Russia Battle Tested Cutting-Edge Tornado-S Multiple Rocket Launcher System In Syria

Donate

Russia Battle Tested Cutting-Edge Tornado-S Multiple Rocket Launcher System In Syria

FILE IMAGE: Tornado-S

The Russian military has battle tested its cutting-edge Tornado-S multiple rocket launcher system in Syria, Vladimir Lepin, general director of the systems’ manufacturer, AO NPO Splav, said commeting the results of the company on December 25.

The Tornado-S is a long range system developed to hit targets at ranges of up to 120 kilometers with pinpoint accuracy. The system uses guided rockets that utilize an improved version of the special GLONASS satellite navigation system.

Currently, the Russian Ground Forces are the sole operator of the system. The weapon is capable of firing six rounds in 20 seconds. It is based on the chassis of the KamAZ-63501 8×8 military truck for enhanced tactical mobility.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • JohnT

    Bravo says this American resident.

  • as

    By the way is there a reason that the launcher hollowed four space in the middle ?

    • Graeme Rymill

      Looks like the hydraulic lifting and traversing mechanism at the back of the truck prevents 4 additional rocket launcher tubes being added.

      • as

        I see. I suspected as much and thinking that they could’ve add shorter tube with shorter missiles to fill the gaps. Then again that would made the things unnecessary complexity.

  • Šamolin

    These launchers must be mounted on a base and are pretty heavy even without rockets.Russians know how to make it best to work – dont worry ;)

  • Brad Isherwood

    Wow…a mobile War on Terror system…..Maybe the Dahli Lamma will get a new baseball cap and buy a few for Tibet?
    oops! …..that would mean cutting a deal with Xi of China,…as they have mental issues with Tibet,Falun Gong, …Taiwan. ….and banking with Rothschilds and USA.

    Maybe park the Russian MLRS at a city square in Aleppo.
    All those 100,000 Syrians who did F’ing nothing to stop ISUS,or Al Qeada or FSA,or Turks
    From occupy them and then selective murder whoever.
    Ya. ..gather round the Russia weapons which is decades useless wave flags and party!.

    Iraq and Syria are sure Darwin award winners,….as they crawl out from Fake War on terror lead by Global MIC. ..
    And then kiss the Ring of USA and Russia.

    The above insanity is right up there with the Original Star Trek TV series where computers play global war,
    And the populations willingly line up in front of disintegration machines …to be culled at computer demand.

    Enjoy the wars…..Enjoy the Genocide globalism.

  • paul ( original )

    It always seems to me that Russia has the capacity to produce a huge
    second tier reserve army in the form of say a people’s militia. By
    this I mean that there must be vast amounts of equipment that is now
    redundant for first line troops but which is none the less very
    effective. Such equipment could be used for second tier troops who
    would be activated once the first line troops had broken the enemy (
    i.e. NATO or the USA ). These second tier troops would just be part
    time, may be only training a small number of days a year. So the
    economic drain would not be so big.

    • Dagnir

      It does not just seem so. Russia still has a conscription system, and all those who have served form a reserve. The reserve is 2.5M people at the moment, and it is formal troops rather than militia.

      • paul ( original )

        Thank you. Yes I knew about this. What I was thinking of was something
        extra. Something that could be trained on surplus redundant equipment
        rather than something that can be mobilized into existing front line
        forces that is trained on the latest equipment. My concern is that
        surplus equipment should have trained personnel ready to use it. May
        be its not a good idea.

        • RGtz98

          Same Idea , but then again most mechanized surplus equipment is Soviet and remember it collapse some 20+ years ago. Meaning that they might encounter problema with anything made below 1970’s or 1980’s

          • paul ( original )

            Yes the practicalities might make this too difficult. Its not the sort of
            thing that could be decided on a whim. Indulge me for a moment and
            let me elaborate. What I envisaged is that most modern equipment
            would be destroyed quite early on. The struggle then becomes one of
            who can replace these losses first. At the point when most modern
            weapons have been destroyed fielding a fresh army with somewhat
            lesser equipment could be decisive. May be I am just fantasizing
            about T-34 yet again overrunning Berlin.

  • Graeme Rymill

    The photo doesn’t show a Tornado S. It is a photo of a BM-30 Smerch, [also referred to as a 9K58 Smerch and also as 9A52-2 Smerch-M]

    The Tornado S is intended a lightweight version of the Bm-30. it has 6 rocket tubes. This is what a Tornado S looks like:

    https://cdnph.upi.com/svc/sv/i/9621485534338/2017/1/14855343702951/Russias-Tornado-S-rocket-system-passes-official-tests.jpg

    • Dagnir

      Explains why the rate of fire is “6 missiles” in 20 seconds. I was confused why it was 6 while the launcher had 12.

    • John Whitehot

      wrong.
      The system can be mounted on different chassis with different launchers configuration in regards to the number of tubes.

      https://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2017/january/Russian_Tornado-S_300mm_Multiple_Launch_Rocket_System_MLRS_successfully_passed_state_trials_640_001.jpg

      here’s a pic of Tornado-S on the same truck shown with the article.

      The fire rate does not have to take into account the number of tubes, you can fire any number of rockets from 1 to all.

