Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[dapaterson]

Last time I looked at the PAD, projects would cover costs including related infrastructure, initial spares, a thirty day supply of ammunition...

 

[Czech_pivo]

Honestly with Canadian accounting it's going to be less than people might think. Ammo, spares, training and the core systems are all in that line item.

Edit: went to wiki to see what other countries paid for HIMARS and its all over the map. Australia paid 1-2 billion for 20 and Lithuania 500 million for a similar number. There's about 10 different countries and multiple different costs for different numbers.

So my guess is 30 systems and all the support...

So coming from a scenario of having nothing similar currently, 30 is a welcome step forward but after the dust settles, how will this number shake out?

 

[GR66]

Honestly with Canadian accounting it's going to be less than people might think. Ammo, spares, training and the core systems are all in that line item.

Edit: went to wiki to see what other countries paid for HIMARS and its all over the map. Australia paid 1-2 billion for 20 and Lithuania 500 million for a similar number. There's about 10 different countries and multiple different costs for different numbers.

So my guess is 30 systems and all the support...

I have a tough time squaring the number 30 with our force structure. I'd be shocked if they actually planned to have any HIMARS for the Reserves so what is the plan? One battery per Reg Force Regiment? At six per battery (we can hope) that's 18 plus some spares and training units so maybe 24 total?

The dollar value could be quite skewed depending on the type and quantity of ammo we're getting. This is for the Long Range Precision Fires capability so if we're going heavy on ATACMS (ballpark $2 million CAD each?) vs GMLRS rockets with unitary warheads (because we don't use cluster munitions) then the ratio of ammo cost vs number of launchers could be significantly different.

 

[Kirkhill]

Honestly with Canadian accounting it's going to be less than people might think. Ammo, spares, training and the core systems are all in that line item.

Edit: went to wiki to see what other countries paid for HIMARS and its all over the map. Australia paid 1-2 billion for 20 and Lithuania 500 million for a similar number. There's about 10 different countries and multiple different costs for different numbers.

So my guess is 30 systems and all the support...

How might Canada account for one missile used by all three Services?

AIM-120s, AIM-9s, SM-6/RIM-174/AIM-174, Tomahawk, NSM/JSMs? Or for that matter, something simple, like 7.62mm Ball?

Does that get tied to one particular Service's project? Or is there a separate Ordinance budget? And if so why is that expense costed in each individual capital project?

 

[Kirkhill]

So coming from a scenario of having nothing similar currently, 30 is a welcome step forward but after the dust settles, how will this number shake out?

Which is more important to us? The number of trucks or the number of missiles? Not to mention MRTs and FCSs.

 

[Underway]

I have a tough time squaring the number 30 with our force structure. I'd be shocked if they actually planned to have any HIMARS for the Reserves so what is the plan? One battery per Reg Force Regiment? At six per battery (we can hope) that's 18 plus some spares and training units so maybe 24 total?

The dollar value could be quite skewed depending on the type and quantity of ammo we're getting. This is for the Long Range Precision Fires capability so if we're going heavy on ATACMS (ballpark $2 million CAD each?) vs GMLRS rockets with unitary warheads (because we don't use cluster munitions) then the ratio of ammo cost vs number of launchers could be significantly different.

I just guessed my friend. I'm sure if we dig around somewhere we can find an RFI or paper that points to a number. It's all going to be based on the effects required.

 

[Underway]

How might Canada account for one missile used by all three Services?

AIM-120s, AIM-9s, SM-6/RIM-174/AIM-174, Tomahawk, NSM/JSMs? Or for that matter, something simple, like 7.62mm Ball?

Does that get tied to one particular Service's project? Or is there a separate Ordinance budget? And if so why is that expense costed in each individual capital project?

No idea. But if there is going to be a multiservice missile, then it will probably for GBAD. NASMS uses a bunch of anti air missiles (AAMRAM, ESSM etc...) from various sources, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the Canadian GBAD solution for the mid to long range band.

 

[GR66]

I just guessed my friend. I'm sure if we dig around somewhere we can find an RFI or paper that points to a number. It's all going to be based on the effects required.

Oh, I'm totally aware that we're just spitballing here. I'm obviously very happy that we're getting this capability but like the gun artillery project it's hard to wrap your brain around how they arrive at their numbers when there is still such a great need to define what the Army (Reg Force and Reserves) needs to look like in the first place. Seems more like putting lipstick on a pig rather then individual elements of a grand plan.

 

[Underway]

Oh, I'm totally aware that we're just spitballing here. I'm obviously very happy that we're getting this capability but like the gun artillery project it's hard to wrap your brain around how they arrive at their numbers when there is still such a great need to define what the Army (Reg Force and Reserves) needs to look like in the first place. Seems more like putting lipstick on a pig rather then individual elements of a grand plan.

