Heavy flamethrower system TOS-3 "Dragon" on the eve of testing

Image of TOS-3 from a trademark application

Currently, the Russian army has two heavy flamethrower systems with different features and capabilities - TOS-1A "Solntsepek" and TOS-2 "Tosochka". The defense industry continues to develop this area and is working on a new project called TOS-3 “Dragon”. To date, it has passed the development stage, and the construction of a prototype has already been reported.

Latest development

At the beginning of the last decade, the first reports appeared about the possibility of creating a new TOS to complement existing Solntsepek products. It was mentioned that in its appearance such a system would not be fundamentally different from the existing one, but would receive a new chassis, probably in the form of the Armata platform, and would also be able to use advanced ammunition. However, then this concept was not developed, and other ideas were implemented in the real TOS-2 “Tosochka” project.

However, the concept of a heavy tracked combat vehicle was not abandoned. Recently it became known that the Omsk Transport Engineering Plant (part of the Rostec state corporation) continued to develop these ideas and has now developed a full-fledged project. Moreover, the work has already progressed quite far.

The existence of a project for a flamethrower system under the designations TOS-3 and “Dragon” became known only this year. In mid-January, Omsktransmash sent an application to the Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent) to register the corresponding trademark. The company secured the rights to the logo in the form of a black and white silhouette of a combat vehicle with signatures. The trademark is registered in a number of categories, from military vehicles and artillery systems to clothing and souvenirs.

Serial combat vehicle TOS-1A participating in the Special Operation

The recorded image shows only the most general features of the combat vehicle. However, it is not yet clear how much it corresponds to the real appearance of TOS-3, and whether there are any significant differences. In addition, the application for Rospatent, for obvious reasons, does not disclose any technical information.

Prototype

On April 8, the TASS agency published a long interview with the industrial director of the Rostec cluster of conventional weapons, ammunition and special chemicals, Bekhan Ozdoev. The conversation touched upon various issues of the production of equipment and ammunition, the creation of new models, etc. The direction of heavy flamethrower systems was also not ignored.

B. Ozdoev recalled the presence of TOS-1A and TOS-2 products in the army, and also pointed to the positive experience of their combat use within the framework of the current Special Operation to protect Donbass. In addition, he mentioned work on the new TOS-3 project. As it turned out, by now this project has passed the development stage, and enterprises from Rostec have already built the first prototype.

The main features of the new combat vehicle are also named. It is built on a tracked chassis of an unnamed model, and also receives a new launcher. The Dragon will be able to use new types of ammunition with an increased firing range.

TOS-2 fires

Perspective appearance

Thus, to date, the most basic features of the TOS-3 project have been revealed in two sources. From the published data it follows that the promising flamethrower system in its general architecture repeats the existing “Solntsepek” and differs from the newer “Tosochka”. At the same time, the new “Dragon” will differ from the TOS-1A in all main units and components, which will give it certain advantages.

It is reported that the basis for TOS-3 is tank chassis, but its type is not specified. The silhouette used in the project logo also does not allow us to reliably identify the chassis model. At the same time, if desired, you can see some features of the T-14 tank on the Armata platform. These are the specific proportions of the hull, the placement of the shoulder straps for the launcher, as well as the characteristic bow and stern overhangs.

The version about the use of the Armata platform looks quite logical. Such a chassis has high protection and mobility characteristics - in the absence of radical processing of the corresponding systems and assemblies. In the future, as armored units are re-equipped, such a chassis will provide operational benefits.

Judging by the silhouette, the new launcher for the Dragon is not fundamentally different from the Buratino and Solntsepek units. On a standard tank corps chase there is a platform with supports for the swinging part. The latter is a package of tubular guides. Unlike other elements of the silhouette, the muzzle of the package is drawn in detail.

TOS-3 will receive 15 guides for missiles - three horizontal rows of five each. By comparison, the TOS-1A uses a 24-missile stack with 8 rails in each row, while the TOS-2 carries 18 rounds on a reduced-width three-row mount.

It is mentioned that the Dragon will be able to use extended range missiles. It does not specify which products we are talking about. These could be existing missiles created for the latest models of TOC, or a completely new development.

Let us recall that TOS-1 and TOS-1A used 220-mm first-generation shells with a flight range of 3,6 km. Subsequently, “Solntsepek” received improved ammunition, flying 6 km. For TOS-2, a new TBS-M3 missile has been developed with a range of at least 10-12 km. At the same time, volume-detonating warheads for missiles developed and their main indicators grew. It is quite possible that the development process of 220 mm ammunition continues, and a new missile is being created for the Dragon.

