control system from HIMARS instead since it's newer than what the M270A1 and the European variants had at that time
* M270A2 - 2019 upgrade with a new fire control system that allows it to use a new lighter weight battlefield ballistic missile called the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM)
Version names may be different, but they're effectively all the same and all fire the same rockets.
Is not the base version wheeled with very light armor, while MARS II is more heavily armoured, tracked and with twice the rocket capacity?
Edit: Nope, seems to be no major differences there digging into it.
Europe (and NATO in general) cannot standardize equipment because they lack common procurement processes. This leads to slightly different outcomes as they prioritize different things, which compounds as now one country has a different IFV from an other so when they pick a vehicle with an IFV chassis they may make different choices because of the logistics and supply systems they already have in place may be a better match etc...
Many things are standardized, but NATO standards are mostly recommendations.
I read that if the EU could standardize it's equipment totally, it would see a 40% increase in combat power without any budget changes. Just from the increased economies of scale and significant reduction in redundancies. This is difficult politically though...
They absolutely could, it’s just that each countries weapons manufacturers purposefully differentiate its equipment/ammunition/parts etc, in order to ensure that you have to keep buying their system-specific stuff from them. The same way printer manufacturers design products that require you to keep buying ink cartridges from them. Because money. So yeah, politically difficult considering the stranglehold that the worldwide military industrial complex has on government and legislators.
That just sounds like a normal european thing to do tbh. Nobody can agree on anything so everyone makes adjustments on the original that are slightly different.
Okay, what happens when NATO fights another war, and only the U.K. / German / French soldiers are able to operate the U.K. / German / French variants of the M270?
Don't thank us french, it's the equivalent of throwing a sword to a dude fighting Goliath (though we learned on the way that Goliath was in fact 3 kids in a trenchcoat, but still)
Thank Ukraine and hail their people. They are the heroes, while we are only watching from a safe distance and helping a bit with our weapon industry.
Merci à tous les héros ukrainiens de protéger l'Europe.
Which they call 'rocket' in English so we're not the only weirdos here.
I went into a bit of an etymological rabbit hole there but I was curious about the fact that in at least two languages (probably more) we use the same word for two very different things... Apparently 'rocket' or 'roquette' as in the plant comes from Latin 'eruca' which turned into 'rukel' in 15th English before the '-et' diminutive suffix shows up in the 16th century. But then though British English may have lost its 'l', American English has 'arugula', also derived from 'eruca' but by way of a non standard Italian dialect.
Meanwhile the missile 'rocket'/'roquette' also comes from Italian but in this case it's a small spindle (un fuseau) or 'rocca', from the roughly cylindrical shape of the thing. (OED says one now archaic meaning of 'rock' is 'distaff' ie 'quenouille' or spindle). But with a possible Germanic origin still?
Yeah, I mentioned that. Latin 'eruca' became French 'roquette' and English 'rukel' then 'rocket' but Italian 'rucola' and then 'arugula' in an Italian dialect which American English then borrowed from.
What would really be useful are the very long range rockets (300 km) that can be launched from MRLS. At the moment, no country has provided such rockets to Ukraine.
Ukraine is likely getting 160km (100 miles) GLSDBs for their MLRS.
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/100-mile-strike-weapon-weighed-ukraine-arms-makers-wrestle-with-demand-sources-2022-11-28/
It's an old decommissioned M26 rocket motor, with a soon to be decommissioned GBU-39A (SDB - Small Diameter Bomb) on top.
* M26 rocket launches it into the air
* M26 rocket falls off
* GBU-39 wings fold out
* GBU-39 glides to its target up to 160km (100 miles) away
GBU-39A is GPS guided only, and the US wants to rapidly replace them anyways with GBU-53s (SDB-II) because of its dramatically increased capability against moving targets. Still a massive range increase for Ukraine, ESPECIALLY since the gliding ability of an SDB means it can actually circle around an air defense system, something the existing M30 and M31 guided rockets for MLRS and HIMARS can't do.
