What is dangerous MLRS M270 MLRS

Since 1983, the US Army has been using the M270 MLRS multiple launch rocket system. Later, this MLRS entered service with other armies. Despite its considerable age, M270 retains high combat qualities and remains the main example of its class in the armies of several countries. Such successes are based on a number of design features, the availability of various ammunition, etc.

MLRS M270 MLRS in combat

Design features

The M270 combat vehicle is a tracked platform with artillery mounted on it. The chassis of the units is unified with the M2 Bradley BMP, which simplifies operation and provides high performance. The M270 artillery unit was developed using interesting solutions that became the key to further upgrades.

Unlike other MLRS, the American M270 does not have a package of guides for launching rockets. Instead, the M269 launcher is used. It is made in the form of an armored box with seats for two transport and launch containers. To install the latest M269 has its own recharge mechanism. Due to such a mechanism, TPKs with missiles can be received from any transport vehicle.

The standard container for unguided rockets of the caliber 227 mm consists of a metal frame and six fiberglass pipes with missiles that serve as guides. Due to the spiral skids on the pipe wall, the rocket is spun at launch.

Start 227-mm unguided rocket

The M270 artillery unit receives two containers at once, which makes it possible to launch a volley of 12 mm caliber 227 missiles. After firing, the container is removed, and a new one is installed in its place.

Such a launcher architecture to a certain extent simplifies the preparation for firing, and also gives a good reserve for modernization. The M269 product has a significant internal volume, suitable for use not only TPK under 227-mm rockets. So, in the framework of this artillery unit it was possible to fit the MGM-140 ATACMS tactical missile of the 610 mm caliber.

The presence of such ammunition dramatically expanded the range of tasks of the MLRS, and also transferred it to another class of equipment. It is easy to see that a different M269 launcher architecture would not have produced similar results.

Missiles

For MLRS M270 MLRS has been developed a wide range of ammunition of various types and for various purposes. The most popular are unguided rockets with a different combat load. M26 products are designed to hit a variety of areal targets in a wide range of ranges. M27 and M28 are training ammunition with different configurations.

M269 module without TPK, rear view

The M26 shells of three modifications receive a cluster head that holds up to 644 fragmentation-cumulative warheads M77 or M85. The maximum firing range in the M26 line is 45 km. Product M27 is an inert missile M26, designed to work out the loading of ammunition. The M28 training project repeats the M26 design, but carries weight simulators of combat load and smoke bombs for marking points of impact. The M28A1 training missile has a reduced firing range to 9 km.

As part of the GMLRS project, several 227 mm guided missiles were developed with different combat load options and flight characteristics. The M30 shell is equipped with a GPS with GPS guidance and carries 404 M85 submunitions. Firing range - up to 70 km. The M31 missile has a similar design, but carries a one-piece warhead. In the near future, the launch of the GMLRS-ER missiles is expected - products with a flight range of up to 150 km.

The bulk of the missiles for the M270 was developed in the United States, but several samples were created in foreign countries. So, the German AT2 missile is based on the M26 design and carries a cluster head with the same anti-tank mines. Such ammunition is intended for remote mining of the terrain. In the recent past, Israel has modernized its M270 and supplemented its ammunition with three new missiles with trajectory correction or full-fledged homing.

The process of loading TPK to the launch module. At the top right is the retractable frame of the lifting device

Tactical missiles

The US Army currently lacks specialized operational tactical missile systems. The functions of such equipment are assigned to the existing MLNZ M270 and M142 HIMARS. For use on the MLRS, the ATACMS family of rockets was developed. On the M269 installation, two TPKs with a similar weapons.

Products of the MGM-140 ATACMS family are guided ballistic missiles with a length of less than 4 m and a diameter of 610 mm. Starting weight, depending on version, not more than 1700 kg. Several versions of the rocket have been developed, differing in guidance, warhead and characteristics.

The first rocket of the family, MGM-140A, had an inertial navigation guidance system and delivered 950 high-explosive fragmentation elements M74 at a distance of up to 130 km. The MGM-140B project used inertial and satellite navigation. The number of submunitions was reduced to 275, which improved flight data and increased the firing range to 165 km.