The gun one was an analysis on the effects needed. Multiple computer simulations on two different types of effects simulator and a good look on usage in Ukraine I'm sure. They probably looked at platform survivability, how mortars support the infantry etc...

That leads to a number and different options.

So they probably did similar with MLRS.

 

[Kirkhill]

I have a tough time squaring the number 30 with our force structure. I'd be shocked if they actually planned to have any HIMARS for the Reserves so what is the plan? One battery per Reg Force Regiment? At six per battery (we can hope) that's 18 plus some spares and training units so maybe 24 total?

The dollar value could be quite skewed depending on the type and quantity of ammo we're getting. This is for the Long Range Precision Fires capability so if we're going heavy on ATACMS (ballpark $2 million CAD each?) vs GMLRS rockets with unitary warheads (because we don't use cluster munitions) then the ratio of ammo cost vs number of launchers could be significantly different.

Isn't ATACMs being sidelined and replaced with the various iterations of the PrSM missiles?

THEN & NOW ATACMS TO PRSM: OUT WITH THE OLD, IN WITH THE NEW

As the Precision Strike Missile system replaces the aging Army Tactical Missile System, integrating transformational technology will improve firepower,...

www.army.mil

Increment 1 - 500 >700 km SSM - direct replacement for the ATACMS but with twice as many rounds per launcher and greater range
Increment 2 - 1000 km LBASM - new capability - Land Based Anti-Ship Missile - Coastal Defence and potentially Multi-Domain Task Force LRPF
Increment 5 - AML - Autonomous Multi-Domain Launcher designed for longer missiles
Increment 3 - >>> 1000 km SSM/LBASM
Increment 4 - New payloads

Variants​

[edit]
The PrSM has four "increments" either in development or to be developed.

Increment One​

[edit]
Increment One is the current missile in use by the United States Army. It has a treaty-bound range of 310 mi (500 km), and does not contain a multi-mode seeker. It is gradually replacing the MGM-140 ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles.

​

[edit]
Increment Two of the PrSM is known officially as the Land Based Anti-Ship Missile (LBASM). LBASM features a multi-mode seeker, unlike Increment One, enabling it to traverse area denied areas with more ease.

As LBASM was in development following the US withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019, its range is to be increased beyond the previous 310 mi (500 km) threshold, up to an expected 620 mi (1,000 km) range, as well as increasing the speed of the missile. As the name suggests, the LBASM will be an anti-ship ballistic missile, and in collaboration with the multi-mode seeker will have the ability to engage moving targets. It is understood that the first procurement of the missile is to be completed in FY2028, with the United States Marine Corps and the Australian Army then receiving them.

A first live test was conducted in 2024.

Increment Three​

[edit]
Increment Three of the missile will include most of the same technology of Increments One and Two. Its main addition is to be the extension of the variety of armaments for the missile can carry, with it likely carrying more explosive munitions.

For Increment Three it is to be designed for use as an anti-fortification weapon, likely being able to destroy more structures. There is no information available as to when Increment Three is to be procured by the United States Armed Forces or the Australian Army. However it is believed they will be made available following Increments one, two and four.

Increment Four​

[edit]
Increment Four has a focus on the extension of the range of the missile, whilst containing most of the technology of Increments One, Two, and likely Three. Four will aim to extend the range beyond the 310 mi (500 km) range of Increment One, as well as the 620 mi (1,000 km) range of Increment Two. It will advance the technology of propulsion, and aerodynamics to achieve this range. Increment Four is currently being competed for contracts by; Lockheed Martin, as well as a combined Raytheon-Northrop Grumman team.

Increment Five​

[edit]
In December 2024, the director of the Long-Range Precision Fires Cross Functional Team, Brig. Gen. Rory Crooks, separately explained that initial work on a fifth increment is underway, and a science and technology development initiative will kick-off in fiscal year 2026. The idea, he explained, is to design a missile that can be fired from an autonomous vehicle. "If you’re familiar with an [M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System] MLRS pod, it's about 13-feet long [4 meters]", the one-star general told the audience. "If you have something without a cab, that’s autonomous, you might be able to employ something longer than that."

Precision Strike Missile - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

....

5 Batteries of 6?

All under 4 Fd (GS)?

1 Battery for reference and training.
2 Coastal Defence Batteries (or perhaps just LRPF batteries capable of Coastal Defence)
2 Tactical Batteries for the GMRLS types of missiles and also capable of Coastal Defence.

