Voennoe Delo: Smerch - Russian MLRS! (English subtitles)

[Cug9]

This looks like former yougoslav "Orkan".

[BitnikGr]

@Cug9 I would say vice-versa. That former Yugoslavian "Orkan" looks like "Grad" or "Smerch".

[nikolas93ts]

@BitnikGr Smerch and Orkan are two completely different and independent designs,which don't have anything in common.

[kspa57]

hey, are you guys going to attack hell?(I'm just joking-feel free to play along though-I like to laught) I read about this, its one in its kind and well just plain fucking scary the capabilities of it. I feel bad for those...well yeah they ain't here.....

[95warmachine95]

Who can explain me what is MLRS???

[BitnikGr]

@95warmachine95 MLRS stands for Multiple Launch Rocket System. It is RSZO in Russian.

[SuperSEREGA1985]

@BitnikGr ракетные системы залпового огня !

[krazzed101]

what a load of crap...MLRS has two different rockets...30km is the range of the smaller rockets lol...huyevaya Ruskaya propoganda

[BitnikGr]

@krazzed101 Crap is in your head instead of brains.

Compare unguided rockets with unguided rockets and guided tactical missiles with guided tactical missiles. The fact that US MLRS is a platform for both doesn't mean that it is better in role of Multiple Rocket Launcher.

45km vs 70-90 for non guided rockets and 300km vs various SRBM (Tochka-U, Scud, Iskander) from 180 to 700km.

[sergynkov]

Большую работу делаешь,респект

[Barbattilas84]

What a ridiculous hat! :P

[BitnikGr]

@Barbattilas84 General's hat at 1:40?

[Barbattilas84]

@BitnikGr

Οτι πιο αστείο έχω δει.

Σαν αερόστατο είναι!

xD

[BitnikGr]

@Barbattilas84 Πυθανότατα προέρχεται από την παράδωση των Ουσσάρων.

Κοίτα εδώ...

upload.wikimedia . org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/8e_­hussards_1804%28fr%29.jpg

upload.wikimedia . org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Nap­oleon_Hussard_by_Bellange.jpg

Απλά τους βγάλανε τα φτερά :)

[BitnikGr]

I remember some comments about how "cocky" might sound words "only nuclear strike is more powerful than Smerch". I almost agree with it then, but I wanted to check it out first, however I hadn't enough time.

Let's see what we have. Every detonation energy is expressed in TNT equivalent which then can be translated in energy in Joles. F.e. "this IED had power of 3kg of TNT". Real weight of explosive device can be different. However, since conventional explosives in warhead use about same...

[BitnikGr]

... principles with TNT, usually these numbers are similar, with TNT equivalent of modern HE warheads being slightly higher than the weight of warhead itself. Other principles, like chemical reaction, air fuel blast, nuclear reaction etc, can create much bigger explosion power in TNT comparing to device's weight... but it is not our case. We are looking for conventional explosives... and what comes in our mind as the most power convetional weapon?? The MOAB... right? The MOAB today is ...

[BitnikGr]

... classified as "the most powerful conventional weapon in US arsenal". With weight of 8500kg it has a power of 11000kg of TNT. Comparing to the first (and the most "weak") atomic bomb dropped on Hirosima, the MOAB is 27 times weaker... just for comparision.

Now... let's see what this video says... "Nothing is more powerful than a salvo of Smerch battery, except of nuclear strike". Smerch launches 800kg rockets with 2 types of warheads. 243kg and 258kg... Let's take 250 for easier calculations.

[BitnikGr]

Smerch battery consists of 4 launch platforms. 4vehicles x 12 tubes x 250kg = 12000kg of explosives. And if we multiply it by about the same HE ratio similar to MOAB HE (1:1,3), we'll get 15600kg of TNT. But you was right after all. Today, Smerch is not the most powerful conventional weapon. This video was made in 2004. Back then editors of this documentary were right. In 2004 Smerch was the most powerful non-nuclear weapon. But in 2007 Russia developed and succesfully tested the FOAB.

[BitnikGr]

With weight of 7100kg it has power of 44tons TNT (80000lbs).

By the way, thermobaric and "fuel-air" bombs are not the same. And still if someone claims that the FOAB cannot be classified as conventional weapon, then again Smerch becomes the most powerful. No other MLRS or non-nuclear missile hasn't power of 15 tons of TNT.

