Transformation: bringing precision to MLRS rockets.

Increasing the precision of multiple-launch rocket system (MLRS) rockets will provide greater lethality and effectiveness and, for the first time, allow MLRS to engage targets near friendly forces or noncombatants. Previously, it was considered too dangerous to engage these targets with MLRS fires.

This article discusses the guided MLRS (CMLRS) rocket and guided unitary rocket, both under development, that will increase MLRS employment options in future combat scenarios, limiting dangers to friendly forces and noncombatants and damage to structures protected by the rules of engagement (ROE).

These new precision rockets also will eliminate some of the disadvantages of MLRS fires, such as lack of range relative to potential enemy multiple rocket launch systems (MRLs) and MLRS' submunition dud rate. First, a quick look at MLRS history illustrates a few challenges in employing MLRS fires.

MLRS History. In the early 1980s, MLRS, first known as the general support rocket system (GSRS), was designed to supplement division- and corps-level cannons and deliver large volumes of fires in a very short time against critical, time-sensitive targets. At that time, MLRS was a free-flight artillery rocket system that greatly improved the conventional, indirect fire capability of the Army. It was used for counterfire, suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) and to destroy light materiel and personnel targets. The natural dispersion of its rockets' payloads allowed most targets to be engaged without multiple aiming points.

However, the system presented some challenges. MLRS accuracy restricted it to area targets in open terrain where collateral damage was not an issue. Additionally, with a range of 31.5 kilometers, MLRS was outranged by a majority of foreign MRLs. Therefore, during the last 10 years, MLRS improvements have focused on upgrading launcher responsiveness and enhancing the range and precision of its munitions.

Although MLRS performed well during Operation Desert Storm in 1991 in the Gulf, its rockets and submunitions raised serious concerns. Many Iraqi artillery assets outranged MLRS rockets. Also, the high submunition dud rate caused concern for the safety of friendly soldiers or noncombatants passing through impact areas.

These shortcomings resulted in the requirement for a rocket with extended range and a substantially lower submunition dud rate. As an interim measure until a guided MLRS could be produced, the extended-range MLRS rocket (ER-MLRS) that has a range of 45 kilometers was developed, although limited quantities of the rocket were manufactured.

In Bosnia and Kosovo, the MLRS family of munitions (MFOM) with a dual-purpose improved conventional munition (DPICM) warhead severely restricted the targets considered for engagement. Even though MLRS was deployed, not one rocket was fired because of the lack of precision and potential for collateral damage as well as the high submunition dud rate.

GMLRS. In more recent years, the Army's ability to protect itself from long distance attack has been eroded with the proliferation of long-range rocket and cannon systems. To counter this, the US Army Missile Command's Research, Development and Engineering Center, Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama, with support from private industry, began working on a GMLRS to replace the basic (M26) and ER-MLRS (M26A2) rockets. GMLRS will extend the range of MLRS fires to more than 60 kilometers and substantially improve MLRS accuracy. GMLRS will provide the same lethality as the M26 and M26A2 with far fewer rockets.

Unlike the accuracy of the traditional free-flight MLRS rocket that degraded as the range to the target increased, GMLRS' guidance system will provide consistent, improved accuracy from the minimum range of 15 kilometers to a maximum of 60 to 70 kilometers. The guidance system is based on an inertial measuring unit (IMU) aided by a global positioning system (GPS) that produces an accuracy deviation of less than one mil at all ranges.

GMLRS will enhance the ability to conduct precision strikes, reduce the number of rockets required to defeat a target and extend MLRS' range 15 kilometer beyond that of the ER-MLRS. The extended range will allow commanders the flexibility to attack more targets farther away, both laterally and at depth. MLRS fires will protect the force by fixing and destroying the enemy at depth, thus helping to achieve favorable force ratios to set the conditions for tactical success.

However, as effective as GMLRS will be against long-distance targets, it will not be well suited for target engagements in heavy snow or forested, urban, complex and restrictive terrain. Debris caused by the warhead skins, nose cone and rocket motor could cause unwanted collateral damage. Knowing and understanding the limitations of GMLRS will be critical for its optimal employment.