ATACMS missile (left) and TPK with 227-mm shells

The newest missile in the line is the MGM-168 (Block IVA). It carries an 227-kg unitary high-explosive fragmentation warhead and has a seeker from MGM-140B. Range brought to 270 km. New modifications were not developed. Since 2018, an ATACMS SLEP extension program has been implemented. It provides for the repair and updating of missiles in storage with the approximation of their characteristics to the MGM-168 project.

In 2016, work began on a new rocket to replace the aging ATACMS. The LPRF (Long Range Precision Fires) project provides for the creation of an operational-tactical missile with a range of up to 500 km. Due to the improvement of individual components should increase the combat load and reduce the size. In the transport and launch container for M270, two missiles should be entered at once.

In the near future, the companies Raytheon and Lockheed Martin plan to launch flight tests of a new rocket, now called PRSM (Precision Strike Missile). In connection with the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty, the possibility of processing this project with the aim of increasing the firing range is not ruled out. The 500 km specified for LPRF / PRSM were related to the limitations of this agreement, which have now expired.

M26A1 / A2 rocket diagram

According to reports, new launchers will not be developed for PRSM. Such weapons will be used on platforms in the form of MLRS M270 and M142 HIMARS.

Universal weapons

According to open data, in the US Army there are now about a thousand MLRS type M270 MLRS. About a quarter of this amount in recent years has undergone modernization under the M270A1 project, as a result of which it has improved tactical and technical characteristics. Significant quantities of such MLRS are put into reserve, but the operation of others continues.

For three and a half decades, M270 MLRS services have come a long way. Repeatedly upgraded launcher, and in parallel created modifications to existing ammunition and developed completely new ones. As a result, instead of a multiple launch rocket system with a certain range of tasks to be solved, the US Army received a multi-purpose missile system that combines the qualities of several classes of equipment.

Using M270 MLRS combat vehicles with different ammunition, the United States and other operating countries can solve different combat tasks inherent in the MLRS and OTRK. This approach is planned to be maintained in the future. To replace existing ATACMS missiles, a new PRSM model is being created.

MGM-140 ATACMS Product Launch

The appearance of such weapons will again increase the combat qualities of the basic MLRS, and growth may be higher than previously expected. According to the results of recent events, the United States does not face the limitations of the INF Treaty, and the range of a promising missile may be greater than the previously announced 500 km.

The high combat potential of the M270 MLRS complex is provided by several key factors. First of all, it is a successful launcher architecture, charged with the help of unified transport and launch modules. The second factor is the constant modernization of the means and equipment of the self-propelled combat vehicle. Crucial in this is the development of new missiles for various purposes.

Despite the considerable age, MLRS M270 MLRS retains high performance, and in the near future will receive new opportunities. Thanks to this, the U.S. Army is able to continue to operate not the newest vehicles without any loss in performance. Over time, M270 will have to give way to newer developments, but so far this remains a matter of the distant future. In the coming years, the MLRS will remain in the army.

Comments

[tlauicol]

the Japs have a lot of such rszo

[infantryman2020]

On the one hand: MLRS and HIMARS. Unified by ammunition. Shattered armor protection. Mechanized loading of ammunition. Automated guidance. They cover the whole range of tasks for MLRS, TR and OTR.
On the other: "Grad", "Hurricane", "Smerch", "Tochka (M)", "Iskander", "Uragan-1M". That's not even counting the Tornado upgrades.
Not unified in terms of ammunition. No armor protection against shrapnel. On the "Grad" - manual loading of ammunition. Most of the park is manual guidance.

Sad.

[Lopatov]

On the third hand, neither MLRS nor HIMARS have long been MLRS. These are installations for launching tactical missiles. Which have been trying to teach to launch anti-aircraft guns for more than a dozen years.

[infantryman2020]

They, including the MLRS. In fact, there is a post that argue?

[Lopatov]

Quote: infantryman2020

They, including the MLRS.

For "including" they do not have enough ammunition. Which have not been produced for more than 10 years, and already five years ago they began to dispose of previously created reserves.
Guided missiles only.

Quote: infantryman2020

In fact, there is a post that argue?

The idea of ​​your type was promoted at one time by Serdyukov. In the form of "Tornado" - originally a multi-caliber MLRS dash starting stroke. missiles. For all levels from brigade to RGVK.

