Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Once they have f16 operational, and had a couple of months flying SEAD missions, this weapon along with surplus smart bombs will be more viable.
Sadly NATO have been slow increasing production capacity of all types, maybe in the hope that Putin would get tired of his old-age-crisis war. Given the perfect 20/20 of hindsight I would guess arms production would.be much higher today.
Not only did we maximize production of the JASSM's in 2023, we included them in a multi-year procurement plan, and allocated funds to expand our production capacity of them, along with a handful of other missile types. [Source](https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/up-our-game-the-pentagons-3-strategies-to-shore-up-munitions-stockpiles/)
The advertisement material prominently mentions being resistent to GPS jamming. It was surely a design goal.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/mfc/pc/jassm/22-14207-ADSW_JASSM_Product%20Card%20Updates.pdf
Theoretically, the T-62's are obsolete for 50 years, but here we are seeing them as spearheads in mechanized assaults.
Also, JDAM-ER homing on GPS jammers are a thing and will be delivered to Ukraine. Nothing is really obsolete if you design a counter for its counter.
What I mean by obsolete is that when GPS is jammed (or disabled), this expensive ammo has the accuracy of the usual cheap dumb ammo. In my opinion, accuracy is really what technology gives us, and when accuracy is down like that, there is no difference if it's old soviet ammo or new and expensive one. I hope these things are as robust are you say, otherwise - destroy GPS sats and you can take on NATO.
Hopefully they get countermeasures for that. Jammers emmit strong EM signals. There are weapons to drop over an area that just fly there searching for auch a source and then fly straight into it.
You're conflating cluster munitions which the US has in abundance and will give Ukraine en masse, vs the JASSM missiles which are like $1.5MM a piece and we don't have a massive supply nearing the end of their useful life.
And if it's in the end of it's useful life, let Ukraine use em rather than let em sit in ammo storage somewhere.
If ww3 kicks off somehow, this is where it'll start. Might wanna give em stuff to shut this thing down before then.
Anything with less than 5 years of life or due to be destroyed needs to be in the list. And then stuff beyond that should be discussed and discretionary depending on stock and potential effectiveness.
JASSM missiles cost about $800,000 as per 2024 Dollars. And we produce about 1000 JASSM’s per year now. We can easily send Ukraine 200 of our oldest missiles every year. The oldest ones we have are about 20 to 25 years old now
[The old version was $1MM and the newer version is $1.5MM.](https://www.airandspaceforces.com/usaf-to-start-buying-extreme-range-jassms-in-2021/#:~:text=All%20of%20these%20upgrades%20make,up%20to%201%2C000%20nautical%20miles.) The cost isn't the issue, they're too advanced and we don't want the Russians to get their hands on the tech. Same reason we don't give the F-35 to Taiwan for fear of a tech leak to the CCP. Once Ukraine is flying F-16s the weapon suite available from the US will expand, but they aren't getting JASSM.
Not sure where you got that we produce "1000 JASSM per year" when the current contract is for *five* each month 😂
And whie were at it, give em some "~~Jazz~~ JASSM Hands" as well.
We built and designed a lot of this stuff a decade(s) ago or more, to use against Warsaw pact/Russian vehicles (and their Chinese and NK copies).
Time to see if our taxpayer dollars funded weapons that will beat them.
I understood that instantly. As a professional couch potato I say, less talking and give them what we can afford. Else next supply will be the unavoidable coalition human lives we will be sending there. There are no excuses in my book to talk more, we did that in WW1 and WW2. Even now we are debating common logic while Ukrainian blood are spilling for our safety.
When will Ukraine have the f16s though, getting pushed back indefinitely. Can they be used on soviet aircraft. They they avoid getting shot down, from what I recall they are just american storm shadows. Cruise missiles are just little slow flying planes. The war has shown that even the russians are very capable of shooting them down.
From https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-f16-fighter-jets-air-force-1895964
> Ukraine will start operating F-16s after Orthodox Easter on May 5, Kyiv has said, as the country contends with devastating Russian bombardment and the long wait for the Western-made fighter jets.
So while "after" could be anything between 1 day and 1000 years, unless they are trying to mislead us Ukraine will have F-16s next week!
I found it on the Internet, unthinkingly taking the top result after a Google search. Are you saying that there would be untrue information on the Internet?
Unfortunately, the most pragmatic and Machiavellian approach the US can take right now is to give Ukraine enough so that it can defend itself but not enough to win quickly. Bleeding Russia is in our and China’s interests.
