MLRS "Sarma" in development and production

38 183 88
MLRS "Sarma" in development and production
The Sarma multiple launch rocket system at an exhibition in the Motovilikha Plants workshop, September 2025. Still from a Channel One report.


Over the past several years, the Russian defense industry has been developing the advanced Sarma multiple launch rocket system. All necessary work has now been completed and production of this system has begun. It is expected to be deployed to combat units soon, enhancing their combat capabilities.



The first attempts


It's worth recalling that the development of new MLRS systems capable of complementing existing equipment began back in the 2000s. The goal of these new projects was to improve the performance and operational characteristics of combat vehicles while maintaining acceptable firepower. The Perm-based Motovilikha Plants company was responsible for developing this type of equipment.

In 2007, the first prototype of this type was unveiled – the 9K58-4 Kama. This MLRS was built on a KamAZ chassis and had an original launcher. Six 300-mm missiles The Smerch system's munitions were housed in a standardized, sealed transport and launch container. This was intended to simplify ammunition transportation and reloading.

The Ministry of Defense was dissatisfied with the first version of the Kama, and in 2009, an updated MLRS was developed. It received a six-tube launcher of a traditional design. This combat vehicle underwent testing until 2012, after which it was decided to halt development.


A close-up of the launcher. The MLRS was photographed at the Kapustin Yar firing range, October 2025. Photo by the Russian Ministry of Defense.

Following the results of the experimental design work, the Ministry of Defense abandoned the development of entirely new models and instead began modernizing existing equipment. This resulted in the updated Tornado family of MLRS. Specifically, the 300mm Smerch system was upgraded according to the 9K515 Tornado-S design.

New project


In 2022-23, based on operational experience and combat use of existing MLRS systems during the ongoing Special Operation, it was decided to return to the old ideas for developing such equipment. During this period, Motovilikha Plants PJSC received a contract from the Ministry of Defense to develop a system codenamed "Sarma" (a river flowing into Lake Baikal and one of the region's winds).

The existence of such a project was announced later, in mid-2023. At that time, the Russian press, citing its sources, revealed the name of the future MLRS, its caliber, its connection to the previously developed Kama, and some other details. However, the full design of the new system remained unknown at that time.

At the end of 2023, the management of the Rostec state corporation disclosed information about a number of promising developments, including the Sarma MLRS. It was reported that the project was progressing successfully and completing the necessary stages. As a result, the first serial combat vehicles were expected as early as April 2024. Whether these plans were achieved remains unknown. For one reason or another, the Sarma project disappeared from the public eye for a long time. News.

On September 19, 2025, Russian President Vladimir Putin visited the Motovilikha Plants. An exhibition of manufactured equipment, including multiple launch rocket systems, was held in the plant's workshop. Among the products on display was the Sarma combat vehicle. An information board displaying its main performance characteristics was located next to this product.


The first version of the Kama MLRS with a transport and launch container. Photo: Bmpd.livejournal.com

On October 18, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev visited the Kapustin Yar test site, where he observed tests of various systems and complexes. He was shown modern prototypes. weapons and ammunition, including the latest MLRS. However, no new information about the Sarma project was disclosed.

Technique in series


According to reports from late 2023, the promising Sarma MLRS was scheduled to enter production in the first months of 2024. Unfortunately, Rostec failed to report on the progress of these plans at the time. Furthermore, no new information about the project was released for the next eighteen months.

At this point, we can confidently confirm the existence of at least one Sarma MLRS. This could be a prototype assembled in 2023-24 and used for testing. However, it cannot be ruled out that high-ranking officials were shown production-ready models.

Recently, in late October, procurement documents from the Russian Ministry of Defense allegedly leaked into the public domain. Ukraine claims to have obtained similar documents, which reveal the manufacturing details of various products. However, various aspects of the published "documents" cast doubt on their authenticity.

According to this "leak," the Russian Army ordered the production and delivery of two divisional Sarma systems from Motovilikha Plants in 2024. These are to include 12 self-propelled launchers and 12 transport-loading vehicles.


Testing the second version of the Kama missile with a traditional launcher. Photo by Motovilikha Plants.

It's worth noting that the stated amount of equipment is clearly insufficient to equip two divisions. Each such unit requires 12 MLRS. This discrepancy in numbers raises doubts about the veracity of the published information.

In any case, the Sarma project has completed all the necessary stages over the course of several years, and the industry is ready to begin mass production of the equipment. Now the Ministry of Defense decides the fate of the new MLRS—it will determine the pace and volume of production, the order of delivery and deployment of the equipment to the troops, etc.

Lightweight version


The Kama and Sarma were developed as complements to existing Russian MLRS systems, primarily the Smerch. These projects combined existing components with new components, intended to maintain high combat performance and improve other parameters.

The combat and transport/loading vehicle of the Sarma system are built on a four-axle KamAZ-63501 chassis. A modification with bulletproof/fragment-resistant cab armor is used. The necessary equipment, such as a launcher or a cargo platform with a crane for handling ammunition, is mounted in the rear of the chassis.

The self-propelled launcher is equipped with a set of six 300mm tubular launchers. The tubes themselves appear to be borrowed from the Smerch system, while the rest of the launcher's components were designed from scratch. The launcher's design allows for horizontal and vertical aiming. Aiming is likely accomplished manually or with special drives.


Tornado-S multiple launch rocket systems participating in the Special Operation. Photo: Russian Ministry of Defense

The control system's composition has not yet been disclosed. A bracket with a panoramic sight can be seen on the launcher. Sarma may also be equipped with its own navigation systems, a ballistic computer, communications devices, and more. This modern equipment should speed up the firing preparation process.

