MLRS "Hurricane": one step to perfection

73

When we considered ballistic and cruise missiles, the thought flashed about the smaller brothers, with whom, in fact, it all began. Indeed, story modern missile weapons It started with the MLRS. More precisely, from our BM-13 "Katyusha", and then there were Germans, British, Americans ...

It is worth noting that despite the use of unguided missiles by the US and British armies on a fairly decent scale, the command did not receive a response from the idea. Everyone somehow immediately rushed to master the legacy of Wernher von Braun, build large rockets with an eye to space or to defeat the enemy on the other side of the planet.



However, somehow it has not been possible to use ICBMs so far. But the MLRS not only developed, they also took their rightful place on the modern battlefield. Especially where it is necessary to quickly and efficiently spread everything in a decent area.


Of course, the best and deadliest volley fire system today is the Smerch / Tornado-S. Someone may say that the Chinese "Weishi-1" is better, but we will analyze this in the next article.

"Hurricane" is an excellent testing ground for testing the very concept of a heavy MLRS, which for a long time had no rivals in the world. Opponents are really very far behind, which is generally not surprising. It's just that the MLRS did not really fit into the American and British military doctrines based on the use fleet.

And in the USSR they went exactly the way, at the end of which there were "Grad", "Hurricane", and "Smerch".



History


But here we again plunge into the maelstrom of history. The history of the emergence of "Hurricane" is really interesting. And it began in 1945, in Czechoslovakia.

It was there, at the Skoda factories, that Soviet engineers discovered stockpiles of manufactured missiles for the German air defense system. These were Typhoon missiles, moreover, in two modifications, solid propellant and liquid. "P" and "F" respectively. Rockets were the first air defense missile system, but were not used. Didn't make it to the war, so to speak.

"Typhoon F" was a ground-to-air cruise missile with a rocket engine. Outwardly, the rocket was very similar to the Katyusha M-13 rocket. But inside, the difference was significant.


The design was original. Since an anti-aircraft missile must be in standby mode for a long time, liquid oxygen as an oxidizing agent is completely unsuitable here. And German chemists (and we do not discuss their competence) have created a very good pair of "fuel-oxidizer".

The fuel was "Vizol", isobutyl vinyl ether. The Germans at the end of the war developed a number of very successful vinyl-based propellants.

The oxidizing agent was Zalbay, brown-smoke nitric acid. In general, that is still a couple in terms of security, but the rocket showed very decent performance: it developed speeds up to 1150 m / s and took off to a height of 13 km, where it could hit air targets.

There was also a gunpowder version, Typhoon R, but it did not interest our engineers at all, the Soviet RS flew further and more accurately on gunpowder.

Structurally, the Typhoon consisted of two parts: a warhead, which contained an impact fuse, an explosive (0,7 kg) and a container with ready-made fragments, and an engine compartment, which housed the rocket engine and tanks with fuel and oxidizer. The rocket weighed 35 kg.

Having carefully studied the "Typhoon F", on its basis in 1949 they created an anti-aircraft missile on a rocket engine called R-103. The R-103 did not go into service, but more than two hundred launches were made, on which the very possibility of using unguided anti-aircraft missiles was worked out.

By the way, the R-103 flew quite decently at that time.

But it was decided to make a more powerful rocket at its base. So the R-110 or "Teal" appeared. The caliber of the rocket was 122 mm, the Chirok weighed 47 kg, and the weight of the warhead was increased to 2 kg. R-110 could take off to a height of 18 km.

However, practical firing disappointed. Not only was the rocket plagued by constant test failures (corroded tanks, burnt out nozzles), there were also problems with accuracy. So in 1957, all work on the R-110 was stopped, and in 1958 they turned off the Chirok-N, ground-based, MLRS project with liquid-fuel rockets.

But in parallel, work was underway on an even more powerful missile for the promising MLRS "Korshun". MLRS 2K5 "Korshun" with a 3R7 missile was put into service and even demonstrated at parades in Moscow, but the idea of ​​​​MLRS on a rocket engine did not receive further development.

MLRS "Hurricane": one step to perfection

The culprit was the 3P7 missile, which turned out to be very capricious. In general, it turned out to be something between a MLRS and a tactical missile. Rocket caliber - 250 mm. Length - 5,5 m. Starting weight - 375 kg. Warhead weight - 100 kg. The maximum firing range is 55 km. Flight speed is about 1000 m/s.

The saddest parameter was accuracy. Since the rocket was not controlled by anything, the dispersion in the target area at the maximum range reached 550 meters. Such low accuracy was supposed to be compensated by volleys of several installations, but in the end the Korshun was also abandoned.

And somewhere around the middle of the 60s, the understanding came that the MLRS should not have a large caliber and significant warhead, unlike tactical missiles. MLRS should cover the area, and for this it is worth creating a smaller rocket, but the installation should carry more missiles.

Urahan
In 1968, preliminary work began on the Grad-Z project. The system was supposed to be a replacement for the "Kite", that is, to be long-range, but meet the stated requirements. The caliber of the new MLRS was determined at 220 mm, one launcher was supposed to carry 20 (wheelbase) or 24 (tracked) missiles. The engine was determined to be solid fuel.

Full-scale work on the project began in 1969, and in February 1972 the first prototype was manufactured, which was subsequently named 18K1975 "Hurricane" by a decree of the Council of Ministers of the USSR of March 9, 57 and was put into service, where it remains to this day as heavy MLRS artillery regiments as part of brigades and divisions.


Photo: arms-expo.ru

The system is really heavy, the weight of the installation based on the ZIL-135LM is about 20 tons. But the unique machine provides movement both on hard surfaces and on the ground. True, the ZIL plant, which has died in history, hints that after the final development of resources by machines, you will either have to say goodbye to the Hurricanes or look for another base for them.

