Multiple launch rocket systems based on the RBU-6000 ship-based bomb launcher

46
Multiple launch rocket systems based on the RBU-6000 ship-based bomb launcher
One of the first photos of an improvised MLRS - RBU-6000 on an MT-LB during transportation on a trawl. Photo Telegram / "Military informant"


To combat enemy submarines within a radius of several kilometers, domestic ships and boats of various types are equipped with rocket-propelled bomb launchers. Last year this weapon They were also tested on land against ground targets. Unusual self-propelled combat vehicles based on accessible chassis and equipped with ship-mounted units have appeared in units of the Russian army. Such equipment complements the existing rocket artillery and increases the firepower of the troops.



Non-standard solution


Last year, in units and formations of the coastal forces of the naval fleet, involved in the Special Operation to protect Donbass, combat vehicles of an unusual appearance appeared. On the existing chassis, ship weapons were mounted - artillery mounts of various calibers, etc. Some of these samples were of particular interest.

In September 2023, in the Special Operation zone, a curious “modification” of the old and honored MT-LB tractor with non-standard weapons was noticed. A ship's rocket launcher, presumably of the RBU-6000 "Smerch-2" type, was mounted on the armored hull. Later, the same machine or similar products were captured again.

A similar idea was developed. In November, it became known about the existence of another version of the “land self-propelled bomb launcher.” It was built on a Ural-4320 chassis and equipped with a ship-mounted installation. Another similar sample became famous in January. At first, only photographs of such products appeared in the public domain, and then some details appeared. It is unclear whether we are talking about the same combat vehicles or about different installations from different units.


RBU-6000 on a Ural chassis, January 2024. Photo Telegram / "Chariot"

RIA wrote about a bomb launcher on a truck chassis on January 28 News. According to him, such a vehicle belongs to the artillery unit of the North-V volunteer corps from the South group. The unit conducts combat work in the area of ​​Artemovsk and is responsible for the destruction of various enemy targets.

One of the combat crew numbers, quoted by RIA Novosti, said that the idea of ​​​​creating such a combat vehicle came spontaneously. For installation on a vehicle chassis, the RBU-6000 installation was slightly modified. Ammo changes are also mentioned. Explosives and destructive elements were added to standard depth charges.

The artilleryman highly praised the resulting product: “effective, powerful, scary for the enemy.” According to him, the installation terrifies the enemy along the entire front.

Also at the end of January, it became known about the existence of another version of a similar combat vehicle. A short video was published showing two new bomb launchers at once in a firing position; one of them attacked a distant target. Unlike previously shown products, these machines were made on a chassis tank T-80.


MLRS based on the T-80 tank. Photo Telegram / "Panzerwaffles"

Thus, units of coastal troops and volunteer formations not only use standard weapons, but also engage in a kind of technical creativity. They roll out onto the battlefield unusual samples of their own making with special characteristics and capabilities. Due to this, they manage to increase their firepower only at the expense of the available resource.

Naval weapon


The unusual multiple launch rocket systems seen on the Special Operations fronts are united by the use of the RBU-6000 Smerch-2 rocket launcher. This product, together with similar systems, was designed in the late fifties at NII-1 (now the Moscow Institute of Thermal Engineering). In 1961, it was adopted by the USSR Navy, put into production and began to be mounted on surface pennants of various types.

The Smerch-2 system is structurally divided into several elements. The most noticeable is a bomb launcher mounted on the deck of the carrier ship. Underneath it, inside the ship's hull, there is a cellar with mechanized stowage and a loading mechanism. Also on the ship there are control devices that provide target designation reception and generation of data for firing.

The bomb launcher is made on a stand and has a moving part with 12 guides for ammunition. The design of the installation provides horizontal guidance within 180° of the front hemisphere and vertical guidance from -15° to +60°. Electric drives ensure movement of the device at speeds of up to 30 degrees/sec. For reloading, the guides move to a vertical position and are sequentially brought to the loading mechanism.


Launcher RBU-6000. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

RBU-6000 uses RGB-60 reactive depth charges. This product has an oblong body with a diameter of 213 mm, weighing 113,6 kg, equipped with a jet engine and a 23-kg warhead with a remote impact and integrated acoustic fuse. When fired, the bomb moves along a predictable ballistic trajectory and lands in the target area; it is then submerged and detonated at a predetermined depth. The flight speed does not exceed 300 m/s, the range is approx. 5,2 km.