And even he realized that this was not a smart idea at all.

Dear, the Americans MLRS / HIMARS only on one level. These are artillery brigades of divisions. And that’s it.
At the moment, these are jet divisions of motorized rifle brigades, re-divisions of army artillery brigades and jet brigades of the district / front and higher. Trying to fill all these levels with identical cars is stupid and expensive. Trying to use the same caliber PC at all these levels is even more expensive and stupid. To abandon the missile subunits equipped with Iskander and to ensure that these missiles were launched by jet operators - even Serdyukov had never thought of that.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Spade

To abandon the missile subunits equipped with Iskander and to ensure that these missiles were launched by jet operators - even Serdyukov had never thought of that.

although you are an artilleryman. but they should understand that if 250 modernized MLRS launch 500 units of PRSM at once, and then. after 15 minutes, there are also 3000 missiles with JDAM as warheads - for an adequate response we need 250 iskander and 190 hurricanes ... For this, we need 2 times more to train officers and soldiers of conscripts. To do this, you need to produce twice as much equipment and spend four times more on exercises and repairs and maintenance.

In the context of our small budget.
But where are all the prices at world level ...
And what for us this way?
We made highly specialized products which, in the case of civil time, they will not be able to contain in sufficient quantities, but in case of war they will not exist at all ... Since they are preparing for war in peacetime ...

So here you are wrong .. although I respect you very much. but I do not agree with you.

[Lopatov]

Quote: SovAr238A

if 250 modernized MLRS launch 500 units of PRSM at once, and then. 15 minutes later, 3000 more missiles with JDAM as warheads

Where will they "release" them - stupidly across the squares?

I, as an artilleryman, will try to explain what, in theory, should be understandable by default.

Coordinates. For the successful use of the funds indicated by you, the coordinates of the goals are needed. Accurate. But they are just the same minimum, especially in the face of opposition from the enemy.

For example, a radar. Radio reconnaissance. Gave the coordinates with accuracy that absolutely does not allow the use of high-precision ammunition with guidance on the coordinates.
And you have two choices. First, it is stupid to cover the entire "triangle of errors" with a salvo of a jet battalion at a specified rate. Fast, cheap, angry.

The second option is to wait for additional exploration. And hope that your UAVs will not be shot down. We got the coordinates, launched it. And you hope that your missiles will not be shot down, that these missiles will hit (which is also not a fact, especially when the enemy uses "ZhPS jammers"). After that you need to control the defeat of the target. Again, hope that the UAV will not be shot down ...

You see how much hemorrhage is just because you want more expensive and more fashionable.
Each vegetable has its own garden. And most of the goals on the modern battlefield are not point but areal.

[SovAr238A]

Quote: Spade

Each vegetable has its own garden. And most of the goals on the modern battlefield are not point but areal.

I will answer this way.
I think. that you are mistaken for the purposes of OTR.
You probably consider them to be the goals of KShP only, but this is not at all the case.
This is a disarming and blinding strike in the area of ​​500 km from the line of fire.
And besides military facilities, the same primary goals will be:
1. distribution nodes of oil depots (there is no need to destroy absolutely all tanks, it is enough to destroy the distribution node and electrical substation, and if a cassette warhead is used, then the barrels will get it)
2. Certain substations of electric networks, the destruction of which leads to an overload of the electric network. their failure and the impossibility of restoring energy supply. Including and the military sector.
3. Certain stations of water intake and water supply / water treatment.
4. Television and radio broadcasting centers and towers.
5. Datacenters and basic nodes OpSoSov.
6. Bridges, road junctions.
7. Aerodromes, railway stations, sorting centers and switch-out issuing nodes of railway stations, as well as nodes of supply substations of the railway.
8. Municipal authorities.
Do not rush as military targets have already been said in the reach of OTR.
All this 100% affects the possibility of retaliatory actions ... Full-format.
And for cross-border purposes, 3000 missiles from MLRS are consumed just ...
and yes
The retaliatory strike on the MLRS volley with OTR will be wasted, as they will have time to change position after releasing two OTP in 2 seconds.
And then, after 15 minutes, already at new positions and with replaced ammunition, they will burn out all military facilities in the 100km border zone ...

