American Grad. MLRS M270 MLRS

44
For a long time, no attention was paid to the development of multi-barreled rocket artillery in the United States; after World War II, work on creating such systems was practically not carried out. Therefore, already in the 1970-ies, the Americans faced a serious problem, the NATO armies had nothing to oppose the Soviet MLRS "Grad" and MLRS "Hurricane", the latter was adopted by the Soviet Army in the 1975 year. The M270 MLRS MLRS on a tracked chassis became the American response; mass production of combat vehicles began in the 1980 year. To date, the M270 MLRS is the main MLRS, which is in service with the American army and at least 15 countries.





American underestimation of the MLRS


For a long time, the US military relied on barrel artillery. Neither in the 1950-e, nor in the 1960-e years in the United States and NATO countries did not pay due attention to the development of multi-barrel rocket artillery. According to the prevailing strategy, the task of supporting the ground forces on the battlefield was to be solved by the barrel artillery, which favorably differed in high firing accuracy. During a large-scale military conflict with the Warsaw Treaty Organization (ATS) countries, the Americans relied on tactical nuclear weapons of the artillery barrels - 155-mm and 203-mm caliber shells. At the same time, the Americans considered the use of rocket artillery on the battlefield ineffective in modern warfare and somewhat archaic.

The fact that such an approach is erroneous, the Americans realized only in the 1970-ies. The next Arab-Israeli war of 1973 of the year had a great influence on the change of strategy, when the Israeli military managed to disable a large number of positions of Arab anti-aircraft missile systems in a short time by using multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS). The suppression of the air defense system provided Israel with air superiority. The ability to launch air strikes against enemy troops with impunity quickly led to a positive outcome for the war for Israel. U.S. intelligence noted this success and the role of the MLRS in hostilities. At the same time, experts in the field of the use of artillery in combat operations appreciated the successes of Soviet designers in the field of creating multi-barrel rocket artillery. The massive introduction into service of the modern 122 mm MLRS of the Grad family, which Moscow supplied to its allies, also did not go unnoticed. The BM-21 combat vehicle, which immediately carried 40 guides for launching a wide range of rockets, represented a formidable force on the battlefield.

The realization of the significant superiority of the USSR and its allies in tanks in the European theater of operations. The Soviet Union and the ATS countries could deploy three times more tanks on the battlefield than the NATO allies had. But there was also other armored vehicles with anti-nuclear protection, which were also actively developed and produced in series of thousands. At certain moments of the battle, there could be so many targets of a potential enemy on the battlefield that no barrel artillery could cope with their timely defeat.



Together, all this led to the fact that the military-political leadership of the United States changed its view of rocket-propelled multi-barrel artillery. It was a fundamental decision on the need to create your own MLRS. The distinctive features of the future combat vehicle were called, in addition to high density of fire and rate of fire, a sufficiently large caliber of the ammunition used. The final decision on the MLRS program was made in 1976. Since then, more than 5 billion dollars have been spent on the design stage, conducting tests, preparing serial production and mass deliveries to the American army. Vought Corporation (today Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control) was selected as the project's lead contractor.

The cash costs of the program fully paid off when in the 1983 year the new 227-mm MLNM270 MLRS was adopted. This system of volley fire came into service with the US Army and Washington's NATO allies. The very name of the system was deciphered as Multiple Launch Rocket System (multiple launch rocket system), today in Western countries it has become a household name. It is this abbreviation that is used to refer to all weapons systems of different countries belonging to this class. The combat debut of the new American MLRS was the Persian Gulf War in 1991. The new multiple launch rocket systems proved to be highly effective in modern warfare, while the Americans used the M270 MLRS launchers to launch the MGM-140A short-range ballistic missiles with a cluster warhead.

Composition and features of the M270 MLRS complex


When developing the new MLRS, the Americans proceeded from using the installation as a nomadic weapon. This requirement made it necessary to create a highly mobile multiple launch rocket system, which could easily change firing positions, as well as fire from short stops. Such tactics are best suited for solving a large number of the most important tasks facing artillery today: counter-battery combat, suppression of the enemy’s air defense forces and means, defeat of advanced units. Thanks to mobility, self-propelled artillery mounts can solve such problems with the greatest efficiency, since they can quickly get out of the retaliatory strike by changing firing positions.