The first in the light of the adoption of the more modern Tornado-G and Tornado-S is more likely, but as long as the Zilas are regularly carrying launchers and missiles, the Hurricane does not leave the arena.


Unlike the younger brother "Grad", "Hurricane" is a system with a wider range of projectiles, and, accordingly, with a wider range of tasks. It is clear that a projectile twice as large as that of the Grad allows this to be done.

weaponry

The main weapon of the Hurricane is the 9M27 rocket in various forms. The exception is 9M51 with a thermobaric warhead. This missile has a smaller mass (256 kg) and a flight range (5-13 km), unlike all other missiles. The 9M27 family has a launch weight of 270-280 kg and a flight range of 10 to 35 km.

For firing at a reduced range, a large or small brake ring is used, which is put on the head of the rocket.

The length of the 9M27 projectile, depending on the modification, ranges from 4800 to 5200 mm, the mass of a high-explosive fragmentation warhead is 100 kg, and a cassette warhead is 90 kg.

The 9M27F high-explosive projectile is designed to destroy everything it lands next to. 52 kg of explosives allow this to be done, so that equipment, buildings, buried command posts, warehouses, bridges - all these are targets for a hurricane mine. It has been proven that very few things can withstand a landmine explosion nearby. Tanks flips, as practice shows.

The 9M27K cluster projectile is sadness and horror for manpower and lightly armored vehicles. The warhead, in addition to the activation charge, contains 24 or 30 fragmentation submunitions of the 9N210 type.


The elements are cylindrical, 263 mm long and 65 mm in diameter. Each element contains 300 grams of explosive inside, which provides the ejection of fragments upon activation.


In addition, the elements have drop-blade stabilizers that ensure a stable flight of the BE up to the moment the fuse is triggered. After the fuse is triggered, the charge scatters 370 damaging fragmentation elements.

Fragments at a distance of 10 m pierce a steel sheet 6 mm thick, and at a distance of 100 m - 2 mm thick.

Cluster shells deserve special attention 9M27K2 and K3designed for remote mining under the Incubator project.

Shell 9M27K2 contains 24 anti-tank mines of the PMT-1 type, weighing 1,5 kg each. The mine contains 1,1 kg of explosive PVV-12S. A volley of one launcher ensures the mining of 150 hectares of terrain. Self-destruction is performed with a delay of 3 to 40 hours.

Shell 9M27KZ contains 312 anti-personnel mines of the PFM type. A petal-shaped pressure mine weighing 80 g contains 40 g of liquid explosive VS-6D. Self-liquidation time from 1 to 40 hours.

Shell 9М59 contains 9 PTM-3 anti-tank mines weighing 4,9 kg each. The weight of explosive mines is 1,8 kg. Self-destruction of mines is carried out after 16-24 hours.

Shell 9M27S "Apricot" with an incendiary warhead, 9M27D "Paragraph" with a propaganda cassette part and 9M27 with chemical elements confidently complete the list of effects on the enemy that the Hurricane can carry out.

Naturally, the times of "Katyusha" are in the past, because the composition of the MLRS "Hurricane" includes many components.

Fighting machine 9P140


Photo: arms-expo.ru

It was carried out on the chassis of the ZIL-135LM car with an 8x8 wheel arrangement. An artillery unit was installed on a rotary base, consisting of a package of guides, sights, guidance mechanisms and a system balancing mechanism.

Transport and loading machine 9T452, without which the reloading of the Hurricane looks very unattractive.


Photo: arms-expo.ru

TZM serves to load and unload a combat vehicle in absolutely any conditions, without special preparation of the position. Each TZM carries 16 shells, which it can load into the BM in 15 minutes. The charging process is fully mechanized, at the disposal of the calculation of the TZM there is a crane-beam with grippers, a rammer with an electric drive, a mechanism for mating the axes of the rocket and guides.




Automatic fire control complex 1V126 "Kapustnik-B"


Kapustnik-B consists of:
- a unified fire control point (PUO) 1V153 on the Ural-43203 chassis;
- command and observation post (CNP) 1V152 on the BTR-80 chassis.

The complex provides data processing and target designation for launchers as part of a division or battery.

Vehicle for topographic survey and binding 1T12-2M


The topographic positioner is designed for prompt and early binding of the positions of rocket launchers. It is according to his data that the MLRS stand at the point from which aiming and launch are carried out.

Meteorological complex 1B44


In this composition, the "Hurricane" goes into position for firing. The main type of shooting of the complex is shooting from closed positions.

Calculation of a combat vehicle - 6 people (commander of the calculation, driver, gunner and three calculation numbers). The calculation has a panoramic mechanical sight D726-45 and panorama PG-1M, with the help of which the aiming is carried out.


The launch system provides the possibility of salvo fire with a constant rate (16 missiles are launched at a rate of 0,5 seconds) and a “jerky rate”, when the first 8 missiles are launched at an interval of 0,5 seconds, the rest of the missiles at an interval of 2 seconds. This rate allows you to reduce the amplitude of the oscillations of the machine after the first half of the launches and thereby significantly improve the accuracy of firing.

Topicality


In order to conduct an appropriate assessment of the relevance of the MLRS "Hurricane", we must once again briefly go into history.

During World War II, several countries used MLRS. Pretty cheap and technologically simple weapon. Soviet "Katyushas" and "Andryushas", German "Donkeys", British "Hedgehogs" and "Mattresses", American "Xylophones" and "Calliops" have firmly entered history. True, the Soviet and German MLRS were head and shoulders better than the British and American ones, but here the question is for the engineers.