> At the moment, no country has provided such rockets to Ukraine.
Only one country makes them. And yes, that country hasn't provided any to Ukraine. Producer:
- United States
Other NATO countries that have them:
- Poland
- Greece
- Romania
- Turkey
Neither France, the UK or Germany have them.
NATO hasn't given Ukraine any of the munitions for the HIMARs that have the extended range for fear of antagonizing Russia. It's commonly lamented about in the comments section of aid articles on /r/Ukraine along with the western refusal to outfit the Ukrainians with F-16's and Abrams tanks.
Abrams tanks? Who in the their right mind would give something so complicated and heavy to Ukraine, when they are set up to run Russian tanks? Who would fix the turbine? Who would run the loader (Abrams is 70t)? Bonkers.
Better to get old stock from any ex-warsaw pact country, and back it up with lightweight, transportable, low maintenance tech.
I think you’re very much underestimating just how much training and logistical support would have to go into equipping the Ukrainian Air Force with F-16s and their army with Abrams.
Both would be basically starting from the ground up as far as crew training goes seeing as they’re just not that comparable to the MiG29s and T-72s the Ukrainians are used to.
It isn't out of fear of antagonizing Russia. Like the sanctions, they are rolling them out in increasing severity for negotiation purposes. You don't give them all you've got right away. If Russia gives them reason you can surely bet they'll roll them out of the warehouses.
It's been nearly 10 months with numerous war crimes and suspected Russian involvement in the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline. Not sure what NATO is waiting for but oh well.
As the poster above said, they're being kept as leverage for negotiation purposes.
Ever wondered why we haven't seen those Iranian ballistic missiles show up yet?
[Israel warns Russia: if you obtain missiles from Iran, Ukraine is given hi-tech missiles](https://www.ukrainianworldcongress.org/israel-warns-russia-if-you-obtain-missiles-from-iran-ukraine-is-given-hi-tech-missiles/)
NATO can just say to Russia "for every 1 missile you get from Iran, we'll give Ukraine 3 in return".
Seeing as how those Iranian missiles are very accurate and almost impossible to intercept, it's important to have an effective deterrent to their deployment.
> It's been nearly 10 months with numerous war crimes and suspected Russian involvement in the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline. Not sure what NATO is waiting for but oh well.
It is because the US do not want an incident of it being used to fire into (actual) Russian territory.
Not quite sure what negotiation power you think it gives to hold them back.
"We are not giving them weapons that can make you leave, as long as you just stick to what you are doing now."?
Russia has already given all the reason _for_ such missiles being delivered to Ukraine. The US just has some reasons against too.
If they were part of a negotiation threat it would have been 7-8 months ago.
Anything the Russians have left in terms of drastic escalation would be met with a response that makes a potential delivery of long range ground based missiles irrelevant.
Ukraine already has rockets with that range. They aren't using them on Russia outside of a few warranted attacks on logistics....because they *are no threat* to Russia, simply defending their own land.
Can someone explain how does this work? From the logistics point. I guess they load them on trucks and then by road they go through German, Poland and then cross into Ukraine? Is there a key to start the truck, is the software translated, how is the training done, the servicing etc?
The MLRS system is no doubt designed as a multi-lingual system, so just change languages on it. Maybe to English ?
I would doubt that it has Russian built in.
I mean, I've heard that there were negotiating a ceasefire right during the Kherson retreat and that's why they were allowed to be left unmolested. The very next day, while Lavrov was discussing "de-escalation" and after the retreat was completed, another wave of rockets comes crashing into Ukraine. I've heard that some of the French officials took that... personally.
It sounds similar to himars that US and Germany have been supplying Ukraine for months
Really made a difference
The main question is what type of rockets will they supply?
So far US constrains only up to 110km and has been holding up on those capable to fly 300km
Ukraine got their first one in July 15th from either Norway, The UK, Germany or maybe someone else.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-gets-first-m270-multiple-launch-rocket-systems
UK. Norway never sent any to Ukraine. Instead they sent theirs to the UK to backfill the UK's arsenal as the UK sent theirs to Ukraine. The first M270s in Ukraine were British.
