Three Launchers, One Set Of Missiles

The U.S. Army has a tracked long range heavy missile launcher, and a lighter wheeled one. It also now apparently has an experimental version that launches the same missiles out of a shipping container. These extend well beyond the 12-24 mile range of most cannon artillery and is much more accurate.

A mock-up of an ATACMS missile next to one of a standardized ammunition ‘pod. US Army

An M270 MLRS launches a 227mm artillery rocket. Lockheed Martin Lockheed Martin

A US Army HIMARS launcher fires an ATACMS missile. U

A test launch of an Increment 1 PrSM. Lockheed Martin

An uncrewed Autonomous Multi-domain Launcher (AML), derived from HIMARS, seen launching a new smaller, shorter-range rocket during a test. US ArmyS Army

A Lockheed Martin launcher based on the 10×10 MKR18 Logistics Vehicle System Replacement (LVSR) truck and capable of being loaded with up to four MLRS/HIMARS munitions pods. Lockheed Martin. L

A US Army M1074 Palletized Load System (PLS) truck seen offloading a standard shipping container. US Army

A containerized launcher designed to fire the same suite of artillery rockets and ballistic missiles as the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) and M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) has appeared at the U.S. Army’s Fort Bragg in North Carolina [top image]. The ability to launch ballistic missiles, in particular, from what is outwardly indistinguishable from any other shipping container, presents a flexible strike capability that is harder for opponents to spot. Ukraine’s recent Operation Spiderweb covert drone attacks highlighted to a dizzying degree the value of even lower-end concealed fires capabilities.

The launcher inside the container is visible off to the side in a video, seen below, from President Donald Trump’s visit to Fort Bragg today, which was posted online by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino. Trump was given demonstrations of various Army capabilities at the base’s Holland Drop Zone, including the launch of artillery rockets. A separate launcher, the type of which is not immediately clear, was used to fire those rounds. . . .

What is clear is that the containerized launcher, the entire roof of which is designed to open to one side, can accommodate two of the same ammunition ‘pods’ used as the tracked M270 MRLS and wheeled M142 HIMARS launch vehicles. Pods are available that come loaded with six 227mm guided artillery rockets, a single Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missile, or two Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM). ATACMS and PrSM, the latter of which is beginning to enter Army service now to replace the former, are both short-range ballistic missiles.

Current-generation 227mm artillery rockets in Army inventory can hit targets some 50 miles (around 80 kilometers) away, and a variant with a maximum range of just over 93 miles (150 kilometers) entered production last year. The longest range variant of the ATACMS short-range ballistic missile in Army service today can reach targets out to 186 miles (300 kilometers).

The initial version of PrSM, also known as Increment 1, has a range of 310 miles (500 kilometers), but there are also plans to extend that out to 620 miles (1,000 kilometers) or more. It’s worth noting that a PrSM with a range beyond 620 miles/1,000 kilometers would be categorized as at least a medium-range ballistic missile. The Army is also developing an anti-ship variant of PrSM with a new seeker and is eyeing further versions with “enhanced lethality payloads” that could include miniature smart bombs and kamikaze drones.

The Army is also currently exploring new pods loaded with smaller rockets that could expand the magazine depth of M270 and M142 launcher vehicles, but at the cost of a reduction in range. The service has been experimenting with new launcher vehicles that can fire this same family of munitions, including uncrewed types and a design offering significantly expanded ammunition capacity.

Being able to launch this array of rockets and missiles already gives M270 and M142 immense flexibility. A containerized launcher would open up additional possibilities, including the ability to turn any truck that can carry a standard shipping container into a platform capable of firing long-range guided rockets and missiles. This, in turn, could help the Army more readily expand its available launch capacity as required.

The containerized launchers could also be deployed in a fixed mode, offering forward operating bases the ability to hold targets at risk dozens, if not hundreds, of miles away. This can include providing an on-call form of organic air/fire support for troops operating far from the forward base. The launcher inside the container cannot traverse laterally, but an array of them could be positioned in such a way to provide maximum coverage in all directions.

Being a container-based design, whether deployed in a truck-mounted or fixed configuration, they would be readily relocatable from one location to another. The containerized launchers could also be loaded on rail cars and/or employed from ships with sufficient open deck space.

In any of these modes, the launcher would benefit from its unassuming outward appearance. This would present challenges for opponents when it comes to detection and targeting, since any container could potentially be loaded with rockets or ballistic missiles. As already mentioned, Ukraine just demonstrated the value of concealed launch capabilities in its unprecedented covert drone attacks on multiple Russian air bases. Other countries, including Russia, China, and Iran, have also been developing containerized launch systems for artillery rockets and/or missiles.

In terms of naval use, specifically, it’s also worth mentioning here that the U.S. Navy is already in the process of fielding a different containerized missile launcher, designed to fire Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles and SM-6 multi-purpose missiles, in shipboard and tractor-trailer configurations. The Navy launcher is based on the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) found on various American and foreign warships, and is directly related to the Army’s ground-based Typhon system that can also currently fire Tomahawks and SM-6s.

