Canada seeks to buy Long Range Precision Rockets (probably US MLRS or HIMARS)

[Kirkhill]

Lockheed Martin unveils HIMARS FLEX with double firepower

Lockheed Martin announced the HIMARS FLEX on June 16, a modular evolution of the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System that introduces a dual-pod launcher configuration capable of carrying double the munitions of the standard single-pod HIMARS, adds the ability

defence-blog.com

"Lockheed Martin announced the HIMARS FLEX on June 16, a modular evolution of the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System that introduces a dual-pod launcher configuration capable of carrying double the munitions of the standard single-pod HIMARS, adds the ability to fire air and missile defense interceptors including the PAC-3 from the same chassis, and incorporates optional autonomous operation capabilities through what the company calls its FLEXFires technology ecosystem, all while retaining C-130 transport aircraft airlifting capability and NATO munitions compatibility."

Can we re-write the launcher request?

I'll have 90 of these.

And a missile factory.

 

[FJAG]

Sorry - I wrote this Sunday but forgot to post it.

I want to keep up with the Aussies.

90 HIMARS.

The Aussies have different outlooks. 4 Regt RAA is scheduled to become their K9 Regiment supporting their heavy brigade. There are 30 K9s being built. With the HIMATS purchase I expect that the 30 will be all they will have. Their regimental structures fluctuate and with 30 guns they may make two 12 gun regiments but that's pure speculation on my part.

With our NATO commitment we are buying three times as many guns for close support work for a division and more. That takes a large slice of our RegF artillery because of our penchant for only giving nice things to them. I agree though. We ought to buy more HIMARS.

They are turning into a particularly versatile piece of kit launching everything from ballistic rockets to long range ballistic missiles and with cruise missiles and loitering munitions also in the offing.

They may even have a role in Air Defence.

You know my distain for multi-rolling weapon systems and units. It's hard enough becoming proficient at one role.

Assuming that Canada's RegF leaders have finally got their heads screwed on right as to the need for fires, AD and logistics in war, there will be a much greater need for people to man the many more units of those types that we need. If I had my druthers, I'd cap the RegF army at what they already have, (I do think we need more airmen and sailors), expand the ARes and buy more equipment and man it mostly with specialized hybrid units.

 

[ArmyRick]

expand the ARes and buy more equipment and man it mostly with specialized hybrid units.

Must, must, must have parliamentary legislation to back that up. Maybe government incentives (bonus or tax reductions?) to hire and allow these pers to train in the ARes?

 

[Kirkhill]

Sorry - I wrote this Sunday but forgot to post it.

The Aussies have different outlooks. 4 Regt RAA is scheduled to become their K9 Regiment supporting their heavy brigade. There are 30 K9s being built. With the HIMATS purchase I expect that the 30 will be all they will have. Their regimental structures fluctuate and with 30 guns they may make two 12 gun regiments but that's pure speculation on my part.

With our NATO commitment we are buying three times as many guns for close support work for a division and more. That takes a large slice of our RegF artillery because of our penchant for only giving nice things to them. I agree though. We ought to buy more HIMARS.

You know my distain for multi-rolling weapon systems and units. It's hard enough becoming proficient at one role.

Assuming that Canada's RegF leaders have finally got their heads screwed on right as to the need for fires, AD and logistics in war, there will be a much greater need for people to man the many more units of those types that we need. If I had my druthers, I'd cap the RegF army at what they already have, (I do think we need more airmen and sailors), expand the ARes and buy more equipment and man it mostly with specialized hybrid units.

And yet the Flex solution uses one launcher to launch various missiles. Just like the navy's Mk41 VLS.

My point would be that the actual engagement skill is not onboard the launch vehicle. It may not even be on the same continent.

Delivering the launch vehicle to the launch site with the correct array of missiles is a logistical function.

Tasking the right missile to the right target with the right information is a command and control function.

The crew onboard the launch vehicle, if there is one, are not involved in targeting or even launching...or reloading.

The same launch vehicle can be supplied to divisional support batteries, GBAD batteries, IAMD or IFPC batteries, or coastal defence batteries.

And all the vehicle crew has to do is ensure the vehicle is operational, that it is in the right spot and that it is secure.

Regardless of the missiles onboard.

And if the threat appreciation changes, or there are more casualties among one type of artillery than the others, then the vehicles can be repurposed to an alternate command structure.

And given that the vehicles are now both LRPF and AD assets then I don't want 90.

I want 270.

90 for LRPF

18 West Coast
18 East Coast
54 Divisional with 18 tasked to a HIRAINs North mission

180 for IAMD, IFPC and GBAD.

And I still want the missile factory.

 

[FJAG]

Must, must, must have parliamentary legislation to back that up. Maybe government incentives (bonus or tax reductions?) to hire and allow these pers to train in the ARes?