The Sarma system is designed to utilize the existing 300mm rockets found in the 9K58/9K515 multiple launch rocket system. These munitions have a launch range of up to 80-90 km and can carry various warheads, including single-warhead high-explosive fragmentation and cluster munitions. UAV-launched missiles have also been developed.

Differences and advantages


It's easy to see how the newest Sarma MLRS differs from the older Smerch and Tornado-S systems. It's built on a different chassis with a lower payload capacity and different performance characteristics. It also uses a smaller launcher with a reduced ammunition load. At the same time, the equipment and ammunition are standardized.

The proposed Sarma system offers several advantages over existing technology. First and foremost, it is simpler and less expensive to manufacture and operate. Costs and expenses are reduced by using a mass-produced vehicle chassis, a smaller launcher, and other features. At the same time, the KAMAZ-63501 offers superior performance on both roads and off-road.

The Sarma carries and launches six missiles—half as many as the Tornado-S or Smerch. However, this difference in ammunition load is not a clear disadvantage. Experience with the rocket artillery In modern conflicts, it's clear that salvo fire over large areas with a full complement of ammunition isn't always necessary. Some fire missions can be accomplished with just a single missile, but it requires increased accuracy.

Thus, the Sarma project is based on an updated MLRS concept. Existing ideas and concepts were reconsidered, taking into account combat experience and other factors. As a result, a new multiple launch rocket system was developed that can complement existing systems, and in some situations, even replace them. The success of this addition will soon be revealed in practice.
88 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    7 November 2025 04: 41
    We in the SVO need the Sarma MLRS like we need air.
    1. +4
      7 November 2025 20: 25
      Why!? How is it better than a tornado or a whirlwind?
      1. +4
        7 November 2025 21: 46
        Quote: Stanislav Chernov
        Why!? How is it better than a tornado or a whirlwind?

        Definitely better than the Smerch, as it has an automated navigation system with satellite navigation.
        The Tornado-S is more optimal in terms of lower price, operating costs, operational mobility, and stealth. As experience with the Air Defense Forces has shown, in modern theaters of operations, 12 missiles are rarely launched in an area salvo; typically, one to four homing missiles are launched.
        1. +1
          9 November 2025 16: 27
          Quote: Cympak
          As the practice of the Air Defense Forces has shown, in modern theaters of operations, it is rare to launch 12 missiles in a salvo across an area; typically, they launch from 1 to 4 homing missiles.

          Area-of-effect fire should have been abandoned long ago. Although we often see "lunar landscapes." Area-of-effect strikes are ineffective. They consume a lot of ammunition and are ineffective. There's a trend toward developing precision weapons, and I hope the Sarma is part of that family.
        2. 0
          15 November 2025 14: 28
          Cympac, you may be right. But you're forgetting the cost of developing and manufacturing not only the MLRS system itself, but also the new transport and loading vehicles. Is replacing the SMERCH fire control system really more expensive and less effective than developing a new weapon system? They both use the same ammunition, by the way... They can use it with or without modern gadgets...
    2. 0
      6 February 2026 20: 26
      In Belarus, the launchers from the Uragan were transferred to a MAZ chassis and tested
      1. 0
        6 February 2026 20: 34
        The Grad BM-21 was also modernized.
  2. +7
    7 November 2025 04: 51
    Three things are important in war: money, money, and more money. A long-term war requires careful management of money. If two "sarmas" are cheaper than one "torch," then it already makes sense.
    1. 0
      7 November 2025 13: 39
      In the fall of 1941, some economist in Germany bluntly declared that the war against the USSR was already lost, as Germany couldn't survive the war for long. I'm too lazy to look for a source or more specific information. We're doing the same thing now – all of Europe and the US have far greater problems than they need to even exist without helping Ukraine. They have the arrogance, but they have no money. And the people aren't particularly eager to fight – neither in Europe nor in the US. Even Israel will soon get its comeuppance – it's ridiculous for a dwarf to meddle with neighbors who have nearly 10 times more people, and some of whom can even produce some things themselves without supplies from far away.
    2. +3
      7 November 2025 23: 46
      Quote: Ovsigovets
      If two "sarmas" are cheaper than one "torch" then it already makes sense.

      Especially if other, more powerful systems are being developed for the BAZs. Considering UAVs, the fewer MLRS systems stationed in one place, the greater the chances of survival. It makes sense to use them simultaneously from different locations.
      1. +1
        8 November 2025 02: 40
        You're not even Captain Obvious)))) You're our General))))
    3. 0
      15 November 2025 23: 30
      Three things are important in war: money, money and more money.
      There's only a tiny bit needed there. Literally a pittance. But without it, you're absolutely nowhere. You can have billions of dollars, but without people, money is useless. Let's think about people too.
  3. +3
    7 November 2025 05: 14
    What about the SV Coalition?
    1. +3
      7 November 2025 14: 05
      A small batch of Koalitsiya-SV self-propelled howitzers has been successfully used in the SVO since early 2024. Feedback is positive. Regarding the ammunition for the Sarma MLRS, it is similar to the ammunition for the Tornado-S MLRS.

      During the Special Military Operation (SMO), the Kremlin adapted to rapidly changing combat conditions, dictating the pace and nature of military operations. Systems like the Iskander and Tornado-S play a vital role in this, which is why the Russian military continues to improve them.