It is obvious that modern improved means of navigation, data exchange and fire control will be used. Thanks to this improvement, the Dragon will be able to prepare for shooting faster and show improved accuracy.

Launcher reloading process

Expected Benefits

Even based on the available data, it is not difficult to understand what a promising TOS-3 might be like - and what advantages it will receive over its predecessors. In general, we are talking about improving all the main tactical and technical characteristics while maintaining general capabilities and functions. In addition, apparently, the groundwork is being laid for the long-term operation of equipment in the distant future.

If the project actually uses the Armata platform with all its characteristic features, then an increase in protection, stability and survivability will be obtained. The “Dragon” on such a base will be better protected from ballistic and missile threats. It should also be expected that measures will be taken to counter light attack UAVs.

It is reported that the fire range has been increased due to new missiles. At the same time, the launcher and salvo size are reduced. This may hint at the development of a new reinforced warhead, which will keep the power of salvo fire at the same level or improve the performance of single launches.

The TOS-3 project has reached the stage of building an experimental combat vehicle, and Omsktransmash should soon begin testing it. All the necessary measures and procedures will take several years, and only after that the “Dragon” will be able to enter the troops. However, the expected level of tactical and technical characteristics and the expected advantages over existing technology fully justify this expectation.

Comments

[AllX_VahhaB]

If only they didn’t repeat the fate of Almaty...

[cost 75]

Definitely not at the Armata base. Too expensive and wasteful. If the firing range is increased, then what is the point of installing it on such an expensive platform. Most likely 72 or 80

[Bad_gr]

Quote: kos 75

Definitely not at the Armata base.

The Omsk plant specializes in T-80 tanks and most likely this vehicle will be based on its chassis. Moreover, the suspension of the T-80 is considered the best among our tanks.

[Zaurbek]

Most likely the cart will be from T90m .. for the sake of TOZ they will not touch the Almaty cart.

[South Ukrainian]

We haven’t fully figured out the engines for the Armata, so we need a reliable, well-known platform that won’t let us down at the most crucial moment.

[D16]

IMHO, judging by the number of guides and the increase in firing range, the result will be something like a Tornado C on a tank chassis. In 300mm caliber with GLONASS guidance.

[garri-lin]

Conceptually, the entire family of TOSs works on the front of the enemy from its own shallow rear. The dragon would really benefit from a KAZ with an anti-drone defense function. And guided ammunition wouldn't hurt. There are many videos where 2-4 missiles are used on targets. To be honest, the accuracy is not very good. But ammunition with the same inertial system may well have a CEP of tens of meters at TOS ranges.

[Aviator_]

In mid-January, Omsktransmash sent an application to the Federal Service for Intellectual Property (Rospatent) to register the corresponding trademark. The company secured the rights to the logo in the form of a black and white silhouette of a combat vehicle with signatures. The trademark is registered in a number of categories, from military vehicles and artillery systems to clothing and souvenirs.

This is the only thing that the manufacturer cares about. I wonder what would have happened to such figures in the Second World War if, instead of releasing equipment, they would have patented pictures.

[APASUS]

We have the Uragan and Smerch MLRS, all they had to do was make a new charge

[optika20]

It's a matter of states. To which commander are the artillery units with MLRS subordinate and to which commander of the unit with TOS are subordinate. Perhaps the second option provides more flexible application. Or maybe not, I don’t know about the structure.

[Alexey RA]

Quote: optika20

To which commander are the artillery units with MLRS subordinate and to which commander of the unit with TOS are subordinate.

All TOSs are in service with the Russian Chemical Defense Plant.
What is most interesting is that, due to traditional problems of interdepartmental interaction, the artillery acquired its own complete analogues of the shells in service with the Russian Chemical Defense Plant.
Moreover, the picture is the same in the infantry: in order not to rack their brains over the interaction with the assigned “chemists” with their “Bumblebees” and to be able to work without them at all, the infantry acquired its own thermobaric rocket-propelled grenades.
In general, all strike weapons of the RKhBZ, except for the TOS-1, have long been duplicated in conventional troops.

Quote: optika20

Perhaps the second option provides more flexible application.

The second option only provides the ability of the CBMD to participate in combat operations in the absence of the enemy’s use of CBMD. Artillerymen have had their own similar ammunition for a long time. And for them, parallel rocket artillery of someone else’s subordination, which is also many times inferior in number, is just hemorrhoids on the whole head.
Do you want flexible application? Transfer TOCs to the rocket artillery regiments of the RGK (TOS-2) and the assault brigades of the RGK (TOS-1).

