Canada seeks to buy Long Range Precision Rockets (probably US MLRS or HIMARS)
- Thread starter The_Dictat
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 13,232
- Points
- 1,160
The next 26 will be cheaper.
Aussie ordered 20 in 2022
That was expanded to 42 for a total cost of 2.3 BAUD
A second batch of 48 was authorized for FMS in Sept 25 for a cost of 1.07 BAUD.
The first batch started delivery in Mar 2025 and is to be completed during 2027
MInd, the Aussies are making their own rockets.
- Reaction score
- 13,232
- Points
- 1,160
Aussie rocket program ramps up.
www.defenceconnect.com.au
Australia ramps up sovereign missile capability with local rocket motor production push
The Australian government has announced a major step towards defence self-reliance, committing an initial $126.9 million to establish domestic solid rocket motor manufacturing, a critical component underpinning modern guided weapons.
www.defenceconnect.com.au
- Reaction score
- 13,232
- Points
- 1,160
And the big guys are back to fighting over access to the rocketry market
breakingdefense.com
Back to being a growth industry.
Lockheed opposes Northrop bid to remove firewall on solid rocket motor business - Breaking Defense
Northrop argues that a 2018 consent order is hampering its ability to ramp up solid rocket motor production needed for critical munitions.
breakingdefense.com
Back to being a growth industry.
- Reaction score
- 13,232
- Points
- 1,160
Novel, affordable, rocketry.
"Draper is a throttleable and restartable liquid engine."
interestingengineering.com
"Draper is a throttleable and restartable liquid engine."
USAF-funded liquid rocket engine goes supersonic twice in 45 days
The 4,000-lbf Draper engine powered the US Air Force's Affordable Rapid Missile Demonstrator to supersonic speeds on its second flight.
interestingengineering.com
- Reaction score
- 13,232
- Points
- 1,160
US Army experimenting with the USMC stand-in strategy in the Philippines
LST unloads HIMARS on beach
HIMARs unloads missile on target
HIMARs evacuated from beach by LST
www.navalnews.com
LST unloads HIMARS on beach
HIMARs unloads missile on target
HIMARs evacuated from beach by LST
U.S. Army Island Hops Missile Launcher Near SCS at Balikatan - Naval News
U.S. Army watercraft and multi-domain forces island hopped a missile launcher to an island near the SCS during Balikatan 2026.
www.navalnews.com
- Reaction score
- 13,232
- Points
- 1,160
Rheinmetall to start producing (deep strike) cruise missiles as early as this year
Joint venture with Dutch start-up Destinus will manufacture ‘deep strike’ weapons in race to fill European defence gaps
.
- Reaction score
- 13,232
- Points
- 1,160
And LockMart upping HIMARS production
defence-industry.eu
Lockheed Martin increases HIMARS production capacity to meet growing U.S. and international demand
Lockheed Martin is increasing production of the M142 HIMARS multiple launch rocket system following a $1.1 billion contract award announced by the United States Army in April.
defence-industry.eu
- Reaction score
- 9,986
- Points
- 1,140
I'm no expert on targeting, but I'm not sure a fat and slow LST is the best way to move trucks around for a shoot and scoot.US Army experimenting with the USMC stand-in strategy in the Philippines
LST unloads HIMARS on beach
HIMARs unloads missile on target
HIMARs evacuated from beach by LST
U.S. Army Island Hops Missile Launcher Near SCS at Balikatan - Naval News
U.S. Army watercraft and multi-domain forces island hopped a missile launcher to an island near the SCS during Balikatan 2026.
- Reaction score
- 13,232
- Points
- 1,160
I can only suppose the idea is to cruise a circuit before hostilities and drop off launchers and hope to confuse the enemy as to on which particular islands the launchers have been deposited.
- Reaction score
- 19,907
- Points
- 1,160
That presupposes an enemy with zero air and space surveillance capabilities remaining. I'm kind of with @Underway on much of the USMC theory here.
Yes. I do see anti-ship missile units ashore at critical strategic choke points - preferably in hardened bunkers - and supported by a host of small missile equipped boats that can run those circuits and fire while afloat without landing anything. But then the Navy hasn't been in the business of small boats since retiring the last PT boat. I guess that's what the subs are for.
The USMC is between a rock and a hard place on the staying relevant front. I think they are doing as well as they can, but not every brain fart is a winner.
- Reaction score
- 13,232
- Points
- 1,160
That presupposes an enemy with zero air and space surveillance capabilities remaining. I'm kind of with @Underway on much of the USMC theory here.
Yes. I do see anti-ship missile units ashore at critical strategic choke points - preferably in hardened bunkers - and supported by a host of small missile equipped boats that can run those circuits and fire while afloat without landing anything. But then the Navy hasn't been in the business of small boats since retiring the last PT boat. I guess that's what the subs are for.