As a platform for their MLRS, the Americans chose a tracked version, taking as a basis a modified chassis from the M2 Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. The chassis is represented by six road wheels and two support rollers (on each side), the drive wheels are front wheels. Thanks to the use of a caterpillar chassis, the multiple launch rocket system received the same mobility and cross-country ability as the BMP and the main battle tank M1, as well as the ability to move freely over rough terrain. On the launcher under the cockpit, which can be folded forward, providing access to the power plant, placed a 500-horsepower diesel 8-cylinder Cummins VTA-903 engine. This engine provides the combat vehicle weighing almost 25 tons with the ability to move on the highway at a speed of 64 km / h, the maximum speed on rough terrain is 48 km / h. The designers placed two fuel tanks with a total capacity of 618 liters in the rear of the vehicle under the base plate of the artillery unit. There is enough fuel supply to overcome on the highway up to 485 km. The installation is air transportable, the M270 MLRS can be flown over the air using military transport aircraft aviation: C-141, C-5 and C-17.

In addition to high maneuverability and mobility, the launcher received a reservation. In particular, a triple cabin located in front of the M993 cargo conveyor is fully armored, and the cabin is also equipped with a ventilation, heating and sound insulation system. There is a sunroof in the roof, which can be used both for ventilation and for emergency evacuation of the machine. The cab windows are equipped with bulletproof glass and can be closed with metal shutters with armored panels. In the cockpit are the jobs of three people - the driver, the commander of the launcher and the operator-gunner. In addition to the cabin, the reservation received a launch loading module, which houses two transport and launch containers and a loading mechanism. This solution increases the survival of the installation in combat conditions. If the machine does not have time to get out of the artillery strike in time, the armor will protect the installation and the crew from fragments of artillery shells and mines exploding at some distance.

The artillery part of the launcher is represented by a fixed base with a rotatable frame and a gyro-stabilized rotating platform with an M269 starting loading module (PZM) mounted on it. The composition of this module includes two TPKs with a reloading mechanism, which are placed inside an armored box-shaped truss. TPK are disposable. TPK assembly is carried out at the plant, it is there that rockets are placed inside and the container is sealed. In such TPK shells can be stored for 10 years. The guides are located in the TPK itself, each such container contains 6 fiberglass pipes rigidly fastened to each other by a holder of aluminum alloy. A feature of the M270 MLRS MLRS is that inside the guides, designers placed spiral metal skids that, when fired, give rockets a speed of approximately 10-12 revolutions per second. This allows for the stability of the ammunition in flight, and also compensates for the eccentricity of traction. For loading, aiming and salvaging 12 shells from two launch containers, the installation needs only 5 minutes, the time of the volley itself is 60 seconds.



The MLN MXX MLRS, which was adopted by the U.S. Army in 270, in addition to the direct combat vehicle, the launcher, included a transport-loading vehicle (TZM), transport-launch containers (TPK), and 1983-mm rockets themselves. Today, each launcher is served by two transport-loading machines at once. These are high-passability 227-tonne M10 trucks with 985x8 wheel formula or newer M-8 with 1075x10 wheel formula. Each of these machines can be equipped with a trailer. On each machine with a trailer, up to 10 transport launch containers can be transported. Thus, for each launcher there are 8 shells (108 + 48 + 48 already on the launcher). The weight of the equipped TPK is 12 kg, for working with them on the TZM there are slewing cranes with a lifting capacity of up to 2270 tons.

M270 MLRS rigs debut


The combat debut of the American multiple launch rocket system was the operation of multinational forces during the first Gulf War. The units were massively used during Operation Storm on Empty in 1991. It is believed that the Americans involved in the operation from 190 to 230 launchers (according to various sources), another 16 installations deployed the UK. On Iraqi positions, they fired almost 10 of thousands of unguided rockets with cluster warheads. The positions of air defense and Iraqi artillery, accumulations of armored vehicles and vehicles, helipads were subjected to blows. In addition, at least 32 tactical ballistic missiles MGM-140A were fired at Iraqi positions (up to two of these missiles can be placed on a launcher). These missiles have a destruction range of up to 80 km and immediately carry 300 ready-to-use combat striking elements.