[Proctologist]

This kind of news makes my hair stand on end. Instead of unification, they developed something completely new. Instead of a guided high-precision projectile (missile) with the same warhead - another launch platform. Preparing for the last war...

[alexoff]

So there are thermal bars for tornadoes and hurricanes. But the RHBZ want their own MLRS and more of them. And the sappers want agriculture, although there are missiles for laying minefields for hail, and for hurricanes, and for tornadoes. Well, we are a rich country, we can afford different equipment with different ammunition, let the poor Americans struggle with hemars

[APASUS]

Quote from alexoff

So there are thermal bars for tornadoes and hurricanes. But the RHBZ want their own MLRS and more of them. And the sappers want agriculture, although there are missiles for laying minefields for hail, and for hurricanes, and for tornadoes. Well, we are a rich country, we can afford different equipment with different ammunition, let the poor Americans struggle with hemars

It is more logical to establish the production of different classes of ammunition for existing equipment. Considering the military conflict, why rush to R&D?

[alexoff]

I heard that they are coming up with different equipment so that combat units do not take away the conditional hurricane from the NBC troops because they need it more. And organizing the production of new equipment, and even for different calibers (agriculture 140 mm, as far as I remember), is apparently easier than establishing normal interaction between the branches of the military. But the leadership is not against it, so that there is diversity at the parades.

[Pavel57]

They will show it at the parade along with Armata.

[quaric]

Guys, this is sad news! Instead of unification, we again invent hundreds of different-sized wunderwaffles. There is a universal "Hurricane M1" that replaces the old "Hurricanes" and "Smerchs", all that is needed is to unify the missiles for the MLRS caliber - 227 and 300 m, maintaining a range of at least 35 km. 122 mm is generally in the firebox.

[abc_alex]

Quote: quaric

Guys, this is sad news! Instead of unification, we again invent hundreds of different-sized wunderwaffles. There is a universal "Hurricane M1" that replaces the old "Hurricanes" and "Smerchs", all that is needed is to unify the missiles for the MLRS caliber - 227 and 300 m, maintaining a range of at least 35 km. 122 mm is generally in the firebox.

Before the Second World War they were already keen on unification. And, by the way, they just sent “122mm to the furnace.” The result is a frantic restoration of the production of art systems of “unnecessary” calibers when the real war began. WITHOUT arguing the need to develop MLRS of large calibers, I will note that our ancestors were no more stupid than you and me and much more experienced in matters of war. And they divided the MLRS into three calibers not out of stupidity or drunkenness, but with a clear understanding of the tasks that needed to be solved. Over there at the front there are a lot of tanks with 120mm. And for some reason the infantry is delighted with the 100mm BMP-3, demands a 30mm machine gun and habitually piles 23-2 on trucks. Why suddenly?

[Alexey Lantukh]

All necessary measures and procedures will take several years,

After reading this line, you can simply close the page.

[bone1]

Madhouse - why not use the RS of these Buratins from ordinary MLRS? - or even better, equip them with warheads with ordinary RS MLRS?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bone1

Madhouse - why not use the RS of these Buratins from ordinary MLRS? - or even better, equip them with warheads with ordinary RS MLRS?

Have you ever wondered why the crew of TOS-1, TOS-2 (and judging by the picture, it’s the same for TOS-3) the crew of the vehicle is covered with tank armor? the crew that you advise to be transferred to the tin cabins of the MLRS

[bone1]

It’s also a mystery to me, because their RS has a short range, so they had to protect the system with armor, etc. previous questions remain

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bone1

It’s also a mystery to me, because their RS has a short range, so they had to protect the system with armor, etc. previous questions remain

Well ...?
This is why the projectile has a short range. that almost its entire length is occupied by the warhead, and only a little fuel. Increase the range, like that of an MLRS, and you will get a projectile with no warhead, the damage will only be from a direct hit.

[bone1]

Funny logic - but the Uragan-BCh, which is comparable in caliber, has “no” logic?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bone1

Funny logic - but the Uragan-BCh, which is comparable in caliber, has “no” logic?

TOS shells
MO.1.01.04 ------length 3,3m---weight 173 kg-----flight range up to 2700 m
MO.1.01.04M----length 3,7m---weight 217 kg-----flight range up to 6000 m

Hurricane MLRS shells
high-explosive
9M27F------length 4,8m---weight 280 kg------range 10 - 35 km
Thermobaric
9M51--------xnumx length m---weight 256 kg------range 5 - 13 km

[bone1]

So? Why didn’t they write the weight of the warhead?

