Russia unveils Sarma 300mm MLRS

Sarma MLRS on KamAZ‑63501 300mm launcher in Perm—six‑tube heavy rocket system — Sarma MLRS on KamAZ‑63501 shown at Motovilikha Plants (Perm). Image via Defence Blog/social media screengrab.

Russia has publicly shown the Sarma MLRS, a 300mm multiple launch rocket system on the KamAZ‑63501 (8×8) armored chassis, during President Vladimir Putin’s visit to the Motovilikha Plants in Perm. The display confirms that Moscow is pushing a mobility‑first iteration of heavy rocket artillery, trading the classic twelve‑tube layout for a six‑tube configuration that’s easier to deploy and hide.

Key Facts — Sarma MLRS

Caliber: 300mm; configuration: six launch tubes on KamAZ‑63501 (8×8).

Lineage: Evolves the KAMA concept; positioned as a lighter, more mobile successor to Smerch‑class launchers.

Ammunition: Intended for guided rockets; open sources indicate ranges broadly comparable to Smerch/Tornado‑S classes. Specific performance claims remain unverified by primary technical documents.

Operational idea: Emphasises shoot‑and‑scoot, faster set‑up, and rapid redeployment to improve survivability under counter‑battery fire.

What is new about the Sarma MLRS?

The Sarma MLRS largely keeps the heavy 300mm effect but shifts the design centre of gravity from volume of fire toward mobility and integration with guided munitions. By halving the tube count to six and moving to the KamAZ‑63501, it reduces combat mass and eases the logistic burden. That change enables quicker displacements across soft ground and narrow roads, and it shortens firing signatures. In practice, this improves the system’s odds of dodging counter‑battery radars and loitering munitions.

The chosen chassis matters. KamAZ‑63501 is a high‑mobility 8×8 truck with widespread parts support inside Russia. A common truck base simplifies wartime sustainment compared with bespoke heavy platforms. It also broadens the set of roads and bridges the launcher can safely use, which is a daily constraint for 300mm systems operating near the forward line.

From Smerch to Sarma: the trade‑off

Smerch‑class systems earned their reputation through long‑range area effects and the ability to saturate a grid square in seconds. The Sarma MLRS accepts a smaller ready‑to‑fire load in exchange for faster displacement and, potentially, better signature control. For a force learning under fire, that is a rational trade. It complements Tornado‑S, which already brought GLONASS‑aided rockets and improved fire‑control to the 300mm family.

In operational terms, this trade‑off fits Russia’s current artillery doctrine. Proliferation of counter‑battery radars and abundant reconnaissance drones punishes large signatures and slow egress. A six‑tube Sarma MLRS can fire a guided ripple, displace within a minute, and survive to fire again. Batteries can split into pairs, complicating enemy targeting while preserving effects through coordinated salvos.

Guided munitions and the digital thread

Open reporting points to the Sarma MLRS employing guided rockets already used by Tornado‑S, with inertial navigation augmented by satellite correction. That approach reduces dispersion to near‑artillery levels at long range and supports mission types beyond area suppression—such as striking air‑defence batteries, C2 nodes, logistics hubs, and pontoon crossings. The real capability lift, however, comes from the system‑of‑systems around the launcher: UAV‑fed target acquisition, automated fire control, and secure mission‑data transfer along a digital thread. Russia’s industry emphasises these elements because they multiply the value of each tube when tube counts are lower.

Where the numbers get fuzzy

Some media echo claims of an accuracy margin around 0.21% of range and a full salvo time under 19 seconds. Those figures mirror historical data often quoted for Smerch and may be reasonable for a six‑tube mount, but they are not yet substantiated by an official technical data sheet. Until Motovilikha or the Russian MoD publishes baseline specifications, these should be treated as provisional. That caveat matters for procurement analysts who model cost‑exchange ratios between counter‑battery assets and heavy MLRS.

Industrial logic: modernise what you already have

The Sarma MLRS is also an industrial story. Motovilikha Plants—Russia’s long‑standing barrel and rocket artillery house—has been revived to deliver high‑volume outputs of legacy‑derived systems. A KAMA‑lineage launcher on a KamAZ truck uses familiar production lines and a mature supplier base. That reduces ramp‑up time and accelerates fielding, which aligns with Russia’s wartime prioritisation of good‑enough, fast over clean‑sheet designs. In short, Sarma slots neatly into an ecosystem already producing Tornado‑G/S and associated transport‑loading vehicles.

How might armies use Sarma?

Users are likely to employ the Sarma MLRS in mixed batteries with Tornado‑S, adding a rapid‑reaction element that can deliver precision bursts against time‑sensitive targets. The system’s lighter footprint suits dispersed basing and helicopter‑threatened sectors where every minute in the open is risky. In counter‑mobility roles, guided cluster or unitary warheads can crater roads and interdict crossings with fewer rockets, preserving stocks and limiting collateral damage footprints compared with unguided salvos.

Comparative context: peers and precedents

Other nations have followed similar paths—adapting heavy calibres to lighter, more mobile launchers and leaning on precision to maintain lethality. China’s 300mm families, Israel’s EXTRA/Predator Hawk concepts, and even European efforts around guided GMLRS rockets echo the same pattern: a move from raw salvo mass toward networked precision. The Sarma MLRS fits that global arc, albeit with Russian characteristics—a KamAZ truck, GLONASS integration, and compatibility with legacy 300mm stocks.

What to watch next

Three markers will reveal whether Sarma is a marginal upgrade or a meaningful capability jump. First, munitions: confirmation of rocket types, ranges, and seeker options will indicate target sets and cost curves. Second, reload and sustainment: if Motovilikha pairs Sarma with existing transport‑loading vehicles and automated laying systems, units will cycle faster. Third, integration: the depth of Sarma’s tie‑in with UAV reconnaissance and counter‑battery networks will set its real battlefield value. If those three align, a six‑tube launcher can punch well above its weight.

Analyst’s note: the Sarma MLRS appears optimised for survivability and tempo under drone‑saturated, radar‑watched skies. The shift from 12 to 6 tubes is not a downgrade if each rocket lands closer to aim‑point and the battery lives to shoot again.

Background and sources

The public debut coincided with Russia’s Gunsmith’s Day and the president’s tour of the Motovilikha Plants in Perm. Earlier state media reporting from 2023 flagged “Sarma” as a KAMA‑derived 300mm project intended to fire guided rockets with improved fire‑control. Technical claims now circulating about dispersion and salvo time resemble legacy figures for Smerch‑class rockets and should be handled with caution until official data emerge.

Official readout: Kremlin — Putin’s visit to Motovilikha Plants

Conclusion

The Sarma MLRS is best read as Russia’s attempt to reconcile heavy‑calibre effects with the realities of modern sensor‑shooter warfare. It pares back tubes, rides a ubiquitous truck, and banks on guided munitions and better C2. If validated by formal specifications and serial production, Sarma will likely supplement Tornado‑S rather than replace it—offering commanders a fast, survivable precision punch that keeps pressure on high‑value targets while minimising exposure to counter‑battery fire.