The USMC is between a rock and a hard place on the staying relevant front. I think they are doing as well as they can, but not every brain fart is a winner.
This exercise was a US Army one - LST and HIMARS - the kit the USMC is asking for. Your points are still valid though.
- Reaction score
- 11,900
- Points
- 1,040
If you're providing fire support over long ranges where there aren't a lot of roads, rivers and lakes and oceans will do to get stuff into position.
- Reaction score
- 13,232
- Points
- 1,160
Are more efforts to drive the cost of rocketry down and production rates up.
www.tomshardware.com
3D-printed rocket fuel successfully tested, could enable lighter missiles and faster production rates — new additive manufacturing process tested at 1,800 PSI
Solid 3D printed rocket fuel is now a reality
- Reaction score
- 9,986
- Points
- 1,140
As the Russians have demonstrated, if you're using long range precision missiles, a big plane is an effective way to deliver those missiles from outside the enemy's AD range.
Faster than boats, and not restricted to roads or waterways.
I think the USMC concept of using a C-130 to deliver a HIMARS to an island makes sense. I think the idea of a landing, shooting, and then taking off is adding two extra steps... Why land and take-off when you can just shoot from the air?
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 11,900
- Points
- 1,040
I suppose, if everything a HIMARS can launch can also be launched by an aircraft likely to be available.
- Reaction score
- 9,986
- Points
- 1,140
If it can, then that's a more logical solution that dedicating a crew for a C-130, plus the HIMARS crew, to a task that puts them at massive risk while landing, on the ground, and then taking-off again.
I'm not suggesting that an C-130 transportable long range strike platform is a bad idea, just commenting on the notion that landing a plane, unloading a launcher, shooting from the launcher, and then reloading, and taking-off again is a bit silly once you think about it for more than a few seconds. Particularly in a world where there are plenty of missiles that can be launched from the air with none of the other nonsense.
- Reaction score
- 19,907
- Points
- 1,160
Maybe I'm just old fashioned and think that air, land and sea weapon systems, even if they have the ability to create similar effect, are complementary.
Each has pros and cons. When used together they provide a more stable but yet flexible coverage of a given region especially in littoral ones. Less expensive ground based systems provide persistent 24/7 coverage, while more expensive sea and air based ones provide flexibility and reach.
I'm not fond of the C-130 delivered HIMARS but it is an option where it is difficult or impossible to have a more permanent system located in a given region.
Long story short neither ships, not aircraft nor HIMARS can hold ground. They may dominate a certain region with fires at a given time but as we are seeing in Iran, all the king's missiles can't make a determined foe budge when they've dispersed and dug in.
Each has pros and cons. When used together they provide a more stable but yet flexible coverage of a given region especially in littoral ones. Less expensive ground based systems provide persistent 24/7 coverage, while more expensive sea and air based ones provide flexibility and reach.
I'm not fond of the C-130 delivered HIMARS but it is an option where it is difficult or impossible to have a more permanent system located in a given region.
Long story short neither ships, not aircraft nor HIMARS can hold ground. They may dominate a certain region with fires at a given time but as we are seeing in Iran, all the king's missiles can't make a determined foe budge when they've dispersed and dug in.
- Reaction score
- 13,232
- Points
- 1,160
Maybe I'm just old fashioned and think that air, land and sea weapon systems, even if they have the ability to create similar effect, are complementary.
Each has pros and cons. When used together they provide a more stable but yet flexible coverage of a given region especially in littoral ones. Less expensive ground based systems provide persistent 24/7 coverage, while more expensive sea and air based ones provide flexibility and reach.
I'm not fond of the C-130 delivered HIMARS but it is an option where it is difficult or impossible to have a more permanent system located in a given region.
Long story short neither ships, not aircraft nor HIMARS can hold ground. They may dominate a certain region with fires at a given time but as we are seeing in Iran, all the king's missiles can't make a determined foe budge when they've dispersed and dug in.
Which missiles are you looking at @FJAG ?
The inbound ones or the outbound ones?
The press, the neighbours, the Euros, the shipping companies and the oil markets all seem to be kind of impressed with the ones coming out of Iran. Just as the Russians are impressed with tose coming out of Ukraine.
You are right that missiles can't take ground on their own, but they can make it easier.
You are also right that, on their own, missiles can deny ground.
Missiles can also shape the propaganda narrative.
And sometimes it is enough to deny the other guy the win.
- Reaction score
- 19,907
- Points
- 1,160
I was specifically thinking of the inbound ones fired by the King of America which, while I'm sure has done considerable damage, degraded the Iranian regime's military capability and killed scores of people, has not achieved whatever objective the US expected not withstanding the USD 25 billion spent emptying their own magazines.