[xtra1l]

@BitnikGr The weapon нетолько tons an explosive but also psychological in the Second World War after a katyusha Germans became сумашедшими those who has survived as they said the psychologist they незнали where to go around explosions

[BitnikGr]

@xtra1l Yes, it is true!

The fear effect of such weapon is just undescribable. Men can't survive this or those who did survive can't desribe what they lived, cause they've lost their minds.

[krazzed101]

@xtra1l hahaha eto tebe kto skazal? LOL...ya davno tak ne smeyalsa ..spasibo

[krazzed101]

@BitnikGr its 43.7 tons of fuel + explosives

[BitnikGr]

@krazzed101 I repeat specially for you, my poor handicapped friend with brain damaged by too much hate.

"By the way, thermobaric and "fuel-air" bombs are not the same. And still if SOMEONE CLAIMS that the FOAB cannot be classified as conventional weapon, then again Smerch becomes the most powerful. No other MLRS or non-nuclear weapon hasn't power of 15 tons of TNT."

-

I have to block you, because your criticism is full of hate and bile and swearing and not supported by arguments and sources.

[sfrgth457]

hey bitnik is true that venezuela gonna adquire Smerch? if they do we are fucked up.

[BitnikGr]

Yes, it seems that Venezuela ordered 50 "Smerch".

This video says that from 2001 they try to promote "Smerch" on world market. But it's big price ($12mln) and big dimensions it is not easy.

Only few countries except former USSRepublics have bought "Smerch" and usually in small numbers. Only India have bought 38 and now ordered another 18.

50 "Smerch" for Venezuela are more than enough.

Does Colombia feel threaten by Venezuela? Do you have unsovled problems with some regions?

[sfrgth457]

Off couse we are been threaten by the nasty monky of hugo chaves, cuz he is making a comunist expansionist project in lating america, and he support the narcoterrorist guerilla of my country (farc) giving weapons (rifles and even a few at4) and shelter in venezuela. so thats the little problem

[BitnikGr]

+ Multifunctionality, speed, high relaibility, accuracy, fire power. Salvo of a battery consisted only from 6 "Smerch" can stop an assault of whole division or destroy a small town.

- Expensive. Difficulty of use in local conflicts, where the enemy usually acts in civilian settlements. Use of "Smerch" would lead to full destruction.

- Heavy weight and big dimensions are negative for transportation, off-road passability and tactical maneuverability.

[BitnikGr]

In other words Smerch is perfect for big long open terrains like shores, deserts or Russian steppas.

It is not suitable for urban combat, mountains and cluster elements are useless in forest.

[BitnikGr]

Modernization: MLRS "Smerch" 9A52-2 (in this video is presented 9K58). Max. range is increased from 70 to 90km. CEP is decreased to 10-20m. Crew is decreased from 4 to 3 men. Automatization of weapon system is increased. Location on terrain is now fully automated through satellite navigation.

Today company "Splav" creates a MLRS of new generation - "Tornado". It is twin-caliber weapon systems which unifies "Smerch" and "Tornado" in same platform. Automatization of Fire Control reaches such...

[BitnikGr]

... level, that platform can leave launch position before shells reach their targets.

"Tornado" can hit targets with salvo or with single guided missile. It became an universal tactical missile system (like US M270 MLRS).

It was planned to present new launch system of container type based on 4-axes KAMAZ truck with 6 rockets instead of 12, at MAKS-2007. Use of this specialized system allows to dispersed units make co-ordinated fire. Main goal of this modernization is to increase mobility...

[BitnikGr]

... by decreasing of weight and dimentions. They suppose that this will increase export possibilities. Finally this system was presented in 2009 at military exhibition in Nizhniy Tagil.

[sfrgth457]

how big are the mini-bombs that carry the smerch missile?

[BitnikGr]

9M55K- Cluster munition, anti-personnel - 243kg,72 × 1.75 kg, each with 96 fragments (4.5 g each)

9М55К5 - Cluster munition, anti-personnel - 155kg, 646 x 0.240kg. Effective against personnel and light-armored vehicles. Can penetrated 120mm armor. 16 rockets contain totally 10336 combat elements.

9M55K1 - Cluster munition, self guided anti-tank - 243 kg, 5 × 15 kg. Infra-red sensors search targets at 30degrees. Each one of them can penetrate 70mm armor at 30degrees contact. With other...

[sfrgth457]

Thanks for the info. All i can say is wow, this seems like science fiction.

[BitnikGr]

... words any existing and already designed armor vehicles and tanks.