Initially, the “Smerch-2” used a bomb launcher fire control device (PUSB) “Storm” or “Blizzard”. Such devices could receive data from the sonar system and fire. In addition, they had a weapon stabilizer function to compensate for pitching. A separate device from the control systems ensures installation of the fuse.

On a ground platform


For obvious reasons, a complete transfer of a ship's bomb-throwing system to a land chassis is impossible. Nevertheless, the creators of the unusual technique managed to cope with objective limitations and obtain an interesting result.

The mobile version of the RBU-6000 differs from the original ship version, first of all, in its reduced configuration. Only the launcher and control devices are installed on the land chassis. At the same time, they are connected to the standard electrical system of the carrier to ensure operation. There is no ammunition magazine or loading mechanism. Reloading has to be done manually or using third-party mechanization.


Small anti-submarine ships Project 1124M launch jet depth charges. Photo by the Russian Ministry of Defense

How fire control is organized is unclear. It is possible that sighting devices typical of ground artillery are used, as well as remote control of the launcher. Such a combination of devices is fully consistent with the tasks being solved, although it imposes some restrictions.

Reportedly, modifications to the shells were required. The standard charge is reinforced and supplemented with ready-made submunitions. In addition, a new contact fuze is probably required, which is activated when it hits the ground. The resulting ammunition has a sufficiently large mass and charge, which give it the appropriate power. At the same time, in terms of firing range, the RSL-60 is significantly inferior to other domestic MLRS ammunition.

The RBU-6000 is mounted on a vehicle or tracked armored chassis, the type of which determines the running, combat and operational capabilities of the combat vehicle. Thus, the use of an armored chassis increases the safety of the crew and reduces the risks associated with a limited firing range. At the same time, the bomb launcher on the Ural is much more mobile and easier to operate.

From sea to shore


Improvised multiple launch rocket systems based on ship-based bomb launchers are of great interest. They show how a new combat vehicle with the necessary capabilities can be made from available components in military workshops. The resulting samples are used in units and solve combat missions, complementing the “full-fledged” MLRS, originally created for the ground forces.