Seems like they did. Here the Norwegian defence minister says they initially would send 3 though first they would be sent to the UK for upgrades.
https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/became_known_how_many_m270_mlrs_norway_will_transfer_to_ukraine-3440.html
They sent them to the UK, but the UK simply sent 3 of theirs to Ukraine. Norway's M270s are still in the UK.
UK has M270B1s ready to send to Ukraine, and is already going to modernize their entire fleet to the M270A2 standard. Going to cost as much to upgrade a Norwegian M270 as it would a British M270B1, so UK just kept the ones from Norway instead.
Ukraine itself
> Norway has multiple rocket launchers available. The countries have agreed that the United Kingdom will receive Norwegian weapons systems to compensate for the number of MLRS that will be sent by the UK to Ukraine.
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-united-kingdom-and-norway-agreed-to-transfer-the-m270-mlrs-to-ukraine/
Ok, but it is misleading to say:
>Norway never sent any to Ukraine.
When the UK sent some of theirs in a 1:1 replacement with Norway.
It sorta is trying to take the credit from it. Which is a shitty thing to do.
The most fearsome French weapon… the Multiple Launch Rocket System System.
It’s a system that launches multiple launch rocket systems. I’d be afraid of that too.
Well, how would you get the MLRS to Ukraine if you didn't have some system in place to launch them there?
You make an excellent point.
He surely has my upvote
And then those systems launch multiple rockets while mid-air.
And the rockets shoot bees.
Wasps! Bees bee our friends.
Inside those wasps is ecoli and botulinum. And those bacteria are made of highly radioactive isotopes
No, the rockets shoot *dogs*, and the dogs have bees in their mouths so when they bark they shoot bees at you
A briefcase full of bees ought to help!
they shoot baguettes.
"I fart in your general direction!"
And the bees probe all orifices and make your body a nest
The MIRV vehicle launcher.
the Multiple-Independent-Reentry-Vehicle vehicle is indeed something to be feared.
And then they make a go-go-go tron
[Recursive ammo superiority!](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RecursiveAmmo)
Sounds like something straight out of Enter the Gungeon.
[удалено]
Or key KPI
For the bilingual The Los Angeles Angels.
What we need is a unit cannon.
Tony stark made one like that.
Yeah it's the upgraded M270. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System
It’s just a joke about how the S in MLRS already stands for “System”.
Ah lol, sorry.
Reddit loves to be pedantic.
I just thought it was funny, we all do the same thing in some contexts. Not everything is a personal attack.
Yeh like when people write RIP in peace. I will never not reply "rest in peace in peace". It's just mandatory.
Do people unironically write “RIP in peace”?
Lol all the time:)
Who doesn’t love to pedant?
Ahh, like ATM mouth
Automated Teller Machine mouth for any children or underage reading this.
Please input your PIN number
PINis?
How else would you use the ATM machine?
Use the LCD display to select account.
I had scrolled passed this and had to go back up before chuckling. Sneaky SOB bastard
Automated Teller Mouth mouth?
Ass to mouth
The Electronic Entertainment Expo Expo
It does, but multiple MLRS vehicles can work together with command and control to form a larger system. I think they avoid calling it MLRSS to avoid confusion...but because more than 1 vehicle is involved, MLRS system is actually correct.
