More stuff getting binned - LIMAWS(R) cancelled

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Nuts_McAuliff, May 28, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From Janes
  2. Non-story. Didn't need it.

    The question that should be getting asked by the procurement experts on the Street of Shame (and on ARRSE, apparently) is does this mean that the concept of the 'Balanced Force' is null and void, and what are the implications for the Medium Weight Capability?

  3. Looks like the lightweight element is out of favour. No fast intervention it can all go by ship to the next conflict area. Safely protected by our shinny new aircraft carriers when they show up.

  4. Nice essay Proximo, you should be looking for your DS wings at the nam sometime.....

    Agree, LIMAWS(R) not needed, more REAPERS to give eyes on and surgical strike capability instead. Just don't give them to the RAF - oh, they did already....
  5. Fancy being on the convoy to truck M270 around Afghanistan then?
  6. More C-17s and there ability to carry curent heavier MLRS system made need for lite wieght LIMAWS go away.
  7. Winner of 'Most Appallingly Useless and Uninformed Post Ever'.

  8. M270 can't go by air unless its in a C17. How else are you going to get it anywhere without a C17-capable airstrip?

    One of the key design drivers for LIMAWS(R) was airportability by helicopter.
  9. Binned for now, wouldn't surprise me to see it turn back up mounted on a MAN 8 wheeler in the future though, as for LIMAWS (G), I could still see M777 turn up anyway (replacing some, though hopefully not all of the light guns), as could a truck mounted system (though I'd go with the Archer system, again on a MAN chassis, and use bits of it to upgrade the AS90s to 52cal).
  10. Jesus, dont mention that to a certain IPT. They will have kittens. And besides, we wont have any spare chassis to mount some new fangled gun! :wink:
  11. Hello,

    compared to our existing rocket artillery L.I.M.A.W.S.'s only major advantage was being transportable by Chinook and Hercules.
    The trade offs for that portability were a lack of tracked mobility and armour protection (and fewer rockets).

    L.I.M.A.W.S. in both it's forms was not able to replace our existing in service artillery systems.
    Thus it would have to have been procured only in small numbers at consequently high unit cost.
    It would have to have been operated alongside our other systems with the resulting costs and complications in training and support.
    These costs would result in a diversion of resources from frontline combat capability.
    Though to be fair it must be mentioned that many components of L.I.M.A.W.S. are common to other systems.

    The costs of this project would have been significant,the benefits negligible if not negative.
    We frequently seem to divert resources from things we need in order to follow the latest military trends.
    L.I.M.A.W.S. and the medium armour concept which led to F.R.E.S. are fine examples of this.
    We should reconsider the wisdom of compromising future weapons systems to be transportable by obsolescent air transport assets.
    We should also base our doctrine on logical analysis not on following the latest fashion.

    What we do need is a divisonal artillery system and a corps artillery system.
    Both of these systems need to be adaptable for use on land and sea.
    We can ill afford to procure or operate individual replacements for even the five sytems the Army and Navy operate today,let alone additional systems.
    The same might also be said of our anti aircraft systems.

    Divisional artillery could be provided by either rocket or gun systems.
    It needs to be available on two platforms to provide two types of formation with homogenous organic artillery.
    Heavy,tracked,armoured,cavalry formations need heavy,tracked,armoured artillery systems.
    Light,infantry formations need light artillery systems.

    Corps artillery is more suited to rockets,a system based on twenty foot equivalent unit rocket pods might in future provide us with logistical benefits as well as longer ranges and heavier payloads than M.L.R.S..

    There is no need for any other artillery systems beyond the above.

  12. C-17's can operate off dirt strips……
  13. As we're hard pushed to deploy a Division, is a British Corps-level Arty fmn really necessary? Any Corps / Army deployment will by its nature involve massive contributions from our large ally.
  14. Yes it can but expect a large repair bill afterwards.
  15. No. That is state normal at Bagram.