Trends in the development of domestic MLRS

10 913 44
Trends in the development of domestic MLRS
Tornado-G MLRS in the Special Operations area


The Russian ground forces possess a large and well-developed fleet of multiple launch rocket systems. They are armed with several types of systems, differing in ammunition caliber, key tactical and technical characteristics, the range of missions they can perform, and so on. This fleet of MLRS is constantly being expanded and improved. At the same time, several key ideas and trends can be discerned in its development, which form the basis for new projects and determine their outcomes.



Recent history


Let us recall that until the beginning of the 2010s, our missile troops and artillery There were three main MLRS systems. These were the 122mm 9K51 Grad, the 220mm 9K57 Uragan, and the 9K58 Smerch, which fired 300mm shells. There were also several modifications of these systems, each with minor differences from the basic models.

In the 1920s, two new MLRS systems entered service under the general designation "Tornado." This project involved modernizing the Grad and Smerch systems with modern equipment and components. Following this upgrade, the 9K51 became the 9K51M Tornado-G, and the Smerch became the 9K515 Tornado-S.

For some time now, the domestic defense industry has produced only two versions of the Tornado. Equipment from active units has also been repaired and upgraded. Ultimately, the entire Grad and Smerch fleet has been updated and equipped with new capabilities.


The Uragan system during preparation for firing.

Back in the 2000s, an attempt was made to create a lighter version of the Smerch with the same 300mm ammunition. This project was unsuccessful and was canceled in the early 2010s. However, in 2022-2023, the idea was revived based on the experience of the ongoing Special Operation. To date, the updated project has achieved some results.

The advanced MLRS was named "Sarma." Development of this project was expected to be completed and a prototype was built in 2023-24. It then underwent the necessary testing and confirmed its design characteristics. Furthermore, the new MLRS was delivered to one of the main testing sites, possibly for testing.

According to international reports, the veracity of which is questionable, the Sarma MLRS is already in serial production. The first order for this type of equipment was placed in 2024. The Ministry of Defense is purchasing these vehicles in battalion-sized units. So far, only a few units have been considered for re-equipping, but production may expand in the near future.

In the context of MLRS, it's worth recalling the Zemledeliye (Agriculture) remote-launched mining system (IRLS), which was adopted at the beginning of the current decade. Essentially a multiple launch rocket system, it's designed to use its own range of ammunition. However, this equipment is being issued not to missile troops and artillery, but to engineering units.


A Tornado-S MLRS crew at work.

Additionally, the radiation, chemical, and biological defense forces have their own MLRS equivalents. TOS-1A "Solntsepyok" heavy flamethrower systems are used for salvo strikes against enemy forces and targets. A new model of this class is also under development.

Development on Earth


Recent domestic MLRS designs have focused heavily on developing ground-based assets. In some cases, improved self-propelled launchers have contributed significantly to the overall improvement in performance characteristics and combat effectiveness.

MLRS combat vehicles are built on readily available production chassis of several models. For the Tornado projects, it was decided to retain the existing Ural and MZKT wheeled platforms. This eliminated the need for complex modifications to existing equipment, including the transfer of components. At the same time, the Sarma and Zemledeliye vehicles were built on one of the existing chassis.

All modern MLRS designs incorporate modern electronics for fire control and auxiliary functions. In all cases, a virtually identical system based on modern components is used. It includes a navigation system with increased coordinate accuracy, a ballistic computer, communications equipment, and, if necessary, other devices.


Tornado-S missiles are firing

Such electronics allow for more precise determination of firing position coordinates and more efficient calculation of targeting data. These measures ultimately improve fire accuracy. Furthermore, some MLRS designs include additional programming devices for controlling the ammunition's electronics.

Firing results depend not only on the MLRS's own capabilities. Reconnaissance accuracy, target designation transmission speed, and other factors are also crucial. This places increased demands on communications equipment, troop command and control systems, and so on. Modern automated tactical systems are used to control unit fire.

As a result of these upgrades, MLRSs gain the ability to fire not only at areas but also at individual small targets. This makes them akin to tactical missile systems, but with their own distinct advantages.

Modernized and new domestic MLRS systems also feature remotely controlled aiming drives. These simplify the crew's work and reduce the time it takes to prepare for firing or to pack up before leaving. Overall, this is not only about convenience but also about speed and increased survivability.