And, in the absolutely fair opinion of the Soviet command, the MLRS did not lose its relevance even after the war. Moreover, the Chinese "peaceful lumberjacks" from Damansky Island, plus the regiments that went to their aid, were really stunned by the effectiveness of the latest Grads at that time. And in the West, for a long time they did not believe that it was possible to smash the disputed territory together with the invaders with such a simple weapon as an unguided rocket. That is why all sorts of science fiction such as ultra-long-range flamethrowers and laser systems were voiced.

The explanation is outrageously simple: Western experts at one time came to the conclusion that NURS, as a weapon, has become obsolete. Yes, they remained in service with the assault aviation and NAR helicopters, but the ground forces and fleets gradually abandoned the use of "smart" homing tactical and cruise missiles.

If you read the military doctrines of those years, it becomes clear that the main task was considered to be the destruction of heavy equipment and infrastructure of the enemy in the first place, and the manpower was a trailer.

However, the Soviet Union chose a different path. Given the length of the borders and the huge draft army, it was necessary to have effective and easy-to-learn and use weapons. And the military-industrial complex of the USSR was very easy to produce hundreds of inexpensive and easy-to-learn weapons.

Therefore, work on technically not complex, but very effective MLRS in the USSR did not stop, and this at one time gave results. Skeptics chuckled, but Damansky showed that if a properly designed MLRS system is used correctly, then little can compare with it in terms of efficiency.

The defeat of manpower and equipment in the conditions of work on areas in the absence of aviation, the creation of a high density of fire - it turned out that the Soviet system was more correct. And the West rushed to catch up, but ...

But in the late eighties the world was overwhelmed by a series of local wars that continue to this day. And in these wars, the main role is played not by professional armies, but rather by armed crowds of fanatics or bandits. Yes, trained, able to conduct a guerrilla war, but equipped according to the residual principle.

And here, expensive toys in the form of tactical missiles and aircraft fade into the background. "Hit and run" is the basic principle of partisans in local wars. Artillery? Also no, it takes a lot of time to defeat the square, the partisans will not wait.

And here the dawn of the MLRS occurred, capable of putting a sufficient number of shells into a specific square in a minimum time. Or arrange a firestorm on several hectares.


And while some simply bought, and the second made the same "Grad" under license, Soviet designers created the "Hurricane" and "Smerch", essentially a masterpiece of the MLRS. In them, the development of the MLRS idea reached its maximum.

It's hard to catch up. In the United States, Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control only managed to create a semblance of a Hurricane eight years later. This is the 230mm MLRS multiple launch rocket system, a very good “answer”, but not without flaws.

The Hurricane is indeed a masterpiece. This was shown by the massive use of this MLRS in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and other conflicts.

The complex is old? Yes, not young. However, already in the USA they showed what follows next, for an unguided rocket. The same MLRS can fire ATACMS missiles at a distance of 80 km. But ATACMS are tactical ballistic missiles launched from MLRS tubes, nothing more. That is, different goals, different cost.

Two ways of development: either MLRS releases a lot of "stupid" NURS into a given square and arranges Armageddon there, or "smart" tactical missiles work, pointwise destroying selected targets.


Tasks are frankly different. And they need to be decided on the basis of expediency. It makes no sense to attack a column on the march with tactical missiles, and to grope for a closed command post or communication center with dozens of NURSs. To each his own, as they say.

And here the "Hurricane" at its work distances is relevant, no matter what. The case when the years do not matter, because the goals for the "Hurricane" are almost the same as half a century ago.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

73 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    2 May 2022 04: 21
    After all, indeed, the history of modern missile weapons began precisely with the MLRS. More precisely, from our BM-21 "Katyusha", and then there were Germans, British, Americans ...


    Forgot about BM-13 ??? And they forgot about the German Nebelwerfer that he went into production even before the start of the Second World War ... (https://topwar.ru/43510-nemeckaya-reaktivnaya-artilleriya-v-gody-voyny-chast-1-ya.html)
    1. +3
      2 May 2022 07: 34
      Quote: RVAPatriot
      Forgot about BM-13 ??? And they forgot about the German Nebelwerfer ....)
      No, the German apparatus was mentioned, although it was not officially called, but "donkey", another nickname is "donkey". The rocket launcher received such nicknames for the characteristic sounds during firing, reminiscent of the "voice set" of the aforementioned animals.
      1. +2
        2 May 2022 15: 15
        And here is the difference in level - Soviet - Stalin's Organ, German - donkey (donkey) laughing
    2. AUL
      +3
      2 May 2022 09: 16
      Quote: RVAPatriot
      Forgot about BM-13 ???

      It's just the author's blunder - not BM-21, but BM-13, of course!
      1. The comment was deleted.
    3. 0
      22 July 2022 10: 49
      "Squeaky", generally speaking, "not quite" MLRS. Too few stems. When the Germans did it, they did not quite understand why.
  2. +3
    2 May 2022 04: 54
    Yes, and BM-21 is "Grad" wink
  3. 0
    2 May 2022 05: 20
    There are no objections to the author. Our aircraft have already had to experience for themselves.
    1. -5
      2 May 2022 11: 37
      please.shut.your Bandera mouth.
  4. +6
    2 May 2022 05: 28
    It is not clear why the army does not purchase the Uragan-1M multi-caliber MLRS, this is a universal complex capable of using 122/220/300 mm caliber missiles simply by replacing launch containers.
    1. +12
      2 May 2022 07: 11
      Quote: assault
      It is not clear why the army does not buy multi-caliber MLRS Uragan-1M