9M55K4 - Cluster munition, AT minelets. - 25 x 5kg - Self-destruct time 24h. 1 vechicle has 300mines. 1 Smerch battery has 8 vehicles. Dimensions - 33×84×84cm

[BitnikGr]

Dimenstions of 9M55K1 - 284×255×186mm

[21StCenturyWarfare]

I go for smerch its a great weapon specially if you want to destroy a town or an landing beach

it will give more % of sucsess then an controled missile + smerch will low enemys morale with its firepower = ) 2 in one

[StiviGun1]

I can't stay & watch at the all the bullshit they show in this truly pathetic vid. 150 CEP is accurate 4 a missile? That really made me laugh! The new US MLRS unitary warhead missiles have CEP of less than 10 m, from 70 km away. 30 km range had the 1st MLRS prototypes in the early '80s. The newest missile have an over 70 km range with truly pin point accuracy. It's incredible what type of pathetic propaganda the Russian authorities can show 2 the Russian people!

[BitnikGr]

You mess guided missiles with rocket projectiles. Yes, 150m is pin point accuracy when we talk about 90km range and projectile without any guidance system. If this thing with single launche covers 65hectares... then 150meters is like your small finger compared to whole body.

At some areas Russia is tradionally ahead. And of those areas is a rocketry. Space missiles, ballistic missiles, MLRS, naval missiles and torpedoes.

[StiviGun1]

I really don't know how a single 300 mm rocket can cover an area 65 hectares. Maybe the whole 12 salvo. Or, with submunitions. With submunitions maybe. But in the submunitions case it's irrelevant 2 talk abt CEP. The Americans use unguided rockets with submunitions too. They used them with great success in '91. But now, they rely on unitary highly accurate guided rockets. The newest gen of missiles 4 the MLRS r guided through GPS & INS. They can hit a target form over 60 km very accurate.

[BitnikGr]

Of course I meant the whole salvo of 12.

This is exactly what this video says. That Western manufacters considered 40km as limit range of MLRS. And that their (western) MLRS can be compared to previous russian systems "Grad" and "Ouragan".

In 2008 a battery of georgian GRADs just with couple of salvos destroyed half of capital of S. Osetia. Considering capabilities of "Smerch" it is very scary even to imagine what it can do.

However MLRS are actually just a platform and a lot depends on...

[StiviGun1]

I told u that the latest MLRS rockets have a range of 70 km. Uragan & Grad have a maximum range of just 40 km. Plus, the Grad & Uragan & the Smerch r used 4 surface bombings, not 4 precision strikes. & destroy 65 hectares area just 2 hit a target is not such an achievement. The MLRS can do with 1 missile what the Smerch does with 12 of those rockets. There is no comparison between MLRS & Smerch when it comes 2 accuracy. The only thin Smerch beats the MLRS is firepower thanks 2 its 300 mm rockets

[SibirianHusky]

who cares if you rule the AIR usa always need other technology wepons,tanks,choopers,planes,s­pace project... F22 use german swink engine even with it its a TOTAL failure now u start nex project F35 need Russian VTOL Yak 141 project MBT Abrams ? UK Armor / German L/44 Gun only motor is US tec but need TOOO much refuil beretta,mp5,FN Scar,usp and and and.. and dont forget Sikorsky created not by an american.. even its there or does SIKORSY sounds american? need more examples ?

[StiviGun1]

The F-22 uses an engine completely designed & made in USA. The F-35 uses the idea of putting 2 means of propulsion 4 the vertical take off & landing. It only uses this idea, not the same method. & only 4 the B version. The F-22 is the most advanced fighter in the world. But it is expensive & the US doesn't need a plane with such capability now. The F-35 is not something new, nor it's made 2 replace the F-22. It has been designed 2 work in conjunction with the F-22.

[SibirianHusky]

@StiviGun1 SWINK ENGINE go watch german mueum and univerity. i didnt wrote it was JET ENGINE. F22 most advanced plane in teh world ? yes ONLY in hollywood movies and games ... JESUS... even YOUR MEDIA wich lie the most time.. told ITS A TOTAL FAILURE ! and KIDS OF US UNIVERITY DEDECT it with a simpel computer game.. i guess u also belive in UFOS always belive in lies like in ww1/ww2 vietnam/iraq how would you explain 9/11 GREAT AIR DEFENSE ? who cares..lies after lies

[StiviGun1]

Look idiot, the F-22's engines r made by Pratt & Whitney, an American company. It is 100% American made. & I never saw a person as full of shit as u r. What students detected the F-22 with a "simpel" computer game? "Our" media never said the F-22 is a failure. U r mistaking the media with some pathetic "antiwar" liberal groups that don't have a real life & they spend their time by talking shit abt the military. Like the military is responsible for their complete fuck up life...

