How MLRS and other advanced rocket systems are tipping ‘battle of fires’ in Ukraine’s favour

Published

3 years ago

October 5, 2022

admin

Artillery strikes are playing a crucial role in Russia’s war in Ukraine in what top American commanders have called a “battle of fires”.

Russia’s military initially had a significant advantage over the Ukrainian armed forces because of a much larger arsenal of artillery systems.

It meant they were able to devastate Ukrainian positions in the east, while staying out of the range of Ukrainian weapons.

The United Kingdom, United States and belatedly Germany have worked to tip the balance of firepower on the battlefield in favour of Ukraine by giving their allies artillery systems that not only have a longer range than the Russians but fire with greater accuracy.

This includes arming Ukrainian troops with multiple-launch rocket systems or MLRS.

Putin loses 4,000 sq km in single week – Ukraine war latest updates

What is an MLRS and what version does the UK use?

MLRS stands for “Multiple-Launch Rocket System”, a mobile rocket artillery system that fires multiple surface-to-surface missiles.

The British Army’s Royal Artillery uses the M270 rocket system.

Operated by a crew of three (driver, gunner and section chief), the weapon is a highly-mobile, automatic system that can fire 12 surface-to-surface precision-guided missiles in less than a minute. They can be fired individually or in pairs of two up to 12.

The M31 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) munitions, with a 200lb high explosive warhead, can hit a target more than 50 miles away – twice the range of other artillery systems used by the army.

A programme is underway to extend the reach even further.

A fire control computer ensures accuracy is maintained by re-aiming the launcher between rounds.

The M270 MLRS was developed under a US-led programme that saw the first systems come into service in the 1980s.

The UK first used its MLRS during the First Gulf War

What has the UK given to Ukraine to bolster its firepower?

The UK has given a total of six MLRS to Ukraine, as well as precision guided M31A1 missiles.

The first tranche of three was announced in June 2022, with Defence Secretary Ben Wallace saying the system would “help the country defend itself against Russian aggression”.

A new commitment to double the UK’s contribution was made two months later.

Why does Ukraine want MLRS?

The UK MLRS and a similar artillery system provided to Ukraine by the US, called the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), have a longer range, much better precision and a faster rate of fire compared with Soviet-designed Smerch, Uragan and Tornado multiple rocket launchers used by both Russia and Ukraine.

Germany has given the Ukrainians its version – MARS II rocket launchers as well as hundreds of rockets.

It means that Ukrainian troops are able to hit Russian positions – including armoured vehicles, military bases, command posts and ammunition stores – with accuracy and with a reduced risk of being struck in Russian return fire.

The Russian military is forced to use large numbers of rounds against a target to compensate for a lack of precision with their weapons.

The UK M31A1 missiles have been designed to defend against Russian heavy artillery and the MLRS’s range of more than 50 miles allows Ukraine to strike beyond Russian lines, while also putting it out of reach of most Russian artillery systems.

Western leaders have so far have refrained from providing Ukraine with even longer-range missiles for launchers that can reach targets up to 186 miles, allowing the military to hit areas deep inside Russian territory.

Does Russia have MLRS?

Russia has its own multiple launch rocket system: the 9K58 Smerch 300mm MLRS. It fires the 300mm 9M55K rocket and has a range of between 12 and 43 miles.

Smerch was developed in the early 1980s and entered service with the Russian Army in 1988.

It is also used by the militaries of India, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus and Ukraine, and was exported to Kuwait and Algeria.

What is the difference between MLRS and HIMARS?

HIMARS can fire the same family of munitions as MLRS launchers but with one key difference: a wheeled chassis instead of tracks.

The tracks on the MLRS make the system highly mobile, with a max speed of 40mph.

This means the launchers are hard for the enemy to spot and can quickly change position after firing to escape airstrikes, in what has become known as a “shoot and scoot” strategy.

What are the disadvantages of MLRS?

Ukraine says the number of rocket launcher systems being provided by Western leaders is still far too small.

In June, Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Ukraine’s president, said the country needs at least 300 MLRS, 1,000 heavy howitzers, 500 tanks and 2,000 armoured vehicles – much more than the West has provided.

As well as giving the Ukrainian military rocket-launchers, the UK has also trained a number of Ukrainian troops on how to operate the system.

World

What’s it like with the National Guard on the streets of DC?

Published

12 hours ago

August 22, 2025

admin

What's it like with the National Guard on the streets of DC?

👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈

What’s it like on the streets of DC right now, as thousands of federal police patrol the streets?

Who is Steve Witkoff, the US envoy regularly meeting Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu to broker peace in Ukraine and Gaza?

And why is Californian Governor Gavin Newsom now tweeting like Donald Trump?

Martha Kelner and Mark Stone answer your questions.

If you’ve also got a question you’d like the Trump100 team to answer, you can email it to trump100@sky.uk.

You can also watch all episodes on our YouTube channel.

World

It’s been a confusing week – and Trump’s been made to look weak

Published

12 hours ago

August 22, 2025

admin

It’s been a confusing week.