      For example, while the latter can fire more traditional 300mm 9M55 series rockets with a range of 70 km, it can also use 9M525-9M533 series guided munitions with an extended range of 90 km. More recently, these were supplemented by 9M542 and 9M544 guided missiles with a maximum range of 120 and 200 km, respectively.


      https://svpressa.ru/war21/article/488831/
    2. 0
      7 November 2025 14: 19
      Quote: Sergey T19
      What about the SV Coalition?


      Something can be found on the Internet.
      I'm sure many of you already know that in January 2024, the first prototypes of the 2S35 "Koalitsiya-SV" appeared in the hands of Russian artillerymen. It was from then on that this howitzer truly showed its true colors, and how it did so… Initially, the "Koalitsiya" was conceived as a double-barreled gun. Its name remained from the first prototype, symbolizing the "coalition" of two barrels. The double-barreled 152mm howitzer 2A86. Can you imagine what a technological challenge that was? The goal was one and the same: to achieve a phenomenal rate of fire and… range, of course.
      The mystery remains: why were the two barrels ultimately abandoned? The answer is simply brilliant. Engineers were able to refine the technical solutions to such a level that the desired rate of fire and power were achieved with a single barrel. At the same time, reliability increased and cost decreased.
      The highly respected Rostec, which recently confirmed its specifications and, most interestingly, announced that serial production has begun.


      https://dzen.ru/a/aQHvIuDTCk0jGCdP
      1. +2
        7 November 2025 20: 35
        Zen is not a source at all. With all due respect.
        Two barrels are extra weight. And without any advantages.
        1. +1
          8 November 2025 21: 19
          Quote: Alex777
          Two barrels are extra weight. And without any advantages.

          But it actually ran and even fired. And this entire colossus was on a six-wheel (!!) T-90 chassis. A heartbreaking spectacle, utterly surreal. Then they came to their senses and something coherent emerged. But they never decided to put it into production, and the factory rushed to modernize the Msta-S tanks from storage bases.
          But that double-barreled gun was... In a word, far more terrifying and absurd than the Soviet KV-2 tank of its time. The particularly jarring effect was the enormous, tall turret with two barrels and the incredibly short chassis for such a turret.
          1. +1
            10 November 2025 20: 50
            Quote: bayard
            But that double-barreled shotgun was...

            Even ships don't need it.
            1. 0
              10 November 2025 22: 55
              Well, the boys experimented, it happens to everyone. But they tried. And how many photoshopped images there were on this topic... And how ridiculous that monstrous turret looked on such a tiny T-90 chassis... It's no wonder that already in 2022 they started talking about "selecting a new chassis for the 'Coalition'." Perhaps we'll see this miracle in the troops. Someday.
  4. +6
    7 November 2025 05: 47
    We also need a mass-produced and inexpensive guided missile, like the UMBP, which is being developed for this role.
  5. + 10
    7 November 2025 05: 59
    Operations in Ukraine have shown that it is necessary
    1. Lightweight and mobile, "fire and run" installations
    2. The salvo should not dig up the entire field, but reliably hit a small area where small enemy forces are hiding - a stronghold, a reconnaissance group, etc.
    3. Economy. Everything should be as cheap as possible.
    It appears these requirements are largely met by this product. However, the first point is questionable. The KAMAZ is certainly quite fast for a truck. But drones are still faster. The risk of being caught and destroyed is very high.
    There's a dire, panic-stricken need for a cover system tailored to drones and surface-to-surface and air-to-surface missiles. Something like the Shilka, but completely redesigned. Such a system shouldn't burn through ammunition at the rate the Shilka does—it's too expensive, and we can't afford it.
    The cheaper shot must be compensated for by a targeting system that can aim far more accurately than has been done before. A computer, a mosaic camera, good software... All of these have been around for a long time; all that remains is to put them together, configure them, and fine-tune them.
    It's also important to consider the ability of such a vehicle to fire effectively while on the move. I believe a properly designed targeting program with the necessary sensors should be able to handle this.
    Ah, I'm daydreaming again...
    1. 0
      7 November 2025 06: 34
      Lightweight and mobile, "fire and run" installations

      If we were talking about the Uragan's caliber, it would still be possible to create something mobile, comparable to the HIMARS. But the Smerch's 300mm telegraph poles won't fit on anything lightweight. In this form factor, it makes more sense to maximize range, even at the cost of reducing the ammunition's power. Reduce the warhead to 100-120 kg, perhaps use a ramjet instead of a conventional turbojet engine, or even switch to a liquid-propellant rocket engine with a boost boost.
      1. +4
        7 November 2025 06: 38
        Quote: bulatmuhamadeev
        If we were talking about the Uragan's caliber, we could still make something mobile, like a HIMARS. But the Smerch's 300mm telegraph poles won't fit on anything light.

        Did you even read the article? A lightweight and mobile missile launcher has ALREADY been developed. It's called Sarma. Lightweight compared to the Uragan. Of course, we need to keep the design bureau busy with tasks for a new missile, in about 15 years... But for now, we need to do what I wrote – quickly cobble together a covert vehicle so it can be used tomorrow, not years from now.
        1. 0
          7 November 2025 22: 24
          The Sarma's mobility is limited by its speed and firing range. There's no truck that can run so fast that a drone can't catch it. This means its mobility can only be improved by increasing its firing range. This has been pointed out to you.
          1. +1
            8 November 2025 17: 21
            You didn't read my answer either? Are you also trying to show off your intelligence out of thin air? I wrote that we need an independent cover vehicle to protect the "missile launcher"—the Sarma—but it's needed because the KAMAZ isn't fast enough. You still don't get that, even after my answer?! Are you working in a pair? So, a pair should have different intelligence levels, and you're apparently twin brothers. Haven't you tried thinking "just by method"? Or do you know that won't get you anywhere? Damn, what kind of interlocutors are you?
      2. +2
        7 November 2025 14: 20
        Quote: bulatmuhamadeev
        It is possible to use a ramjet engine instead of a conventional turbojet engine or even switch to a liquid propellant jet engine with preliminary acceleration.