Actually, the legislation is already there. There are only very minor legislative changes needed and those are not to make such units possible but simply to make the administration of efficient reserve service easier. The 1980s/90s air defence regiments were hybrid ones that worked as were the field arty 10/90 ones.

A separate issue is a federal standardized employer/employee protection legislation.

There are many, many regulatory and policy changes needed but those are within the ambit of the MND and CDS and TB to do without changing the NDA.

 

[GR66]

You know my distain for multi-rolling weapon systems and units. It's hard enough becoming proficient at one role.

Just because the HIMARS FLEX can carry both Rockets/SSM's and AD pods doesn't mean you have to make the individual vehicles multi-role. Issue the ones with the Rocket/SSM pods to the field artillery regiments and the ones with the Patriot/IFPC pods to the AD regiments.

You wouldn't think twice about having a LAV or CV-90 IFV version, an ATGM version, a mortar version, an ambulance version, a Command Post version, etc. all on the same chassis, so why be against having a MLRS vehicle and an AD vehicle that use the same chassis and are both C-130 transportable. Much better for logistics (both parts supply and training the Veh Techs).

 

[FJAG]

Just because the HIMARS FLEX can carry both Rockets/SSM's and AD pods doesn't mean you have to make the individual vehicles multi-role. Issue the ones with the Rocket/SSM pods to the field artillery regiments and the ones with the Patriot/IFPC pods to the AD regiments.

You wouldn't think twice about having a LAV or CV-90 IFV version, an ATGM version, a mortar version, an ambulance version, a Command Post version, etc. all on the same chassis, so why be against having a MLRS vehicle and an AD vehicle that use the same chassis and are both C-130 transportable. Much better for logistics (both parts supply and training the Veh Techs).

I'm not against chassis sharing. Far from it. @Kirkhill, however, is a fan of multitasking vehicles on both missions simultaneously - that's what I don't like.

That said, I don't know enough about this system. The glossy brochure was only released yesterday. There're a lot of customers out there right now for both types of systems and with this LockMart is chumming for interest away from its cheaper rivals. I'll wait and see how the duality is integrated into both systems.

 

[HavokFour]

With Eurosatory having happened there's been a lot of interesting stuff put out.

One of the more eye catching things was reportedly a Chunmoo launcher in a tractor trailer configuration integrated with a Diamler truck chassis, as mentioned by this site and Noah.

Haven't found any images of it yet, but thought this was worth sharing even though we're set on HIMARS.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2066513096533811400

Hanwha presents K9A2, Chunmoo and air-defence systems at Eurosatory as it expands European partnerships - Defence Industry Europe

Hanwha is exhibiting field-proven defence systems and European industrial cooperation plans at Eurosatory 2026 in Paris.

defence-industry.eu

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not against chassis sharing. Far from it. @Kirkhill, however, is a fan of multitasking vehicles on both missions simultaneously - that's what I don't like.

That said, I don't know enough about this system. The glossy brochure was only released yesterday. There're a lot of customers out there right now for both types of systems and with this LockMart is chumming for interest away from its cheaper rivals. I'll wait and see how the duality is integrated into both systems.

No. I'm not.

My rationale is exactly as @GR66 explained it.

Swapping payloads would not be on tactical timelines but based on operational or strategic needs. No different than the Boxer flexibility, or the Stanflex system.

Mind you, I find your position to be somewhat at odds with your oft repeated claim that guns are flexible because of the variety of payloads and effects they can launch.

Other examples of multi-mission tacticsl flexibility are found in virtually every ship at sea and every aircraft that flies, fixed or rotary wing.

But I have come to accept that focus results in proficiency and therefore a unit should concentrate its efforts on one mission set.

 

[FJAG]

Mind you, I find your position to be somewhat at odds with your oft repeated claim that guns are flexible because of the variety of payloads and effects they can launch.

That's not exactly what I said - the variety of rounds fired by guns don't make them merely more flexible, they provide capabilities that missiles and rockets do not provide at all. Add to that the cost of missiles/rockets v gun projectiles and a variety of other matters and you'll see that my position is you need a mix of both to provide the task they are best for.

Other examples of multi-mission tacticsl flexibility are found in virtually every ship at sea and every aircraft that flies, fixed or rotary wing.

Those come in specialized platforms as well. Compare an A10 to an F35.

But I have come to accept that focus results in proficiency and therefore a unit should concentrate its efforts on one mission set.

Good. I'll read your future multi-mission posts in light of that. My problem has always been that most manufacturers make claims that - using the old English legal terms - are mere puffery. One has to do an in depth analysis of the equipment and its capabilities on the ground to see if they match claims in a tactical or TPP sense. Often they don't, sometimes they do lead to better ways of doing business. Perhaps we older Canadian gunners are more conscious of these things because of our experiences with ADATS and the whole AD v AT thing and the Direct Fire Unit experiences in the 2004-5 era.