It is important that we are talking mainly about using existing technical capabilities in order to improve the performance of parts and connections. In general, our army does not lack rocket artillery and is quite capable of making do with standard systems of the Tornado family or equipment of the previous generation. However, strengthening artillery units with combat vehicles of an unusual appearance also makes sense and can further increase firepower and combat effectiveness.
46 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +10
    31 January 2024 05: 03
    I really liked the commentary in Telega on this topic:
    “The mine and torpedo service of the Russian Navy, after thinking a little, flew into the Northern Military District with two legs.” laughing
    1. +14
      31 January 2024 06: 28
      The axiom of the past, present and future is “all means are good in war.”
      The question is different, to use RBU-6000 you need to get closer to 5 km. If they are also filled with destructive elements, which entails an increase in the weight of the ammunition, and therefore reduces the range, then a dilemma arises as to the validity of the use of non-armored wheeled chassis. It's simply dangerous for our guys.
      There is another question: how about recharging? It’s not easy to do it with your hands, but there are no standard tools.
      Good morning everyone!
      Regards, Kote!
      1. 0
        31 January 2024 09: 48
        And Solntsepek reaches 6 km and spins around like a snake to avoid the retaliatory strike. And then there are drones. But nothing, they work.
      2. -5
        31 January 2024 11: 05
        Apparently, the bomb launcher was developed on the basis of a German six-barreled mortar. Tubular guides, the same rocket mines, approximately the same range... As a bomb launcher good for its time, in modern conditions for use on land, it is not suitable. The chassis is too visible and itself not small. If there is a need for such systems, then simply return to the German model. .Modern materials will make the system lighter, any ammunition can be used, both incendiary and high-explosive.. Easy to manufacture, inexpensive, can be carried by a UAZ, loading from the ground, accuracy is acceptable, what else is needed.
        1. 0
          3 March 2024 00: 54
          Apart from the same number of guides, there is nothing even close to the Nebelwerfer. Learn the materiel, uncle
          1. -3
            3 March 2024 14: 21
            I will take your advice regarding materiel into account. First, try to find six differences from the Germans. The same mortar principle, the same tubular guides, an almost similar projectile. Our designers are not fools, they took the best from the Germans and not only from them.
            1. +1
              3 March 2024 16: 32
              1. A rocket launcher (hereinafter referred to as RBU) is designed to fire at underwater targets moving at a certain depth. Unlike the archaic Nebelwerfer.
              2. The RBU has fly-by-wire guidance. Unlike the archaic Nebelwerfer.
              3. The RBU has a charging device. Unlike the archaic Nebelwerfer.
              4. The RBU has fire control devices with several operating modes. Unlike the archaic Nebelwerfer.
              5. During the battle, RBU does not require the participation of crews. Unlike the archaic Nebelwerfer.
              6. Firing control devices receive data from the ship's sonar station. Unlike the archaic Nebelwerfer.
              They copied it exactly one for one from the Germans. Don't write anymore uncle about what you don't understand
              1. -2
                3 March 2024 17: 04
                After reading your post, I realized that you cannot distinguish land weapons from specialized sea weapons. Why does a land mortar need a sonar station or fly-by-wire guidance? Take a sheet of paper and draw RBU without everything that you printed above. There will be a German in the drawing. And yet, I never stated that RBU is a copy of the German.
                1. 0
                  3 March 2024 18: 00
                  That's it, uncle, rest. You are boring, boring theoretician. I’m too lazy to throw pearls in front of you here in front of an Internet lover of pictures of military equipment who imagines himself to be an expert. As they say, even if there’s piss in his eyes, it’s still dew
                  1. -2
                    4 March 2024 07: 32
                    This is roughly the answer I expected from you. laughing Everything was predictable laughing Rudeness and poking at a stranger are rare nowadays, but as I see, relics still exist
                    1. 0
                      4 March 2024 12: 18
                      Get used to it, exPerd. You will continue to write nonsense with a smart face and listen to comments. Everything is predictable, isn't it? It’s better to take care of tomato seedlings, maybe YOU are better at it, otherwise I see that by the time you retire, YOU have begun to understand everything about drones, mines, artillery, etc. This is what the life-giving internet does
      3. AUL
        +10
        31 January 2024 13: 44
        Quote: Kote pane Kohanka
        The axiom of the past, present and future is “all means are good in war.”

        Then, when there are not enough staff funds!
        This situation raises many questions.
        - Let’s say we found some left-handed chassis, wheeled or tracked - it doesn’t matter. I think this is not particularly difficult when maintaining a database. Leftists, because not a single deputy technician will allow such desecration of his standard equipment, because he is responsible for it with both his shoulder straps and his head. But where will he get naval bomb launchers and ammunition for them (also left-handed, of course), very specific products? Will he write it out officially, or what?
        - In addition to the bomb launchers themselves, it is also necessary to organize the modernization of their ammunition - change the fuses, equip them with additional explosives and submunitions, etc. Where and with what forces should this work be carried out?
        - The main question: Why were these collective farm surrogates needed, which are obviously inferior in terms of performance characteristics to serial equipment of a similar purpose? With all the disadvantages of loading, sighting devices, inevitable childhood illnesses? Do we really not have enough standard equipment for the troops?
        These are the thoughts that arise when reading this news... what
        1. +1
          31 January 2024 14: 02
          And, by the way, how is this better than "Pinocchio"?
          1. +4
            1 February 2024 16: 17
            Because there are plenty of this stuff in warehouses.
        2. +3
          1 February 2024 02: 22
          Quote from AUL
          But where will he get naval bomb launchers and ammunition for them (also left-handed, of course), very specific products? Will he write it out officially, or what?