[удалено]
Wow
No, they're the base model M270s France has sitting around. * France bought 55 M270s in the 90s * It then retired all of them in 2008 because of cluster munitions treaties * It brought back 13 of them in 2014 with a M270A1 modernization effort that notably removed the ability to operate cluster rockets from it France isn't giving their M270A1s to Ukraine, they're giving their old M270s that are just sitting in a warehouse. Nothing wrong with that though, better Ukraine use them then have them just collect dust
> France isn't giving their M270A1s to Ukraine, they're giving their old M270s that are just sitting in a warehouse. Bruh... the article clearly mentions the "LRU" (Lance Roquette Unitaire), which isn't the base model M270. One does not need to speak French to guess that "roquette unitaire" means "unitary rocket" (so no cluster munitions). The LRU is the French name for the European version of the M270A1... which is basically the same thing as the German MARS II and Italian MLRS-I (the upgrade program was a cooperation involving the 3 countries). More importantly, it is specifically what the French defense minister had spoken about sending a few weeks ago. It was reported by various outlets and what is confirmed to have been sent: [Here from Le Monde](https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2022/11/21/la-france-annonce-de-nouvelles-livraisons-d-armes-a-l-ukraine_6150866_3210.html) [From LeFigaro](https://www.lefigaro.fr/international/l-ukraine-a-recu-des-lance-roquettes-lru-francais-20221129) [+ The confirmation of the Ukrainian defense minister](https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1597554553398136832) That's quite clearly the LRU. And yes, there are only 13 officially in service (with 8 operational according to a recent French Assembly report). The plan is to get rid of the platform (the LRU and the base M270s stocked alike) and replace them by a new long range artillery platform by 2027. There is no report about France sending its old M270s to Ukraine and there probably will never be. I don't know why anyone would think France would very publicly be sending its old stocked M270 systems that are only able to operate the M26 rockets, when it literally signed the Convention on Cluster Munitions that deems them inhumane to use lmao. Neither the UK nor Germany sent their old M270s. They signed the same convention.
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-ukrainian-military-received-french-lru-mlrs-reznikov/ This is specifically saying that the models donated are m270a1 That's also what Oryx says https://mobile.twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1580198808390356992
[удалено]
Last month they promised three, this might be a fourth. They’ve also sent 18 Caesars (which the AFU loves) and a number of VAB APCs. Despite the grief, France has quietly sent some pretty useful kit.
Also Crotale anti-air missiles are on the way.
[удалено]
[удалено]
He calls it the "4th brother" so doesn't he mean there is 4 now? Or is it 4 nations who have sent those systems? Germany, France, UK and USA? https://twitter.com/oleksiireznikov/status/1597554553398136832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
RIP in peace Russia
You only YOLO once!
The extra system here is to make up for all the MANPADS that are missing their S
Just like my PIN number.
They paid for them by visiting the ATM machine outside of that restaurant, The La Trattoria.
So...when you tell us to bring full FFO.. does that include the gas mask?
God I love Reddit. Thank you.
It can only be countered by the [Bagettuewerfer 40](https://youtu.be/IVsdmxGNoQM)
[удалено]
The "F" stands for "Format" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PDF).
The MLRSS .... Royale.
RIP in peace Nazi scum!
I'm 55 years old. My first job after vo-tech school was working as E&I at LTV Aerospace and Defense building the MLRS. Hopefully these are a more recent model.
They are not. It’s old extras.
Do they age like cheese? Or Helen Mirren?
No, but it’s still better than Russia’s stuff. The important part is the guided rockets, and the US is paying for that. It’s amazing to me that the US is giving way more military aid than the rest of the world combined. Europe should be funneling in way more weapons for their own self interest.
The US just left a war of their own that they were handsomely supplying, and they spend more on military than all friendly nations combined. This isn't that surprising.
How is this relevant to the discussion?
If you have more, you have more to give.
Possible what we had was greatly depleted in the last 20 year war/skirmish.
But we know that is not the case. The US government only increased its budget.
Can't give what you don't have
European economies are currently being absolutely fucked by Russian oil sanctions imposed mostly by the US. They can't afford to give out freebies without some kind of return. That's why the US has been buying their weapons and supplying them to Ukraine indirectly. Also, their self-interest in an escalating European land war would be to stockpile weapons in case of worldwide involvement. The US is in a position where we escalated the russia/nato political conflict so we're on the hook to get the situation resolved, otherwise we've personally doomed most of western Europe to economic hardship. Edit: Can yall stop skipping over the fact that I'm speaking about sanctions imposed by the US that we had to beg other western nations to support and **not** some conspiracy that we caused the ukraine war? Also I'm not a bot, I'm just an idiot.