[SibirianHusky]

@StiviGun1

LOOK IDIOT

I REPEAT... I DIDNT MEANT THE JET ENGINE

MONGO CRACKHEAD omg..

SWINK ENGINE

wow get a life...

got no nervs for loser wich dont uderstand...

serious

[StiviGun1]

And what the fuck is a "swink engine"?

[BitnikGr]

... ammunition. It is just a tube (of course with its own technology, know-how and secrets) but basicly it is a tube. And great part of deal depends on rocket technology. I think that 50years ago even a smerch wouldn't be able to fire farther than 30km.

And also we have to take in mind that this is a 2004 documentary. In our times a lot of things changes in 6 years. Especcially in electronics and technology.

[BitnikGr]

By the way, you watch "Future Weapons" right? And it is not a propaganda for you. Anyway in one of latest episodes of "FW" they were describing a self-homing anti-tank cluster bombs, which were tested in combat for first time in 2003.

As it comes from this video, and from one other video of this serie "Tanks. Struggle for surviving. Part 2", Soviets had such weapon from 80s, while in US it is considered as "Future Weapon" :)))

[StiviGun1]

Oh, those antitank clustered bombs were designed during the '80s but they were dropped after the Cold War ended, the Congress rejected funds 4 further development saying that the Cold War is over & they don't need this type of capability anymore. A lot of programs were rejected under this pretext. The cluster antitank bomb program was revived 4 the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but the Americans designed them more than 20 years b4 the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

[BitnikGr]

I'll agree with you in one thing. Yes, in any military program there is an element of propaganda. But at least "Voennoe Delo" is much more modest and not so agressive like History, Discovery, Military channels are. They are so aggressive and brainwashing that they make anyone who can think sceptically, to puke.

I get tired to read bs in magazines like Focus and Sience illustrated. Even they contain too much propaganda as well.

[BitnikGr]

So, one of goals of this channel is to meet western ppl with Russian and even Soviet documentary. Because for some it is interesting to see a new perspective on things and to find the truth somewhere in the middle of what the West and the East presents as their truth.

Even if their is propaganda, it will just counter-balance all that dirt we get as "information" in our head.

BTW you need to see some of episodes dedicated to western weapon system, and see that this show is quite objective.

[StiviGun1]

I don't think this show is that objective. How could they say that the MLRS missiles have a range of just 30 km? The 1st rockets that were introduced in '82 had a 32 km range & they used submunitions. The Americans constantly improved the system since then. In '91 the missiles could hit targets at over 45 km. Now the unitary warhead versions can hit with less than 10 m CEP at over 70 km.

[BitnikGr]

Take in mind that this show was on air in May of 2004. Munition for MLRS are described In wikipedia page about MLRS. M26, M26A1, M26A2 were the earliest versions rockets in MLRS arsenal. With max. range of 45km they are exactly what this video describes.

However, I can't find when M30 rockets with 60km range came into service. Before 2004 or after?

I don't take in mind ATACMS, because they should be compared to tactical SS missiles.

[StiviGun1]

I don't know when exactly the M30 rockets entered service. But I think it was b4 2004. I saw a video where some US soldiers were saying that they fired "these things" at over 60 km in Iraq. I guess they were talking about the 2003 invasion of Iraq. & I never compared the ATACMA missile with the Smerch rockets. They r 2 different things.

[BitnikGr]

About range... If you watch carefully it seems that when they mention covered area, it is given together with range less than maximum range of fire, both for "Smerch" and MLRS.

F.e they say 32hectares at 30km, while max. range is 45. And 65hectares at 70km, while max. range is 90km.

My wild guess is that at max. distance dence of fire is worse than about 70-80% of max. range.

[StiviGun1]

Yeah, maybe yr right. The longer the distance, the less accurate the rocket becomes, therefore the concentrated fire over an area decreases. But I don't remember them saying this. They said that MLRS has a max range of "just 30 km". They never said anything about the area MLRS can cover at 30 km. They said that its maximum range is 30 km, as opposed 2 the 90 km max range of the MLRS. That's what they said.