      Do you just not understand it? I have much more questions ... precisely to those people who are responsible for issuing performance characteristics when creating new samples and promoting them to be put into the troops. And in the end, where are the normal portable radio stations of the tactical level in the right amount?
      1. +2
        2 May 2022 09: 06
        The topic of the article is about the URAGAN MLRS, we write on it!
      2. +7
        2 May 2022 12: 13
        Apparently, in the same place where there are normal shoes for the military, and good equipment, and not a miserable warrior with, in the same place where there are good gloves and termuha and layers and everything else ... Everything dissolved. Without a trace. In the bottomless pockets of officials of the Moscow Region, heads of all sorts of concerns and corporations. This is very sad and embarrassing for our boys.
      3. -1
        2 May 2022 15: 46
        Come on! I have questions for the command and even higher! I don't like everything and how!
    2. +3
      2 May 2022 08: 07
      Quote: assault
      It is not clear why the army does not purchase Uragan-1M multi-caliber MLRS, this is a universal complex capable of using 122/220/300 mm caliber missiles

      Because Tornado-S appeared!
      1. +3
        2 May 2022 09: 14
        Because Tornado-S appeared!
        Tornado - C appeared as a further development of the MLRS Smerch and have nothing to do with Hurricanes.
        Your words are approximately equivalent to the statement "Why do we need the Tu-22M3M if the Tu-160M ​​went into the series" ....
        1. +2
          2 May 2022 09: 47
          Quote: assault
          Tornado - C appeared as a further development of the MLRS Smerch and have nothing to do with Hurricanes.

          What do you think Hurricanes have that Tornado-S doesn't have?
          Or are you worried about the nomenclature of missiles, so it is for all occasions.
          And by the model number, notice that Tornado-S is one more.
          1. +7
            2 May 2022 10: 36
            Uragan-1M is a cheaper, but also more massive MLRS on the basis of which brigades / regiments should be formed in all combined arms armies and coastal defense corps of fleets.

            Tornado-S is a more complex and expensive MLRS, including those with guided missiles for the formation of MLRS brigades of district subordination.

            I agree with you, in order to reduce the range of ammunition, after all 220 mm caliber RS ​​are used up and decommissioned, only 300 mm caliber RS ​​should be supplied to brigades / regiments of the army level.
            It's all about money, as always, and if the stocks of RS 220 mm are enough for another "three wars" and their storage periods can be extended by 15-20 years, then no one will refuse them.
            1. +7
              2 May 2022 16: 17
              Logistics and supply are the basis of any war and, in general, any army. To be honest, I don’t understand why we need 3 different caliber rocket launchers in the future, if there are cheap and massive hailstones and Tornado-r and expensive and serious Tornadoes and Tornado-s. It is clear that while the warehouses are clogged with 220th Hurricanes ammunition, they must be used. In the same NWO, you can not feel sorry for them. But why do we need an extra range of 220 mm ammunition in the future? This is storage, separate release, logistics, etc. Maybe a bunch of 122 mm and 300 mm is enough for all purposes? And by increasing the mass production, can the same 300 mm be cheaper? request
              1. The comment was deleted.
    3. +7
      2 May 2022 08: 18
      Packages with RS caliber 122 mm from the "Hurricane-1M" no. A combat vehicle in two packages carries either 30 220 mm or 16 300 mm.
      The reason, apparently, is the complexity of the transition to disposable transport and launch containers (TLCs) and the organization of their supply. Unlike classic MLRS, during each combat operation it is necessary to shoot a full salvo, firing 1-2 RS, it is not clear what to do with the rest. This is especially painful for the 300-mm caliber, where guided RS appeared in the Tornado-S. In principle, they do not imply firing in one gulp.
      In short, in the case of Uragan-1M, I think that the desires and needs of the troops were defeated by the capabilities of the MTO system ...
      1. +2
        2 May 2022 10: 40
        Packages with RS caliber 122 mm from the "Hurricane-1M" no. A combat vehicle in two packages carries either 30 220 mm or 16 300 mm.


        Yes, I agree that Hurricane-1M does not carry 122mm packages, but
        in two packages of caliber 300mm, not 16, but 12 guides.
        16 guides for Smerch and Tornado-S.
        1. +3
          2 May 2022 11: 23
          in two packages of caliber 300mm, not 16, but 12 guides. ...
          16 guides for Smerch and Tornado-S.

          You and I are both confused. smile So actually:
          - in the package MLRS 9K57 "Hurricane" 16 guides;
          - in two 220-mm packages of MLRS 9K512 "Hurricane-1M" 30 guides;
          - in two 300-mm packages of MLRS 9K512 "Hurricane-1M" 12 guides;
          - in the package MLRS 9K58 "Smerch" 12 guides;
          - in the package MLRS 9K515 "Tornado-S" 12 guides;
    4. +2
      2 May 2022 17: 36
      Hurricane-1M - it was generally some kind of experiment, obviously not viable due to the use of the MZKT chassis, which is redundant for this application. It would have been easier to buy then the Belarusian-Chinese "Polonaise" on the same chassis, which can launch an adjustable missile under 300 km (although the one at 300 is Chinese production, as far as I remember, but there is also simpler ammunition a la "Smerch" for impacts per 100 km).
  5. +6
    2 May 2022 05: 57
    When we considered ballistic and cruise missiles, the thought flashed about the smaller brothers, with whom, in fact, it all began.