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bone1

So? Why didn’t they write the weight of the warhead?

I am of the opinion that the design bureau is no fool, and if they chose to cover the crew with tank armor rather than increase the projectile’s flight range so that they could fire from a safe distance, then there must be good reasons for this.

[bone1]

It’s clear, it’s better not to have your own opinion, and even thinking is superfluous

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bone1

It’s clear, it’s better not to have your own opinion, and even thinking is superfluous

It’s clear - without having initial data, only on the basis of your own conclusions, draw “smart conclusions” ...

[bone1]

You yourself provided the initial data, but drawing conclusions and thinking is not yours

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bone1

You yourself provided the initial data, but drawing conclusions and thinking is not yours

Question:
Why don’t they increase the range by reducing the weight of the warhead?

[bone1]

And what’s the point of copying my comment? - and where did you get the question - it’s so funny - you decided to think about trying it? - in vain - they said it themselves - the military are not fools - they themselves know what they need

[Bad_gr]

Quote: Bone1

And what’s the point of copying my comment? - and where did you get the question - it’s so funny - you decided to think about trying it? - in vain - they said it themselves - the military are not fools - they themselves know what they need

It's clear. Positioning yourself as a “thinking person” and being one is not your thing.
I have no more questions.

[AmOgus]

Does TOS-2 have tank armor? If this is a joke, it's never funny. TOS-2 has almost the same “tin cabin” as the Hurricane. And, suddenly, it is at war.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: AmOgus

Does TOS-2 have tank armor?

I meant "Pinocchio" and "Sunshine".
I was wrong about the TOS-2, but I think due to the much greater range of its shells, the effectiveness of their warheads is also lower.

[abc_alex]

Quote: Bone1

Madhouse - why not use the RS of these Buratins from ordinary MLRS? - or even better, equip them with warheads with ordinary RS MLRS?

Because the container with the explosive mixture occupies three-quarters of the rocket’s volume. Or do you think that the range is so short because the designers are underdeveloped? If you put “their warheads on ordinary RS”, these RS will not fly anywhere, since with them everything is exactly the opposite - 3/4 of the rocket is the engine and fuel.

Quote: Bone1

It’s clear, it’s better not to have your own opinion, and even thinking is an unnecessary tongue

You're simply missing the story and purpose of creating TOC. This is not a deep rear vehicle, like the MLRS. This is a direct support vehicle. A flamethrower is needed in order to “smoke out” enemies from bunkers during a combined arms battle. And this needs to be done “right now”, advancing in the same line with the tanks. TOS is not a continuation of MLRS, it is a continuation of flamethrower tanks. Therefore, the tank chassis and guides are covered with armor. And a greater range was not needed - on the plain the horizon is 5 kilometers, the firing range of a tank gun "direct fire" is 2-2,7 km. Therefore, a range of 3-4 km would be quite enough.
But now the vehicle has begun to be used for purposes other than its intended purpose, due to the outstanding effectiveness of volumetric detonating ammunition, like MLRS. And therefore it was necessary to increase the range. And that’s why TOSochka appeared - a lightweight wheeled version just like an MLRS for over-the-horizon shooting. BUT increasing the distance here is a difficult question, because it is the VOLUME of the fire mixture that is important, since it is sprayed, filling the VOLUME and only then detonates.

[bone1]

A funny attempt to reason without being able to think

[abc_alex]

This is not reasoning, you stubborn one of us. This is the history of the issue. Materiel so to speak. You can think whatever you want, but without relying on knowledge, which you simply don’t seem to have, your thoughts will not go further than “thoughts” :)

[bone1]

I really need advice, especially from someone like you.

[AmOgus]

The USSR again proves that it does not want to learn from mistakes, and instead of unifying platforms and developing a variety of shells for the existing artillery, it is squeezing out another wunderwaffe for the RCBZ, of which there are 0.0000000000001% of the entire army.

"Stability is a sign of mastery."

[Ilgizl]

It would be better to call him Gorynych.

[JD1979]

I don’t know where and to whom the silhouette of Almaty appeared, they say when it seems necessary to be baptized. Or stop using hallucinogens. Armata, like Russian aircraft, sits without an engine, so any talk about something based on it is a deliberate lie.