      • Gregory Louis

        Thought that’s the Tornado-M1

        • Graeme Rymill

          Yes you are right! John Whitehot has found a photo of a BM-27 Uragan also known as the Tornado 1M or Uragan 1M. See: https://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/new_russian-made_uragan-1m_multi-caliber_mlrs_multiple_launch_rocket_system_11402172.html The missile tubes of the BM-27 sit on a MZKT-7930 chassis.

          • John Whitehot
          • Graeme Rymill
          • John Whitehot

            as it is stated in military-today website:

            “the Uragan-1M carries two launching pods for 300 mm and 220 mm rockets. These rocket pods are interchangeable with the Tornado system. However the Uragan-1M carries two pods instead of one, hence it has twice the firepower”

            The launching system, tubes and other devices, is interchangeable among different vehicles.

            In the end, you seem to insist at all costs that Tornado means it’s a Kamaz truck, while these kinds of devices are meant to be modular and deployed in a vast array of configurations.
            In fact, I suspect that one of the main reasons this Tornado system has been designed and produced is modularity.

          • Graeme Rymill

            My initial contention still stands: the photo that accompanies the Southfront article isn’t a Tornado-S. Please show me some convincing evidence that shows that photo [which I have shown is a BM-30 Smerch] is depicting something called a Tornado-S. The BM-30 has been in production since 1989 and this article is announcing a new weapon system.

            You seem to think that all Russian MLRS systems – no matter how many tubes; what diameter rocket and what chassis – can all be called Tornado-S.

            A Tornado-S has a KamAZ-63501 chassis and six 300mm rocket tubes.
            A Uragan 1M has a MZKT-7930 chassis and has 12 (2 X 6) rocket tubes for 300mm rockets. It may also have 220mm rockets but is unclear to me if this variation is in production..

            The Tornado-S is derived from the BM-30

            The Uragan 1M is derived from the BM-27 Uragan (and no it doesn’t use the same chassis as the BM-30 as you claimed – they just look a bit alike but one photo is from the front and the other is from the side)

          • John Whitehot

            “You seem to think that all Russian MLRS systems – no matter how many tubes; what diameter rocket and what chassis – can all be called Tornado-S.”

            not at all. What I am saying is the logical opposite: You can’t say that a system is not a Tornado-S based exclusively on the truck on which is mounted.

            “The Uragan 1M is derived from the BM-27 Uragan (and no it doesn’t use the same chassis as the BM-30 as you claimed – they just look a bit alike but one photo is from the front and the other is from the side)”

            I never claimed this. I provided a pic of the BM-27 Uragan on its own truck, without even thinking once in my life that it’s the same truck used for the BM-30 Smerch.

          • Graeme Rymill

            “can’t say that a system is not a Tornado-S based exclusively on the truck on which is mounted” My original comment, which you incorrectly claimed was wrong, makes no mention of the truck. My original comment was based on the fact that the vast preponderance of photographic evidence showed that the photo was a BM-30 – not some new system. In other words I found lots of photos and web articles that showed me that a BM-30 looks identical in ALL respects (number of tubes, arrangement of tubes, chassis etc. etc.) to the photo Southfront is using. You now seem to accept that my original comment that it isn’t a photo of a Tornado-S are correct but cannot bring yourself to say the words! lol

            “I never claimed this [that the Uragan 1M uses the same chassis as the BM-30].

            The Southfront photo is a BM-30. The first photo you provided is a Uragan 1M. Your comment under your first photo of the Uragan 1M is still there for everybody to read:

            “here’s a pic of Tornado-S on the same truck shown with the article.” So although you got it wrong calling it a Tornado-S you did allege the trucks in the 2 photos were the same…they are not!

          • John Whitehot

            I understand your point, mine is that as long as you don’t identify an artillery system on the basis of the truck it’s mounted I’m fine with it.

      • Graeme Rymill

        As the article correctly states ” It is based on the chassis of the KamAZ-63501 8×8 military truck”. The picture you have supplied is not a KamAZ-63501

    • Real Anti-Racist Action

      Thank you for your precision in clarifying the correct information for all of us.

  • Lazy Gamer

    I seem to get the impression that Russia prefers firepower and armor in battle. It is far from the agile army it seeks to be. This is also seen in the SAA. Even with all the training the Syrian Army gets from Russia, they are slower than other groups. Perhaps its the difference between how a standard army operates and a guerilla. But even the SDF is faster than SAA.

    • John Whitehot

      “I seem to get the impression that Russia prefers firepower and armor in battle”

      modern armies don’t have the old distinction “firepower oriented” vs “maneuver oriented”, they have to basically excel in both respects. Also your claim is contradicting in the context you make it, because “armor” is maneuver, so it’s like you are saying that the Russian army prefers both “firepower” and “maneuver”.

      In any case it’s the same tune older than me that ziowestern propaganda has always sung “The Russian Army destroys everything, we yanks go in with a chisel, they go in with a sledgehammer”, and all that pathetic, miserable, spineless and weak pile of garbage western medias call military analysis.

  • Icarus Tanović

    Would like to see these ponding Wahabies down in Daraa straight to rubble.