At the same time, the vast majority of shells used in Iraq were the simplest unmanaged 227-mm M26 rockets with a cluster head equipped with cumulative fragmentation submunitions M77. The maximum launch range of such ammunition is limited to 40 km. For the American army, the use of such systems was a step forward, since, according to experts, the salvo of only one launcher was equivalent to hitting an 33 target with artillery guns of the caliber 155 mm. Despite the fact that the US military appreciated the capabilities of the M77 combat units to combat armored targets, as insufficient, the debut was a success. It was the M270 MLRS MLRS that became the only field artillery system that could be used together with the Abrams tanks and the Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, as well as interact with American tactical aircraft, which transmitted the crews timely information about the objects and movements of the Iraqi troops.



At the time of the fighting in Afghanistan in the 21st century, where the British deployed several of their M2007 MLRS launchers in 270, new guided munitions arrived. The British used the new M30 GUMLRS guided missile with a maximum range of 70 km, the first international customer of which was Great Britain. According to the assurances of the British military, who used approximately 140 of such ammunition, they showed very high accuracy in hitting targets.
44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +4
    19 October 2019 05: 50
    Well, the Author, something too peremptory hangs "labels"! Call the M270 "Grad"? Well, well ... fantasy turned out to be not enough! When the MLRS was designed, they initially conceived a caliber of 240 mm ... then they still "changed their minds" ... made 227 mm (one type of rocket turned out to be more convenient to make in 227 mm ... well, and then decided to make all the missiles "like that" ... ) So why not compare the M270 with the Hurricane (220 mm) or the M-24 (240 mm) ?! And yet ... it's not just that from the "west" there was an advertisement: "2 in 1 bottle" ... "3 in 1 bottle" ...! So the MLRS decided to make not only MLRS, but also launchers for tactical BR and CD ... and are already thinking about OTR ... Some of the MLRS "curators" have a wild imagination (!); since PU M270 should become a PU for anti-aircraft missiles! So ... where is M270, and where is "Grad" ?! Although, in Russia, the guys-designers are also "not baked" ... or rather, when "bast is not knitted", they can come up with such a thing! For example, to "oblige" the "Pantsir" air defense system to fire "Hermes" anti-tank missiles in the long-range version ... Why? If you wish, it is quite possible to dig up common sense and expediency! Yes
    1. +1
      19 October 2019 07: 35
      In the press you can often see such messages - "MLRS type Katyusha".
      1. +2
        19 October 2019 08: 12
        Quote: igordok
        In the press you can often see such messages - "MLRS type Katyusha".

        This is a "free interpretation" characteristic of publicistic publications ... (journalists, sir!)
      2. +1
        19 October 2019 09: 07
        Very strange.
        Obviously, it has nothing to do with Katyusha, the wrong type of launchers
        Rather, the T34 is related
      3. +4
        19 October 2019 13: 25
        Quote: igordok
        In the press you can often see such messages - "MLRS type Katyusha".

        All right
        MLRS is the general name for all MLRS. And not the name of a specific weapon model Which is actually officially called "M270 MLRS" That is, in translation "MLRS М270"
    2. +3
      19 October 2019 09: 37
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      So ... where is M270, and where is "Grad" ?!

      I will say in defense of the author. You write everything correctly, but mlrs have one important characteristic, to some extent making them on the battlefield an analog of Grad - this is the range of defeat. Yes, and in the density of the volley Grad and MLRS are comparable due to the fact that in the Grad guides are 2.5 times more. But I repeat, you are right in the arguments you cited.
    3. +1
      19 October 2019 11: 45
      Nikolaevich I (Vladimir)
      For example, to "oblige" the "Pantsir" air defense system to fire the long-range Hermes anti-tank missiles ...
      Feel free of course. On the front line you "Shell" I hope you are not going to roll out? Good, but who and how will we aim at the target? Intelligence? Well, there is a drone for example. From the satellite? Then the question is "Hermes" will take a precious place in "Shell"? The "Pantsir" already has a lot of work in modern combat. But the truth is, and a 30 mm projectile with remote detonation seems to have been done. But there was no information and video of application with "Armor" yet.
      1. 0
        19 October 2019 12: 44
        Quote: Observer2014
        . On the front line you "Shell" I hope you are not going to roll out?