[Lopatov]

Quote: SovAr238A

This is a disarming and blinding strike in the area of ​​500 km from the line of fire.

All of what you said does not eliminate the need for precise coordinates .. Everything that you said does not cancel the possibility of shooting down a single high-precision munition. Everything that you said does not negate the ability to drown out the signal of global positioning satellites.

You are trying to pretend that everything is very simple. But this is not the case. The Wunderwaffe does not exist. A highly specialized "niche" tool for hitting a few point targets cannot provide either a "disarming and blinding strike", much less victory.

[garri-lin]

The tasks are different, the means are also different. And hail is cheap and cheerful; the rest is not cheap but no less cheerful. This pda multitool compare with the toolbox of tools.

[VENOM]

Quote: infantryman2020

Not unified by ammunition

Enormous stockpiles of ammunition of various calibers have remained in warehouses since Soviet times. To unify means to abandon at least a 122 mm RS. As long as the shells remain - you must have the appropriate equipment. In the future, only 220/300 mm will remain.

Quote: infantryman2020

This is not even counting the upgrades to "Tornado"

So they should be considered. Over time, they and "Uragan-1M" will completely replace the "Grad" and "Uragan" and "Smerch".
The "Tochka" will be removed from service as the "Iskander" is replaced. As a result, the Iskander OTRK will remain with cruise and ballistic missiles with a range of 500 km and more, capable of carrying, among other things, a special warhead. In terms of their capabilities and purpose, it is incorrect to compare them with MLRS, even the most advanced, these are different weapons. They use rockets with a length of 7-8 m and a diameter of about a meter, they can not be placed on a MLRS launcher.
Thus, "Iskander", "Uragan-1M" and "Tornado" will remain

Quote: infantryman2020

On the "Grad" - manual loading of ammunition. Most of the park - manual guidance

Again, "Tornado" and "Uragan-1M" - there are mechanized loading, and "Glonass" with a ballistic computer and automatic guidance + new guided missiles (as an option)

Quote: infantryman2020

No shatter protection

For actions in the immediate vicinity of the front line there is a TOC, and the range of the MLRS, especially new ones, suggests that there is no enemy artillery nearby. And if a rocket or a shell arrives, protection from fragments will not help. However, I agree that it is better to have at least some protection than not any

[asv363]

It is strange that these MLRSs in the variant for two OTRK do not have a missile with SBN.

[Avior]

Americans generally have tactical nuclear weapons that are not very developed; they believe that they lower the threshold for use and increase the risk of a nuclear war.
It got to the point that Obama even destroyed all the nuclear Tomahawks.
Now, under Trump, they began to revive, but so far they have only actually converted the strategic SLBM into tactical, and then the resistance to this was strong

[asv363]

About the whining of the US military about the superiority of Russia in the amount of tactical nuclear weapons has long been known. Here, the conversion of SLBMs into tactical one is a mistake. When striking SLBMs on the territory of Russia, there is little time to make a decision and missiles with normal power RPGIN will fly in response.

[Avior]

Under this decision there is a detailed description of the background.
Designed for single point strikes, which there is practically no way to repel, even if the Americans before launch say where they will shoot. The missile defense system is only around Moscow, and SLBMs are very difficult to bring down.

[asv363]

The launch of even one such missile on our land is an attack using nuclear weapons. The response actions are indicated in the military doctrine of the Russian Federation. Or do you think that one missile launch can be left unanswered?

[Avior]

Sorry, there is no time to describe everything in detail from a smartphone.
If roughly, briefly and maybe a little clumsily, then in the nuclear strategy developed under Trump in 2018, it is assumed that if Russia loses the usual war in Europe (the moment they start it is dropped there), then it can use a tactical nuclear charge to so that the European allies of the States come out of the war, first somewhere in a deserted place with a minimum of casualties, and if this does not scare, then in a relatively small settlement somewhere in Europe.
And the United States has nothing to answer - their tactical weapons are bombs designed for enough massive attacks on the advancing troops, and there is no guarantee that a single plane with a bomb will fly to some city of the same size in response to the Americans.
Under the cover of this reasoning, Trump also struck for small-power SLBMs with regulated charges and charges to be able to deliver a strictly limited strike, although in the United States they resisted Congress for the same reasons that you wrote, but most felt that under such circumstances a massive nuclear war due to the launch of one rocket will not begin.
They are going to develop further a long-range cruise missile for the same purpose.
As you know, all weapons are always designed to justify defense, not attack. And then how to apply, this is the second question.
God forbid we never verify this in practice ....