GMLRS is a five-nation system development and demonstration (SDD) effort (United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany and the US). The program is in the production qualification testing phase of the SDD life-cycle model. MLRS has test fired GMLRS 73.5 kilometers very successful to date. Initial operational capability (IOC) will be in FY06.

Guided Unitary Rocket. The Army's Objective Force must have an organic capability to deliver fires in all types of terrain and weather within a fully networked architecture to provide destructive fires at both point and area targets and protective and suppressive fires in the required scalable quantity to support the maneuver commander. (See the figure.)

The guided unitary rocket will provide these capabilities. It will reduce collateral damage to civilian property and noncombatants, decrease the risk of unexploded ordnance on the battlefield and be employable in heavy snow and forested, urban, complex and restrictive terrain.

It is envisioned that the guided unitary rocket will have a GMLRS motor and a 200-pound insensitive munition (IM) fragmentation warhead. The unitary rocket will use the same guidance hardware as GMLRS with modified GPS filters combined with an anti-jam antenna and have the same range as the GMLRS rocket.

Its fuze mechanism will have multiple options: proximity, point-detonating and time-delay fuzes. The proximity fuze will provide a large burst over the target that will equal the radius of the GMLRS DPICM rocket. The point-detonating fuze will reduce the size of the burst and collateral damage, while the time-delay option will permit the rocket to penetrate certain types of structures or targets and then detonate.

The tri-mode fuzing will allow military planners to tailor the munition's effects to the mission requirements. The effects coordination center (ECC) will be able to rapidly deliver discrete or volume fires with superior munitions effects from the same rocket pod. In fact for the first time, rockets may be an option for "danger close" missions.

Current MLRS must fire relatively large numbers of rockets per engagement, which limits the number of targets it can engage and increases the firing unit's exposure to counterfire. It also limits the commander's operational flexibility. The guided unitary rocket could eliminate these inherent problems while achieving the desired effects with fewer rockets/less ammunition support and less collateral damage.

Bottom line--the guided unitary rocket will provide the maneuver commander a wider range of attack options and more effective support.

Supporting the Objective Force. The Army requires systems that will enable the Objective Force to dominate future ground combat across the full spectrum of operations and provide responsive, strategic maneuver as part of a joint task force.

The guided unitary rocket is the next step in the evolutionary development of MFOM. This is especially true as the high-mobility artillery rocket system (HIMARS) will be able to fire all the MFOM, including the guided rockets. HIMARS and the MLRS guided family of munitions will support distributed operations on a nonlinear battlefield or in a forced-entry scenario.

Although the Objective Force certainly requires precision missiles and rockets carrying discriminating submunitions, future munitions must be smarter, faster to the target and communicate not only with the supported force, but also with each other. They must be able to loiter within the target area, recognize and identify specific targets, provide targeting information and intelligence. engage the designated target and provide battle damage assessment (BDA).

Future munitions will be able to defeat a range of point targets, whether moving/stationary or hard/soft. They may incorporate both user-assisted and robust automatic target recognition (ATR) and growth potential to accommodate future technological advances.

They may be compatible with our current platforms or be vehicle independent. Such systems may consist of a loitering, precision attack missile shipped and fired from its own missile canister that has a computer, communications system and mission management application software on board.

They will be able to operate with and support coalition and joint forces or operate independently in a widely dispersed environment. Before and after hostilities, these systems will provide a responsive deterrent presence for peacekeeping operations with the potential to include less-than-lethal or nonlethal capabilities.

The precision of the MLRS guided family of munitions is the first step in providing the maneuver commander the long-range rocket fires and effects he needs to win on any battlefield.

Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey L. Froysland, US Army Reserve (USAR), Acquisition Corps, is an Assistant Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) System Manager for Rocket and Missile Systems(TSM RAMS) at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. He is responsible for all the Multiple-Launch Rocket System (MLRS) rocket programs in the TSM office. He served in the active Army Field Artillery in Korea and Germany, leaving the Army as a captain in 1989 to go to work for the Directorate of Combat Developments at the Field Artillery School, Fort Sill. He is a graduate of the Materiel Acquisition Manager's Course, Fort Lee, and Program Manager's Course, Fort Belvoir, both in Virginia, and holds an MBA from Oklahoma City University.