All batteries are airmobile in C130s and therefore rapidly relocatable both within Canada and overseas.

And if they go the AML route then centralized command from North Bay or Ottawa is possible, or Colorado Springs.

....

Eyeing a new autonomous launcher prototyping initiative, Army checking out industry options - Breaking Defense

At least two companies are showing off their unmanned launchers for the service, while a one-star general says he is closely following the USMC’s ROGUE Fires program.

breakingdefense.com

...

WRT to GBAD - A GBAD battery for each of 1and 2 RCHA as well as 5 RALC as well as one for 4 Fd?

 

[Kirkhill]

Oh, I'm totally aware that we're just spitballing here. I'm obviously very happy that we're getting this capability but like the gun artillery project it's hard to wrap your brain around how they arrive at their numbers when there is still such a great need to define what the Army (Reg Force and Reserves) needs to look like in the first place. Seems more like putting lipstick on a pig rather then individual elements of a grand plan.

We have a pig?

 

[FJAG]

Does the 5$ billion package for HIMARS give any indication of how big or small this allocation will be?
Is that 5$ billion package larger or smaller than what people where expecting?

I actually have doubts about that figure. I don't have a current per unit cost for HIMARS but it would be somewhere between $USD 5 to 10 million.

The original plan for LRPF, when it was conceived in 2009 (more accurately "re-born from earlier LRPRS projects"), was for one launcher battery of six to 15 launchers (in the US it's six but I've seen slides of the Cdn battery having five troops of three launchers each) plus several spares for trg and maint reference plus ammunition, fire control and comms systems and infrastructure (whatever that means).

A recent (Nov 2023) letter by the Director of Artillery indicated that the LRPF project has also taken into consideration the use of loitering munitions as part of long range precision fires and at the time was in an options analysis for the Defence Capabilities Board.

Ammunition stocks are always an issue especially after Ukraine where the whole concept of war stocks has been turned on its head. I have zero knowledge of the numbers concerned but rockets for HIMARS can come in upwards of US$ 2 million each.

A further interesting aside is that there is now consideration of having an LRPF regiment, rather than just a battery (with separate regiments for AD and STA). Whether that means more than one HIMARS-like firing battery or some combination with loitering munitions batteries, I do not know. I can speculate that if the high end plan for a 15-launcher battery is rethought of as two US-style 6-launcher batteries then you can start to build a regiment. Let me simply say that a five troop single battery is feasible for smaller battle group rotations while the two or more battery option is more realistic for LSCO. But I don't know where they are actually at right now.

The initial plans for LRPF did include new PYs for the battery which was destined for 4 Regt (GS). There was consideration that this could be a hybrid mix from either appx 20% ARes to mostly ARes. A US HIMARS battery has a few over 100 folks in it. Nothing was cast in stone albeit I think the PY input was based on roughly 80% RegF. Anytime you talk new PYs for a new system the accounting model starts to figure in salaries for the crews over the lifetime of the system which can be an enormous expense. Nonetheless, unless we are buying a whack of ammo, I think CA$5 billion is a bit rich - I'd have to see the math.

 

[Underway]

I actually have doubts about that figure. I don't have a current per unit cost for HIMARS but it would be somewhere between $USD 5 to 10 million.

The original plan for LRPF, when it was conceived in 2009 (more accurately "re-born from earlier LRPRS projects"), was for one launcher battery of six to 15 launchers (in the US it's six but I've seen slides of the Cdn battery having five troops of three launchers each) plus several spares for trg and maint reference plus ammunition, fire control and comms systems and infrastructure (whatever that means).

A recent (Nov 2023) letter by the Director of Artillery indicated that the LRPF project has also taken into consideration the use of loitering munitions as part of long range precision fires and at the time was in an options analysis for the Defence Capabilities Board.

Ammunition stocks are always an issue especially after Ukraine where the whole concept of war stocks has been turned on its head. I have zero knowledge of the numbers concerned but rockets for HIMARS can come in upwards of US$ 2 million each.

A further interesting aside is that there is now consideration of having an LRPF regiment, rather than just a battery (with separate regiments for AD and STA). Whether that means more than one HIMARS-like firing battery or some combination with loitering munitions batteries, I do not know. I can speculate that if the high end plan for a 15-launcher battery is rethought of as two US-style 6-launcher batteries then you can start to build a regiment. Let me simply say that a five troop single battery is feasible for smaller battle group rotations while the two or more battery option is more realistic for LSCO. But I don't know where they are actually at right now.