[BitnikGr]

@StiviGun1 4:43 - they say about theoretical max. range by Western experts (more correct would be 35-45, instead of 30-40)

5:00 - 33hectares at range 30km

1:10 - 65hectares at 70km

[StiviGun1]

They say it can cover a 33ha area "at a distance not farther than 30 km". That means they wanted 2 say that MLRS rockets have a max range of 30 km, which is a complete bullshit. They say that Smerch can cover an area of 67 ha at maximum 70 km range because almost all Smerch rockets, except one, have a 70 km max range. Only 1 model of the Smerch rockets has 90 km range. So this is what they wanted 2 say: that MLRS rockets only have a max range of 30 km, which is a pathetic lie.

[BitnikGr]

StiviGun1, SibirianHusky,

Could you, please, stop arguing about planes? They are not subject of this video. Thank you.

[BitnikGr]

And about your supposed Patriot PAC-3 vs Iskander interception... How in the world a mach5 missile of Patriot with max. ceiling 24km can intercept a mach6.1 missile with 50km ceiling?

1 mach is 1240km/h. It is a huge difference.

Patriot needs about 100 seconds to fly 160km of its maximum range. Iskander needs about 20seconds to reach 30km altitude.

ONLY at descending to target Patriot might be able to intercept Iskander, and even there is a huge IF... but it's a different story.

[shaftster2001]

At the arch or descending phase is when the pac-3 would and could make contact with an iskander. Like I said, I'm not saying this is a great weapon, is range and firepower are very respectable. But what are the chances of it getting within firing range of nato forces god forbid they are ever in a fight? I would give it less than a 10% chance given the intelligence resources and special forces of NATO. If the US or Nato forces had a need for this kind of weaponry, trust me, they could easily...

[shaftster2001]

And quickly deploy such a weapon system. But from my observation, Russia still designs weapons to the soviet system of only having a front line. The US learned its lesson in vietnam and has since developed a doctrine of mixed war. Where faster and more mobile weapon systems adapted for multi-mission use are favored over traditional systems. After all, what's the point of having the biggest of anything when a couple teams of 10 men can take them out with ATGMs

[StiviGun1]

Antimissile systems r designed 2 engage missiles in their descending path pal... Go read some more b4 posting such commentaries. Only the US Ground Based Midcourse Defense system is designed 2 shoot down missiles in their mid flight fase. The Patriot is designed to shoo down missile after they start 2 descend. No antimissile system is designed 2 shoot down missile in their climbing fase. Only in the mid fase of flight & in the terminal fase of flight. Go learn some more.

[BitnikGr]

:))) I was waiting this reply, but not from you. But it's ok. At least someone understands working principles of system he is talking about. Most of ppl beleives that anti-missile project is something mighty-super-power that can reach and hit everything flying.

So, Patriots have much more probabilities to hit target on descent. I have 1 thing to tell and 1 question to ask...

1) Iskander make random evasive actions during its launch path and during descent. Maneuvers with up to 20G overload.,,

[BitnikGr]

So, yes... Iskander might be shut down by Patriot... but it isn't an easy target isn't it?

2) Just couple of days ago the USA placed Patriot elements in Poland, just in 100km from borders with Russia (Patriot's range is 160km). Now tell me... what is it there in Poland around 200-250km from Russian borders which worth to be protected by Patriots?

[StiviGun1]

I like weapons, not politics & I don't like 2 talk abt politics. I don't why US installs Patriot missiles at 100 km away from yr border with Poland. But form what I know, the Polish r the ones that r doing it, not the Americans. It is the Polish government decision. & only the PAC-2 which uses a larger missile has an 160 km range. The PAC-3 systems that the Polish want 2 install use much smaller missile that only have a 20 km range. But I really don't think this is the US decision.

[BitnikGr]

I have to agree here with you too.

I guess Russians are just upset that radar of this system can watch about 60km in their territory, that's all. In fact patriots are defensive system.

BTW I am not russian, and I don't live in Russia.

[StiviGun1]

Maybe Iskander can perform evading maneuvers at up to 20 g, but only in its ascent course. It's impossible 2 do that in the descent course, especially 4 a tactical ballistic missile that doesn't climb 2 a very high altitude. Iskander is indeed a hard target, but not impossible 2 hit. PAC-3 has 16 missile in 1 launcher. It can launch more missiles at 1 target in 1 time. I don't know how Iskander can evade 2 or 3 PAC-3 missiles shot at it in the same time.

[BitnikGr]

Well, manufacter claims that it work so both ascending and descenind. Nevertherless, you have a point here. Multiple launch against one SS missile have much more probability for a kill.