ISDM "Agriculture" is preparing for mining

With the emergence and widespread use of new types of strike weapons, the issue of survivability has once again become relevant. For combat vehicles in combat zones, this is addressed through camouflage and various add-on protective elements. Moreover, new MLRS models immediately feature armored critical components. Compared to traditional MLRS, the equipment of the NBC protection forces stands out. The Solntsepyok system is built on an armored chassis. tank chassis and have standard protection for the guide package.

New ammo


Domestic MLRS, both completely new and modernized, use a wide range of rocket projectiles. They produce 122mm, 220mm, and 300mm caliber ammunition with different characteristics, combat equipment, additional devices, and more.

The development of ammunition is proceeding along several paths. First and foremost, missiles with increased firing range are being developed. For example, in the mid-2010s, the 9M542 missile for the Tornado-S system entered service. It received a new solid-fuel motor, enabling it to fly 120 km. Meanwhile, new munitions for the Tornado-G, such as the 9M521 or 5M522, have increased the range from 20 to 38-40 km. Ammunition for heavy flamethrower systems is also being developed.

Russian companies have repeatedly demonstrated guided and corrected munitions for MLRS. Simple electronic systems and control devices have dramatically improved accuracy regardless of range. Combined with improved fire control systems, these missiles offer a significant boost in combat effectiveness.


TOS-1A "Solntsepёk" on its way to a firing position

Standard munitions for the Grad, Uragan, and Smerch missiles carry single-warhead or cluster warheads with high-explosive fragmentation, incendiary, and other warheads. Warheads of these classes are constantly being modernized, and new ones are being developed. A whole range of cluster warheads with various payloads—lightweight submunitions, homing warheads, etc.—is available. Several unmanned aerial vehicle launch vehicle variants have been proposed. These could be reconnaissance UAVs or loitering munitions.

There are a number of rockets of various calibers carrying cluster munitions carrying anti-tank and anti-personnel mines. Of particular interest in this context are the munitions for the ISDM "Zemledeliye" (Agriculture) system. These rockets were originally designed as a delivery system for modern mines. They enable the rapid laying of mines in targeted areas at ranges of up to 10-15 km.

The Solntsepyok systems also use their own munitions. They are equipped with several types of missiles with thermobaric warheads. Each munition carries a large amount of incendiary mixture, which results in high yield.

Positive results


A modern multiple launch rocket system consists of several key components, each contributing to the overall performance. The base chassis determines the combat vehicle's mobility and its ability to quickly enter and exit a position. The control and communication systems determine overall accuracy, while the missiles and their payloads determine their effectiveness on selected targets.


The Tornado-G MLRS covered enemy positions.

It's easy to see that in recent decades, Russian MLRS development has generally followed all of these directions. New platforms are being introduced where necessary, and electronics with the necessary functions are being used. New missile models of all calibers and capabilities are also being developed. Simultaneously, similar systems not intended for missile forces or artillery are being developed.

Modern domestic MLRS of all types, as well as similarly designed equipment with similar functions, are actively used in the Special Operation zone. They demonstrate their capabilities and validate the technical solutions used in practice. Furthermore, valuable experience is accumulated, which is then used to refine and improve the systems.

Thus, rocket artillery still has significant potential for development. The Russian defense industry and army are exploiting this potential and achieving new results that positively impact the combat use of the equipment. Clearly, the development of MLRS will not stop there, and their performance will continue to improve.
44 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. 0
    25 December 2025 05: 54
    "Grad", "Smerch", "Uragan", "Tornado" - "bad weather" divisions.... wink
  2. 11+
    25 December 2025 06: 03
    The author is way off topic. Rocket systems fire rockets, not missiles. I suggest we stop reading "tabloid stories" here! The article is ABOUT NOTHING!
    1. -4
      25 December 2025 08: 58
      Quote: Cartridge
      The author is way off topic. Rocket systems fire rockets, not missiles. I suggest we stop reading "tabloid stories" here! The article is ABOUT NOTHING!


      What's the difference between a rocket and a missile? The principle of propulsion is the same – rocket-propelled.
      1. -1
        25 December 2025 09: 33
        Terminology must be kept in order! What's the point of this "one man's game, another man's game"? We're already overwhelmed with naval and land-based "drones"! Russia has missile forces and artillery, including rocket artillery! (Missile forces use missiles, artillery uses shells, and rocket artillery uses rockets.) It's also worth noting that unguided ballistic missiles have long been out of use in missile forces; but unguided rockets (UNRS) are still in use!
        1. -6
          25 December 2025 09: 49
          "Terminology must be kept in order! What's the point of this... 'one man's work, another man's work'? We're already overwhelmed with naval and land-based drones! Russia has missile forces and artillery...including rocket artillery! (In missile forces, they have missiles, in artillery, they have shells, and in rocket artillery, they have rocket projectiles!)"

