Isn't it supposed to use the MLRS rockets, also? If so, then the only we'll have is the chassis carrying/launching it. Myself, regardless of the MLRS rocket's effectiveness, a launcher with only 6 rounds available seems perhaps maybe too limited, more of a hindrance and liability rather than an asset (if you're going to composed a battery of several vehicles, why not opt for the heavier 12-shot MLRS M270?) I would think that, if you want a large volume of fire from a light force, maybe a smaller rocket developed off the MLRS technology might be more favorable: Israel has the LAR 160mm system: http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/artillery/lar/LAR.html At least here you get at least a dozen rounds from one launcher. Might be more suitable for light expiditionary forces to have an ammo supply that lasts for a while, rather than having only a dozen rounds between two vehicles. With its 117kg Mk IV rocket, the LAR 160 can heave a 46kg warhead out to 46km (Jane's Armour and Artillery), so most cannon artillery can be outranged. Improved propellants (steal the tech from the AMRAAM, whose range always seems to be increasing magnitudes over the previous model) should get us to 50-60km. And the M26 MLRS rocket's GPS/INS does not take up a lot of volume, so could be redesinged in its lay-out to fit a smaller diameter. Or maybe we even use the 7" body diameter of AMRAAM and be done with it: we'd get a 50+km weapon that, minus all the air-to-air electronics and servo-actuators needed for high-G maneuvers, should be able to carry a unitary or cluster warhead weighing 50+ kg (roughly the same amount as the explosive filler of an SDB). Put them in tubes (or square box launchers, similar to SeaSparrow) with an ideally-shaped flip-out wingform, and we should get a useful-ranged and adequate-payload system. Basically, we'd be making a roughly 2/3-to-3/4 scale MLRS copycat: its benefit being it's light enough for an expeditionary vehicle to carry more than half a dozen rounds. By past experiences, we won't be fighting any war solely supported by rocket artillery (maybe that's the reason they "settled" for having only 6 rounds?), and 12 lighter rockets should effectively allow you to spread your barrage over a larger area (although with less submunitions per missile, it won't cover as much area. But what are the odds we'll have massed formations of static artillery and large tank formations to shoot at anymore, anyway? I am hoping that improvements to the GPS/INS will allow precision single shots against points targets, the launcher then moving on. That seems more pratical.) Besides, carrying more than half a dozen rounds means you have more options when attacking targets (as per types of warheads available).

It appears that LIMAW(S) will be used mostly for GMLRS, in fact looking at the pics it's not entirely clear that it can even fire unguidded rkts, doesn't seem to be much traverse. If you can put the rkt exactly where you want it you don't need to fire lots of them.

It has fired unguided rockets, but I'm not sure what traverse, if any, it has. But yes, it's intended for used with GMLRS, so that can include a 227mm unitary weapon with accuracy better than its effective blast radius. Why LIMAWS(R) rather than M270? Because you can fit a LIMAWS(R) into a C130. AFAIK, it's the only 227mm MLRS you can do that with. Certainly the HIMARS can't

-"Why LIMAWS(R) rather than M270? Because you can fit a LIMAWS(R) into a C130. AFAIK, it's the only 227mm MLRS you can do that with. Certainly the HIMARS can't" Sorry, dude. Guess again. (from the Army-Tech site): " HIMARS will carry a single six-pack of rockets on the Army's new Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) 6x6 all-wheel drive 5t truck supplied by Stewart and Stevenson, Texas. The HIMARS vehicle weighs approximately 24,000lb compared to more than 44,000lb for the MLRS M270 launcher. HIMARS is transportable on the C-130 aircraft, allowing the system to be moved into areas previously inaccessible to the larger C-141 and C-5 aircraft required for the M270 launch vehicle." Very few of the S&S FMTV family can NOT fit into C130s. Many are certainly a tight squeeze, but they still fit.

Here is a link to a site that shows videos of Russian equipment firing. The Russian MLRS is shown along with a host of other cool stuff. Enjoy. http://www.aviation.ru/www.rusarm.ru/video/

From a very recent and authoritative article that included LIMAWS(R). 'Two LIMAWS(R) can be carried in a C-130 and successful underslung trials have been conducted using Chinook.' 'LIMAWS(R) is a very light system that makes maximum use of weight saving technology. It carries a single Rocket Pod Container (RPC) containing 6 GMLRS rockets which have inertial guidance allowing them to alter their flight path to strike the target accurately. The rockets are soft launched and the platform remains very stable in marked contrast to firing the M26 rocket from MLRS. By firing soft launch guided rockets the sytem does not have to be laid on an accurate ballistic azimuth. The removal of the traverse mechanism has offered a corresponding weight reduction and means the rocket is fired from the RPC over the top of the crew compartment.'

Um just so people know as far as I can tell LIMAWS(R) is simply the UK variant of the HIMARS system.

Nothing personal, but you can't tell very far. The main similarity between the LIMAWS(R) and the HIMARS is that they both use the 6 rocket MLRS pod. The LIMAWS(R) is intended to use GMLRS exclusively, and has no traverse mechanism. It is however, very small and light - It's about the size of a large Mercedes Sprinter.

I agree with the fact that its only going to use the GMLRS rockets however you should be aware that LockMart designed the firing systems and the rockets (including ATACMS and the standard MLRS variety) themselves which are on BOTH systems with the main difference not just being the non traverse ability but also the chassis being used (LIMAWS(R) using a Supacat). LIMAWS however is slightly lighter than the HIMARS system because it doesn't need precise laying of the rockets like HIMARS offers so that extra weight savings does allow for additional deployability. For the UK requirements this fits its goals.

UK is developing LIMAWS(R) because HIMARS doesn't meet UK requirements, so I don't think it qualifies as a 'variant'. Of course the MLRS prime contractor is involved as a sub-contractor to the UK prime (INSYS) so there may be some technology flow thru from HIMARS. Ammo-wise UK is unlikely to develop anything unique, but will probably adopt ATACMS in addition to GMLRS, and the variety of warheads is evolving. To date only a loitering munition has been mentioned in addition to the unitary warhead.