          So it is clear that it is the Marines who have access to warehouses with bomb throwers who are being perverted. At least somewhere the fleet is at war
        3. +5
          1 February 2024 04: 51
          Quote from AUL
          Do we really not have enough standard equipment for the troops?
          These are the thoughts that arise

          Exactly . And not so much the actual artillery systems and MLRS, but the ammunition for them. Let me remind you that the first bomb launchers on MTLB were noticed, as it were, not since the spring of last year. If not since the fall of the year before last. When the notorious Shell Famine appeared in all its glory.
          In addition, in the southern sector the front is held by the Marines, and they were ordered to arm themselves - with whatever “the naval god sends”, so ZPU, DShK, KPVT, ZU-23, 25-mm naval assault rifles long ago removed from decommissioned units appeared on the Marine Motolygas ships So why be surprised that decommissioned bomb launchers have also appeared, of which there are enough in warehouses, and there is even plenty of ammunition for them. The first experiments on Motolygas showed that the chassis for such a fool needs to be stronger/heavier - for stability when shooting. So the T-80 chassis taken from nowhere appeared.
          It’s on our TV and in reports to the authorities that there’s enough for everyone. In reality, in addition to the actual shortage of ammunition, there is also “interdepartmental misunderstanding” - it is more difficult for the navy to get through to the ground for supplies. So they are dragging from the caches everything that is suitable for war. . Moreover, in the Kherson direction the enemy regularly/periodically lands troops, and the low left (our) bank is constantly visible and attacked by their artillery. And the landing forces must be destroyed. So let’s use the bomb launchers, and that’s fine.
          Quote from AUL
          Not a single deputy technician will allow such desecration of his standard equipment, because he is responsible for it with both his shoulder straps and his head.

          Well, what kind of staff is she? From warehouses where weapons removed from decommissioned and scrapped ships are stored. . In addition, for every deputy commander in the Navy there is an admiral. Who is sorry to lose his Marines in vain.
          Shoigu, of course, does not paint all this and even denounces it, but since the people in our towers are not replaceable, there is no point in grumbling. The production of shells and other ammunition was established, the equipment went to the troops, and they also guessed that it might not be possible to fight without the Army. Won - new armies, corps and divisions are being formed, the Moscow and Leningrad districts have been restored, the fleets have been returned to the Main Command of the Navy. Roasted Rooster, he turned out to be the best teacher for our Emels.
          But migrants are still being transported in millions and do not repent.
          Even from Africa.
          They say - to inhabit abandoned Russian villages. Not a joke, if anything - direct speech from a high dignitary.
      4. 0
        22 March 2024 09: 25
        Just to understand, is this the use of outdated weapons for the purpose of economy, and we are saving everything serious for NATO, or is everything that can be fired used?
  2. +4
    31 January 2024 07: 55
    The topic has been discussed many times, but since they are being made, it means there is a certain efficiency that suits the customer, and he is ready to put up with its shortcomings. True, this also means that there is a shortage of the necessary types of weapons, which led to the creation of such home-made systems.
    1. +4
      31 January 2024 12: 31
      lack of necessary weapons, which led to the creation of such home-made systems

      I saw the self-propelled gun only installed on the Ural chassis; on the MTLB and T-80 chassis it was quite a factory design work. Regarding their use in the air defense system, everything is quite clear, the Navy warehouses have a larger number of rocket bombs for this system, it is not possible to use them for their intended purpose, but they can be used as MLRS with minor modifications, 23 kg of explosive is not what you need. For the same reasons, T-55/T-62 tanks are actively used; they have large reserves of high-explosive fragmentation shells of 100mm-115mm caliber, and there is a certain shortage of shells in 125mm caliber for the T-72/T80 MBT. The appearance of similar MTLB-based vehicles with 57mm/37mm/25mm anti-aircraft guns is also associated with surplus unused ammunition. Quite a reasonable decision.
      1. +1
        31 January 2024 14: 53
        In the warehouses of the Navy there are also outdated torpedoes and sea mines and much more... Since there is no fleet, the Black Sea, all this must be obtained and put into use. We will, so to speak, fight the surplus. There is a video of a bomb launcher firing on the Internet, an open field, no camouflage, two cars next to each other. Most likely these are test firings. Many such installations will not be made; those that exist will survive for some time, and this will be the end of the conversation about the use of jet bombs.
        1. +1
          31 January 2024 15: 31
          In the warehouses of the Navy there are also outdated torpedoes and sea mines and much more... Since there is no fleet, the Black Sea, all this must be obtained and put into use.

          If there is such an opportunity, of course you should.
          Many such installations will not be made; those that exist will survive for some time, and this will be the end of the conversation about the use of jet bombs.