          That is, they simply agreed to call them that. In artillery, they call them shells; in missile forces, they call them missiles. That's clear. But is it really correct? I hope I don't need to explain the principle by which a shell is fired and a missile is launched. A shell is fired, a missile is launched. So, in fact, MLRS ammunition is still missiles, but they decided to call it shells. Simply because it's artillery.
          1. AMG
            +7
            25 December 2025 10: 50
            How do you like "battalion kits"? The author probably doesn't know that in artillery there is an organization consisting of batteries and divisions.
            1. +9
              25 December 2025 10: 56
              I don't like it at all. But I recently came across the phrase "S-400 squadrons"!!!... After that, "battalion kits" don't grate on my ears anymore...
              1. AMG
                +2
                25 December 2025 10: 58
                Wonderful! I bet the "experts" will surprise us again.
            2. 0
              11 March 2026 13: 25
              So, just look at our military experts! None of them served in the army, and they don't know the difference between divisions. But the "arrows" on the maps are confident.
              What's there to talk about? The last four Russian defense ministers were civilians.
          2. -1
            25 December 2025 13: 28
            Quote: 1976AG
            A shell is fired, a missile is launched. So, in fact, MLRS ammunition is still missiles, but they decided to call it shells. Simply because it's considered artillery.

            Returning to my previous comment! I repeat: there are practically no unguided missiles left in the missile forces! All ballistic and cruise missiles are guided! Barrel artillery uses unguided artillery shells, although modern arsenals now also include guided (corrected) artillery shells (including active-reactive rockets (ARS)! But this hasn't eliminated the need for free-fall shells, and no one calls ARS missiles! Rocket artillery also uses both unguided NURS and guided (corrected) URS! And URS don't eliminate NURS! That's why NURS are conveniently called shells, albeit rocket-propelled ones, because they are unguided, just like free-fall artillery shells! P.S. Jet aircraft also use jet propulsion (!); but no one calls them "missiles"!
            1. -1
              25 December 2025 16: 13
              "I return to my previous comment! I say it again: there are practically no unguided missiles left in the missile forces! All ballistic and cruise missiles are guided!"

              And I claimed the opposite??

              "And that's why it's convenient to call NURS projectiles, albeit rocket-propelled ones, because they are unguided, just like "free-falling" artillery shells!"

              Well, that's exactly it, they decided on a more convenient name. Just like at first they called anti-tank missiles "ATGMs," but then they decided "ATGMs" were better. Well... it's more convenient.

              "PS Jet planes also use the jet principle of propulsion(!); but no one calls them "rockets"!"

              Well, there are too many differences to call them that.
              1. -3
                25 December 2025 16: 32
                Quote: 1976AG
                Jet planes also use the jet principle of propulsion(!); but no one calls them "rockets"!

                Well, there are too many differences to call them that.

                Between a jet aircraft and a cruise missile? Between a cruise missile and a jet-powered UAV? Are there really that many differences nowadays? what
                1. 0
                  25 December 2025 16: 38
                  Well, yes, sometimes the lines start to blur. A jet drone needs to speed up and...
            2. 0
              27 December 2025 22: 05
              Jet planes also use the jet principle of propulsion(!); but no one calls them "rockets"!
              It would be more correct to say that they use turbo reactive principle.
              1. 0
                27 December 2025 22: 12
                Quote from barbos
                It would be more correct to say that they use the turbo-jet principle.

                No, that's not correct! "Turbo" refers to the engine's design; it uses the principle of jet propulsion!
          3. -2
            25 December 2025 15: 17
            Quote: 1976AG
            That is, simply

            First, learn to copy and paste properly, and then express your "opinion"... Otherwise, total incompetence in everything!!!
            1. -2
              25 December 2025 16: 18
              Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
              Quote: 1976AG
              That is, simply

              First, learn to copy and paste properly, and then express your "opinion"... Otherwise, total incompetence in everything!!!


              First, learn the culture of communication, and then comment.
        2. -2
          25 December 2025 16: 00
          Quote: Nikolaevich I
          Terminology must be ordered! What's the point of this "some man for the woods, some for firewood"?

