MLRS (Multiple Launch Rocket System) - Multiple Launch Rocket System

The MLRS (Multy Launch Rocket System) salvo fire system is designed to destroy (by shooting from closed firing positions at distances over 30 km) armored combat vehicles, artillery batteries, open-air manpower and military equipment, air defense systems, command posts and communications centers , as well as other area targets.

Developed by Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control and adopted by the US Army in 1983 year. Currently, it is in service with the 14 armies of the world: Bahrain, Norway, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Holland, Turkey, the UK, etc. In 1986, an international consortium of production MLRS MLRS, which included the company the United States, Germany, Britain, France and Italy.

Composition

MLRS MLRS includes self-propelled launcher (PU), unguided missiles (NUR) М26 in transport and launch canisters (TPK) and fire control equipment.

The artillery part of the PU, mounted on the tracked base of the American infantry fighting vehicle M2 "Bradley", includes:
fixed base mounted on the chassis;
a turntable with a swinging part fixed on it, in the armored box farm of which there are two WPCs;
loading and guidance mechanisms.

The required rigidity of the base of the launcher in the firing position is ensured by turning off the suspension of the chassis. In the armored cabin is placed the calculation of three people: the commander of the installation, the gunner and the driver. There is also a fire control equipment, including a computer, navigation and topographic location devices, as well as a control panel. All necessary information is displayed on the light panel of the control panel. The MLRS MLRS fire control equipment can be interfaced with automated field artillery fire control systems. The overpressure created in the cockpit and the filtering unit protects the calculation from gases generated during firing and from damaging factors due to radioactive contamination of the area or the use of chemical weapons.

The MLRS launcher does not have traditional permanent guides. For loading into the nests of its armored box-shaped truss (the swinging part of the PU), two equipped disposable transport and launch containers are placed. They are a package of six fiberglass tubular rails mounted in two rows in a box farm made of aluminum alloy. TPK equipped with rockets at the factory and sealed, which ensures the safety of NUR unattended for ten years. Prelaunch preparation of missiles for firing is practically not required. The launcher is reloaded by means of two autonomous charging mechanisms (with electromechanical drives) mounted on a PU in a box-shaped farm above the slots for TLC. The operation is carried out by one or two calculation numbers using the remote control. At zero elevation angle, the loading mechanism with a winch lifts the WPC from the ground up to the stop and pushes it into the nest of the box-shaped truss.

Usually two launchers with trailers are attached to one launcher. The transport vehicle is a 10-m high-performance vehicle M985 (wheel formula 8X8). An 2,5-t tilt crane is mounted on its body with which containers are loaded and unloaded. By car and trailer transported by four TPC (six missiles each). Ammunition capacity of one launcher, including its 12 missiles, is respectively 108 NUR.

After the introduction of firing equipment into the fire control equipment (including the response time of the head fuses), the PU is guided by a command using electro-hydraulic actuators. In case of failure, manual actuators are provided. It is not necessary to level the launcher before firing, since the necessary corrections are constantly introduced into the fire control equipment. This is provided by an appropriate system with a gyro-stabilized platform. The same system also provides the necessary accuracy in salvo firing.

The uncontrolled M26 rocket includes a warhead (warhead), a solid propellant rocket engine and a four-blade stabilizer that opens in flight. For NUR created and developed the following cluster warheads.

Cumulative fragmentation (mass 159 kg, maximum firing range 32 km) is intended to defeat openly located manpower and military equipment, lightly armored combat vehicles, as well as counter-battery combat. It is equipped with 644 cumulative fragmentation combat elements M77 (armor penetration to 40 mm). Combat elements are tightly packed in slots of cylindrical polyurethane blocks inside a thin-walled aluminum warhead body. After the operation of the head fuse on the final part of the trajectory, the body of the warhead is reset and the cumulative fragmentation combat elements are scattered accordingly. By a single launch launcher over the target area, 7728 of such elements are scattered over an area of ​​about 25 thousand m2.