        In Russian he put it ... "long-range" option ... which is up to 100 km!
        Quote: Observer2014
        aim at who and how will we? Intelligence? Well, there, for example, a drone. From a satellite?

        How will it turn out ... what is at hand from what you have listed ...
        Quote: Observer2014
        What "Hermes" will take a precious place in "Shell"? "Armor" already has a lot of work in modern combat.

        This is when "Carapace" will not be enough ... and when "enough" plus a bit?
        1. 0
          19 October 2019 15: 07
          laughing
          This is when "Carapace" will not be enough ... and when "enough" plus a bit?
          Why bother transporting and firing Hermes (And you are right when you say it is not close combat) Hermes needs other carriers. All kinds of aircrafts. Piloted and no. And the Shell is still good for modernization! After the introduction of a projectile with remote blasting you can and should also stick there for very small UAVs or a swarm of such a laser with an electromagnetic gun feel Let's leave the sky to the "Shell". And on the edge, hit the ground from the cannons with direct fire. As the last argument. hi
          1. +2
            20 October 2019 01: 06
            Quote: Observer2014
            Why bother transporting and shooting "Hermes"

            Well, why did you attack me ?! I didn't suggest it! But the theme of the "bond between" Hermes "and" Pantsir "was discussed (and proposed ...) by specialists in military magazines!
            1. 0
              20 October 2019 01: 56
              Nikolaevich I (Vladimir) hi
              Well, what you attacked me ?!
              Not once in my thoughts was there.
              But the theme of the "bond between" Hermes "and" Pantsir "was discussed (and proposed ...) by specialists in military magazines!
              So then fool seasonal laughing
    4. +2
      19 October 2019 23: 21
      Quote: Nikolaevich I
      Well, the Author, something too peremptory hangs "labels"! Call the M270 "Grad"? Well, well ... fantasy turned out to be not enough! When the MLRS was designed, they initially conceived a caliber of 240 mm ... then they still "changed their minds" ... made 227 mm (one type of rocket turned out to be more convenient to make in 227 mm ... well, and then decided to make all the missiles "like that" ... )

      well, for "Grad" the caliber is somewhat oversized what rather "Hurricane" (220 mm). but in this car, the multicaliberity (more precisely, the maximum caliberness of the PU) was brought to the limit. We missed a smaller caliber - 107,122 and "Israeli" 160 mm, and others # low-usable calibres - 262 mm (Serbs love), 214 mm in India, 240 mm in South Korea, etc ..., and immediately attached a tactical missile (why trifle something) with a range of up to 300 (!) km ...

      my dreams are to finally make for the Russian army a single platform for a modular MLRS - 122, -220, -300 mm, with two replaceable modules for different calibers



      (the first photo is a Chinese man, as I understand it, for my caliber, the last photo is an Azerbaijani "Grad" on a Kamaz chassis with two bags. but modularity is obvious) ...
      single packages can be placed on lighter chassis
      as an example Kamaz with one module MLRS "Smerch"


      Dreams Dreams...
      1. +2
        19 October 2019 23: 32
        as an example Kamaz with one module MLRS "Smerch"

      2. +2
        20 October 2019 00: 03
        and, yes, especially for skeptics (they say it is impossible to maneuver in the field in the choice of ammunition) - at least for "Tornado-S" there are two modules -
        factory-made package (where the change of a missile is not provided)

        ;
        or a package with the ability to change the type of ammunition in the field

      3. +1
        20 October 2019 01: 14
        Quote: self-propelled
        Dreams Dreams...

        I understand you perfectly and share your dream! For he himself, in the comments on various sites, "dreamed" of a multi-caliber MLRS system ... The Uragan-1M MLRS is quite suitable as a basis (base) ... Based on the 220-mm and 300-mm modules of the Uragan-1M you can make modules for 122-mm and 370-mm NURS ... for tactical BR, KR "caliber" 400-600 mm ... hi
      4. +1
        20 October 2019 01: 30
        Quote: self-propelled
        Azerbaijani "Grad" on the Kamaz chassis with two packages. but modularity is obvious) ...