    In a special operation in Ukraine, almost all types of missiles are used to destroy ground targets: Iskander, Caliber, Bal, Bastion. But the consumption of missiles is high, and "Bal", "Bastion" also have an active radar seeker, which unreasonably increases the cost of hitting a target. We need a budget version of the MLRS with a firing range of 300-400 km and with six 400-500-mm caliber missiles in containers. With an inertial and thermal imaging guidance system (according to a previously taken picture, as in cruise missiles).
    https://topwar.ru/17195-metody-navigacii-krylatyh-raket.html?
    1. 0
      2 May 2022 07: 08
      Quote: riwas
      We need a budget version of the MLRS with a firing range of 300-400 km

      Yes, our "Gods of War" just shout about it, but things are still there ... Although there were some progress, especially at the time of the creation of "Tornado-S", but where are these "Tornados"? Already they would have bought "Polonaises" from allied Belarus or something ...
      1. AUL
        0
        2 May 2022 09: 26
        and 9M27 with chemical elements confidently supplement the list of influences on the enemy,
        How is that? We seem to have no chemical weapons in service! Only today in a neighboring article (about Biden) they wrote about this. belay
        1. +1
          2 May 2022 10: 31
          Elementary: they developed ammunition, produced it in a certain amount, placed it in storage places, signed documents on chemical. disarmament, seized from storage sites, disposed of. At the moment, chem. weapons are not available.
        2. +1
          2 May 2022 12: 42
          It was. Disposed of before 2017. OPCW confirmed by protocol.
    2. +8
      2 May 2022 10: 20
      Quote: riwas
      "Ball", "Bastion" also have an active radar seeker,

      Their launches were very limited and served more to confirm performance and upgrade stocks.
      Quote: riwas
      We need a budget version of the MLRS with a firing range of 300-400 km and with six 400-500-mm caliber missiles in containers. With an inertial and thermal imaging guidance system (according to a previously taken picture, as in cruise missiles).

      There are ballistic and winged Iskanders for 500 km. Their dimensions do not fit into your framework, but are due to the required characteristics of the defeat.
    3. +3
      2 May 2022 10: 49
      But the consumption of missiles is high, and "Bal", "Bastion" also have an active radar seeker, which unreasonably increases the cost of hitting a target. We need a budget version of the MLRS with a firing range of 300-400 km


      I completely agree with you, the Tornado-S arsenal needs budget missiles with a range of 300-400 km both for destroying enemy targets at long range and for counter-battery combat against NATO MLRS that already have long-range guided missiles in their arsenal.
      Destroying them with Iskanders is like hitting a sparrow from a cannon.
    4. +3
      2 May 2022 15: 41
      Quote: riwas
      We need a budget version of the MLRS with a firing range of 300-400 km and with six 400-500-mm caliber missiles in containers. With an inertial and thermal imaging guidance system (according to a previously taken picture, as in cruise missiles).

      You are delirious. The control, that is, a tactical missile with a range of 300-400 km, will not be a "budget option". This is Iskander. An unguided rocket has an accuracy of 1% of the range - this is theoretically, practically, and it is unlikely to be twice as bad. So for 300 km you will fall into a circle of 10 kilometers in diameter. Even at reasonable distances, MLRS need to be massed.
      1. 0
        3 May 2022 08: 57
        I will support. We need a guided cruise missile, like a mini-caliber. 5 meters long, 300 mm in diameter, 50 kg of charge and a range of 500 km. Something like Polonaise.
        1. +1
          3 May 2022 16: 20
          The first time I hear about cruise missiles for Polonaise. The Brazilian Astros II MLRS (AV-TM 300 rocket, 300 km) and the Israeli LYNX (Delilah, 250 km) have the ability to launch the CD.

          In general, in the modern world, by default, it is believed that the launcher should be integrated with anything, and they pay attention exclusively to the development of the weapons themselves.

          By the way, the Brazilian "mini-caliber" costs around $1M.
    5. +2
      2 May 2022 20: 13
      Quote: riwas
      We need a budget version of the MLRS with a firing range of 300-400 km and with six 400-500-mm caliber missiles in containers. With an inertial and thermal imaging guidance system (according to a previously taken picture, as in cruise missiles).
      This is not a MLRS and, moreover, not a budget one.
    6. 0
      2 May 2022 21: 15
      And their price will be at the level of calibers - so it makes no sense
    7. 0
      2 May 2022 21: 21
      ... We need a budget version of the MLRS with a firing range of 300-400 km and with six 400-500-mm caliber missiles in containers. With inertial and thermal imaging guidance system (according to a previously taken picture, as in cruise missiles)

      Any missile flying "in ballistics" is quickly detected and easily intercepted. And the guidance and control system installed on the "long-range MLRS" multiplies the cost of each such ammunition what ...and reduces its reliability
      1. 0
        2 May 2022 21: 30
        Quote: Maestro
        quickly detected and easily intercepted.

        )))
        Of course not.
        1. 0
          2 May 2022 23: 08
          ...Of course not

          - in Papuasia, where there is only one boomerang to intercept "air targets"
          1. +1
            2 May 2022 23: 51
            Even if you have a full-fledged four-story air defense (S-400/Buk/Tor/Pantsir), it will not intercept a divisional salvo.
  6. +3
    2 May 2022 07: 05
    After all, indeed, the history of modern missile weapons began precisely with the MLRS. More precisely, from our BM-21 "Katyusha", and then there were Germans, British, Americans ...
    Unfortunately, but no ... Still, it is worth recognizing here that the Germans were the first. It was they who were the first to use their reactive "chemical" mortars "Nebelwerfer"
    For the first time rocket mortars were used by the Germans in France. The Nebelwerfer 41 was also used by the Germans during the landing on Crete. On the Eastern Front, this weapon was used almost from the first days: this mortar fired at the defenders of the Brest Fortress, was used during the siege of Sevastopol.
    And I wonder what year the picture from the cockpit of the machine of the complex is, is there, seriously, is the R-123 still standing?
    1. -6
      2 May 2022 08: 37
      Somehow modestly you wrote about the superiority of the Germans! Do not be modest, write directly and impartially, then we stole the Katyusha from them! Well, we, the gray-paws, could not invent anything worthwhile! But to steal, it's an infection!
      1. +5
        2 May 2022 08: 43
        Quote: avg avg
        Do not be modest, write directly and impartially, then we stole the Katyusha from them!

