Lockheed Martin has carried out a 112-kilometre flight test of its Extended-Range Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System from a HIMARS launcher at White Sands Missile Range, the UK Defence Journal understands.
The system is designed to reach 150 km, which Lockheed Martin says more than doubles the range of standard GMLRS while retaining compatibility with existing HIMARS and M270A2 launchers. According to the company, this allows longer range engagement of high value or time sensitive targets without reorganising current force structures.
Lockheed Martin argues the capability could expand missions to include suppression of air defences and effects against both point and area targets, while using launchers already in service with the United States and multiple export users.
Dave Griser, vice president for Precision Fires Rockets, said: “ER GMLRS delivers the extended range our partners need, on a platform they already trust. This successful demonstration of our Alternative Warhead variant confirms ER GMLRS can reliably deliver precision effects against both point and area targets at double the range.”
Further soldier-led tests are planned for the first half of 2026. Lockheed Martin links growing interest to demand in Europe and the Indo-Pacific, positioning the programme as a shared multinational fires capability, according to the company.
Thats top notch, are we ever going to order any?
That’s a rhetorical question, most of you will know the answer.
Maybe we’ll fund some for Ukraine
We’re upgrading at least some (I think eventually all) of our M270s to the A2 standard, which are capable of firing these. So it seems like a no brainer if the price is sensible. No idea what the price is though.
The Question will be one of the unit cost Vs the projects taking place in the UK for “cheap cruise missiles” and BM.
Orders will be delayed whilst systems are evaluated at a snails pace.
First, decide the point/purpose of the British Army over the next 20 years. Second, provide the weapons to achieve that purpose.
We haven’t got past ‘First’ yet. I for one can’t think what it is.
James, you have quite taken my breath away. I had no idea anyone would not know what our army is for. The role and purpose of the British Army is continually stated and restated in SDRs/SDSRs, Integrated Reviews, Defence Command Papers and Defence White Papers, and now DIPs. The lastest of all those documents is SDR 2025 published OS on 2nd June this year. It states the info you require in Ch3 and in more detail from pages 108, of which an extract is:
“The role of the British Army
4. The purpose of the British Army,
in support of the roles for UK Defence
set out in Chapter 3, is to:
• Role 1: Defend, protect, and
enhance the resilience of the UK,
its Overseas Territories, and Crown
Dependencies: contributing to national
defence and resilience plans through
an enhanced Standing Joint Command
(UK) and its nationwide network of Joint
Military Commanders. In war, additional
capabilities will be required to support
the protection of critical national
infrastructure (Chapter 6).
• Role 2: Deter and defend in the
Euro-Atlantic: providing one of two
Strategic Reserve Corps to NATO,
in line with NATO’s Regional Plans,
ready to deploy rapidly from the UK
to anywhere in the Euro-Atlantic
area. The Army must also sustain
its contribution to NATO’s forward
presence in Estonia and Poland.
• Role 3: Shape the global security
environment: delivering essential
‘train, advise, assist, and accompany’
missions with key allies and partners
that unlock the greatest benefit in
delivering Defence’s core roles.
Further fine details should be obtained in the DIP published sometime from 5th Jan. No government ‘crystal ball gazes’ into the next 20 years. These reviews are every 4 or 5 years.
Well that’s the first time I’ve taken anyone’s breath away since 1972!
I’m guessing you are being ironic, although my irony button has never been my best feature.
!972. A very good year I recall.. That must have been something!!!
It was! The year I was born. 🙂
It certainly was. But I ain’t telling!
One thing for sure a much bigger British Army in 1972 . All the Best every body 🍾
James,
I am still trying to learn irony!
To be fair to you, several folk have in the distant past opined that the army lacked a role since the end of the Cold War, a sentiment that I never understood as the army continued with Op Banner (the longest British Army operation in history) and also embarked on an enormous range and quantity of other deployments. It wasn’t as if they were sitting around in barracks contemplating their navel and just doing boring repetitive training or ‘admin’.
I hope my post was useful – more info should appear in the DIP.
It was, thanks, and yes I await the DIP with great interest (and some foreboding – I hope your optimistic view of things proves right).
In the meantime, Happy New Year to all at UKDJ and all us lovely commentators.
Thanks James. Happy New Year.
I am not sure I have ever expressed optimistic views of my own on anything. Certainly the regular army is under-manned, under-equipped and in part unprepared to do anything very effectively above Battlegroup level, for an enduring operation.
