The U.S. Army news service reports that unitary-warhead GMLRS rockets were fired in Tal Afar west of Mosul, destroying two separate buildings from over 50 kilometers away with zero advance warning and less collateral damage than a precision bomb. The targets were two housing complexes that had been fortified and were known to house many insurgents, based on intelligence from units in the field that have been engaged from the structure or who had made contact with the terrorists around the structure.
Some of the advantages provided by the rockets?
Other benefits of the 227mm M30 GMLRS, aside from those already demonstrated, include the fact that it cannot be grounded due to weather or communications issues; meanwhile, its guidance systems allow troops to call in effective anti-personnel "steel rain" or 196-pound unitary-warhead strikes from much closer distances, thus maintaining a better visual of their targets and allowing for needed support in closer quarters situations.
Wow. When you consider that the Air Force has long-range bombers that can carry scores of precision bombs and loiter for hours on end; when you consider that UAVs are providing overhead (and soon, thrown through a window) recon ability to every grunt platoon; when you consider that the Army can now launch rocket artillery munitions and tube artillery munitions that provide in-house fire support with pinpoint accuracy; and when you consider the near debacle of a massed helicopter gunship deep raid during the Iraq War when low-tech Iraqi small arms fire compelled us to recall an attack with heavy damage, what can we conclude?
Can we conclude that the days of the attack helicopter are coming to an end?
Really, this would be pretty good. With fire support from artillery and high-flying bombers, deconflicting the battlespace will be simplified. No more halting the artillery to let the airplanes and helos in. We could afford to risk UAVs in the air to avoid gaps in bombardment.
No more struggles with the Air Force over who puts ordnance of the bad guys. The Air Force wanted the job but the Army never felt the fly boys put enough effort into the mission.
No more expensive but vulnerable Army and Marine helicopters to take the place of planes the Air Force didn't in the past want to provide. Remember that the helicopters were an answer to the problem of the Air Force being busy elsewhere. Would we really have settled on helicopters if the Air Force had been focused on ground support from day one? Would these really have been the best answer to the need for aerial fire support?
Perhaps a lot of our attack helicopter pilots will be better used controlling UAVs for recon and attack missions. Transport and some armed recon helicopters may be useful, but the anti-tank and deep strike missions could be left to the Air Force and Navy/Marine Corps pilots and the MLRS. Tube and rocket artillery could let the air guys off the hook for routine fire support.
And really, if we go up against an enemy that can threaten the absolute aerial suprmacy that we rely on to fight, it would be great to have a long-range, precision firepower asset that will be there in all weather and in case the Air Force has enough to do to win aerial superiority without helping the ground forces hip deep in enemy.
