M142 HIMARS vs 9K515 “Tornado-S”: whose MLRS is better

M142 HIMARS - MLRS, which Kyiv called in 2022 weapons "victory". However, after it, the Ukrainian Armed Forces still had many such “wunderwaffes”, which, contrary to the expectations of the Ukrainian authorities and their Western partners, did not lead to a radical change in the situation on the battlefield.

Meanwhile, the “Hymars”, in the initial stages of their use by the troops of the Kyiv regime, did cause a lot of problems for our military.

But can the M142 HIMARS be considered a formidable weapon that has no analogues? Is there something similar in Russia? Or maybe better?
In order to understand this, it is enough to compare the American MLRS with our Tornado-S.

So, HIMARS is an increased mobility MLRS, which is equipped with six unguided or guided missiles, which are guided using an inertial system or GPS.

The destruction range of the American MLRS reaches 84 km (excluding the possibility of using the ATACMS missile). The M142 is based on the American FMTV truck with a 6x6 drive and a 290 hp diesel engine.

Initially, the Haymars was created as a vehicle to perform special missions and was intended for American special forces, rangers and MTR support.

The 9K515 Tornado-S MLRS has been in use by the Russian army since 2012. The accuracy of the system is 15-20 times higher than that of the Smerch MLRS. The latter is achieved thanks to the possibility of retargeting the rocket after exiting the barrel using gas rudders.

A full salvo from our MLRS includes 12 missiles and is second in power after nuclear weapons. It covers an area of ​​almost 70 hectares.

The maximum destruction range is 120 km, which is almost half that of the Haymars.

The caliber of Tornado-S missiles is 300 mm versus 227 mm for HIMARS. At the same time, thanks to the radical improvement in hit accuracy, the new Russian MLRS uses a wide range of ammunition used depending on the target.

The only characteristic where the Tornado is not superior, but inferior to the Highmars, is maneuverability. Our MLRS in combat position weighs 43,7 tons versus 16 for the American one. Naturally, serious problems arise with aviation and sea transportation of the Russian system.

Comments

[Buyan]

I would like to compare by the number of systems released...

[Myths]

Accuracy is important here. The systems are somewhat oasis, as are their tasks.

[YOU]

As for accuracy, at one time high-precision guidance ammunition was developed for the Tornado-S. And even a projectile with a drone. To adjust and evaluate the impact. But without details, there is also no information about application. So for now, an objective comparison is difficult. In terms of range, it is superior, but in terms of accuracy there is no objective data yet. By the way, on many forums and channels they write about a sharp decrease in the effectiveness of both Hymers and Excalibur due to the use of electronic warfare. So the last word has not yet been said.

[Vitov]

Precision ammunition for the Tornado-S was developed and put into service in 2020, and actually began to enter the army in 2022. There have never been any shells with drones embedded in a 300 mm shell in the army. These were prototypes and the generals were not interested in them. What are you going to compare with?

[Vitov]

Both of these systems are designed for use with external real-time targeting. The Russian Armed Forces do not have technical means of target designation at the operational-tactical level in real time. The conditions for the effective use of the Tornado-S MLRS have not been created and it continues to fire across areas...

[Arigin]

You are wrong. For Tornado, as for Smerch, it is enough to know (in addition to your own coordinates) the coordinates of the target. Shooting is carried out in the specified area (at a stationary target), the accuracy of the hit can be quite high, in the case of Tornado-S.

[Vitov]

Motovilovskie Zavody has been converting the Smerch MLRS into the Tornado-S MLRS since 2016 at a rate of 1 battery per year, which is 4 launchers per year. This continued until 24.02.2022/2012/XNUMX. Moreover, they tried to bankrupt the plant from year to year. Before this, after XNUMX, a small experimental batch was released for display on TV and on the Internet, demonstration at exhibitions and parades, and during show exercises. A rare type of equipment created in individual copies!

[Foul skeptic]

Initially, the Haymars was created as a vehicle for performing special tasks and was intended for American special forces, rangers and MTR support.

Where do these nonsense come from?
Hymars originally created for expeditionary forces as a counter-battery weapon. Heavy MLRS for the army, light Khaimars for the marines and paratroopers.

A full salvo from our MLRS includes 12 missiles and is second in power after nuclear weapons.

And you can’t pull this off at all.

[Aerodrome]

M142 HIMARS vs 9K515 “Tornado-S”: whose MLRS is better

The one that hits first is better.

[Taskhyl]

Khaimars is not an MLRS, in general. This is more of a satellite-guided tactical missile package platform. It’s good that Banderlogs have very few of them, otherwise it would be very, very bad

[Glagol1]

Yes, they destroyed the bridge in a few days, without their losses and several missiles were fired. After this, our marshals and generalissimos began to urgently optimize near Kherson.
With the transfer of Kherson and tens of thousands of people to the enemy. So everything is clear: if the Natsiks get more of these weapons, the skis will need to be lubricated with the highest-speed lubricant. And insert the planning module in one place.

[Mordvin 3]

A full salvo from our MLRS includes 12 missiles and is second in power after nuclear weapons.

Hmm-hmm...

[Arigin]

The article is worthless, there are quite a lot of differences between the systems, it is not clear who is better (more or less equivalent), but the American also has longer-range missiles, stated 150 km.

[shikin]

The development of guided projectiles for Tornado-S continues, there are references to the development of projectiles with a range of over 200 km, here, for example, is an article almost a year ago: https://rg.ru/2023/04/18/posle-smerchej-prihodiat-tornado .html.
There were mentions at the end of last year and at the beginning of this year that such shells had already been used.
Here is also a good article from 4 years ago: https://pereklichka.livejournal.com/2007508.html

[Arigin]

The work is at the OCD stage, don’t wait for this special operation.