Anti-tank with mines AT-2 (weight 107 kg, maximum range 40 km) was developed by specialists of Germany. It is intended for remote mining of the area in the vicinity. Warheads are equipped with anti-tank anti-mine mines AT-2. In the thin-walled case of the warhead there are seven containers of four mines each. At an altitude of about 1,2 km, containers are first scattered, and then mines are thrown from them, which descend on parachutes. Just before landing, the parachute is separated, and a mine that has fallen to the ground with its spring-loaded legs is placed in a firing position - with a cumulative funnel up. A pin sensor extends from the housing. The time of self-destruction of mines is set before shooting and can be from several hours to several days. One volley of 336 mines in an area of ​​approximately 1000x400 m is created by a single-shot volley. A cumulative charge of a mine is able to penetrate armor with a thickness of up to 140 mm.

Anti-tank "TGW" (Terminally Guided Warhead, weight 107 kg, maximum firing range 45 km). It is equipped with combat elements equipped with homing heads in the final part of the flight path. The development of this warhead was carried out by a consortium of industrial firms of the USA, Germany, Great Britain and France.

TTX MLRS:
Projectile diameter, mm 240
Projectile length, mm 3960
Projectile mass (depending on the type of warhead), kg 258-310
Weight of warhead, kg 107-159
Maximum shooting range, km 32-40
Maximum speed on the highway, km / h 65
Power reserve, km 500
Time of preparation of BM for shooting from the moment of engaging a firing position, min 2
Full salvo time (12 rockets), with 60
Year of Adoption 1983

Comments

[Canep]

It all started with a Katyusha (BM-13).

[Ak 12]

The machine is certainly good, but the radius of destruction, compared with our counterparts, is small

[Lopatov]

But the accuracy with conventional missiles is much higher

[Windbreak]

There are GMLRS missiles with a range of 70 km and GMLRS + with a range of 120 km

[Lopatov]

These are not MLRS missiles

[Windbreak]

The Smerch also has not stupid NURs. "The rockets developed for the Smerch MLRS have a unique design that ensures hitting accuracy 2-3 times higher than that of foreign rocket artillery systems. For the first time, Soviet rocket artillery shells became corrected. an inertial control system that provides angular stabilization of the projectiles in the active section of the trajectory and correction of the range due to the correction to the separation time of the warhead, determined by the onboard equipment in accordance with the measured parameters of the projectile movement. "

[Lopatov]

The missile control system "Smercha", like the "Tornado-G", has a different task - to reduce the dispersion of RS in a salvo. It is an order of magnitude easier than in guided missiles and an order of magnitude cheaper.

We currently do not mix the functions of MLRS and tactical missiles.

[Windbreak]

Where did you get that such a system is on the "Tornado-G"? And where did you get the data about an order of magnitude lower price?

[Lopatov]

Quote: Burel

Where did they get that such a system is on the "Tornado-G"

Because the rocket with an angular stabilization system for the Grad MLRS was presented to the public back in 2006, but only the Tornado-G has the equipment for induction data input necessary for its use.

Quote: Burel

And where did you get data about an order of magnitude lower price?

Because inertial systems are much cheaper than inertial ones with GPS correction

[Windbreak]

Quote: Spade

Because inertial systems are much cheaper than inertial ones with GPS correction

gmlrs shell costs $ 100000. And the Tornado rockets

"a short extract from the 2005 price catalog

Name of ammunition Index Price per unit in rubles on 01.01.2005
300 mm PC to 9A52
High explosive 9M55F with adult 9B191 2004986,26 XNUMX
9M55K fragmentation cassette with adult 9B171 1780600,01
9M55K fragmentation cassette with adult 9B191 2248396,48
Inert fragmentation cassette 9M55K IN 2083752,40 "

[Lopatov]

If the missile consisted solely of a control system, then these costs could be compared.

[Lopatov]

The Americans have almost abandoned the MLRS. Now it has been turned into a tactical missile launcher; since 2008, exclusively managed GMLRSs have been purchased

[Sheva777]

It seems to me that the amers are wrong, that they refuse from the RZSO

[Andrey77]

And who told you that the United States is abandoning the MLRS?