The initial plans for LRPF did include new PYs for the battery which was destined for 4 Regt (GS). There was consideration that this could be a hybrid mix from either appx 20% ARes to mostly ARes. A US HIMARS battery has a few over 100 folks in it. Nothing was cast in stone albeit I think the PY input was based on roughly 80% RegF. Anytime you talk new PYs for a new system the accounting model starts to figure in salaries for the crews over the lifetime of the system which can be an enormous expense. Nonetheless, unless we are buying a whack of ammo, I think CA$5 billion is a bit rich - I'd have to see the math.

Some google-fu. I assume the figures are in US dollars.

Export cost: $19–20 million per one launcher+carrier (FY 2022); $434,000 per one M31ER GMLRS (FY 2022)

So at current exchange rate that's about $28.8 million CAD per full system ($30millon for math).

Each GMLRS costs $0.7 million CAD or so (probably a cool million at this point).

 

[Kirkhill]

Some google-fu. I assume the figures are in US dollars.

Export cost: $19–20 million per one launcher+carrier (FY 2022); $434,000 per one M31ER GMLRS (FY 2022)

So at current exchange rate that's about $28.8 million CAD per full system ($30millon for math).

Each GMLRS costs $0.7 million CAD or so (probably a cool million at this point).

And...

According to the US Army Department's request for the Fiscal Year 2024 defense budget (NDAA), the unit cost of PrSM Increment 1 is less than 3.5 million USD. The M142 launcher is capable of carrying two PrSM missiles simultaneously, while the M270A2 can carry four missiles.

The US Army is independently testing PrSM ballistic missiles – MILMAG

The American company Lockheed Martin announced that the US Army has begun independent user testing of the new ballistic missiles codenamed Precision Strike Missile.

milmag.pl

The framework agreement covers 1,018 missiles, while the total procurement plans include at least 3,986 missiles in the PrSM Increment 1 version.

This text comes from MILMAG Military Magazine.

Read more on:The US Army is independently testing PrSM ballistic missiles – MILMAG

4000 x 3.5 MUSD = 14 BUSD

 

[GR66]

Isn't ATACMs being sidelined and replaced with the various iterations of the PrSM missiles?

THEN & NOW ATACMS TO PRSM: OUT WITH THE OLD, IN WITH THE NEW

As the Precision Strike Missile system replaces the aging Army Tactical Missile System, integrating transformational technology will improve firepower,...

www.army.mil

Increment 1 - 500 >700 km SSM - direct replacement for the ATACMS but with twice as many rounds per launcher and greater range
Increment 2 - 1000 km LBASM - new capability - Land Based Anti-Ship Missile - Coastal Defence and potentially Multi-Domain Task Force LRPF
Increment 5 - AML - Autonomous Multi-Domain Launcher designed for longer missiles
Increment 3 - >>> 1000 km SSM/LBASM
Increment 4 - New payloads

IF the US allows us to buy PrSM's.

U.S. denies sale of PrSM and ER GMLRS missiles to Norway

According to the Norwegian portal Teknisk Ukeblad, the United States government has declined Norway's request to purchase Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) and Extended Range GMLRS missiles.

defence-industry.eu

The U.S. Denies Norway PrSM Missiles | TURDEF

Norway wasn't allowed to acquire the U.S.'s new PrSM short-range ballistic missile for HIMARS and M270 MLRS to succeed ATACMS missiles.

turdef.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Alternatives to HIMARS.

Britain developing new long range strike weapon

Project Brakestop signals the UK’s intent to develop a new long-range strike system capable of delivering precision strikes at long range in high-threat environments.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Key Specifications for Project Brakestop:​

• Range: >500 km
• Payload: 200-300 kg (Mk 82 bomb sized payload)
• Speed: Approximately 600 km/h
• Launch: Ground-launched from a mobile platform
• Cost: Target cost of £400,000 per delivery platform (excluding VAT)
• Guidance: Operable in GPS-denied environments, resistant to EW attacks
• Scalability: Minimum production rate of 20 units per month

Democratising Land Precision Strike: One-way effects in the close and deep battle » Karve

The use of Land Precision Strike (LPS) capabilities had, until recently, been viewed as the preserve of advanced militaries with the technical and financial capacity to purchase, and the sophistication to coordinate their use across domains (land, air and potentially sea as well) to achieve...

www.karveinternational.com

MBDA and UK Renew Partnership for New Systems Including FC/ASW, Land Precision Strike, and Meteor Missile Evolution

MBDA and UK Renew $8 Billion Partnership for New Systems Including FC/ASW, Land Precision Strike, and Meteor Missile Evolution

armyrecognition.com

MBDA Advances Proposals For Land-Launched Missile | Aviation Week Network

The weapon has been designed under contract through a recently completed 2023 UK Defense Ministry contract.

aviationweek.com

MBDA expands its Deep Precision Strike capabilities with the Land Cruise Missile system

MBDA unveils the Land Cruise Missile (LCM) system, a new ground-launched Deep Precision Strike capability, to meet the needs of the new strategic environment on the battlefield. LCM builds on all of MBDA’s expertise in the field of Deep Precision Strike, and is based on the combat proven Naval...

www.mbda-systems.com

And

An alternative for HIMARS.