        As far as I know ... and in Russia, they also made Grad with 2 fiberglass "packages" ... after shooting the nourses, an empty block was "thrown out" ... a loaded block was installed ... If I am not mistaken, it was in 90s ... apparently, due to a chronic lack of funds, the idea was not developed.
  2. -1
    19 October 2019 06: 09
    Call M270 "Grad"

    And what is wrong ?
    You can call all this niche MLRS as Grad - class. By analogy with the famous Volkswagen Golf - a class of car.
    That is, this name is already a purely common noun ....
    1. +1
      19 October 2019 08: 08
      Quote: lucul
      That is, this name is already a purely common noun ...

      The common name here is MLRS!
      1. +1
        19 October 2019 19: 26
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        The common name here is MLRS!

        MLRS, however, is not a name. This is called an abbreviation. wink
      2. +1
        20 October 2019 01: 21
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        The common name here is MLRS!

  3. +1
    19 October 2019 06: 50
    The system is certainly good but the price!
    The tracked armored platform is no longer a penny, and in addition a gyro-stabilized turntable with an integrated loading mechanism. The cost of shells due to the use of not cheap disposable TPK. Yes, and as far as I know, it has been modernized decently stuffed with various electronics (communication, navigation, guidance, etc.) All this translates into a decent cost for both the system and the shot.
    Using tactical missiles with this setup is a good plus for the system.
    The only thing that’s not so true is the use of factory packages of 6 shells with reloading only at the factory — we use either all 6 or then drive with incomplete ammunition.
    1. bar
      -6
      19 October 2019 10: 01
      America is a rich country. Let them spend it.
    2. +1
      19 October 2019 10: 30
      And what's the point of using MLRS in non-salvage mode? Discharge the cassette in full.
    3. 0
      19 October 2019 11: 52
      Sergey_G_M (Sergey)
      The system is certainly good but the price!
      laughing Who cares what and how much it costs in the American army? Is that your money? Yes, pray that they spend so much money from their budget on such not cheap devices. Can you imagine with their budget they would buy equipment at our prices? wassat
  4. +1
    19 October 2019 09: 29
    All the same, it is strange that the Americans after WWII did not appreciate the successful experience of using our Katyushas and pulled from the MLRS until the 70s. You can see the legs of the craziness for precision, to the detriment of even common sense, have been growing from those times.
    1. +3
      19 October 2019 13: 37
      Quote: KVU-NSVD
      All the same, it is strange that the Americans after WWII did not appreciate the successful experience of using our Katyushas and pulled from the MLRS until the 70s. You can see the legs of the craziness for precision, to the detriment of even common sense, have been growing from those times.

      With a high probability, they were created not as a response to the Soviet MLRS, but as a competitor to the very advanced German "Lars" and Italian, French and Spanish developments on the same topic.
      They cut in the "NATO standard" club and actually imposed the M270

      And now they have problems ... All these Slovaks, Turks and other Poles do not want to completely switch to expensive only guided weapons, and huge funds fly past the pocket of the "American manufacturer"
    2. 0
      19 October 2019 15: 37
      Nothing strange: they had no shortage of barrel artillery, and it can solve all the problems that Katyusha can solve. But not the other way around. So they preferred to stamp more Long Tom.
      1. +1
        19 October 2019 15: 41
        Quote: bk0010
        and she can solve all the problems that Katyusha can solve. But not the other way around.

        They said beautifully. But there are tasks that the MLRS battery will solve with one "approach", but the receiver battery does not
      2. +4
        19 October 2019 17: 29
        Quote: bk0010
        they had no shortage of barrel artillery

        It was. And there is. If you look at the USSR / RF
        Quote: bk0010
        she can solve all the problems that Katyusha can solve

        Can not.
        More truly not so. Barrel artillery can serve as MLRS. Only this is not practical.
        Conversely, the performance of the functions of the barrel artillery systems MLRS also impractical.
  5. -1
    19 October 2019 10: 16
    It can be seen with the naked eye that our Perm MLRS are far superior to the American ones in power on the battlefield. However, our overseas colleagues have a lot to learn - booking installations to avoid losses from return fire, a tracked undercarriage, simply irreplaceable in off-road conditions - the Ural will not go everywhere! But the use of the Yankees of especially complex transport and launch containers with a certain microclimate inside, in my opinion, is the way to nowhere. During a real war, everything that is more difficult than a grenade fuse will fail.
    1. +1
      19 October 2019 11: 28
      The gulf did not refuse the same. And with a global nuclear war, all this is still not necessary
    2. +1
      19 October 2019 16: 13
      You will be surprised but packing a shell into a sealed disposable tube, on the contrary, increases reliability, although it increases the price.
  6. +1
    19 October 2019 14: 00
    Neither in the 1950s, nor in the 1960s in the USA and NATO countries was due attention paid to the development of multi-barrel rocket artillery.