        A range of 200 km can be achieved much more cheaply through planning - the missile must be controllable with deployable aerodynamic surfaces
    2. 0
      7 November 2025 08: 40
      Quote: Mikhail3
      The cheaper shot must be compensated for by a targeting system that aims much more accurately.

      The most important thing is that the projectile has a controlled fuse. Without it, any aiming system won't reduce the cost of the shot. The projectiles will flow like water, without guaranteeing a hit on target.
      1. 0
        7 November 2025 15: 46
        A fuse like this would cost as much as a tank and be as reliable as a soap bubble. It's just a waste of time.
        1. +3
          7 November 2025 15: 58
          Quote: Mikhail3
          A fuse like this would cost as much as a tank and be as reliable as a soap bubble. It's just a waste of time.

          The Germans somehow developed their own Skynex system, and it shoots down absolutely nothing. In my opinion, it's the best anti-aircraft gun in the world (among cannons). Ours are a long way from that. If they ever improve our 57mm system, maybe we'll even surpass it. But for now, we only have missiles, which are still expensive.
          1. 0
            7 November 2025 15: 59
            If it doesn't knock you down, why bother cutting it? Who told you it's reliable? Its manufacturers? That's capitalism, that's what all manufacturers say.
            1. 0
              7 November 2025 16: 06
              Quote: Mikhail3
              If it doesn't knock you down, why did you have to saw it?

              They're actually cutting a control fuse. There's nothing expensive about it; its job is to detonate at a certain distance after firing. In the late 40s, this issue was resolved for large-caliber weapons. As far as I know, the distance was determined by the number of revolutions. We've destroyed our electronics industry. It may not have been very competitive, but it was capable of producing virtually any component base. In my opinion, the main question now is where to find electronics that can withstand the overloads of firing and have sufficient speed to quickly calculate the range and program the fuse after firing.
              1. 0
                7 November 2025 22: 50
                Such fuses were already in use in the USSR, using miniature vacuum tubes, back in the 50s. These days, they're based on Russian microchips. The microchips used there are very primitive, with a 1-micron process technology sufficient.
                1. +1
                  8 November 2025 12: 58
                  Quote: stankow
                  The microcircuit there is very primitive, a 1 micron process technology is enough.

                  I don't understand why it's not in the series. It's obviously perfect for fighting slow drones.
                  1. 0
                    9 November 2025 13: 24
                    I don't understand either. It seems the Russian military-industrial complex is reacting a little slower. But it's still catching up. Remember how behind we were in drones in 2023-2024, how worried we were in the Military District. No problem, they relaunched factories and established imports. Now they have superiority in the "low-flying" air.
                  2. 0
                    11 November 2025 11: 06
                    The problem lies in miniature radars for detecting and tracking small targets—drones. They need to determine the distance to them so that this distance can be programmed into the fuse. And such radars are not easy to create, test, or manufacture. Especially using their own integrated circuits.
                  3. 0
                    15 November 2025 23: 40
                    We're experiencing the norm in terms of technical lag. For example, compare a modern AvtoVAZ and a 20-year-old Saab 9-5. Which is better, higher quality, and safer?
                2. 0
                  8 November 2025 19: 13
                  Quote: stankow
                  Such detonators were already in use in the USSR, using miniature lamps, back in the 50s.

                  These were most likely remote detonators for anti-aircraft shells, which were triggered when the projectile passed close to the target. Now, however, we're talking about programmable detonators, which can be programmed with detonation parameters, such as instantaneous detonation, a preset delay after impact, or a preset time after firing (at a specific distance).
                  1. 0
                    9 November 2025 13: 41
                    Yes, that's right, radio-controlled fuses. The thing is, they're programmable, with each shot, and even simpler. And they're perfectly within the capabilities of modern industry and Russian electronics. They've been developed and tested. The problem seems to be with radar detection and acquisition of drones, continuously determining their distance. Also, what chassis to choose for such a setup? The Pantsir is good, it has all this, but it's expensive and can't be produced in thousands of units. So, the problem is scaling existing solutions to the level of FPV. And this, understandably, takes years. And it's only been two years since FPV drones took over the skies above the battlefield. This has happened before. In 1916-1918, aircraft were already terrorizing infantry, cavalry, and cities. Effective anti-aircraft guns with PUAZO appeared in the late 20s, and radars only in the 30s.
        2. +1
          7 November 2025 22: 47
          This detonator has been around for a long time. It costs about 1000 rubles. And the programming station costs about a million. Much smaller than a tank.
          1. 0
            8 November 2025 17: 17
            If this is true (I don't know), why aren't they applied? I don't see the logic.
    3. +3
      7 November 2025 10: 34
      Oh, don't write about artillery, it's not your strong point. Especially reactive weapons. "MLRS firing on the move"... You couldn't make that up.
      1. +2
        7 November 2025 15: 45
        Oh, don't write without reading, you couldn't make this up. I wrote (and you didn't read) that we need a SPECIAL cover vehicle. Not Sarma. But a SEPARATE means to cover others. Like I described.
  6. +5
    7 November 2025 06: 56
    And at this very Rostec they knew nothing about:
    The Polonez is a Belarusian 301-mm multiple launch rocket system (MLRS). It is designed for precision engagement of exposed and concealed personnel, unarmored and armored weapons and military equipment, and other targets.
    Polonez missile system has been used by the Belarusian army since 2016. It can strike targets at ranges of up to 300 km. Combat vehicles can be used both as part of a unit and independently.