At DVD2024 MBDA also displayed a model of its Land Precision Strike (LPS) missile: a potential future alternative missile for the British Army’s M270 MLRS systems. The purpose of the LPS missile would be to effectively engage moving, relocatable, fleeting high-value and high-payoff point targets with low collateral effects in the 150 km range.

As Bill Beaumont, MBDA’s business development lead for LPS, explained to ESD on 19 September, the weapon takes a lot of the technology from MBDA’s air-launched Selective Precision Effects At Range (SPEAR) missile, in particular its seeker technology, and applies it to the British Army’s requirement to address fleeting targets that GPS-targeted weapons could not address. The weapon’s components would therefore already be at a high technology readiness level.

Beaumont noted that MBDA has just finished the concept stage for LPS under contract to DE&S and is currently awaiting approval to move into an assessment and development phase with the weapon.

DVD2024: MBDA displays advanced iteration of Wolfram Surface-Launched Brimstone - European Security & Defence

MBDA exhibited an advanced iteration of its Wolfram Surface-Launched Brimstone (SLB) concept at DVD2024.

euro-sd.com

 

[FJAG]

Some google-fu. I assume the figures are in US dollars.

Export cost: $19–20 million per one launcher+carrier (FY 2022); $434,000 per one M31ER GMLRS (FY 2022)

So at current exchange rate that's about $28.8 million CAD per full system ($30millon for math).

Each GMLRS costs $0.7 million CAD or so (probably a cool million at this point).

Wikipedia in its infinite wisdom puts the unit cost at US$4,901,857 as at 2024 but when one checks the reference document (The US Missile Procurement Justification Book) it comes in at a flyaway cost of US$6,540,769 for 2025 or CA$9,418,707.

Isn't the internet fun?

 

[Kirkhill]

IF the US allows us to buy PrSM's.

U.S. denies sale of PrSM and ER GMLRS missiles to Norway

According to the Norwegian portal Teknisk Ukeblad, the United States government has declined Norway's request to purchase Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) and Extended Range GMLRS missiles.

defence-industry.eu

The U.S. Denies Norway PrSM Missiles | TURDEF

Norway wasn't allowed to acquire the U.S.'s new PrSM short-range ballistic missile for HIMARS and M270 MLRS to succeed ATACMS missiles.

turdef.com

And we're closer to Washington

 

[GR66]

The gun one was an analysis on the effects needed. Multiple computer simulations on two different types of effects simulator and a good look on usage in Ukraine I'm sure. They probably looked at platform survivability, how mortars support the infantry etc...

That leads to a number and different options.

So they probably did similar with MLRS.

Oh I don't doubt that they did an analysis but I'm questioning what that analysis was based on. What is the concept of operations for the CA in a potential large scale conflict? Is the analysis based on the our Multinational Brigade commitment in Latvia? Is there any expectation to increase the size of our deployment in the case of war? Operations elsewhere in the World? Things have changed since SSE and even since ONSAF with the election of Trump.

I honestly don't think that the Canada (and by extension the CAF) has yet come to grips with the question of what we really expect our military to do - or be capable of doing - in this changed World. That's why I question how they've been coming up with the numbers on what is required.

 

[Underway]

Oh I don't doubt that they did an analysis but I'm questioning what that analysis was based on. What is the concept of operations for the CA in a potential large scale conflict? Is the analysis based on the our Multinational Brigade commitment in Latvia? Is there any expectation to increase the size of our deployment in the case of war? Operations elsewhere in the World? Things have changed since SSE and even since ONSAF with the election of Trump.

I honestly don't think that the Canada (and by extension the CAF) has yet come to grips with the question of what we really expect our military to do - or be capable I of doing - in this changed World. That's why I question how they've been coming up with the numbers on what is required.

I don't think the long range rocket artillery mission sets have changed at all. I think Ukraine has just proved the concept. Particularly the HIMARS is just the launcher, the weapon is the ammunition. The ammunition is selected based on the desired effects.

This sort of system is a Divisional asset. I suspect as the Army's thinking is changing we're looking bigger than a Brigade deployment, and probably augmentation of a allied Division if not deploying our own Division.