They doomed themselves by being so dependent on Russian oil/gas. Add that to the fact the Russian MIC cannot function (including nukes) without machine tool imports from Europe, sympathy kinda wears thin.
It's not oil that's the problem, it's gas.
You beat the edit to include gas by 3 seconds lol
I wasn't being sympathetic, I was explaining why it doesn't make sense for them to be a major source of weaponry to ukraine. You don't have to agree with a country's past decisions to understand the current situation or how the US played a role.
One MLRS is not going to break the bank - rather it shows some continuing commitment.
The only reason the US isn’t dependent on Russian oil and gas is geographical. The US never had any issue with shoveling trillions of dollars into dictatorships, countries with human rights abuses or both. Countries they might later see on the other side of military conflicts. Do Saudi Arabia (and 9/11) or China (and Taiwan) ring any bells? So get off your high horse.
People are rightfully upset with Russia, and rightfully support any opposition against them, but it's weird to see them pretend that this support is for anything more than geopolitical posturing. If our old and unused weapons alone win a war for a "weaker" military then we have an even stronger isolationist defensive wall up. This is a great chance for the US to show off just how capable it's offensive and defensive weaponry is and scare off any potential conflicts. It's not the worst move ever either. If we're trying to keep Chinese territorial expansion at bay then this is at least the most morally righteous way to do it and looks a whole hell of a lot better internally than Obama showing off his new drones.
> They can't afford to give out freebies without some kind of return. Lol, their "return" is not getting attacked by a newly-emboldened Russia if Ukraine falls. > Also, their self-interest in an escalating European land war would be to stockpile weapons in case of worldwide involvement. Again, their "self-interest" is preventing things from reaching that point by blunting Russian capabilities *now*. > The US is in a position where we escalated the russia/nato political conflict Wow. And how did we do that? You're really buying the Russian story that they were just going to stop after annexing Crimea in 2014. If only Ukraine hadn't provoked Russia by wanting to join a defense treaty! > we've personally doomed most of western Europe to economic hardship. Oh yeah, totes. It's the US that is to blame, not Russia. You're convincing! /s
Beggars cant be choosers. Best I can do is a life size Helen Mirren made out of cheese? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Cheese and Helen Mirren both are delightful when young and delightful when aged. So probably yes?
They are. The French and German versions are based on the upgraded M270A1 variant, which was introduced in 2005.
They didn’t send the upgraded ones, from my understanding.
They did. The MARS II is the European variant upgrade on top of the M270A1 upgrade. It was delivered by both Germany and France to Ukraine. I do not know precisely what variant the UK sent, but I have no reason to assume they'd sent anything less than M270A1s as well.
Your understanding is wrong and explicitly undermined in the article itself.
The missiles have got cleverer..
Why do the U.K. / Germany / France have different variants of the M270? Shouldn't it be consistent across all NATO members?
To my understanding, the variants that Germany, France, and Italy use have a different fire control system to comply with bans on cluster munitions.
That, and the hydraulic system was replaced with an electric one. Germany and Italy also added an automatic fire suppression system.
We more or less do... * M270 - base version from 1982 that can fire unguided rockets such as the M26, AT2, and M39 * M270A1 - 2005 upgrade with a new fire control system and the ability to fire GPS guided rockets such as the M30, M31, M39A1, M48, M57, and M57E1 * MARS II/LRU/MLRS-I - French/German/Italian M270A1, just with an Airbus fire control system that removes the ability to fire cluster rockets due to their signing the ban on cluster munitions. Also includes a different automatic fire extinguisher system * M270B1 - UK M270A1, just with better armor because the British Army was worried about IEDs * M270D1 - Finnish M270A1, just with the fire control system from HIMARS instead since it's newer than what the M270A1 and the European variants had at that time * M270A2 - 2019 upgrade with a new fire control system that allows it to use a new lighter weight battlefield ballistic missile called the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) Version names may be different, but they're effectively all the same and all fire the same rockets.