[asv363]

I remembered, however, what I was talking about. The conversion of the W76-1 warheads to W76-2 was to begin at two production facilities - Pantex and, from memory, at the converted factory for the production of MOX fuel. Low-power charges - 5-7 kilotons, there will be more dirt from them than to sense. From memory, they planned to remake or re-produce 80 BB per year. But it did not work out, it seems that only Pantex is ready to redo it.

[Avior]

For m270, a cruise missile was being developed at the time, now, perhaps, they will return to this.
The possibilities are limited by the length of the package - rockets about 4 meters long, you can’t stick a tomahawk

[Vitaly Tsymbal]

Well, the headline - "What is dangerous ...", and you saw a safe weapon))) But back to the topic. The complex is not bad, but expensive. We just have a different tradition for MLRS - "cheap and cheerful", although the results and effectiveness are the same.

[Zeev Zeev]

Absolutely not the same. As correctly noted in the article, MLRS is a versatile system that, due to its modular layout, can use a very wide range of ammunition of different calibers and purposes. Russian MLRS are limited both in caliber (each system uses only its own caliber) and in the method of loading (it is almost impossible to charge the same "Uragan" without TPM).

[Vitaly Tsymbal]

For Zeev Zeev (Zeev Zeev) I did not write that our and American MLRS are the same, I wrote that we have different traditions for this type of weapon (MLRS). The experience of the Second World War ("Katyusha"), Afgan, Chechnya showed that it makes sense to use "universality" in modern wars, which is too expensive (at least for Russia) - it is not profitable both financially and in terms of combat use. To create a "universal" similar to the American one is not a problem, only do we need it?

[Zeev Zeev]

How expensive is this? Belarus can afford a modular system, but not Russia?

[Vitaly Tsymbal]

Libya could also afford a lot, but the most effective DShKs in Toyota bodies were))) Belarus may need such systems - they have one theater of operations - Eastern European, Russia has a lot of such theater of operations - from the Arctic to mountainous and desert areas and on every theater of operations, the enemy has his own tactics and his own weapons ... In the era of the USSR, the equipment troops were also different: in the GSVG - non-belligerent rupping of troops, all newest (enemy of NATO), in TurkVO - belligerent district - old stuff (enemy of Afghan spirits and mercenaries ) And the American MLRS is focused mainly on the European theater. So think about how much technology Russia needs to create for each theater ...

[Zeev Zeev]

How is the M270 oriented towards the European theater of operations? And what is the difference between Polonez and LAR so that they cannot be used in Venezuela and Azerbaijan?

[Vitaly Tsymbal]

I am not an expert in MLRS, but I am firmly convinced that if we would need analogues of the American MLRS, then we would have appeared in Russia. The question, as I wrote above, is the price ... compare the costs ... By the way, here you are, personally, how do you think Russia needs analogs of the American system today and for what purposes?

[Zeev Zeev]

And they appeared in Russia, these analogues. Only not the American MLRS, but the Israeli MLRS LAR-160. In the experimental series. It is called "Hurricane-1m". In 2017, they promised to deliver two regimental kits, but since then there has been no rumor or spirit.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Zeev Zeev

How expensive is this? Belarus can afford a modular system, but not Russia?

"Hurricane-1M"

[Zeev Zeev]

How many of them are in the troops?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Zeev Zeev

How many of them are in the troops?

I do not know. And I knew, I didn’t say.
While the main task is considered to be the modernization of "Tornado-S" and "Grad" to the level of "Tornado-G"

[Zeev Zeev]

That's it. At the Soviet MLRS finally put ballistic computers and a navigation system.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Zeev Zeev

That's it. At the Soviet MLRS finally put ballistic computers and a navigation system.

You totally do not understand what MLRS.
We have a new system, first of all, a new ammunition. And then changes in the installation.
For example, "Tornado-G" are new missiles with a correction system in the active phase of the trajectory. That is, more range while maintaining sufficient accuracy.