        Well, it just looks like in your brain these are the same systems, they are structurally different, very different. Yes, our current "Grads" took a lot from the German systems ... And we did not steal them, but took them as trophies.
        But even this is not the main thing. You seem to read, you can not understand the meaning of what is written. The author tried to assign to the USSR the priority of creating and using MLRS in the Second World War, but historically this is not the case. Here the first, nevertheless, were the Germans.
        1. +1
          2 May 2022 09: 40
          Yes, our current "Grads" took a lot from German systems

          "Grads" did not take anything from the German systems. They have a completely different system for stabilizing the RS in flight, and the use of tubular guides in itself is not a borrowing.
          If we are talking about the Soviet system, which is fundamentally similar to the German ones, then it is rather the BM-14 - in it the turbojet shells used were undoubtedly designed taking into account the German experience.
          1. -3
            2 May 2022 10: 25
            Quote: Bogalex
            "Grads" did not take anything from the German systems.

            Well, I do not! Marshal of sofa troops says they took it, so they took it! And they took it just a softened version of the word stolen! So you don’t whitewash us, everyone knows that we are world-famous thieves and drunkards! We couldn't even come up with the name of our country ourselves, but we stole it from the Ukrainians!
      2. +2
        2 May 2022 14: 52
        Hope this is sarcasm.
    2. +4
      2 May 2022 09: 35
      The German jet mortar "Nebelwerfer" is not a MLRS as such, but a mortar, albeit a multi-barrel one. It was not intended for shelling a large area - from 5-6 guides this is quite difficult to do. The same multi-barrel was due primarily to the desire to increase the rate of fire and deliver a larger payload to the target (taking into account the original purpose of the system), and not to increase the covered area.
      So yes, the Germans were the first to use reactive systems as a method of throwing, but I would question their priority in creating MLRS as a separate class of weapons.
      1. +4
        2 May 2022 09: 42
        Quote: Bogalex
        The German jet mortar "Nebelwerfer" is not a MLRS as such, but a mortar, albeit a multi-barrel one.

        Wait, but as at that time, and even now, our MLRS are often called "guards mortars"
        Quote: Bogalex
        It was not intended for shelling a large area - from 5-6 guides this is quite difficult to do.

        To do this, they acted as whole units. Our "guards mortars" also acted in groups, from a battery to a brigade in one salvo. That's the only way they get what they want.
        1. +3
          2 May 2022 11: 34
          Our Katyushas were called mortars only because there was no established terminology for this system. Even in the GAU and GRAU indexing system, they went for a long time under the "mortar" indices "2B ..." (for example - 2B17 - BM MLRS "Grad"). But this does not make them mortars for their intended purpose, unlike the German Nebelwerfers.
          "Entire units" during the Great Patriotic War, ALL artillery units operated. An exception (and even then - forcedly) could only be anti-tankers. Until the 2000s, the main tactical unit was the division.
          Nevertheless, both the mortar and the gun could, in some cases, act separately (for example, when using the "wandering gun" tactic). German "donkeys" could also operate with one mortar, and not as part of a battery. Also, the launch of one mine was not meaningless - a relatively small firing range and a sufficiently high accuracy of a turbojet projectile made it possible to act in this way.
          But the Katyushas never operated with one combat vehicle, and even more so they did not fire with one RS (which, by the way, is technically almost impossible for the BM-13). They were intended specifically for massive use to hit targets that were large in area. They never worked on single targets.
          So I still insist that the Nebelwerfer is, although it is a jet, but first of all a mortar, and not a MLRS, and the Katyusha, although it was called a mortar, was neither in design nor in tactics of use. was. This is precisely the MLRS - and yes, the first in the world.
      2. +1
        2 May 2022 10: 11
        The term MLRS itself implies a salvo launch of projectiles to the target. What then is your criterion for this mass character? 16 like Katyusha or 6 like Ishak? Yes, and initially, as I wrote above, the Germans planned it for the use of chemical weapons, but here there is no need for a mass salvo, the OM cloud itself will spread over the area.
        1. +1
          2 May 2022 12: 51
          Samiy big volley is needed specifically for chemical. shells. It is necessary to saturate not even the area, but the volume. That's why they abandoned them. Unfavorable.
      3. +2
        2 May 2022 11: 34
        Quote: Bogalex
        The German jet mortar "Nebelwerfer" is not a MLRS as such, but a mortar, albeit a multi-barrel one. It was not intended for shelling a large area - from 5-6 guides this is quite difficult to do.

        There are no weapons designed to shell the area, including in artillery. The weapon is fired to hit targets in the area. If the unit did not have enough accuracy to hit the target with one barrel, the number of barrels firing was increased. There were not enough guns in the unit - they reorganized the unit with an increase in the number of guns and / or attracted more units (including larger ones). And if in the cannon artillery of that time the capabilities were well-known and fairly well-established, then a technically new "delivery vehicle" - a rocket - required the development of states and calculations of the ammunition consumption. And the number of barrels on one MLRS gun was increased due to technical feasibility increase it (which guns / mortars did not have). At the same time, they tried to increase the accuracy, but if it were as simple as building up several pipes ...
        Quote: Bogalex
        The same multi-barrel was primarily due to the desire to increase the rate of fire and deliver a larger payload to the target (taking into account the original purpose of the system), and not to increase the covered area.

