French equivalent of HIMARS will fire domestic missiles

Future French missile systems are to be equipped with domestic missiles with a range of up to 150 kilometers.

This was revealed in a parliamentary report.

According to the current plan, by the end of 2030, France will receive 13 long-range missile systems to replace the existing LRU, as these are to be decommissioned in 2027. By 2035, their number is expected to increase to 26 systems, but the characteristics and specific model of the future missile system have not been disclosed.

At the same time, as noted by speakers in parliament, 26 systems by 2035 will only allow for the formation of one regiment. Meanwhile, France’s ambitions include having an army corps, which, according to French standards, requires two regiments.

The speakers called on parliamentarians to speed up the delivery schedule for 26 systems under the 2024-2030 military financing law in order to have as many systems as possible by 2030. At the same time, they advocate increasing the number of systems by 2035-2040 to ultimately have two missile regiments.

The replacement of existing LRU MLRS is part of a large-scale program called “Long-Range Ground Strike” (PEM FLP-T), which is currently divided into two phases. The first focuses on tactical strikes (up to 150 kilometers), while the second focuses on operational strikes (over 500 km or even 1,000 km).

The preparatory phase of the FLP-T program began in July 2023. This phase is aimed at exploring various options for a solution, which was initially planned for 2025. In November 2024, it was announced that preliminary studies had been awarded to two competing business groups, Safran/MBDA and Thales/ArianeGroup. These studies concern the development of a fully domestic system.

In addition, a design proposed by Turgis Gaillard, which will also be compatible with domestically developed missiles, is being considered.

Timeline for adoption

A preliminary assessment of the project is to be carried out in November 2025, with the first demonstration launch scheduled for April 2026. However, according to information provided to the speakers, the analysis of tender proposals and the announcement of the selected consortium may take place in the second half of 2026, which is already significantly behind the initial schedule.

According to the manufacturers, their systems will be operationally ready in 2030, while the armed forces hope to adopt them in 2029.

During the hearings, the representatives of the French Defense Procurement Agency (DGA) confirmed that the system under development should have a firing range of up to 150 km. It should also have accuracy and effectiveness at least on par with the LRU, while having high operational mobility and satisfactory tactical mobility. In addition, its dimensions must remain suitable for transport by A400M aircraft.

At the same time, it would be highly desirable for it to be compatible with a variety of long-range munitions, primarily US-made missiles already in service with the army, in order to use stocks that are still in service.

The speakers also emphasized the need to use ammunition from a single platform not only at division depth (50–150 km), but also at army corps depth (150–300 km). This is similar to solutions currently in service with the US and Russian armed forces.

In addition, it appears that the DGA is requiring the two consortia to commit to achieving a stockpile of 300 long-range missiles by 2030 with an annual production volume of 50 to 100 missiles per year. However, Ukraine’s experience indicates that the French army would exhaust its missile stockpile in less than a year in the event of high-intensity combat operations similar to the Russian-Ukrainian war.

At the same time, work is underway to prepare a foreign backup solution in case the domestic solution proves too expensive or does not arrive on time. The purchase of a ready-made system could theoretically involve the American M142 HIMARS, South Korean K239, German-Israeli Europuls, or even Indian Pinaka.

However, it is noted that choosing the American option, given the increasingly obvious inconsistency of the American partner, would be geopolitically risky and politically incomprehensible.