[StiviGun1]

I really don't think the Iskander can perform evasive maneuvers at 20 g. & this is 4 two reasons. 1: if it would perform such maneuvers at such a speed during its decent course, it would be impossible 2 accurately hit it's target. It wouldn't have time 2 maneuver back into position 2 hit the target. 2: at such a speed it would fall apart in the air.

[BitnikGr]

I will agree with 1st, but not with second. Modern aircraft like F-22 can perform 14G turns without falling apart and they are much bigger and more complex mechanisms than small size, cylinder shaped missile made of steel and with solid fuels. I don't think that it can fall apart with 20G overload.

[StiviGun1]

The Iskander missile is claimed 2 be constructed from composite materials. & u can't compare the F-22 with a missile, because a missile travels at much higher speeds. I really don't think that Iskander can perform 20 g maneuvers in its descending flight course. It flies with over 5 mach. It's impossible 2 make 20 g maneuvers at such a speed.

[SibirianHusky]

@BitnikGr

show me the pilot wich can take

14 negativ G forces....

he must have a steelhead to survive xDDD

[BitnikGr]

We are not talking about pilots and planes here, but about missiles :)

[SibirianHusky]

@BitnikGr

and F22 is crap ..

finaly the most ppl figure it out...

even the usa media told it

i know usa media tv lies a lot ...

but not always ^^

and the stealh isnt realy stealh

even some usa univerity kids could dedect it with a computer game...

and for russia they where never invissible

[BitnikGr]

The stealthiness of F-117 project was made to be "invisible" to modern western radars. They never considered that old bulky stationary radars from 60s will be in service till 21st century. Different length of wave makes the whole shape of F-117 absolutely "visible" like any other planes.

It is very fascinating story, but probably not for commenting in this video, dedicated to modern MLRS systems.

[StiviGun1]

Why did u said that did not expect this reply from me? What did you mean by this?

[BitnikGr]

I was waiting for it from previous guy, who left comentary. It would show how much he knows.

But anyway I am glad to have conversation with you.

It's 1:00 am here, and I'll go soon.

If you are interesting then you can watch other videos from this show in my channel.

[shaftster2001]

I did say it, you can substitute arc and descend to second phase and terminal phase

[shaftster2001]

Also you have no idea what I "know". I "know" most weapons systems are often overly quoted on capabilities. I "know" what most weapons sytems are actually capable of. I "know" one iskander launcher has 2 missiles when 1 pac three launcher has 16. thats an 8:1 ratio. If I had an 8:1 ratio of winning the lotto, those are pretty damn good odds

[BitnikGr]

No, I don't know what you know. That's why I was waiting for reply. I like to speak with educated ppl, even if we desagree, we keep conversation on respectful level and it is very valuable and really apreciated by me.

[shaftster2001]

While true, the US MLRS cannot shoot as far as the smerch, the US version can fire 2 different types from its launchers, rockets and atacms with a range of 128 km. This thing, while it is very impressive would not and could not get within firing distance of a NATO unit if the US is playing.and before you say iskander, think Patriot pac-3.

[BitnikGr]

@shaftster2001 No, I woudn't say about Iskander or S-300, S-400 anything. And mention of Patriots is also not correct here.

Tactical missiles are in their own class themselves. MLRS is not exactly a guided missile, but just a rocket propelled projectile. It's accuracy usually achieved by classic ballistics and not by any kind of navigation or target designation.

However it is smart to use same launch platform for both, missiles and rockets.

Russian MLRS cannot du that, because they have tubes...

[BitnikGr]

... not a container which can be changed. So, US MLRS can launch 2 guided missiles or about 10 rockets, right?

So, if we want to compare tactical SS missiles then 128km range is not unusual.

And if we go to simple rocket projectiles then we see that their range is actually about 35-45km. With exteption of the newest XM31 with range about 60km. (still 1/3 distance shorter than 90km).

And there is one more key factor. Rocket's weights. US MLRS can "throw" about 300kg missiles at distances ...

[BitnikGr]

... from 30 to 60km, while "Smerch" throw 800kg rockets to distances up to 90km. Do you feel the difference? Can you calculate how much more power do you need to throw a 2.5times heavier object in same distance?

[StiviGun1]

I have 2 make a correction here. The latest unitary warhead of the ATACMS missile have a range of 320 km. They are also working at a bunker busting version that has a range of 350 km. They will probably send this one in Afghanistan.