The Monday gathering of European leaders and Ukraine’s president with Donald Trump at the White House was highly significant.

Ukraine latest: Trump changes tack

The leaders went home buoyed by the knowledge that they’d finally convinced the American president not to abandon Europe. He had committed to provide American “security guarantees” to Ukraine.

The details were sketchy, and sketched out only a little more through the week (we got some noise about American air cover), but regardless, the presidential commitment represented a clear shift from months of isolationist rhetoric on Ukraine – “it’s Europe’s problem” and all the rest of it.

Yet it was always the case that, beyond that clear achievement for the Europeans, Russia would have a problem with it.

Trump’s envoy’s language last weekend – claiming that Putin had agreed to Europe providing “Article 5-like” guarantees for Ukraine, essentially providing it with a NATO-like collective security blanket – was baffling.

Russia gives two fingers to the president

And throughout this week, Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has repeatedly and predictably undermined the whole thing, pointing out that Russia would never accept any peace plan that involved any European or NATO troops in Ukraine.

“The presence of foreign troops in Ukraine is completely unacceptable for Russia,” he said yesterday, echoing similar statements stretching back years.

Remember that NATO’s “eastern encroachment” was the justification for Russia’s “special military operation” – the invasion of Ukraine – in the first place. All this makes Trump look rather weak.

It’s two fingers to the president, though interestingly, the Russian language has been carefully calibrated not to poke Trump but to mock European leaders instead. That’s telling.

The bilateral meeting (between Putin and Zelenskyy) hailed by Trump on Monday as agreed and close – “within two weeks” – looks decidedly doubtful.

Maybe that’s why he went along with Putin’s suggestion that there be a bilateral, not including Trump, first.

It’s easier for the American president to blame someone else if it’s not his meeting, and it doesn’t happen.

NATO defence chiefs met on Wednesday to discuss the details of how the security guarantees – the ones Russia won’t accept – will work.

European sources at the meeting have told me it was all a great success. And to the comments by Lavrov, a source said: “It’s not up to Lavrov to decide on security guarantees. Not up to the one doing the threatening to decide how to deter that threat!”

The argument goes that it’s not realistic for Russia to say from which countries Ukraine can and cannot host troops.

Would Trump threaten force?

The problem is that if Europe and the White House want Russia to sign up to some sort of peace deal, then it would require agreement from all sides on the security arrangements.

The other way to get Russia to heel would be with an overwhelming threat of force. Something from Trump, like: “Vladimir – look what I did to Iran…”. But, of course, Iran isn’t a nuclear power.

Something else bothers me about all this. The core concept of a “security guarantee” is an ironclad obligation to defend Ukraine into the future.

Future guarantees would require treaties, not just a loose promise. I don’t see Trump’s America truly signing up to anything that obliges them to do anything.

A layered security guarantee which builds over time is an option, but from a Kremlin perspective, would probably only end up being a repeat of history and allow them another “justification” to push back.

Image and reality don’t seem to match

Among Trump’s stream of social media posts this week was an image of him waving his finger at Putin in Alaska. It was one of the few non-effusive images from the summit.

He posted it next to an image of former president Richard Nixon confronting Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev – an image that came to reflect American dominance over the Soviet Union.

That may be the image Trump wants to portray. But the events of the past week suggest image and reality just don’t match.

The past 24 hours in Ukraine have been among the most violent to date.

World

At least 17 dead in Colombia after car bombing and helicopter attack

Published

12 hours ago

August 22, 2025

admin

At least 17 dead in Colombia after car bombing and helicopter attack

At least 17 people were killed after a car bombing and an attack on a police helicopter in Colombia, officials have said.

Authorities in the southwest city of Cali said a vehicle loaded with explosives detonated near a military aviation school, killing five people and injuring more than 30.

Authorities said at least 12 died in the attack on a helicopter transporting personnel to an area in Antioquia in northern Colombia, where they were to destroy coca leaf crops – the raw material used in the production of cocaine.

Antioquia governor Andres Julian said a drone attacked the helicopter as it flew over coca leaf crops.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro attributed both incidents to dissidents of the defunct Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).

He said the aircraft was targeted in retaliation for a cocaine seizure that allegedly belonged to the Gulf Clan.

Who are FARC, and are they still active?

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a Marxist guerrilla organisation, was the largest of the country’s rebel groups, and grew out of peasant self-defence forces.

It was formed in 1964 as the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party, carrying out a series of attacks against political and economic targets.

In 2016, after more than 50 years of civil war, FARC rebels and the Colombian government signed a peace deal.

It officially ceased to be an armed group the following year – but some small dissident groups rejected the agreement and refused to disarm.

According to a report by Colombia’s Truth Commission in 2022, fighting between government forces, FARC, and the militant group National Liberation Army had killed around 450,000 people between 1985 and 2018.

Both FARC dissidents and members of the Gulf Clan operate in Antioquia.

It comes as a report from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime found that coca leaf cultivation is on the rise in Colombia.

The area under cultivation reached a record 253,000 hectares in 2023, according to the UN’s latest available report.