I don’t think it lacks a role, I think it lacks a definitive plan on how it will actually activate the goals set out by HMG…. Because quite frankly they are staggeringly unrealistic with the army as is at present.. 1) first the whole provide home defence to the UK and its territories.. literally zero thought has been put into this because no one has thought in a generation that this was even a thing, and there are no structural or orbat for this, GBAD is tiny and entirely expeditionary and their are no real second tier or paramilitary forces. If the army is to do this it needs a whole non deployable paramilitary and Defence orbat to do this role.
3) an army corps as NATO reserve…. That’s a big steaming pile if there ever was one, at best the present army orbat at maximum effort could supply 1 under strength division for a very limited time only for purposes two and that would not allow it to manage 1 or 3 at all..
3) in reality even three is a bit of an afterthought.. the army does not practice or get involved with significant seaborne deployment.. at best 3 is supported by the small rangers units and the air assault brigade, but that does not have the equipment to deploy in a significant way as part of a stabilisation operation in Africa against serious significant opposition.
So it’s not so much the not defining a purpose.. it’s creating a very broad purpose with no real plan on how it could actually achieve the purpose.. it could achieve goal one.. but not goal 2 and if it tried to achieve goal 2 it could not achieve goal one…. Etc. it’s the one slither or jam and 3 loaves of bread issue.
That was exactly what I was going to say: Role is fine and makes sense HMG, now just give us a coherent plan that gets us there and/or a demonstration of how you’re doing it..!
DIP may show some of it, but not all, if the name Defence Industrial Plan is anything to go by.
Maybe the rest of the SDSR does show more of the plan, but I feel is likely lacking- giving the continuing confusion amongst the commentors here. That’s not a criticism of the commentors- some of whom I’d put among the best informed ‘interested voters’ around. It’s a criticism of our government’s communication surrounding defence. Not that they’ve ever really been good at it, whatever colour the party logo was…
Very good Graham. Now all we need to do is buy some equipment my friend.. Meanwhile, a happy new year to you.
I do not think we should buy any kit off of the Yanks unless there are no other options as they have shown to be unreliable.Much better to develop systems with fellow members of E-NATO or even dare i say it produce our own
You mean like we’re already doing?…
Project Nightfall, Project Brakestop, Anglo-French Stratus, Anglo-German deep precision strike missile, etc, etc
Yes thats exactly what i mean Spock
So would you terminate the ongoing Army Deep Fires program which is seeing our M270 MLRS expand to around 70 launchers? Extended Range and Precision Strike variants were planned as part of this. US weapons. The program has been underway for a few years, and I have been concerned that some of the items that Spock lists might take funding from it, or duplicate it.
On this, again, if HMG were serious 1 UK Division would have a Regiment of HIMARS type, wheeled, rapidly deployable.
Instead, they are robbing Peter to pay Paul and have taken 3 RHA from 3 Divisions DRSB.
it say that Land Precision Strike can be fired from a module fitted to Boxer. that would be good option
Why? Boxer is exorbitantly expensive. Well end up with less vehicle types on it, not more. See the upcoming SHORAD.
We are already upgrading our MLRS launchers.
it was in relation to a wheeled version for 1 UK Division.
That makes sense, fair play. I just don’t think they’ll be able to afford it.
that could indeed, be an issue. if we do down the route of Patria 6×6 maybe that could be an option
Except Boxer is in 3XX
Isn’t SHORAD going on the Patria 6×6 or is that what you meant? Sorry! 🙂
That’s what I meant. They are moving away from Boxer in several areas, rather than to it.
Which I fully support. It is too expensive to have a Boxer do everything. A sidekick in numbers is needed, just as Warrior still had the 432s.
Have we actually placed an order for Patria 6×6 ?
No, not yet, not officially released anyway. Leaks suggest it has so far been chosen as the future HVM Starstreak mount replacing Stormer.
Happy new year DM.Do you honestly think the funding for the extra launchers will be forth coming?I would very much like the projects Spock lists to be given priority if it means we have sovereign capabilities.In brief the less reliance on the yanks the better
It’s already underway! They’re being procured from sources ranging fron Norway to US reserve stocks and being upgraded.
So for politics and soveriegn reasons we halt an ongoing program thats making headway?
Do we cancel Chinook ER too? As they’re American, leaving 7 Sqn, and the SFFs, without?