    And the loading there is batch-based...
    There are even:
    1. -4
      7 November 2025 07: 11
      They obviously knew. So what? What's the question?
      1. +1
        7 November 2025 07: 12
        Quote: Mikhail3
        They obviously knew. So what? What's the question?

        The question is that they entrusted the goat with the cabbage...
        1. +2
          7 November 2025 07: 16
          That's not a question, it's a provocative value judgment. So what are you asking? Has anyone done anything similar to Rostec's machine? Yes, they have. Should Rostec do anything in response? NO. It shouldn't. Not for a second.
          Military equipment isn't just a pair of pants in a different color. You can't just make it yourself. For Rostec to start doing something, it needs precise and detailed specifications from the Ministry of Defense and project funding. Even Rostec can't handle military projects on its own.
          Why are you so provocative? Are you trying to gain karma?
          1. -2
            7 November 2025 07: 19
            Quote: Mikhail3
            Why are you so provocative? Are you trying to gain karma?

            Get out of the way, don't block the view - there's enough goodness here without you...
            1. -3
              7 November 2025 07: 20
              So go away. Running up the meter with cheap provocations is shameful...
      2. +3
        7 November 2025 09: 01
        Quote: Mikhail3
        They obviously knew. So what? What's the question?

        Why don't we have this yet?

        Quote: Mikhail3
        Should Rostec do anything in response? NO. It shouldn't. Not for a second.

        So, you're saying our army doesn't need a wonderful machine like the Polonez (or anything similar)? And if not, why isn't it there?
        1. -1
          7 November 2025 15: 49
          So, I'm saying that it's impossible and unnecessary to run after everyone at once, with your pants pulled up. There are plenty of good ideas. If you try to do them all, your belly button will come undone and your intestines will fall out.
          1. -1
            7 November 2025 17: 01
            Quote: Mikhail3
            It is impossible and unnecessary to run after everyone at the same time

            Your analogy is strange. We don't need to follow everyone else; we need a long-range, high-precision MLRS. And one based on the KAMAZ truck. This was clear 10 years ago.
            1. +2
              7 November 2025 22: 34
              You've been told that a certain type of technology has specific customers. But the developer and manufacturer don't just make it based on the "let's do it?!" principle. Development requires dedicated resources and, most importantly, CLEARLY FORMULATED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. Not your "everyone understands it," because that term is meaningless and utterly heretical. Therefore, learn to file complaints specifically and to the right address, not in general. When everyone does everything, in fact, nothing is being done.
        2. 0
          8 November 2025 00: 02
          Quote: Stas157
          Quote: Mikhail3
          ?

          Why don't we have this yet?


          So, you're saying our army doesn't need a wonderful machine like the Polonez (or anything similar)? And if not, why isn't it there?

          At one point, it was reported that "Batka" had issues with Russia regarding MLRS. As a result, the Belarusians struck a deal with China, but with the condition "no transfer to Russia." That's why they used the 301mm caliber, to prevent the transfer of missiles. And Lukashenko is "maintaining neutrality."
    2. + 10
      7 November 2025 17: 24
      Quote: ROSS 42
      And at this very Rostec they knew nothing about:
      The Polonez is a Belarusian 301-mm multiple launch rocket system (MLRS). It is designed for precision engagement of exposed and concealed personnel, unarmored and armored weapons and military equipment, and other targets.
      Polonez missile system has been used by the Belarusian army since 2016. It can strike targets at ranges of up to 300 km. Combat vehicles can be used both as part of a unit and independently.

      The only thing left to do is get China to sell us the MLRS. Because the Belarusian MLRS is a Belarusian chassis and launcher with Chinese MLRS.

      In fact, with the Kama, everything was simple and straightforward. Before the advent of the Second World War, and even in its first year, it was believed that statistics were cheaper than accuracy: a dozen unguided missiles, they said, would do the job of a couple of guided missiles for a low price. Basically, another Hephaestus. Accordingly, six Kama missiles were not enough to guarantee target destruction.
      Now the pony concept has shifted: accuracy has trumped perceived cheapness. And MLRSs are being transformed into launchers for tactical missiles with trajectory correction, for which the number of MLRS per hectare is no longer important. Accordingly, when using MLRS, the Kama or Sarma prove even superior to the heavy and unwieldy Smerch.
      1. +1
        7 November 2025 21: 28
        Quote: Alexey RA
        In fact, with "Kama" everything was simple and clear.

        It seems to me that everything is even simpler: in the 2010s, there was a choice between producing a new Kama MLRS, or converting the existing Smerch MLRS into Tornado-S, by adding an automated control system with satellite navigation.
        The conversion to the Tornado-S allowed for more launchers and missiles per salvo for the same cost and with fewer modernization risks than would have been required to build new MLRS systems on a new platform and with new missile packages. No one considered or considered the possibility that in practice the Tornado-S would fire two or three missiles per salvo (with 12 launchers).
        1. +2
          8 November 2025 13: 21
          At that time, no one thought or considered that in practice the Tornado-S would launch 2-3 missiles in a salvo (with 12 launchers).
          Well, they were preparing for parades, not war. Besides, instead of a tornado salvo, they could probably buy a nice car for the general's daughter.
          1. 0
            8 November 2025 17: 37
            Quote from alexoff
            Well, we were preparing for parades, not for war.