[Zeev Zeev]

The composition of the MLRS 9K51M includes a new modernized combat vehicle BM-21, the old and new types of 122-mm rockets, as well as KSAUO “Kapustnik-BM”. Remote control equipment and an automated fire control system are located in the cockpit of a combat vehicle.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Zeev Zeev

old and new types

You have highlighted the wrong word. The main thing here is "new". Well, the old know how to shoot because unification. Which supposedly does not exist.
Even "Grad-P" is able to shoot not only with its special collapsible rocket.

[Zeev Zeev]

Who spoke about the lack of unification? I will repeat. "Tornado" is an old Soviet system with a computer and navigation equipment.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Zeev Zeev

Russian MLRS are limited both in caliber (each system uses only its own caliber) and in the method of loading (it is almost impossible to charge the same "Uragan" without TPM).

And why did you decide that this is a limitation, not an advantage?

The American method of loading defects is no less. If not more

[Zeev Zeev]

The American method does not need specialized TZM; missile blocks are simply removed from the truck. And instead of several cars there is one.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Zeev Zeev

The American method does not need specialized TZM

So what? Trucks are still standard

Quote: Zeev Zeev

And instead of several cars there is one.

?
Instead of one TZM there is one truck. No saving.

[Zeev Zeev]

How many trucks are there in the army? And how many TZM? How much does TZM cost? How much money is needed to maintain it compared to a regular truck? How many times can a truck bring blocks?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Zeev Zeev

How much money is needed to maintain it compared to a regular truck?

How much money is needed to service a heavy swinging part, which is also used as a crane arm? Excessive loads, excess capacity, excess problems with accuracy .....

Quote: Zeev Zeev

How many trucks are there in the army? And how many TZM?

What's the difference?
For the price they are almost the same, well, within 3-5% the difference.
But the rest of the difference, well, no.
Your "truck" is not a spherical horse in a vacuum. A specific vehicle assigned to a specific unit

There are definitely no special differences from TZM.

[Zeev Zeev]

Overload? The most common, as in any MLRS.
Any truck can be. From the word "absolutely any". And the difference in price with TPM is about half. It is enough to compare the price of a civilian flatbed truck and the same one, but a crane.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Zeev Zeev

Overload? The most common, as in any MLRS.

??
Hello, we arrived ...
Do you generally know how MLRS is charged?

Here is a photograph for you.

Are you sure that the swinging part does not experience any additional loads?

Quote: Zeev Zeev

It is enough to compare the price of a civilian flatbed truck

No, there is not a "civilian airborne", but the most, that neither is a military one, and not anyhow, but a five-axle from "Oshkosh", as far as I know. Not at all cheap. 10 times more expensive than TZMka for "Smerch"

Again. To ensure loading, the MLRS is used not just what comes to hand, but regular motor vehicles of the unit.

[Zeev Zeev]

I actually saw the loading of the M270. From the board truck "REO" during the Vietnam War. This is exactly how they did it, only the blocks were not lying on the ground, but in the back. And I see no reason why the same procedure cannot be done with any other truck. And what special loads the swinging part experiences compared to stuffing 300-mm missiles, I don't see.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Zeev Zeev

That's exactly what they did, only the blocks were not on the ground, but in the back.

The Americans pass this off as a huge advantage - the ability to load not only from a car, but also from the ground. True, in this case, "an ordinary civilian car" cannot be avoided for sure. After all, we must somehow remove them on the ground ...

Quote: Zeev Zeev

And I see no reason why the same procedure cannot be performed with any other truck.

Can. By limiting mobility. And charge only on the highway.

Quote: Zeev Zeev

And what special loads does the swinging part experience?

You haven't looked at the image in principle? The swinging part actually acts as a crane boom, but at the same time "no special loads" 8))))

[Saxahorse]

Quote: Spade

Can. By limiting mobility. And charge only on the highway.

Well, you probably bent it. In peacetime, of course, regular transport is required. But in the military - any mobilized truck. Vehicle losses are always great. With the loss of TZM, the installation becomes helpless, you have to ask the crane that in peacetime it is always in short supply.