Are any of these weapons able to be fired from the M270?
Back and forth. How many years to get these, and where are the launchers?
And what does the Army do in the meantime, lose another program due to politics?
Or, lose funding for WHAT EXISTS and is underway to what, effectively, doesn’t yet.
Lets buy all these systems, great, Soverign, great.
But it MUST NOT impact the underway that works now.
And that is my worry, given HMG and funding.
It is diffcault to see exactly what is going on but it seem the units being upgrade to A2 are the spares from Norway and thy will come in to service and the A1 units in service can go to be upgraded which give our lack of guns/dee[ strike etc would be sensible
I agree, there are some things that are US and we can’t do without- or they have such a jump on that this round of procurement (5-10 years) it makes sense to stick with them. Some things, we’ll almost certainly always be tied to them: Strategic airlift and heavy lift choppers are two that immediately spring to mind.
M270 is a great capability, and I think we should stick with it and GMLRS(-ER) + PrSM (I think that’s the acronym?).
The new German missile, which I think is essentially an SRBM, and the low-cost cruise missile are, let’s be honest, 10+ years from fielding. Let’s get them on a Supacat chassis and create our own HIMARS, which we can back-engineer shorter range guided artillery rockets onto whenever we get the mood to- or get whatever the Poles are getting. In fact, as demonstrated successfully with Grave Hawk, we should have a whole bunch of stuff set up that can be mounted on the back of Supacats for operating behind the front line.
On that topic, I’m a bit sceptical of putting anything with a range longer than GMLRS-ER onto an armoured vehicle in future. Fair enough with PrSM, because M270 is the system we have. But it’s cost prohibitive in my view to be putting armoured launchers 200+ km behind enemy lines to launch SRBMs and cruise missiles at priority targets. Whether that’s M270, Boxer, or Patria. Put them on the Supacats, or even a MAN truck!
Hi Joe.
Agreed. I’m not against any of these wonder weapons, only that they don’t take funding for the ongoing now.
On trucks, I quite agree. There was a plan ongoing where the Army were going to buy a Boxer version for a Sepen radar set. Why? Why do you need the most expensive APC going to carry that when a flatbed will do?
Oh! Sorry, Happy New Year!
How exactly has the US been unreliable when they have been carrying your ass for the last 70 years?
Your whole nuclear defense is underpinned by the US and my God. The UK did not have a reliable nuclear missile through the ’50s and ’60s and we basically just you use them?. And now more reactor stuff and the entire Trident program and the missiles which were all tested in the US. Come on. Be better
Your God eh?
Do you mean the Orange one or the celestial being?
Unfortunately Ray the coming of MAGA has split the post war alliance and Trump is a lunatic.Just look at the way he is treating Ukraine and god help us if Vance gets elected.The U.S was a reliable ally but not anymore
The US has made a determination that the defense of Ukraine, a non-NATO member and a totally corrupt country with no democratic values, is not in the US’s strategic interest. It may be in Europe’s or the UK’s strategic interest and, if so, Europe and UK should bear the costs and the burden of defending Ukraine, not the US. Brits and Europeans are quick to insult the US as an “unreliable ally” when the US refuses to defend something that is in the UK’s strategic interests but not in the US’s. It’s not the US’s fault that the UK and Europe abandoned its defense responsibilities and are now in a position in which they cannot adequately defend themselves.
And the demand that the UK and Europe pay for its own defense long predates Trump and the MAGA movement. The US is just sick and tired of parasite Brits and Europeans whining about the US. Don’t have enough budget funds for defense? Then stop funding Islamic fundamentalist illegal migrants and grooming gangs and modernize a decrepit National Health Service. Start there.
Yawn, the first line shows you are a Russian bot
Rus troll.
I would argue the lack of spending by E-NATO has split the post war alliance. NATO existed to protect Europe, not the USA. Suddenly, after decades of it’s own welfare pork spending, Europe decides the USA doesn’t take Europe’s defense seriously enough.
Comically laughable.
….and a Happy New Year to you Ray!
Are germany also unreliable? They’re refusing to give Taurus. The US simply cant spare many patriots. Not enough were built. Stop falling for russia propaganda.
Any more progress with Land Precision Strike? There should really have been test firings by now…
I was just about to mention that as well. We are developing this and it can be fired from the M270
Maybe that’s lost all its funding for the list of others as well…
Most recent parliamentary answer (December 2nd) had the MoD ‘assessing opportunities’ and the usual DIP stuff.