          TOS-1A "Solntsepek" is actively used in the North Military District, has a similar firing range of 5-6 km, and high-precision shooting is also out of the question, covering the target over an area, the destruction of these MLRS in batches by the enemy is not observed, removing them from service due to ineffectiveness is not possible are planning, on the contrary, production is increasing.
          Seriously, I think it is necessary to use, if possible, everything that is already obsolete and is planned to be withdrawn from service in combat operations. If you understand the Navy, here is a photo of the missile that ours recently fired at the enemy
          1. +1
            31 January 2024 16: 35
            I don’t understand the weapons of the Navy, but in the photo there is a rocket or a Redoubt or a Fort, I don’t remember exactly. There was an article about this bang, there was even a photo of rocket debris. The truth is, where they hit and what hit them still no one knows. The author of the article writes that these missiles were used as targets, but whether they remained or were all disposed of, he does not know. As for the TOS-1A, the range is really short, they are working on it. I completely agree with you about using everything that can shoot, as long as it brings success.. The main thing is that this is done without showing off and decisions are made with a clear head.
        2. 0
          April 9 2024 11: 47
          . torpedoes and sea mines and much more.


          That's what I'm talking about, but I wouldn't use the term "obsolete" to talk about sea mines. A sea mine of the 19th...worn out year is a very normal thing. It is designed for ships of good displacement and will send anything to the bottom, except perhaps an aircraft carrier.
          And the information that such a minefield has been set up near the coast will disrupt the landing. The galvanic impact mine is something that never becomes obsolete. I found one like this on the course, and my hands immediately sweat, and the speed is lower... . Terrible weapon.
  3. +9
    31 January 2024 07: 59
    Improvisation is a sign of lack of plan. If resources are wasted on this, ammunition is being refined (!?), then something is going wrong
    1. +6
      31 January 2024 09: 57
      The improvisation of some is the result of thoughtlessness or inaction of others. The lack of heavy systems is felt in such crafts; although it's better than nothing.
    2. +1
      31 January 2024 15: 42
      Quote: Zufei
      Improvisation is a sign of lack of plan.

      like Tolstoy - “ay kolon marchired, zwein kolon...” bully
      But seriously - any plans work until you meet the enemy!
      The above are reasonable arguments for the use of these devices, I’ll add one that was missed - expired ammunition will have to be disposed of at special enterprises, this takes time and resources!
      And so I put them into practice, of course at a cost - but useful!
    3. 0
      1 February 2024 02: 24
      Did you notice in January 2024 that even if there was a plan, it was a let down?
      1. 0
        1 February 2024 12: 26
        Quote from alexoff
        then you noticed in January 2024,

        I understand that there were already several plans after the start of the SBO.... some of them let us down, some of them worked... but the topic of RBU - what is there to say that is smart?
        1. 0
          1 February 2024 13: 01
          I wrote above that the Marines use what is available in the fleet’s warehouses. At our front, it’s every man for himself, above the brigade commander there are only worthless officials, but within the framework of one brigade they move around as best they can.
          1. 0
            1 February 2024 15: 21
            Quote from alexoff
            Marines use what is available in the fleet's warehouses

            Which is reasonable!
            Quote from alexoff
            At our front, it's every man for himself

            but this is sad... although it’s a common thing if you read the history of wars request
            1. 0
              1 February 2024 16: 27
              Quote: DrEng02
              Which is reasonable!