        Multi-barreled primarily did not stem from tactics, but from the insufficiency of performance characteristics (large variation).
        But ours came up with the idea of ​​​​combining guns with towing means, reducing the time to deploy / leave the position.
        1. +2
          2 May 2022 11: 52
          And here you are completely wrong. If fire is fired at an unobservable target, then even today, in the 100st century, artillery fires precisely at the area, and not at the target. To do this, taking into account the errors in preparation and technical dispersion on several installations of the sight and, if necessary, a goniometer, with the separation of the aiming points of the guns along the width of the front of the fired area by the established fan interval, to hit even a single target, a square with sides of at least 150-XNUMX meters is fired .
          During the Great Patriotic War, everything was exactly the same.
          1. +3
            2 May 2022 12: 25
            This is true in terms of fire control. Yes, they shoot at the coordinates. But from the point of view of the organization of artillery units, it is taken into account what the artillery shoots and what it wants to hit. An "airfield" type target and a "mobile highly protected" target, aka a tank, require different approaches to defeat. And when the RSs appeared, it turned out that they were actually tactically closest to the existing mortars: large dispersion, high rate of fire, the impossibility of firing direct fire, the impossibility of adjusting the fire in the process of shelling, weak "penetration" into obstacles. Therefore, it is logical that they were organizationally attributed specifically to mortars (although constructively - not a mortar even once). Mortars, when firing at short range, at least have the opportunity to correct the firing (according to gaps or according to the instructions of the observer) and somehow compensate for the technical imperfection in the form of a large spread (and now guided mines have pulled up). The MLRS does not even have this. But there is an opportunity to shoot all the shells very quickly and leave. This can only partly compensate for the lack of accuracy. Therefore, they were assigned mortar tasks, and the MLRS will probably never replace the classic guns.
            Quote: Bogalex
            To do this, taking into account the errors in preparation and technical dispersion on several installations of the sight and, if necessary, a goniometer, with the spacing of the aiming points of the guns along the width of the front of the fired area by the established fan interval, to hit even a single target, a square with sides of at least 100-150 meters is fired .

            Does it always make sense to fire at a point target with such means? Well, if the shells are endless, then probably yes. But practice shows that only the union "at the peak of its form" could afford to dump entire "suitcases" into nowhere. The old method is not always applicable, now time dictates the "high-precision" approach: guns have been acquired, mortars too, MLRS are next in line. The same eternal problems with the unification of platforms / calibers ...
            1. +2
              2 May 2022 12: 59
              An "airfield" type target and a "mobile highly protected" target, aka a tank, require different approaches to defeat.

              A target of type "mobile highly protected" aka tank "is never fired upon as unobservable. The example is incorrect.
              And when the RSs appeared, it turned out that they were actually tactically closest to the existing mortars: large dispersion, high rate of fire, the impossibility of firing direct fire, the impossibility of adjusting the fire in the process of shelling, weak "penetration" into obstacles.

              Sorry, but this is nonsense.
              - mortars have a significantly higher accuracy than RS;
              - mortars fire including "semi-direct fire", absolutely inaccessible to the MLRS;
              - firing of mortars is corrected in the same way as firing of other artillery;
              - a mortar mine (except for 37-, 50- and 82-mm) has excellent penetration into obstacles when the fuse is set to delayed action, especially for 160 and 240 mm caliber.
              Therefore, the MLRS NEVER SET MORTAR TASKS!
              Please don't post nonsense.
              Does it always make sense to fire at a point target with such means?

              No, but if there is no other way (that is, in most cases) - you have to.
              1. +1
                2 May 2022 13: 11
                That is, are they closer to the guns? Ok, I won't write any more nonsense.
                1. +1
                  2 May 2022 13: 56
                  Including the absurd conclusion that
                  they get closer to the guns

                  Also, I hope you will not write more?
  7. +4
    2 May 2022 08: 09
    The warhead, in addition to the activation charge, contains 24 or 30 fragmentation submunitions of the 9N210 type.

    9N210 is the index of the rocket warhead, and fragmentation submunitions have the index 9N235. Which, by the way, is perfectly visible in the photo.
  8. +6
    2 May 2022 08: 48
    This is a 230mm MLRS multiple launch rocket system.

    Actually, 227 mm is the caliber of the regular RS M26 used in this MLRS. And to be even more precise, the MLRS uses a yoke design of the RS in a package of guides, which, with the same inner diameter of the pipe, in principle allows the use of RS of different calibers. For example, the RS M28 with a cassette warhead for remote mining of the terrain has a caliber of 236 mm.
  9. +2
    2 May 2022 10: 07
    Initially, the first MLRS of the 30-40s were planned for chemical warfare. ON the same German "Ishak" the main projectile was still smoke (chemical) initially. Separately, perhaps Hedgehog - an invention of the British - which became the basis of all modern RBU systems. What is ours, what is not ours.
  10. +1
    2 May 2022 10: 20
    Tell me, is it possible to recharge the TZM in the field and how long does it take?
  11. +4
    2 May 2022 10: 44
    Dear Roman!

    created a very good pair of "fuel-oxidizer".
    The fuel was "Vizol"

    For knowledge of the materiel you are "deuce".
    Fuel = Fuel + Oxidizer.
    "Vizol" - fuel.
    hi
  12. +3
    2 May 2022 10: 48
    The problem is not so much in accuracy or accuracy, but in the absence of modern complexes for detection, target recognition, target designation and data preparation for firing. And the enemy has them: US satellites, NATO reconnaissance aircraft, drones, terminals ("tactical laptops").
  13. +1
    2 May 2022 12: 38
    The photos are excellent, a little TTD, but God forbid, excursions in history and "outputs". Liquid-fueled anti-aircraft guns, what do you have to do with it? Oh yes, the Russians copied again ...
  14. +2
    2 May 2022 14: 28
    It is necessary to modernize the RSZO Hurricane based on the Baz armored missiles and missiles with an increased range, there is a ukrobander up to 65 km based on the Tatras
  15. +7
    2 May 2022 16: 02
    Of course, the best and deadliest volley fire system today is the Smerch / Tornado-S. Someone may say that the Chinese "Weishi-1" is better, but we will analyze this in the next article.