          It is not for artillerymen to speak about the accuracy of terminology. wink
          Who calls the fragmentation ammunition for the RPG-7 a "grenade" even though it doesn't have the main distinguishing feature of a grenade - a "super" rocket engine?
          And I haven't even mentioned the subtle differences between a cannon, a howitzer-cannon, and a cannon-howitzer. The 2A36 cannon with a 47-caliber barrel is a cannon. And the 2A65 cannon with a 47-caliber barrel is a cannon-howitzer.
          1. 0
            25 December 2025 16: 25
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Subtle differences between a cannon, a howitzer-cannon, and a cannon-howitzer. The 2A36 cannon with a 47-caliber barrel is a cannon. And the 2A65 cannon with a 47-caliber barrel is a cannon-howitzer.

            So what? What's the "crime" here? Everything can be classified... defined! Why is there a difference between a "cannon" and a "cannon-howitzer (howitzer-cannon, howitzer)", despite the same barrel length? The point is in the power, by and large, and in particular: 1. the aforementioned cannon has a 27-liter chamber, and a howitzer (cannon-howitzer) - 16 liters! 2. Cannons may "have the right" to use more powerful gunpowder than howitzers! 3. Cannon barrels are more durable and expensive, and according to the "standard", the rifling depth is -2% of the caliber... (howitzer barrel - 1% of the caliber! So, in artillery, everything has "weight and essence"! wink
          2. 0
            26 December 2025 19: 51
            Quote: Alexey RA
            Who calls the fragmentation ammunition for the RPG-7 a "grenade"?

            Some people call a connecting rod a crank, others call it a motor worm. The main thing, I think, is that the specialists don't confuse the two cranks when assembling the engine. laughing
  3. +1
    25 December 2025 06: 04
    Warfare methods have changed dramatically. Using salvo fire at single targets over large areas is ineffective and costly, and targeting urban areas is barbaric. It's time to use guided missiles.
    1. -1
      25 December 2025 15: 28
      Quote: Konnick
      Warfare methods have changed dramatically. Using salvo fire at single targets over large areas is ineffective and costly, and targeting urban areas is barbaric. It's time to use guided missiles.

      Costly? Is that a baseless assertion? Or can you compare the cost of a salvo of unguided projectiles to the cost of a guided missile?
      I can give you some figures: a package of 40 Grad rounds costs 350 rubles, one Krasnopol round costs 2,5 million (!!!) rubles! What were you writing about costs?
      1. +1
        26 December 2025 11: 35
        Quote from: AllX_VahhaB
        I can give you some figures: a package of 40 Grad shots costs 350 thousand ₽, one Krasnopol shot costs 2,5 million (!!!) ₽!

        But the guided missile hits its target. The Grad's shells are distributed in an ellipse—maybe it'll hit, maybe it won't. And so we end up with a lunar landscape and a strongpoint still firing back.
        1. +3
          26 December 2025 14: 02
          And MLRS are not designed at all to hit pinpoint targets if conventional, non-precision munitions are used.
          The latter also have their drawbacks—they can be fooled. Unguided rockets can't be fooled—they have no "brains."
  4. +5
    25 December 2025 08: 01
    It's time to switch to managed power supplies like Himars. Work efficiently across large areas using only cassette power supplies.
    High-precision missiles are required to hit dugouts and pillboxes (direct hits).
    1. +1
      25 December 2025 11: 29
      Hermes is no longer remembered.
      1. 0
        25 December 2025 15: 36
        It disappeared due to the lack of external target designation at a range of 100 km.
        1. 0
          25 December 2025 15: 39
          It's strange that it's specifically because of target designation. If I remember correctly, the system originally included a target acquisition drone. And now, it's even more likely that some kind of drone would be found for this purpose, or could be made, in my opinion.
          1. 0
            25 December 2025 15: 43
            Hermes required laser target illumination, which could even be implemented on the Gerani-2.
    2. -3
      25 December 2025 15: 29
      How much more expensive will it be?
      1. 0
        25 December 2025 15: 38
        Managed is always more expensive, but the main thing here is the result.
        Release the entire BC over the area, or 2-3 controlled ones, and go to take the stronghold.
        1. 0
          27 December 2025 22: 10
          Managed is always more expensive, but the main thing here is the result.
          How much more expensive is a UAV than one shot from an MLRS?
          1. 0
            29 December 2025 11: 27
            A UAV is cheaper than a PC. But here, a UAV with laser target illumination is needed to achieve a direct hit.
            1. 0
              3 January 2026 20: 59
              Judging by the videos online, UAVs are extremely effective at performing such complex tasks without any laser illumination. They can circle above the target and fly inside the vehicle's cabin. Nothing similar has been observed with MLRS, no matter the illumination.