[Germanboy]

I don’t know how many Himers the Ukrainians have, but they have already delivered painful and targeted attacks with them many times!

[2al]

As SVO showed, more PUs are better than the number of guides per PU. Those. simultaneous salvo of 3 Pus with 4 guides, better than sequential launch with an interval of 2-4 s 12 pcs. Simultaneous launch makes it very difficult for air defense systems to intercept missiles, as does the damaging effect of 4 missiles simultaneously arriving at the target is higher than from 4 consecutive ones. By the way, in the video from the Moscow Region, there is no footage of Tornado-S firing a salvo of more than 4 missiles. So the version of the launcher with 4 guides on the 3-axle "Ural 4320" is more preferable than what it is, especially if the missiles are placed in the TPK.

[Arigin]

SVO shows:
- the one who moves faster from detection to shooting is better;
- the enemy is dispersed on the ground and is not crowded together enough to send as many as four shells;
- on some videos of hits with the signature Tornado-S it is clearly visible that NOT Tornado-S is used.
So either there are simply very few of them, or they don’t post videos.

[Knell wardenheart]

Slightly different systems and approaches to their creation..
"Hymars" is a bicaliber installation, figuratively speaking. A kind of universal launcher, easily transportable, providing the option of launching a high-precision missile.
Roughly speaking, "Hymars" is a universal system of sufficient accuracy and mobility in every sense - that's what makes it good.

"Tornado-S" is a hefty "area destroyer" with average mobility and even worse transportability. The fact that he is able to shoot his missiles far away does not mean that they will be able to effectively hit everything there. A spherical destruction of a sector of 70 hectares in a vacuum is very powerful, but as is quite obvious, it can be fully implemented by “legions in an open field.” And although the lethal qualities of such a system cannot be underestimated, one must understand that the “area destructor” is a much narrower product in its purpose than a more universal system, especially a bi-caliber one. Disguising such a carcass will also be inconvenient; moving it covertly is also a problem. The power of a salvo, yes, priceless, I don’t argue. In the event of truly large-scale hostilities. If it survives by that time, like the warehouses with ammunition for it.

So incomparable things are like comparing a “folding tourist knife” and a “machete” on the basis of “who is cooler”.

[Viktior Vinland]

They require precision-guided ammunition and mass production.
That is, a promising weapon. The dynamics of events around the system show that, as almost always, political will and the fight against corruption are needed.
It is quite possible to imagine such a modification of the ammunition, which has a built-in video camera, for example, and which, with its help, corrects its trajectory, pointing itself at a photograph of the target that it received from an external source - from a drone, airplane or airship, for example, together with target designation.

In this way, it will be possible to ensure a 100% hit even on a moving target, because the ammunition, having become attached to a photograph of the target, will correct itself until the last fraction of a second.

[Knell wardenheart]

I agree, it is possible to make the system more multifunctional and strengthen its strong points (such as launch distance, for example), while somewhat correcting the weak ones (scatter).
The problem is that we need truly powerful microelectronic and optical production - with modern equipment and good income from the civilian market. Until this happens, such products will cost like a golden chariot

[Viktior Vinland]

Undoubtedly, this is a consequence of the current policy:
conscious deindustrialization and destruction of the military-industrial complex, science and the education system, which have been consistently carried out for more than thirty years by the usurper clique and are the main reasons for the difficulties faced by both arms manufacturers and, accordingly, soldiers on the battlefield. This is direct sabotage and sabotage, which was organized by traitors to the USSR.

And from a purely technical point of view, if there were no corruption, I don’t understand what is fundamentally so expensive here. A video camera is 20 dollars, an ARM processor and a battery for it will be another 20 dollars. The software is written once and there is nothing conceptually complex in its development. It already has control devices for modifying the rocket's course.

Mount all this on a warhead, what is the high cost of the golden chariot?

[Knell wardenheart]

The difficulty is that over time, any system swells with friends, in-laws, good people and subcontractors of these good people. And even if this is at a minimum - good things do not appear out of nowhere, it will also go through offices, where behind each person in charge there will be queues of good people and his own needs, and they will all want to try the pie with cream, otherwise what is the benefit of helping them ? This is the result - any even very good project, even a very good system, will become overgrown like the hull of a ship with shells, silt, etc. The conventional 100 bucks per product will turn into 400 or even more.

[Viktior Vinland]

This is what is called corruption.
Political changes are necessary one way or another, and these people and their matchmakers need to be changed.
Ultimately, money from corruption flows to the top, so it is easy to stop if there is honest political leadership in the country.

[single-n]

Well, the Highmars really changed the picture of the battle. But there is no tornado. However, this depends more on reconnaissance, control and communications systems than on the MLRS systems themselves.

[AdAstra]

Highmars, and not in commercial quantities, forced a “regrouping” from the already Russian city of Kherson, so think “Who is better”...

[Glagol1]

That's it. The regrouping was caused specifically by the Highmars. There is no need to compare these 2 systems, one is already steeper than the wind, and the second, ours, unfortunately, cannot do anything at all.

[YoRHa]

But can the M142 HIMARS be considered a formidable weapon that has no analogues?

Here we like to talk about “similarity” and use this term everywhere. These are always the two main stories in the information agenda: “There are no analogues” and “Surpassed foreign analogues.”

[km-21]

Russian and American MLRS cannot be compared on their own, since they are elements of an entire system that, in addition to launchers, includes an extensive monitoring and target designation system on the battlefield. For the successful operation of the MLRS, a satellite reconnaissance constellation is needed plus a variety of ground and air support services. It is obvious that in terms of the capabilities of the entire complex, Russian MLRS are significantly inferior to American ones.