    This is not true. LARS-1 adopted in 1969

    By the way, it was very, very cool, the Israelis still use the ideas it contains.
  7. +1
    19 October 2019 16: 16
    MLRS is an obsolete model, since the "Tornado-S" MLRS is wheeled:
    - has a greater firing range and, therefore, the ability to choose a route and firing position with accessibility to a car chassis;
    - 300-mm unguided RS with a starting weight of 800 kg completely covers the functionality of the 122-mm MLRS "Tornado-G" (with a single shot with a cluster projectile) and 220-mm TOS "Solntsepek" (with salvo firing with thermobaric shells);
    - An 300-mm guided RS with inertial GNS and 140-kg special warheads with a power of 250 Kt has a range of over 300 km and KVO within 50 meters, which is equivalent to a tactical missile.

    It remains only to use fiberglass TPK in MLRS "Tornado-S" and it will be in the hat laughing
    1. 0
      19 October 2019 16: 59
      A TPK then why? Why didn’t ordinary trunks please you? Or do you really think that the rocket in the TPK is protected?
      1. -1
        19 October 2019 17: 22
        Quote: garri-lin
        A TPK then why?

        For quick loading from the car or from the ground
        1. +1
          19 October 2019 20: 19
          Do not charge a hurricane from the ground. Well, in the sense of without TZM. Mlrs in this smumly independent. The full reload time of the Hurricane is 15 minutes for 16 missiles. For mls in article 5 min in other sources of 6,5 it is sometimes possible to meet. That’s roughly a hurricane’s minute on the ammunition at Mlrs about half a minute. The winning time is small. In terms of flexibility of application without TZM, Americans clearly benefit. But is the game worth the candle? Can I use a damaged TPK? Is it possible in an emergency, in the field, to equip the shot TPK with missiles from damaged ones? The culture of production of trunks should be at a high level and this is exactly two times more problems. TPK's price is obviously rather big.
  8. +1
    19 October 2019 19: 31
    Nice article. Thanks to the author! He recalled the American way of developing missile systems. The only pity is that the author did not specify the parameters of warhead missiles. For example, it is very interesting how many godfathers in a cluster rocket they can throw at 40 km.
    1. 0
      19 October 2019 21: 19
      Quote: Saxahorse
      how many godfathers in a cluster rocket they can throw for 40 km.

      From 404 to 644. 404 fly 60 km.

      The author generally only casually noted in the last paragraph the main thing. The system is evolving. The M270 is no longer an MLRS, it is a tactical missile system. The tests already have solutions for 150 km. They shoot Point-U.
      1. +1
        19 October 2019 21: 30
        Quote: tesser
        From 404 to 644. 404 fly 60 km.

        Do not understand. As many as 404 cumulative charges in one rocket ?? Do you know that the cumulative effect depends on the size? What a rut .. Do not confuse with shrapnel?
        1. 0
          19 October 2019 22: 12
          As many as 404 cumulative charges

          644. 404 is already an extended-range guided missile.
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Do not confuse shrapnel?

          No.
          https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/dpicm.htm
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Do you know that the cumulative effect depends on the size?

          A funnel of 4 cm in diameter forms a 2.5-gauge stream into the roof.
        2. +2
          21 October 2019 14: 57
          Quote: Saxahorse
          Do not understand. As many as 404 cumulative charges in one rocket ?? Do you know that the cumulative effect depends on the size? What a rut .. Do not confuse with shrapnel?

          Just the cumulative M77 submunitions are really small: they were made on the basis of the M483A1 submunition, designed for a 155-mm shell.
          1. +1
            21 October 2019 21: 57
            Cool. Of course, the cat burst into tears on such babies, but the roof of the tank or the BMP definitely digs through.
  9. 0
    19 October 2019 19: 51
    "Grad"? ("Hurricane" + "Tornado") / 2 or 2x "Point" :)