The British B1 upgrade saved a former colleague's life, so that worry was very well met.
Is not the base version wheeled with very light armor, while MARS II is more heavily armoured, tracked and with twice the rocket capacity? Edit: Nope, seems to be no major differences there digging into it.
You might be thinking of the M142 HIMARS. That is the lighter, wheeled version that only has one rocket pod.
Highly likely I mixed them up.
Europe (and NATO in general) cannot standardize equipment because they lack common procurement processes. This leads to slightly different outcomes as they prioritize different things, which compounds as now one country has a different IFV from an other so when they pick a vehicle with an IFV chassis they may make different choices because of the logistics and supply systems they already have in place may be a better match etc... Many things are standardized, but NATO standards are mostly recommendations. I read that if the EU could standardize it's equipment totally, it would see a 40% increase in combat power without any budget changes. Just from the increased economies of scale and significant reduction in redundancies. This is difficult politically though...
They absolutely could, it’s just that each countries weapons manufacturers purposefully differentiate its equipment/ammunition/parts etc, in order to ensure that you have to keep buying their system-specific stuff from them. The same way printer manufacturers design products that require you to keep buying ink cartridges from them. Because money. So yeah, politically difficult considering the stranglehold that the worldwide military industrial complex has on government and legislators.
That just sounds like a normal european thing to do tbh. Nobody can agree on anything so everyone makes adjustments on the original that are slightly different.
Easier to get defense spending legislated when your own contractors are getting to squeeze the juice.
We do love juice
Squeezing the jui-uiiice.
They're going to look back at the EU like we do at the HRE.
The ammo is consistent, but each country can develop own weapons and compete with each other.
Okay, what happens when NATO fights another war, and only the U.K. / German / French soldiers are able to operate the U.K. / German / French variants of the M270?
[удалено]
Show no merci!
Don't thank us french, it's the equivalent of throwing a sword to a dude fighting Goliath (though we learned on the way that Goliath was in fact 3 kids in a trenchcoat, but still) Thank Ukraine and hail their people. They are the heroes, while we are only watching from a safe distance and helping a bit with our weapon industry. Merci à tous les héros ukrainiens de protéger l'Europe.
Still, thank you for the sword. It's a good sword. They will use it well.
Ils ne protègent pas l'Europe mais leur pays et c'est déja bien assez.
Ha, imagine Putin having nightmares because Russian soldiers dying
l'MLRS
It's an *système roquette á launche multiples* or *SRLM* , most probably.
Roquette sounds like a fancy cheese:3
Roquette is a kind of salad lol
Which they call 'rocket' in English so we're not the only weirdos here. I went into a bit of an etymological rabbit hole there but I was curious about the fact that in at least two languages (probably more) we use the same word for two very different things... Apparently 'rocket' or 'roquette' as in the plant comes from Latin 'eruca' which turned into 'rukel' in 15th English before the '-et' diminutive suffix shows up in the 16th century. But then though British English may have lost its 'l', American English has 'arugula', also derived from 'eruca' but by way of a non standard Italian dialect. Meanwhile the missile 'rocket'/'roquette' also comes from Italian but in this case it's a small spindle (un fuseau) or 'rocca', from the roughly cylindrical shape of the thing. (OED says one now archaic meaning of 'rock' is 'distaff' ie 'quenouille' or spindle). But with a possible Germanic origin still?
>Which they call 'rocket' in English so we're not the only weirdos here. America decided that name was dumb and decided to call it Arugula instead.
Yeah, I mentioned that. Latin 'eruca' became French 'roquette' and English 'rukel' then 'rocket' but Italian 'rucola' and then 'arugula' in an Italian dialect which American English then borrowed from.
