American project of container missile system PFAL
D. Trump at Fort Bragg. In the background on the right is a container launcher in a combat position. Photo X.com / D. Scavino
A few weeks ago, a previously unknown entity appeared for the first time in open publications missile an unusual-looking system used by the US Army. The launcher, compatible with existing ammunition, was mounted in a standard cargo container. No information about the product was released at the time, but its name and some details have now been revealed.
Missiles in a container
On June 10, 2025, US President Donald Trump visited the Fort Bragg military base in North Carolina. He was shown a number of modern weapons and other systems of various classes. Demonstration shooting and an airborne landing also took place.
An unusual missile system, previously not featured in official publicly available materials, was demonstrated at the arms exhibition. It was built in a standard 40-foot container and equipped with a launcher similar to the units of the M270 and M142 multiple launch rocket systems. Several photographs of this model have become publicly available, allowing us to examine its main features.
The military department and the military industry did not comment on this new product. However, the lack of official information did not prevent and even contributed to the emergence of various assumptions and assessments. In addition, specialized publications and blogs tried to find mentions of such developments in the past.
Such searches were successful. On July 8, The War Zone published an article in which it tried to track down history new complex. He managed to establish the approximate time frame for the creation of this product and other details. In addition, a Pentagon representative learned the designation of the complex.
View from another angle. Photo The War Zone
It should be noted that some information about the new development remains classified. However, the available data form a fairly detailed picture and allow us to make initial assessments.
Development process
The authors of TWZ believe that the groundwork for developing the current container missile system was laid in the 2010s. At that time, the Pentagon and its contractors were conducting the Strike X research program, during which they were looking for ways to develop existing MLRS and their ammunition.
No later than 2020, the army launched the development of a “container-based field launcher” artillery» Palletized Field Artillery Launcher (PFAL). The goal of this project was to create a new launcher that could complement existing self-propelled vehicles. The containerized product was proposed to be placed on various platforms or used in a stationary form.
The development of the PFAL project began in the 2021 fiscal year. $20,175 million was allocated for it. Judging by the absence of similar expenses in the following years, the design was completed in the shortest possible time. Then the experimental missile system was supposed to be tested.
In 2022-23, the PFAL project was not mentioned in open materials. Then, in April 2024, it was remembered in connection with the emergence of the AML multi-purpose self-propelled launcher. The US Army reported that solutions from the PFAL project were used in its development, although no details were provided.
The container's movable top lid. Photo by Military Today
In August last year, a short video showing an unknown missile system was distributed among specialized publications and blogs. The lens captured part of its body, similar to elements of a standard container, as well as a lifting launcher. The installation contained two transport and launch containers for MFOM or GMLRS missiles.
No further reports came in for the next few months. Finally, in June 2025, a new type of complex was shown to the US President. Apparently, the model on display at Fort Bragg was the same one that was filmed the previous summer.
Recently, a Pentagon representative told TWZ that D. Trump was shown the experimental PFAL system. This product currently belongs to the Special Operations Command (SOCOM). The ground forces, apparently, are not interested in such a development and plan to use the two types of MLRS they have.
Details of the current work and plans for the future, for obvious reasons, are not disclosed. Given the ownership of the experimental complex, one can not expect that new information about it will appear in the near future.
Technical features
Photos and videos published last year and this year show the main features of the PFAL system. In addition, it should use well-known missile lines, information about which has long been in the public domain.
The PFAL product is built in a body that closely resembles a standard 40-foot cargo container. The bottom, two walls, and one of the end doors are preserved. The roof is made to open, it folds to the right relative to the launch direction. The rear wall of the container body is also made movable - this is necessary for the release of reactive gases during firing.
The rear wall of the container. Photo by Military Today
A swinging launcher in the form of a frame with mounts for the TPK is mounted inside the container, shifted back. The launcher carries two containers with missiles of different types. Unlike the M270 and M142 combat vehicles, the PFAL container launcher does not have armor or its own crane for reloading.
The container complex received a fire control system of an unknown type. Probably, the container houses navigation and communication equipment, as well as a ballistic computer and devices for working with missile electronics. It is not yet known whether the container has a crew cabin. Perhaps the PFAL is controlled remotely.
The PFAL system can use MLRS/HIMARS rockets, but is not compatible with all ammunition. It can fire MFOM and GMLRS rockets. It can also fire ATACMS operational-tactical missiles. However, the system is not compatible with the new PrSM missile. There is no information yet on the possibility of using GLSDB ammunition with a glide bomb.
Perhaps, as the complex develops, its ammunition will include modern ammunition. However, this requires the corresponding interest and orders from the customer. Probably, there are none yet.
The container design, in theory, provides wide possibilities for deployment and use of the new complex. Thus, the PFAL product can be transported on appropriate vehicles. In this case, combat use is possible directly "from the wheels". Unloading and long-term duty at a stationary position are also not excluded. The carrier of the missile complex can be any ship or vessel capable of transporting containers.
Unification and diversity
Thus, the Pentagon and unknown contractors have developed another version of the launcher, designed to use several existing families of missiles. This system differs significantly from other models and has its own advantages and disadvantages.
M142 MLRS and unified container with missiles. Photo by the US Department of Defense
The strengths of the PFAL project include its simple design. It will facilitate, speed up and reduce the cost of production, deployment and use. Also of great importance is the unification of ammunition and, probably, on-board systems with existing MLRS. With differences in terms of deployment and operation, it will be possible to obtain the same combat qualities.
At the same time, the mobility and some other characteristics of the container complex are determined by its carrier, which may face objective limitations. In addition, the PFAL must use relatively old families of ammunition and is not yet compatible with modern weapons.
It is also worth paying attention to the general trends in the development of American missile weapons. Previously, it followed the path of expanding the range of ammunition while maintaining only two types of unified launchers. In recent years, the situation has changed. New mobile and container launchers and complexes are being developed that are capable of using missiles for HIMARS and MLRS.
This approach will have a negative impact on the unification of the equipment of the armed forces. Difficulties should arise in the area of production, operation and maintenance. It is assumed that the advantages of the new equipment will justify all the difficulties. In particular, different types of armed forces and branches of the military will be able to receive equipment that most fully meets their requirements. However, a positive result of such a concept is not yet guaranteed.
One way or another, the PFAL project has reached at least military testing. The US Special Operations Command has received the new equipment, is mastering it and, probably, is preparing it for future combat use. Time will tell whether the new missile system will live up to expectations.
Information