[Zeev Zeev]

Yes, in order to lay out on the ground, an ordinary truck will not work. But cars with a cargo boom or a manipulator in the army and in civilian life, of course, do not exist. And only a special machine specially created for removing a block of missiles can remove a block of rockets from the body. No other technique can cope with these. Neither the ARV, nor the ammunition loader, nor even the truck with the manipulator. It can take off a sea container, but it’s no longer suitable for a missile block. Well this is overload for him. Yes, and trucks (civilian, military) drive only along the highway, so that a special machine must be crafted from the asphalt.

[Newone]

Yes, and trucks (civilian, military) drive only along the highway

Military trucks drive their own dirt roads.

[Zeev Zeev]

And the civilians do not go?

[Newone]

Are you a bot? Or a split personality?

And trucks (civilians, military) drive only along the highway,

Here is one of your quotes

And the civilians do not go?

Here is the second.
How do these two thoughts fit together in one head?

[Zeev Zeev]

The first is sarcasm about allegations of the inability of conventional trucks to play the role of TZM.

[Newone]

Ordinary trucks and are unable to fully fulfill the role of TZM for MLRS. The throughput of a conventional truck is significantly lower than that of an MLRS tracked chassis. And if charging takes place where trucks can go, why then the tracked chassis, which makes the car more expensive and slower?

[Zeev Zeev]

The caterpillar chassis is not so much for the sake of patency as for stability when firing (no need to put additional supports). Although for cross, too.

[Newone]

Neither the Hurricanes (220mm) nor the Tornadoes (300mm) have any additional supports, although they are wheeled vehicles. And this does not interfere with their work.
Although the tornado lied, some kind of support at the rear wheels are visible :). But again, this does not interfere with mobility. Why multiply the cost and complexity of the multi-form if you do not need patency?

[Newone]

He was wrong about the hurricanes. Cars jack up. However, the operation of removing from the jack has practically no effect on the speed of leaving the position — turning the packets takes longer.

[Zeev Zeev]

Deployment time is reduced. Plus cross-country ability, plus chassis unification (with BMP "Bradley")

[Nikolaevich I]

Of the listed types of Russian MLRS, I have particular sympathy for the Uragan-1M MLRS! It is this system that is easy to make, in my opinion, multifunctional and multi-caliber! In addition to the "packages" of caliber 220/300 mm, already available, you can add "packages" of caliber 122 mm, 370 mm, for tactical missiles (400 mm / 600 mm), both BR and KR ...

[Operator]

Quote: Avior

for SLBMs adjustable charges and charges of low power

Which have an ultralow coefficient of entry into the reaction of plutonium of the first stage ~ 5%. The remaining 95% is sprayed on the site with a half-life of 24 of thousands of years instead of two decades of half-life of plutonium fission products.

But do we need this - a low-power nuclear explosion with long-term radioactive contamination of our territory?

[Old26]

Quote: VENOM

As a result, the Iskander OTRK will remain with cruise and ballistic missiles with a range of 500 km and more, capable of carrying, among other things, a special warhead. In terms of their capabilities and purpose, it is incorrect to compare them with MLRS, even the most advanced, these are different weapons. They use rockets with a length of 7-8 m and a diameter of about a meter, they can not be placed on a MLRS launcher.

It depends on which MLRS. North Koreans are sophisticated.

[Sasha_rulevoy]

The application figures are curious. In 2003, in preparation for the offensive of one mechanized division (3rd Infantry), 240 ATACMS missiles were fired. Otherwise, many people think that 48 Iskander will destroy the European economy.

[Lopatov]

Quote: Sasha_rulevoy

in preparation for the advance of one mechanized division (3rd Infantry), 240 ATACMS missiles were launched.

They really have no artillery, nor MLRS. But one aviation does not work.
So I had to hammer nails with a microscope.

[Newone]

I wonder where the equipment of transport launch containers for MLRS (those that are not for launching tactical missiles) occurs?

[PXL]

The article is rather strange. In fact, this is an advertisement for the M270. There is zero information about the combat use of this MLRS in armed conflicts involving the United States and NATO countries. Only in one comment a brief mention. In this regard, the question to the author. How did the M270 MLRS of both modifications perform in real battles and, in particular, in Afghanistan?