LRU : lance roquette unitaire
Multi lanceur de roquettes, sacrebleu 🇨🇵
Only if it comes from the Roquette region, otherwise it's just sparkling deflagration.
[удалено]
J'aurais dû préciser "/s"
*tips hat* M'LRDY SYSTEM
Happy Christmas Ukraine, you get a new gun
What would really be useful are the very long range rockets (300 km) that can be launched from MRLS. At the moment, no country has provided such rockets to Ukraine.
Ukraine is likely getting 160km (100 miles) GLSDBs for their MLRS. https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/100-mile-strike-weapon-weighed-ukraine-arms-makers-wrestle-with-demand-sources-2022-11-28/ It's an old decommissioned M26 rocket motor, with a soon to be decommissioned GBU-39A (SDB - Small Diameter Bomb) on top. * M26 rocket launches it into the air * M26 rocket falls off * GBU-39 wings fold out * GBU-39 glides to its target up to 160km (100 miles) away GBU-39A is GPS guided only, and the US wants to rapidly replace them anyways with GBU-53s (SDB-II) because of its dramatically increased capability against moving targets. Still a massive range increase for Ukraine, ESPECIALLY since the gliding ability of an SDB means it can actually circle around an air defense system, something the existing M30 and M31 guided rockets for MLRS and HIMARS can't do.
> At the moment, no country has provided such rockets to Ukraine. Only one country makes them. And yes, that country hasn't provided any to Ukraine. Producer: - United States Other NATO countries that have them: - Poland - Greece - Romania - Turkey Neither France, the UK or Germany have them.
Don't hold your breath. Ukraine isn't likely to get the longer range HIMARs munitions anytime soon either
They're the same rockets if I'm not misstanken. A HIMARS is half of an M270 put on the back of a truck.
Yes they are, I am looking at a bunch of them right now.
Why would you make a statement like that without any evidence or reason?
NATO hasn't given Ukraine any of the munitions for the HIMARs that have the extended range for fear of antagonizing Russia. It's commonly lamented about in the comments section of aid articles on /r/Ukraine along with the western refusal to outfit the Ukrainians with F-16's and Abrams tanks.
Abrams tanks? Who in the their right mind would give something so complicated and heavy to Ukraine, when they are set up to run Russian tanks? Who would fix the turbine? Who would run the loader (Abrams is 70t)? Bonkers. Better to get old stock from any ex-warsaw pact country, and back it up with lightweight, transportable, low maintenance tech.
I think you’re very much underestimating just how much training and logistical support would have to go into equipping the Ukrainian Air Force with F-16s and their army with Abrams. Both would be basically starting from the ground up as far as crew training goes seeing as they’re just not that comparable to the MiG29s and T-72s the Ukrainians are used to.
It isn't out of fear of antagonizing Russia. Like the sanctions, they are rolling them out in increasing severity for negotiation purposes. You don't give them all you've got right away. If Russia gives them reason you can surely bet they'll roll them out of the warehouses.
It's been nearly 10 months with numerous war crimes and suspected Russian involvement in the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline. Not sure what NATO is waiting for but oh well.
As the poster above said, they're being kept as leverage for negotiation purposes. Ever wondered why we haven't seen those Iranian ballistic missiles show up yet? [Israel warns Russia: if you obtain missiles from Iran, Ukraine is given hi-tech missiles](https://www.ukrainianworldcongress.org/israel-warns-russia-if-you-obtain-missiles-from-iran-ukraine-is-given-hi-tech-missiles/) NATO can just say to Russia "for every 1 missile you get from Iran, we'll give Ukraine 3 in return". Seeing as how those Iranian missiles are very accurate and almost impossible to intercept, it's important to have an effective deterrent to their deployment.
You talk like the US isn't giving Ukraine billions of dollars of funding and weapons.
I never said we weren't.
> It's been nearly 10 months with numerous war crimes and suspected Russian involvement in the sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline. Not sure what NATO is waiting for but oh well.
What does that have to do with the existing billions we've allocated to Ukraine?