            Well, that's going too far. You were preparing for war, but, as usual, for the last one. In fact, the saying "all generals prepare for the last war" means that generals shouldn't be trusted to prepare for war at all. But they are always trusted, which is why generals' preparation always costs many soldiers' lives. Such a sacrifice to the military Moloch on behalf of generals. Until they kill thousands of their own men, nothing changes.
            What is a Smerch salvo? It's a Katyusha salvo. It's a massive strike on an area where enemy forces are concentrated before an attack. It was a very effective thing... until modern surveillance, communications, and weapons came along.
            Which make the concentration of large forces within the effective range of a single full salvo completely unnecessary. Generals are incapable of seeing a developing situation, or the changing circumstances resulting from changes in the means employed. They're not the right personality type.
            The highest rank for the right look is colonel. Hated by all his superiors, always on the verge of resignation, often in disgrace. But they usually don't ask him, otherwise he might reveal... all sorts of things. Remember the American colonel who inadvertently proved to everyone that collecting data for a computer and using it for computer forecasting leads to defeat? Generals try to avoid such blunders...
            1. +1
              8 November 2025 22: 14
              They were preparing for war, but, as usual, for the last one.
              It seems they weren't even prepared for a war like the one in the summer of 2014. Those who made the plans back then were probably replaced by someone simpler and more loyal.
              In fact, the expression "all generals are preparing for the last war" is about
              that we were unlucky with the generals, but the enemy was preparing for a future war.
              A very effective thing... it was, until modern means of surveillance, communications and modern weapons appeared.
              When did they appear? 30-40 years ago? Voice control hasn't been used for a long time.
              Generals are incapable of seeing a developing situation, or the changing circumstances associated with changes in the means used. They're not the right personality type.
              Yes, we all saw how General Lapin commands request
              The highest rank for the required look is colonel.
              It's just out of thin air. Before the war, we had about one general per battalion, which was about the average for the army. Competent generals should be in charge of command; if they're unable to perceive information from their sector holistically, they should retire.
              1. 0
                9 November 2025 06: 11
                Quote from alexoff
                that we were unlucky with the generals, but the enemy was preparing for a future war.

                The enemy is far worse off than we are. By far. Otherwise, the enemy's offensive would have been a success. Even one weapon can completely change the course of a war if you have the intelligence to use it correctly. "We'll give you an answer to any question you have. We have the Maxim, and you don't!" Used correctly, the heavy machine gun completely changed the strategy and tactics of WWI.

                Quote from alexoff
                When did they appear? 30-40 years ago? Voice control hasn't been used for a long time.

                Yes. And over these 40 years, neither our generals nor our military science have understood anything. A very telling story. Both sides are up to their shoulders in the blood of our soldiers. Killed because they were able to receive privileges and money, but not fulfill their duty – not at all.
            2. VlK
              0
              9 November 2025 13: 12
              In fact, the saying "all generals prepare for the last war" implies that generals shouldn't be trusted to prepare for it. But they are always trusted, which is why generals' preparation always costs many soldiers' lives. Such is the generals' sacrifice to the military Moloch. Until they kill thousands of their own men, nothing changes.

              So what reasonable alternative is there for them (the generals)? Accountants and economists heading the military department, like in modern Western Europe? That's definitely a purely peacetime option for the army, to control budget spending; they have nothing to do with modern combat training.
              In fact, the answer is simple: the army, as an instrument of state coercion, must constantly fight. Then, relevant combat experience will be constantly maintained at an acceptable level, personnel selection will be more or less properly structured, and promising methods of conducting combat operations will be quickly implemented—life itself will force it. It never works any other way.
              As for our generals specifically, with all due respect, what personal combat experience did they have, starting back in Afghanistan? Only low-intensity regional conflicts with a focus on counterinsurgency operations with limited contingents of combined units and subunits. Large-scale combat operations involving all branches of the armed forces are the stuff of theory at the Academy and on maps during strategic exercises with simulated inputs. So where would they come from? And the Navy's last war (not counting August 8, 2008) was in 1945. Generations of sailors who had only served in peacetime had passed, so...
              1. 0
                10 November 2025 07: 21
                Quote: VlK
                Well, what reasonable alternative is there for them (the generals)?

                Young but already experienced engineers working in practical fields should have a decisive say in the preparations. Several small groups of two to three people should present their proposals, both on individual weapon types and on the strategic vision of the situation.
                Everything will depend on how adequately their proposals are assessed and accepted. Generals are absolutely forbidden from making assessments—their thinking is utterly unsuitable for such assessments. I can't imagine how, in the current global situation, we could assemble a group capable of evaluating proposals that would benefit the country and enhance its defense capability.
                There was an article about an American aviator who pushed for extremely sensible changes to the composition and use of the Air Force. He was destroyed. While he was absolutely right-wing, his proposals ran counter to the interests of many political groups. The result: get out!
                My comment about this, by the way, was also deleted)
                1. VlK
                  0
                  10 November 2025 13: 35
                  Young but already experienced engineers working in practical fields should have a decisive say in the preparations. Several small groups of two to three people should present their proposals, both on individual weapon types and on the strategic vision of the situation.
                  Everything will depend on how adequately their proposals are assessed and accepted. Generals are absolutely forbidden from making assessments—their thinking is utterly unsuitable for such assessments.