[locks]

My prediction:
T90 chassis
increased range and accuracy (to the detriment of ammo)
batch replacement of missiles (as on khimars)

ideally also remote control and connection with the eagle

[Ionescu Popa]

i respect very much your expertise and common sense and i am convinced of all your points of view - need for unification, avoiding duplication, waste of engineers etc. you are also right that some directors in the industry behave like they work at general motors and have unlimited resources which might work for advanced systems, but not for all technologies. an example that ripples my heart is seeing new tank chassis used for auxiliary vehicles, while the need for modern tanks is so big. even bmo-t, which is a box with tracks, is based on t72. i see the need to not be ashamed, but you fight 30 countries at once, and exactly this ingenuity and adaptability in victory brings u admiration; two continents and parts of the third receive weapons, but never training and integration, and this is the shortest way to recover the markets now assaulted by vultures. what does that mean for tos? as anybody says, tos 3 on a new chassis is a waste; at the same time, despite such a richness of thermobaric weapons both in russia and in nato, tos are really feared for some reason. so, what can you do? instead of making an expensive one, make 3 expandable. instead of fearing the reaction, overwhelm the enemy. let them make the new launcher, 15 tubes throwing at 15 km. let them make it cheap, at water pipe quality, to be used only once; there will still be 3 charges, one mounted and 2 on reloader. make the mixture and aiming mechanism very good and let them produce 100 per month on reactivated t55 chassis instead of 35 on t80. God forbid, if nato attacks, you will need any modern tank, even t72, so instead of complete products, use and create, at least for a while, capacities for most modern turrets and ammunitions, for a possible reconversion to tanks, plus the new launchers and their ammunitions, while the tos assembly can be delegated to normal auto repair shops - ukraine did something similar. russia has what no one else has - thousands of decommissioned armored vehicles which can be quickly reconverted (at least in part) - you don't even need turrets, most will become auxiliary vehicles and even without more protection, to keep them cheap, they will still be tougher than any opposing non-tank. again, ukraine and kazakhstan already exhausted their own stocks. and it's not only tos (1a or 3), it's also bridge layers, btr-t (the "terminator" on t54-55), deminers, flexible platforms like bmo-t plus the repair and towing vehicles for all these and lighter vehicles , all very suited for offensive and manned not by current professionals, but by retired (beyond reserve) enthusiasts, barely trained crews using its legendary simplicity and maybe even radio guidance, since these mostly do simple moves. and you can use them now, before u would need to make desperate choices, or they would become obsolete - everything with minimum pressure on industry and the operational army who can focus on the fancier parts. and it's not only this - wheeled vehicles like btr 40 or 60 could become suicide drones or fire support. and that's just the beginning - if this works u can make small offensive or bigger defensive groups around them, armed with other weapons that still beat 80% of whatever would oppose them - pg 2, ptrs, old dugout turrets if u cannot get a better deal for them (like exchanging them for assembly), 1940-1950s submachine and machine guns, any plane older than mig 21 for which there isn't even ammunition left, transformed in suicide drones against modern air defenses, sa 1 to sa 5 who aren't very good against missiles but work as a charm against planes, all tested remotely to avoid risks etc. if God forbid, something happens, u would prefer a resistance to have rpg 7 and shmel instead of old flamethrowers and sks. don't you believe the predators opposing you are afraid of iskanders - like with nukes, they count them and your determination to know when to attack; the only thing who scares them besides nukes, your determination and tos is to see that, instead of being exhausted, you come with ideas worth 80% of the maximum potential and costing only 10%. that, plus the modern parts keeping them at distance and allowing you to strike, makes you winners. so, what if the only other country that would have similar stocks, USA, would use them? they won't, you would nuke them before that, since this would be the sign of an extermination war.

[Ionescu Popa]

"use and create, at least for a while, capacities for most modern turrets and ammunitions, for a possible reconversion to tanks" - I clearly talk about the t 90, 80 and even t 72 immobilized as auxiliary vehicles, which would make much better tanks.

[Ionescu Popa]

"use and create, at least for a while, capacities for most modern turrets and ammunitions, for a possible reconversion to tanks" - I clearly talk about the t 90, 80 and even t 72 immobilized as auxiliary vehicles, which would make much better tanks.

[Phoenix_2]

They will be testing for another 10 years

[mad-max78]

Quote: Bad_gr

Quote: Bone1

It’s also a mystery to me, because their RS has a short range, so they had to protect the system with armor, etc. previous questions remain

Well ...?
This is why the projectile has a short range. that almost its entire length is occupied by the warhead, and only a little fuel. Increase the range, like that of an MLRS, and you will get a projectile with no warhead, the damage will only be from a direct hit.

What is more effective: a light weight charge but with GPS guidance and a longer range of use, or an unguided charge of large mass and a short range of use? It seems to me that the answer to this question is obvious.