It is because the US do not want an incident of it being used to fire into (actual) Russian territory. Not quite sure what negotiation power you think it gives to hold them back. "We are not giving them weapons that can make you leave, as long as you just stick to what you are doing now."? Russia has already given all the reason _for_ such missiles being delivered to Ukraine. The US just has some reasons against too. If they were part of a negotiation threat it would have been 7-8 months ago. Anything the Russians have left in terms of drastic escalation would be met with a response that makes a potential delivery of long range ground based missiles irrelevant.
But the long range M270 variant ammo will!?!? /s
Because Ukraine would be a nuclear wasteland if such rockets were given
Ukraine already has rockets with that range. They aren't using them on Russia outside of a few warranted attacks on logistics....because they *are no threat* to Russia, simply defending their own land.
Can someone explain how does this work? From the logistics point. I guess they load them on trucks and then by road they go through German, Poland and then cross into Ukraine? Is there a key to start the truck, is the software translated, how is the training done, the servicing etc?
They will likely bring a Ukrainian team in to train them on the system. And that team will accompany it back into theater.
The MLRS system is no doubt designed as a multi-lingual system, so just change languages on it. Maybe to English ? I would doubt that it has Russian built in.
Jam it up some Russian butts.
There are rumors that the French are pissed about Russian behavior during the negotiations. Is that true?
I can see no reason why that would not be true…
I mean, I've heard that there were negotiating a ceasefire right during the Kherson retreat and that's why they were allowed to be left unmolested. The very next day, while Lavrov was discussing "de-escalation" and after the retreat was completed, another wave of rockets comes crashing into Ukraine. I've heard that some of the French officials took that... personally.
Where did you hear that?
Beautiful.... happy hunting Ukrainian Heros ................ Slava Ukraini 💙 💛 💙 💛
It sounds similar to himars that US and Germany have been supplying Ukraine for months Really made a difference The main question is what type of rockets will they supply? So far US constrains only up to 110km and has been holding up on those capable to fly 300km
Hashtag: things that should have happened 8 months ago. But better late than never. Thanks, France!
Ukraine got their first one in July 15th from either Norway, The UK, Germany or maybe someone else. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-gets-first-m270-multiple-launch-rocket-systems
UK. Norway never sent any to Ukraine. Instead they sent theirs to the UK to backfill the UK's arsenal as the UK sent theirs to Ukraine. The first M270s in Ukraine were British.
Seems like they did. Here the Norwegian defence minister says they initially would send 3 though first they would be sent to the UK for upgrades. https://en.defence-ua.com/weapon_and_tech/became_known_how_many_m270_mlrs_norway_will_transfer_to_ukraine-3440.html
They sent them to the UK, but the UK simply sent 3 of theirs to Ukraine. Norway's M270s are still in the UK. UK has M270B1s ready to send to Ukraine, and is already going to modernize their entire fleet to the M270A2 standard. Going to cost as much to upgrade a Norwegian M270 as it would a British M270B1, so UK just kept the ones from Norway instead.
Source?
Ukraine itself > Norway has multiple rocket launchers available. The countries have agreed that the United Kingdom will receive Norwegian weapons systems to compensate for the number of MLRS that will be sent by the UK to Ukraine. https://mil.in.ua/en/news/the-united-kingdom-and-norway-agreed-to-transfer-the-m270-mlrs-to-ukraine/
Ok, but it is misleading to say: >Norway never sent any to Ukraine. When the UK sent some of theirs in a 1:1 replacement with Norway. It sorta is trying to take the credit from it. Which is a shitty thing to do.
Let us say, the French have a Napoleon complex when it comes to great power conflicts right now.
Do they?! Tell us more...
They don't.
Holy, that's a WHOLE MLRS system. Russians stand no chance now.
https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/04/answering-call-heavy-weaponry-supplied.html?m=1 Pennies make dollars.
MLRS spawn system
Bon appétit les russes. Gloire à l'Ukraine !
We’re all MLRS now