From TMZ. 

A linked article discusses the smaller proposed rockets:

A new five-inch (127mm) artillery rocket Lockheed Martin is developing for the U.S. Army primarily as a low-cost training round could evolve into an operational munition. The service already wants to increase the magazine depth of its existing Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) and High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launcher vehicles, which can currently fire various 227mm rockets and short-range ballistic missiles. This is part of a larger Army push to expand its overall rocket artillery capacity.

The new Joint Reduced Range Rocket (JR3) was showcased at the Army’s recent Project Convergence-Capstone 5 (PC-C5) test exercise at the National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, California, earlier this month. Raytheon (now formally known as RTX) also notably fired at PC-C5 a JR3 from a new uncrewed launcher vehicle it has been working on in cooperation with Forterra and Oshkosh Defense. The Army also released a picture from PC-C5, seen at the top of this story, showing its existing crewless Autonomous Multi-domain Launcher (AML), which is derived from the HIMARS, firing what looks to be a JR3. The AML and Raytheon’s new design are based on 6×6 Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) and FMTV A2 truck chassis, respectively. . . .

In addition to being cheaper than full-up live rounds, reduced-range practice rockets allow units to make use of a greater number of more constrained ranges for live-fire training. The current slate of precision-guided 227mm rockets that existing MLRS and HIMARS launchers can fire have maximum ranges of between around 40 and 50 miles (65 and 80 kilometers). New types with ranges closer to 100 miles (150 kilometers) are also in development. Those same launchers can also fire Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) short-range ballistic missiles that can hit targets hundreds of miles away. The range the Army is targeting for the new JR3 is unclear, but existing LCRRPRs have a maximum reach of around 10 miles (16 kilometers). . . . .

Though designed primarily for training use, the JR3 has a modular design and Lockheed Martin has already talked about the potential for future variants or derivatives to be configured for use as live munitions.

“We’re definitely looking at [direct support fires technology] and how we could be a competitor in that market,” Dave Griser, vice president for Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems within Lockheed Martin’s Missiles and Fire Control division, recently told Defense News. “We think we can play there in terms of how we produce, our production and our experience that’s unique to [MLRS family of munitions] and what we do. We think it’s a good fit for us.”

For its part, the Army has been very open about its interest in acquiring smaller artillery rockets to increase the magazine depth of its MLRS and HIMARS launchers. The munitions for those launchers come in standardized ‘pods’ that can hold six 227mm rockets, a single ATACMs, or two PrSMs. MLRSs can be loaded with two of those pods at a time, while HIMARSs can hold one.

Considering just simple dimensions, a pod of the 127mm rockets might be able to hold 15 or more of the smaller rockets (a similar Israeli system holds 18), with range and an explosive effect similar to that of an artillery round, but greater accuracy and an ability to be used with the same launching systems.

The U.S. Army is on the brink of procuring an upgraded tracked and heavily armored M270A2 multiple rocket launcher system, which like its predecessor is based on the M2 Bradley. One of the most recent articles on the M270A2 states:

The M270A2 isn’t just an upgrade—it marks the powerful return of one of the U.S. Army’s most formidable long-range artillery platforms. First introduced during the Cold War, the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System has been overhauled into a high-precision strike system, now capable of firing guided rockets and future missiles with ranges beyond 300 miles. Built on a tracked chassis, it offers better protection and a higher payload capacity compared to the wheeled HIMARS. The A2 variant features a modernized digital fire control system, enhanced armor, and is designed to support next-generation munitions like the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM).

The analysis of why it is important for a missile launcher firing at targets from 50-300 miles away needs to be heavily armored or tracked, of course, is absent. 

The priority in shoot and scoot non-line of sight (NLOS) military systems is generally speed, not off-road capabilities, but tracked vehicles top out at 45 mph on roads and less off road. If this long range NLOS system is within the 12-24 mile range of enemy artillery or the 2 mile or less range of enemy tanks, someone has made a very serious mistake that heavier armor won't cure. Their tracks also make it easy for surveillance systems to determine where the vehicle was when it fired at the enemy, and where it went afterwards, making it easier to fire back at it if the enemy has those capabilities.  And, the tracks aren't what gives it a higher payload capacity.

There may be a niche where this system is somewhere where it is facing light infantry with small arms but no anti-tank weapons of any kind, or where it needs protection from shrapnel from "successful" active defense system kills of incoming munitions, but this is the exception rather than the norm. 

Its inability to be deployed by C-130 transport plane, as well as the reduced number of systems that can be deployed via a C-17 or a C-5 transport plane, is also definitely a minus relative to the lighter, wheeled, HIMARs system.

Add to this the development of pallet based missiles that can turn military cargo planes into bombers and you have a new era of platform independent missile technology.