              I think they don’t have hail and/or carnations in the state, so they’re getting out of it as best they can. Now, if they uploaded it onto some robotic platform and told how they compiled shooting tables during the exercises and are now practicing them accurately, I would applaud. And so - good for the idea, but bad for the management
  4. +1
    31 January 2024 09: 19
    Such “Frankensteins” are invented and created by volunteer formations of the former DPR and LPR. These detachments are like in the Russian army, but enjoy a certain freedom. It is clear that regular Russian units do not do this. But the guys are great, they learned to use (developed tactics) such installations, for which there is a lot of ammunition, and they smash the enemy.
  5. +3
    31 January 2024 09: 29
    I wonder what the accuracy of all this is?
  6. +1
    31 January 2024 12: 42
    I’ll express my vision - in addition to the fact that this is a weapon of volunteers, it occupies a niche for a close-range powerful strike. When, for example, calling a heavy system (Hurricane) takes a long time and is not profitable. For example, suppress a fortification with a pair of machine guns. Tulip has a low rate of fire, it may not hit with 1 shot, and then the response will begin. And then a salvo - a few seconds and retreat. A blow to a small spot has the power of several Tulip mines. These alterations take us back to the German artillery infantry support systems - Sturmgeschütts... in their original form. But it became clear that 75mm was rather weak and versions with a 105mm howitzer appeared... and then 150mm. They fired directly at fortified field targets and buildings. In fact, the situation requires a vehicle with tank protection and maneuverability, but with a 152mm gun with direct or canopy operation - an assault tank
    1. AUL
      +5
      31 January 2024 14: 11
      Quote: rosomaha
      When, for example, calling a heavy system (Hurricane) takes a long time and is not profitable. For example, suppress a fortification with a pair of machine guns. Tulip has a low rate of fire,

      So I’ve always been interested in the question: what do people who save on writing words do with the free time they save? laughing
    2. 0
      1 February 2024 12: 33
      Quote: rosomaha
      to German artillery infantry support systems

      I agree - especially an over-caliber projectile for a heavy infantry gun - 54 kg of explosives...
    3. 0
      1 February 2024 16: 23
      Our SU-152s were like that during the war. Crush pillboxes and bunkers
  7. 0
    1 February 2024 11: 26
    Once upon a time, the BM-24 installation with similar technical data was in service.
  8. +1
    3 February 2024 22: 17
    At the Black Sea Fleet, admirals do not understand how to fight Ukrainian naval drones,
    The RBU-6000 is one of those weapons that can smash these drones to pieces..
  9. 0
    19 February 2024 23: 12
    To complete the picture, a catapult and sea mines are missing. In the warehouses of the Black Sea Fleet there are “goods” in bulk for decommissioning and subsequent disposal for every taste and color. By the way, it’s cooler than all sorts of FABs, plus saving on kerosene. You'll love the selection by weight good drinks bully
  10. 0
    7 March 2024 08: 49
    RBU-6000 uses RGB-60 reactive depth charges. This product has an oblong body with a diameter of 213 mm, weighing 113,6 kg, equipped with a jet engine and a 23-kg warhead with a remote impact and integrated acoustic fuse.

    The weight of the bomb is comparable to the Malka self-propelled gun; the maximum weight of the projectile is 110 kg, and 4 soldiers lift it from the ground in a tray and carry it to the loading mechanism. And this is with separate loading, in the RBU-600 there is no such thing, a priori.
    It is extremely difficult to reload the RSL-60 manually.
    And there was also a plot where fighters stuff a BG with damaging elements, which makes it heavier and the range will be shorter.
  11. 0
    14 March 2024 11: 43
    I could be wrong, of course, but RBU is an ideal remedy against sea drones. They should not be removed from ships, but rather placed on any vessel that can withstand it.
    1. 0
      24 March 2024 14: 26
      There, loading occurs from the cellar under the launcher itself, it is quite voluminous, you cannot put this on every vessel, and even on a large ship. Well, or only the launcher with ammunition, without reloading.
    2. 0
      April 9 2024 11: 54
      . on the contrary, put it on any vessel that can withstand it.


      It won't work, unfortunately. It's a complex. There’s a lot more stuff under the RBU, a cellar with ammunition, transporters, a reloading device, a control system.... So, only according to the project. You won't be able to shove it somewhere.
  12. 0
    14 March 2024 11: 51
    RBU-6000 should be used against sea drones, and not make all sorts of monsters out of them....

    The Defense Ministry's arsenal is full of Grads and Smerchs and they need to be handed over to the Marines.....
  13. 0
    24 March 2024 14: 24
    I don’t understand naval weapons very well - but in my opinion, these old things are of no use at sea now anyway, not a single modern boat will let our ship come within firing range. And there is, presumably, plenty of ammunition in the warehouses - it has accumulated over decades; after all, this is the main weapon of our Navy at close ranges. So let them use it wisely on land, it won’t hurt, it’s better than nothing.