                  This will never happen. Developers and analysts can PROPOSE solutions and their vision of the future, but the end users, represented by their commanders, will make the decisions. They probably simply shouldn't be allowed to linger in high-ranking command positions beyond a certain age, after which they'll retire and become academy professors to pass on their experience, or advisors to analytical bodies, but without decision-making power. Stalin's Marshals of Victory in 1945, for example, were all under 50, with the exception of F.M. Tolbukhin (he was 51), and their older comrades had already failed to prove themselves in WWII. And during the Civil War, under the new conditions of army organization and combat operations, it was the young who commanded. "War is for the young."
                  1. 0
                    10 November 2025 20: 38
                    Quote: VlK
                    this will never happen

                    I know. Humanity is yet another flawed attempt by nature to cultivate intelligence. We have failed. Our system of governance, our system of selecting people for power, has shown negative results—we are failing. Earthly civilization will explode or degenerate to the point of complete destruction. We have only a few decades left. Personally, I don't see the slightest prospect for today's humanity.
    3. +1
      8 November 2025 10: 03
      The Russian military didn't want to buy anything. Did you know that at the same time, Motovilikha went bankrupt?
      1. +1
        8 November 2025 23: 32
        Quote from alexoff
        Are you aware that at the same time, Motovilikha went bankrupt?

        The Motovilikha factories were forced into bankruptcy to shed non-core assets and hard-working private shareholders, and then hand over military production to Rostec. This is what Rostec calls "deprivatization."
        1. 0
          9 November 2025 06: 12
          Our opponent is doing his best to stir things up. God bless him.
        2. +1
          9 November 2025 09: 49
          The bankruptcy happened because Shoigu decided to stop purchasing Tornado-s/g. All that was left were underwear and farming, which resulted in a cash flow gap and an inability to pay bills. The Rostec games began later.
          You don't need to go bankrupt to dump non-core assets.
  7. +1
    7 November 2025 08: 12
    The Himars was made lightweight and compact for air transport. Will the Il-76TD be able to carry the Samra and Polonez? Perhaps the An-124 Ruslan.
    And Sarma is, de facto, half of the Tornado-S. Lighter, more compact...
    1. +2
      7 November 2025 17: 28
      Quote: dragon772
      The Himars was made lightweight and compact for air transport. Will the IL-76TD be able to carry the Samra and Polonez?

      If I remember correctly, the 2S43 "Malva" on the eight-axle Kamaz chassis was made with the possibility of transporting the Il-76 in mind (which is why the turret was abandoned).
      If the dimensions of the "Sarma" are no larger than those of the "Malva", then the MLRS will also fit into the "Ilyusha".
    2. 0
      8 November 2025 10: 21
      Quote: dragon772
      Himars was made light and compact

      Indeed... What a small thing: they improved the fuel characteristics (it flew further with smaller dimensions) and the characteristics of the explosive (the warhead became more efficient)...
      1. 0
        11 November 2025 12: 38
        This is a process of modernization.
  8. -3
    7 November 2025 08: 19
    The Kamaz is probably a good vehicle, except that when there's an explosion, the driver/passenger sits on the wheel...
    Cheap is good for capitalists, but the military needs something specialized, not a nameplate with the inscription KAMAZ in the enemy language.
    For compactness, you still need to use a UAZ Patriot, it has an enemy badge, the quality from the factory is disposable and compared to the KAMAZ, it's downright cheap!
    We take a Patriot to him on a rigid hitch "container on wheels" with one Yly two missiles, got there cheaply, fired...
    Comrade Stalin once banned the sale of "Rodina", so modern capitalists are selling off Patriots (with so-so characteristics) for cheap.
    1. +3
      7 November 2025 09: 24
      How many Haimars have you seen run over mines? And OH MY GOD, the Tornado-S also sits on a wheel...
      1. +2
        7 November 2025 09: 45
        The Hymers has a cabin that hangs/extends beyond the wheel...
        There was a Ural, a bonnet car, and the hood was in pieces, but the man was safe.
        What does the Tornado-S have to do with it? The article touts its low cost, but low cost doesn't increase the likelihood of personnel survival.
    2. +1
      7 November 2025 17: 36
      Quote: Roman_
      The Kamaz is probably a good vehicle, except that when there's an explosion, the driver/passenger sits on the wheel...

      Are you suggesting using a Ural as a base? Well, I'm sorry to disappoint you: the production eight-axle Urals are also cabovers. This is to avoid increasing the chassis' length due to the hood.
      Just imagine how much longer the MLRS would be if the engine and hood were to grow in front of the cabin. And there's no room to squeeze in: you can't fit the MLRS launcher on top of the cabin.
  9. -1
    7 November 2025 10: 16
    Whatever they do, the art is crap. They just can't seem to get it right. They've been pumping money for 12 years now.
  10. -2
    7 November 2025 13: 32
    In these illogical, post-mortem Russian-specialist sermon complexes, it's time to rehash the novelty of the salvo "Sarm." K. Such a strange thing happened because it became one of the countries in which work is frowned upon and a commandment. We've recently become accustomed to the fact that this matter will improve their divine narrative in the reserve... How can you even cheat????? The Dombavit Committee...????
  11. +1
    7 November 2025 17: 13
    Rostec is always Rostec. Developing the money is always a top priority. I don't know what you can call the "people" who create "advanced" weapons with inferior combat characteristics to those of a potential enemy. The 300mm 9K58/9K515 rockets have a launch range of up to 80-90 km, while the HIMARS MLRS, already quite old, includes ER GMLRS munitions with a range of 150 km. How long will these "effective" managers spend billions creating "new" things on paper, while producing virtually nothing?
  12. +2
    7 November 2025 20: 31
    The TPK option is clear. It involves the use of various calibers, large missiles, and rapid reloading. One could say it's a domestic equivalent of the Hymars. But why is it necessary?

