I think he is talking about the himars-like gps/glonass guided rockets. I believe they already have these.
HIMARS doesn't make sense for Russia... HIMARS is expensive but cheaper to operate than the much more expensive M270 that the US essentially if forcing on HATO countries. M270 has a tracked chassis based on the Bradley IFV that only they use so it is another tracked chassis for its HATO allies to buy and maintain... and is not very cheap at all.
The enormous costs to buy and to use for the tracked M270 meant even the US needed a cheaper alternative... HIMARS is not cheap, but being wheeled it is cheaper than the M270.
It is not cheaper than any Russian MLRS system they have ever operated which were all truck based and cheap enough to use in the enormous numbers that make them effective.
Needless to say Russia can deal with three or four HIMARs systems launching volleys... that is only 18-24 rockets at a time.
If they were Smerch I wonder how a HATO country or the US itself would deal with 4 x 12 rockets... 48 targets incoming at once?
They couldn't deal with 18 threats at once let alone 48.
The Russians have had guided rockets for longer than the Americans have, but their actual answer to HIMARS is Hermes... six missiles per vehicle with precision guidance and 100km range for point targets... they are delaying it because the new models have powered second stages that evade interception and are therefore actually likely to hit their targets... unlike most GMLRS.
Tornado-S other name is Uragan-1M. 9A53 index.
Doesn't Uragan mean Tornado?
It is a swap of Tornado and Smerch, and both calibers can be used with the same carrier. Those are replaceable pods.
The Tornado G, is a grad and Tornado S replaces the old Tornado and the old Smerch.
The two new vehicles are fully autonomous and can roll up to a position, receive target coordinates, orient the launch tubes and fire based on its current position and then roll away.
Their upgrades of tube artillery seem to offer the same capabilities too.
They only made 8-14 of these 4-6 years ago and nothing since so status unsure.
They are getting all the experience they need and opportunity to test things right now, so hopefully they will decide which to move forward with, production wise.
Garry, if you think it's stupid you need to move your mentality past WW2 and into the modern world, especially when dealing with an opponent who loves fixed fortifications.
Fixed fortifications have not just recently been invented... and they have guided Tulip rounds for any level of fortification.
Gun rounds tend to be more use against fortifications because the stress of launching from a gun barrel tends to mean the shells are strongly built and therefore they tend to penetrate better before exploding. Exploding inside a structure is always more effective than exploding outside.
Yep, likely way cheaper for use vs cities in range than x-101 or kalibers.
Too easy to be shot down when the target is actually defended. Drones and gun artillery is going to be rather more effective...
Guided versions of Unguided rockets don't make sense, because guided HIMARS rockets just use GPS guidance so they can only hit fixed coordinates anyway.
New 152mm shells also use GLONASS guidance and could do the same, the purpose of rocket artillery remains a great way to blunt an infantry attack and with Orc and Nazi forces running out of heavy armour and having to use civilian vehicles that would be horrendously vulnerable to fragments having rocket artillery ready to cover entire fields with fragments makes more sense than trying to hit each vehicle with one rocket at a time.
For the same reasons machine guns wont get replaced with sniper rifles.
Targets inside cities will be hit with drones and guided weapons to reduce the chance of collateral damage, but there are plenty of weapon option types for the Russian forces other than guided rockets... all of which are cheaper than their western alternatives.