    The author has an unhealthy fixation on sizes.

    For 40 years the whole world has been making multi-caliber batch-loading systems that also allow launching tactical missiles. The mentioned MLRS with the advent of the Guided MLRS has become essentially a tactical missile system and is not used as a MLRS. Of its counterparts, I would single out the Korean K239 Chunmoo with packages of 130, 227, 239 calibers and the ability to launch MGM-140 ATACMS, as well as the Brazilian Astros II MLRS with packages from 70 to 450 mm (but without integration with American missiles) and, of course, Israeli LYNX - from 122 to 370 mm, including the ability to launch cruise missiles (also without integration with the MGM-140 ATACMS, on the other hand, the Jews have American systems anyway, and their own missiles are no worse).

    The first Russian step in this direction was the Uragan-1M mentioned in the discussion, but something is not seen or heard.
  16. 0
    2 May 2022 19: 31
    It seems that the Russian Armed Forces decided to gradually abandon the 220 mm caliber in the MLRS! Unless to leave for TOS! Isn't it in vain? After all, it is not always necessary, namely the 300-mm RS! And you can load more 220-mm RSs into a truck! What is there to say! Take the Uragan-1M MLRS ... How many 300-mm RSs are provided in this system and how many 220-mm RSs? Do you hear the difference? It is not clear why the 122-mm RSs were abandoned in the Uragan-1M! Why is the Czech RM-70 "worse" on a multi-axle "base" and with a supply of PCs for reloading ?! But in the Uragan-1M MLRS, you can also fire 400-mm RSs following the "example" of the Serbian MLRS ... and 600-mm tactical missiles following the "example" M142 HIMARS or M270 MLRS!
  17. +1
    2 May 2022 20: 35
    MLRS "Hurricane" - the weapon of professionals. "Grad" is a rattle for draft mass armies. "Smerch" is an unnecessary system that was pushed through by Soviet lobbyists from the NPO "Splav" and their accomplices in the USSR Ministry of Defense. MLRS-mania in the USSR Ministry of Defense simply crossed all boundaries in the last years of its existence. They wanted to cram them, MLRS into regiments ("Grad-1"), and into the division "Grad" - "Prima"), and into army corps ("Hurricane"), and into fronts ("Smerch") .. At the same time, they somehow forgot that, despite all the design tricks, the accuracy of the NUR is still far from the accuracy of cannon artillery shells. And the cost of a shot is three times higher than that of barreled artillery systems of similar power. At the same time, there was no clear explanation about the appointment of these MLRS at all levels ...
    Conclusion: back in the 70s, it was necessary to leave only the Uragan MLRS in service with the USSR Armed Forces (and it was to improve it). "Grady" - to the mobile reserve. "Tornados" should not be developed. (At the level of "Tornados" there is already a real big war with nuclear weapons, which are much more economical in the production (and storage + delivery to the firing position) of numerous Smerch missiles.
    1. +1
      2 May 2022 21: 38
      Quote: nespich
      Tornadoes" should not be developed. (At the level of "Smerchs" there is already a real big war with nuclear weapons, which are much more economical in the production (and storage + delivery to the firing position) of numerous "Smerch" missiles.


      Well, that's what you said. If only to take on a vigorous loaf. Long-range systems, such as Smerch, can be useful if used wisely - primarily against front-line aviation airfields (helicopters, UAVs), logistics hubs, warehouses, headquarters, artillery clusters, large air defense systems (S-300 and above). Another thing is that for their reasonable use, as for any serious weapon, I would like to have exemplary reconnaissance and fire control. The experience of the damned bourgeois is not indicative here - the Russian Federation is very far from American standards in terms of the number of sorties. But the bourgeoisie, it should be noted, have army long-range systems for themselves.
  18. 0
    2 May 2022 23: 09
    Our options with different caliber and corr ammunition are not visible
  19. 0
    3 May 2022 20: 45
    There is not a typo in the article: does one launcher ensure the mining of 150 hectares of area? 16 missiles with 24 anti-tank mines each - not enough for 150 hectares! This is 1 mine per square 60x60 meters, even a little more.
  20. 0
    21 June 2022 21: 13
    Who will explain to me the people or the author of the post why, after almost half a century, shells with double the range were not given to this brainchild? The Chinese already did this about ten years ago, the hail has shells that fly further than a hurricane, a tornado has shells that fly as far as 120 km, but what did the designers forget about the hurricane? They could already make shells similar to tornado shells with a gyroscope at a distance of up to 70 km
  21. 0
    13 July 2022 12: 38
    Uh-uh ... Calculation of six (!) People? By no means.
    Four people: BM commander, senior gunner, two crew number. This is exactly what happened in my jet regiment on "my" Hurricanes. The cabin only fits four people.
  22. -1
    18 July 2022 12: 10
    what a capricious article. yes, in the 70s the hurricane might have been good. What now? insane wheelbase with two petrol engines, one for the wheels of each side. unarmored cabin - resistance to counter-battery combat is much lower than that of the Hymars. the range is half that of the Hymars. but the main thing, of course, is the lack of precision-guided munitions, at least in the troops (they may show something at the exhibition).
    1. 0
      19 November 2023 10: 36
      Exactly. I really liked the concept of American Himars with high-precision GMLRS - 220 caliber, 80 km range. And the price is average.
      We would like a similar, not very heavy, mobile vehicle with a small number of high-precision missiles. And the Hurricane is outdated, well, maybe it can be used as a means of mining.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"