    The remark about manual guidance is particularly interesting. In a situation where rapid firing after reaching a target and rapid withdrawal are paramount, manual guidance seems odd. The only way to justify it is if we can't produce chassis for the Smerch and Uragan missiles. But why present the cut-down Smerch as a promising development with new capabilities that aren't already available?
    1. +1
      8 November 2025 10: 13
      Stanislav Chernov, you're asking why? It's very simple: it's necessary to create the appearance of intensive and productive activity by the "highly effective" companies from Rostec and the military-industrial complex, otherwise they risk losing their lucrative positions. Creating something new like Polonez requires new production facilities, but as it stands, they've just tinkered with it and done it. As the saying goes, "cheap and cheerful"—the main thing is more "buzz" in the media.
  13. -1
    8 November 2025 00: 42
    I somehow didn't understand this idea: sometimes you don't need to cover an area with a full complement of ammunition, and sometimes a single precision-guided missile is enough. OK. The Sarma carries half as much ammunition as the Tornado-S. But not a word was said about the Sarma being equipped with precision-guided or enhanced-accuracy missiles compared to the Tornado-S. So what's the advantage here? Just cost savings? It seems unconvincing. Six of the same missiles will inflict less damage on the enemy than 12. Especially if they're fired at a large concentration of the enemy. No, I understand that you don't always need to fire 12 missiles; six, or even two or three, are sufficient. But no one is forcing you to fire the entire complement of ammunition from a Tornado-S, for example. You can fire as many as you need. And also, is Dmitry Medvedev a top missile specialist or an experienced military man? Why is he going to watch the Sarma trials? He's a lawyer by training, so what kind of expert on MLRS is he? Well, the Sarma's advantage over existing MLRS is poorly presented. I'd think the money should have been invested in a more serious modernization. Saving money is fine, but producing a new MLRS still costs money. So, either significantly longer-range MLRS, 20-30 kilometers longer, or at least larger-caliber ones. Or better yet, both. Like North Korea's 600mm caliber. And we're all 300mm. Well, we should at least start making 350mm ones. And shoot further. The latter also applies to barrel artillery.
    1. +1
      8 November 2025 13: 30
      No, I understand that it's not always necessary to fire 12 missiles; 6, or even 2-3, are sufficient. But no one is forcing you to fire the entire munitions load from a Tornado-S, for example.
      If only they could produce so many missiles—a hundred launchers—that's thousands of missiles a day. They'd either have to be churned out for decades, or have a megafactory like UVZ churning out thousands of missiles daily, since composite propellant is a fickle and tedious thing, not like firing a ballistite into a hailstorm.
      That is, or significantly, 20-30 kilometers longer-range MLRS
      This is very easy to do at 300 mm, with a 150-kilogram warhead, and the missile flies further. Rough estimates, using the most advanced solid-fuel mixtures developed by humanity, suggest that a missile the size of a Torch missile could carry a 100-kilogram warhead (which is no small feat) over 800 km.
      And it's better to stop talking about calibers. We already have different calibers for hail, hurricane, tornado, agriculture, and TOS (there seem to be two calibers for three TOS), and we've made more types of MLRS than all the countries in the world combined. Perhaps only North Korea has more calibers.
  14. 0
    8 November 2025 12: 12
    If they've even reached the TPK with 6 launchers, then we can hope for a 600mm BR like the ATAK MS, and maybe even a PU with 1 Iskander OTRK
  15. 0
    15 November 2025 13: 16
    With an annual production rate of 2600 RS units, it's time to start producing MLRS with one launcher...
    It's just enough for a division of 12 vehicles to shoot at one PC once a day, except on weekends and holidays...
  16. PXL
    0
    29 November 2025 16: 01
    Good afternoon! Will you write anything more about the equipment you showed Putin at Motovilikha during his visit to the plant?
  17. 0
    14 January 2026 00: 45
    K. Ryabov's articles, as I've written many times, can only be skimmed, as the author deliberately spreads a couple of paragraphs of information taken from an advertising brochure, a manufacturer's news item, or another source across an entire article, increasing the number of words and sentences that lack new content or simply duplicate what's already been written. Reading such "fluff" is difficult. After reading just one paragraph of such a work, you realize who wrote it, scroll down to the author's name, and once again confirm your suspicion. K. Ryabov is one such wonderful "author."
    Regarding the new Sarma MLRS, it looks very much like a classic "embezzlement" of Defense Ministry funds and, in my opinion, should be the subject of an investigation. There's absolutely nothing new about the system; its shortcomings are presented as advantages (a reduced ammunition load leads to a lower cost—who would have thought?).
  18. The comment was deleted.
  19. 0
    17 February 2026 08: 54
    Is this a cargo cult, or is it just me? Are you serious? If we build a vehicle that looks like a HIMARS, will it work like a HIMARS? wink
    By the same logic, instead of a quiver with arrows, we will give the archer a belt with arrows and consider him a machine gunner.
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. 0
    16 March 2026 01: 10
    Following the results of the experimental design work, the Ministry of Defense abandoned the creation of entirely new models and began modernizing existing equipment.


    We are waiting for the landing of those who prevented the Hymars analogue from entering service by the time of the Second World War.