              We need a UAV with laser target illumination to achieve a direct hit.
              Thinking in old stereotypes again.
              1 laser is weather dependent
              2 Equipment that detects laser radiation has been available for a long time
              3 using simple calculations without any AI, you can figure out the direction from which the light came and send a fiery greeting in return
              Therefore! A complex of target recognition, classification, acquisition and tracking is required.
              1. 0
                12 January 2026 14: 01
                Not at all. Without external targeting, social support is needed.
  5. AMG
    +1
    25 December 2025 11: 24
    It's unusual for an article about development trends in domestic systems to reference foreign information whose veracity is questionable. This concerns information about the start of production of the Sarma multiple-barrel rocket launcher. The author should recall his article in VO from June 6, 2023, and show photos of the Kama and Uragan-1M. That would be a real trend.
    1. -1
      25 December 2025 16: 06
      Quote from AMG
      Show photos of "Kama" and "Uragan-1M".

      In fact, I don't really understand the "fuss" with the Tornado MLRS! "Tornado-G"... "Tornado-S"... But the first publications only mentioned "Tornado"! I once read an article on the Internet where the author claimed that there should be a multi-caliber Tornado MLRS, of which only the bi-caliber Uragan-1M MLRS remains! And the Tornado-G/S appeared "after" and are simply modernized Grad and Smerch MLRS! That is, Grad-M and Smerch-M! But there could have been a multi-caliber Uragan-1M (that is, a "real" Tornado!) with 2 "packages"; and based on it, a "lightweight" version with one "package"!
      1. AMG
        0
        25 December 2025 16: 42
        Indeed, based on the available materials, one can conclude that the Tornado-G and S are simply modernized MLRS systems, with improved fire control systems and increased firing range. The Kama, Sarma, and Uragan-1M systems are still in development, with unknown completion dates. We would like to see a single Uragan-Smerch system with a batch-loading system, and if we can't abandon the Grad, then we should also make it with a batch-loading system.
        1. -1
          25 December 2025 18: 03
          Quote from AMG
          If we can’t give up Grad, then we can do it with bags.

          Well, firstly, it is quite possible to “squeeze” the “Prima” with its 122-mm 50-barrels, which are longer than those of the “Grad”, into the “Hurricane-1M”..., secondly, the “Grad” in a “package” version had already been created in a prototype, and quite a long time ago!
          1. AMG
            0
            26 December 2025 10: 36
            So, it's surprising why these developments aren't being completed? Is it really still convenient to watch 66-kilogram shells being manually loaded?
  6. +2
    25 December 2025 19: 14
    I don't like to acknowledge the insight and wisdom of my enemies, but sometimes I have to.
    One installation for all occasions.
    The West was right. Essentially, Russia needs to develop the Uragan missile as the optimal caliber for its missile defense system.
    It's time to write off the Grads.
    And to make Smerch a low-level OTRK.
    So that there is a lot and you don’t have to send the application a week in advance.
    The most important thing is working with ammunition. Modern ammunition.
  7. +1
    25 December 2025 21: 27
    Quote: Cartridge
    The author is way off topic. Rocket systems fire rockets, not missiles. I suggest we stop reading "tabloid stories" here! The article is ABOUT NOTHING!

    Was it ever different for Ryabov?
    Tomorrow the Armed Forces will adopt the caveman's club, and he will praise it too.
  8. 0
    26 December 2025 10: 59
    In my opinion, in addition to switching to corrosive (using various methods) rockets, we need to take a close look at the American approach with multi-caliber launchers and expand the capabilities of the RC for such systems.
    Here's an example from country 404:
    The Indians were given the Himars launchers, and the Americans themselves regulate the range and caliber of these systems and, accordingly, the level of escalation. As a reminder, there are 220mm, 220mm + bomb with wings, and 600mm ATAKMS. Plus, the 6x6 chassis itself is compact and fast.
    It's not a given that we need to blindly copy them. But in terms of mobility, the MZKT is not a Kamaz 6x6.
    A similar vehicle with an interchangeable 300mm/600mm caliber (though not with the complex ballistic missile system of the Iskander) would be very useful. And we still haven't seen an experimental 300mm Kamaz 8x8 launcher.
  9. +1
    26 December 2025 19: 50
    The hardware of MLRS systems is already quite good. A strong-willed decision must be made to ban the development of new MLRS systems and new ammunition for them and invest in communications and fire adjustment systems. The future lies in converting MLRS systems into multi-barrel launchers for independently targetable missiles.