[Lopatov]

They do not buy rockets for them, they do not create new uncontrollable ones.
MLRS and HIMARS are becoming universal launchers for guided missiles. including for anti-aircraft.

[avt]

Quote: Sheva777

It seems to me that the amers are wrong, that they refuse from the RZSO

How is it in 17 moments of spring ... .. their technique will destroy them .. "

[Lopatov]

That is yes. They are too smart.

[bubble82009]

we have the concept of creating RZSO associated with the device parts and connections. 122 mm is a regiment division. Tornado and Hurricane division, army, district. and the US MLRS is designed to support brigades in divisions. And this concept is more promising. you don’t need to have as many department offices. the car is equipped for the task. and in our country these monsters can stand in reserve and will never shoot. you need to strike at the control point there will be one ammunition. need by air defense or enemy artillery will be a different caliber. fewer cars and personnel, and more tasks can be solved. it’s time to send our equipment to the furnace.

[dmi32167]

you need to be sent to the furnace. there is a point to destroy "control points". a zoo is needed against artillery, and it is precisely the good area characteristics of the defeat, tk. Sau! SUDDENLY! have easy booking! Americans do not need mlrs just because one volley of it costs hundreds of times more than the hut of another unfortunate Arab. that's why they are now cutting tanks and not using raptors abroad. for they are not needed to suppress the banana republics.

[Lopatov]

You have some kind of stream of consciousness. What could be "more promising" a smaller number of artillery in the regiments (brigades)?
At the control point, one ammunition is not enough. If you, of course, do not think that it can be placed in one machine. The column of armored vehicles is inefficient. For troops in the area of ​​concentration, too.

Well, for minor tricks like the destruction of the headquarters of the Ba'ath Party, that's enough. But this goal is hardly military.

[dmi32167]

Quote: Spade

You have some kind of stream of consciousness. What could be "more promising" a smaller number of artillery in the regiments (brigades)?
At the control point, one ammunition is not enough. If you, of course, do not think that it can be placed in one machine. The column of armored vehicles is inefficient. For troops in the area of ​​concentration, too.

Well, for minor tricks like the destruction of the headquarters of the Ba'ath Party, that's enough. But this goal is hardly military.

it’s just that a person does not understand that a hurricane (unlike a hail) can’t be put behind every bush, because you go broke stupidly on one chassis.

[Lopatov]

"Hurricane" should be put on a normal chassis. We need to informatize. Something about "Tornado-U" is not heard.

[gregor6549]

Before comparing American radars with Soviet Tornadoes, it would be good to remember that MRLS were adopted in 1983, and Tornadoes only in 1989, i.e. 6 years later. Further. The highlight of both systems is not in launchers, although they can be argued about in terms of reliability, mobility, security, etc., but in the nomenclature of their ammunition, the effectiveness of these ammunition range, accuracy, destructive ability, the ability of the systems to work in common information network. including the ability to quickly receive target designation data and respond flexibly to changes in the situation and assigned tasks. Those. the effectiveness of each type of system is determined by a combination of many factors. And the efficiency / cost parameter is not superfluous. Unfortunately, there is no such analysis in the article. Yes, and it is necessary to compare not only American radar and Russian Tornadoes, but also systems of a similar class that are in service with other countries, such as China. And the last thing. Both the MRLS and Tornadoes are constantly being modernized, for example, new types of ammunition appear for different classes of targets, their range, accuracy and lethality increase, so that with the external invariability of the general appearance of launchers, the latest versions of the discussed salvo system differ from the first very seriously. The same applies to "Tornado". And the last thing. In terms of mobility, wheeled Tornadoes are much superior to tracked radars, and therefore the chance to quickly escape after a salvo and survive is much higher. In addition, the wheeled chassis used in the Tornadoes ensure their cross-country passability no worse than the tracked landing gear of the radar, or even better. In terms of control from the ACS of the dry forces' artillery, the Tornadoes were ready for such control back in the late 80s, so everything should be OK with working in the network too.