Should warships carry HIMARS-style launcher canisters?

Would HIMARS loads be useful aboard ships in canisters like Harpoon or Naval Strike Missile?

The guidance technology may transfer, but carrying the land launcher and its small load at sea would use space inefficiently and impose awkward reloading and orientation limits.

HIMARS offers a rocket pod, six guided missiles, or a single tactical missile, but its land arrangement does not translate neatly to a warship. A ship installation with six or twelve rockets would expend its load quickly and then need a workable reload arrangement or a return to port. Fixed rocket canisters also raise the question of whether the ship would have to turn to aim them. A similar missile designed for ship launch could still be useful. Guidance packages offer a valuable area of commonality because they are among the expensive components, while the rest of the installation can suit naval requirements. Hellfire on Littoral Combat Ships illustrates the limits of transferring a land weapon: it is useful against small boats, whereas an attack on a full-sized warship would require close range and effective hits. A naval gun installation can itself weigh as much as a main battle tank because the carrying vessel operates on a much larger weight scale.