I suspect they’re trying to work out whether a drone/’OWE’ basis would allow the same capabilities for less cost than a Brimstone/GMLRS base. A subsonic missile that size would have been at risk of being shot down itself, which isn’t ideal for what is essentially a very long range, very expensive anti-tank weapon.
Brimstone is very limited in many respects. It can’t loiter or re attack and can’t go inside buildings or into woodland nor allow the operator select its impact point with precision. It has no data link, can’t be retained in flight, nor does it give any indication of what if anything it hit. It’s also quite spendy per round. On the upside, it is highly lethal, fast reacting, non-weatger limited and can be launched in salvo. It’s launcher can shoot and scoot. The kind of target it is designed for ( massed armoured formations) haven’t put in an appearance for a while. If there is a place for it it would be in addition to FPV drones and loitering munitions.
I was referring to the MBDA Land Precision Strike missile, which is essentially Spear scaled up to GMLRS side, or if you like a turbojet super-Brimstone with ~160km range. It ought to be able to loiter a little though it has stubby wings, and is very likely to have data links and target feedback. More of a flexible deep strike weapon than pure anti-tank.
From my understanding MBDA’s Land Precision Strike (LPS) is literally the Brimestone front end mounted to a M30 rocket as used by the M270. Early images showed a single stage rocket, similar to the GMLRS-ER. But some later images have shown it as a two stage (booster + sustainer) rocket, with a set of small triangular pop-out wings. it will not have a turbojet as per Brimstone, just the warhead and seeker unit. It is designed to minimize the time to target. Although the small wings will generate lift, they won’t be able to generate enough to allow the LPS to loiter, as per the ground launch small diameter bomb (GL-SDB). The GMLS-ER reaches a terminal speed of Mach 2.5. I’d expect the LPS to be in the same ball park.
xcom/JakOSpades/status/1802734590768935171
In this photo a small air intake can be seen on the belly of the LPS model, suggesting a turbojet engine like Spear’s (but larger?) rather than a rocket a la Brimstone or GMLRS. So subsonic speed but long range.
It seems like a waste to have a Brimstone warhead on such a big missile, but I suppose it leaves more room for fuel.
To me it seems strange that this is then a subsonic missile with such a small wing area. Why not just use Spear 3 fitted with a longer rocket booster for ground launch? It has a wing designed for loitering after all. It would also suggest that at 227mm compared to Brimstone’s 180mm diameter, there should be room for a larger warhead.
I know the blurb so far released says it will have a bi-directional data-link, as it says it can be retargeted in flight with operator oversight of the target. Which I’m presuming means the operator can see what the sensor sees, enabling them to target a specific point on a target. But will also allow LPS to talk with other LPS in flight, much like Brimstone currently does.
I still can’t get my head around that this is turbojet powered, as you’re trading speed (or time to target) for range. Where if range was the main consideration, then a wing more in keeping with the scissor wing of Spear-3 would be significantly more efficient for subsonic flight. The small triangular one seen in the latest images would be better for supersonic flight, it’s pretty inefficient for subsonic flight. Similarly the stated range of 150km, seems to be awfully short for a turbojet “missile” of this size, as the extended range GMLS (purely rocket powered) can already achieve this.
I guess we will have to wait until more info has been released.
Why MBDA haven’t proposed a surface-launch Spear I don’t know. They could easily achieve the 80km range requirement using a 1.5m long 180mm booster as well and have room to spare inside a CAMM-ER footprint. A shorter booster could allow angled launchers to pack a TEU full and still make the range.
But a GMLRS-sized, 300kg Spear suggests a lot more ambition. The Israeli Sea Breaker is 400kg and lifts a 100kg warhead 300km, albeit with much longer wings. Perhaps MBDA’s design could carry 50kg 200km? It’s still a massive improvement over what Spear could do, but it wouldn’t be an anti-vehicle weapon any more.
PS happy new year!
I hope the railways are still holding up, I have to use them again soon unfortunately.
And a Happy New Year to you too mate.
Railways, I care not, I retired from them a few months ago. 😉
I KNEW there was a reason why I thought you had retired, you said ‘not for a while’ in June. Is it a full retirement or just a new job?
The trains were absolutely awful in the weeks leading up to Christmas, now I know why!
My box closed. I’ll find something later in the year, who knows, we’ll see.