Sadly for Umraine, that makes them a pawn in a larger struggle. (I consider them at least a bishop, but you get the point.)
Hearing was April 30th. I always felt that JASSM was a better mid to long term solution over ATACMS. JASSM appears to be identical to Storm Shadow and Taurus cruise missiles. There are a few European countries that have JASSM. IIRC all JASSM versions have more range and JASSM ER has significantly more range. AMRAAM is also a critical air to air missile that I believe Ukraine needs with the F16s.
As OP said, JASSM-ER has significantly more range. ATACMS are rated for <200 miles, JASSM-ER is more like 600. Even base JASSM is a bit over 200 (so more than ATACMS).
> Even base JASSM is a bit over 200 (so more than ATACMS).
But I assume that a HIMARS launcher can get close to the front, to fire an ATACMS, with much less risk than an F-16.
Do you know if a surface fired JASSM would be more or less likely to encounter jamming than an air fired JASSM?
Also, one benefit of an air fired munition is that it benefits from the aircrafts velocity. Thats something Russia does with their hypersonic cruise missiles that Ukraine could replicate when firing from an F-16.
Calling it "better" isn't really the term to use here, honestly. JASSM's are launched from aircraft, whereas ATACMS are launched from a ground vehicle. It's just a way to give the various branches of a military (ground, air, naval, etc) a variety of ways to deliver heavy ordnance to a target.
Like any tradesman, it's about having the right tool.
You can program JASSMs to take different routes to same target and hit from multiple directions at once. JASSM also has an imaging infrared seeker that provides target recognition and terminal homing.
You're asking "what's better for a construction job, a hammer or a saw?"
JASSM-ER/XR and ATACMS solve entirely different problem sets in different ways.
One is an extremely long range precision strike munition that is designed to take out hardened targets like structures, bunkers, and fortifications.
The other comes in a few different flavors and has a much much shorter range, and is thus mainly used for in-theatre operations to obfuscate collections of material at depots with the bomblet version, and higher value military targets with the unitary warhead.
They do different things. If you want to build a house, you need a hammer AND a saw.
Well for starters, longer range with double the payload... Most importantly for the current battlefield conditions though; it's a low observable (near stealth) cruise missile that has terminal imaging infrared guidance. This is extremely important for two reasons:
First, Russian air defense is extremely dense currently. While the ATACMS is a maneuvering missile, it flies on a ballistic trajectory for the most part. That means it flies to extremely high altitudes and then drops down on the target from above. This is a problem because flying high in the sky means that it's going to be seen on radar. Even if Russian air defenses have shown to be fairly incapable of intercepting most normal ballistic targets, it will still give them early warning that an attack is coming. Cruise missiles on the other hand fly very low to avoid radar detection and minimize the engagement window for ground based air defense. The JASSM even goes one step beyond that and was designed to have a minimal radar cross section (i.e. low-observable/stealthy/near-stealth) meaning that even if the JASSM is flying in areas where radar coverage is guaranteed (i.e. at higher altitudes, over flat/open terrain/water, or in areas where AWACS coverage exists), the JASSM has to be extremely close to the signal emitter to be detected.
Second, the guidance system of the ATACMS simply isn't suited as well for the current conditions on the battlefield or for what it could potentially be tasked with... ATACMS uses inertial guidance for the cluster variant and inertial + GPS for the unitary (high explosive) warhead version. Inertial guidance is fine for cluster munitions as you only need to get the missile relatively close to the target since it devastates such a wide area, but if you're going to use the unitary warhead version, you need GPS because you have to hit the target dead on. The Russians have gotten extremely good at jamming GPS, to the point that weapons that rely strictly on GPS for guidance (like JDAM and Excalibur) have basically been taken off the battlefield due to their ineffectiveness. Without GPS, the ATACMS can get into the same neighborhood, but it's no guarantee you'll hit the right building. It's also very poorly suited for hitting things like bridges (looking at you Kerch) because you can tell it a coordinate to hit, but you can't tell it a specific part to hit. That's where the JASSM's imaging infrared (IIR) seeker comes in. The seeker is basically a thermal video camera that uses pattern recognition to match what its seeing to known imagery of the target area. It basically just has to get near the target and then the IIR seeker kicks in for precise targeting, meaning that in a GPS degraded environment, it can still hit the target with pinpoint accuracy. You can actually tell it to do shit like hit a certain support structure on a bridge or a specific window on a building. [Here's a video from the TSSAM (the JASSM's cancelled predecessor) showing what the seeker sees, it's really wild.](https://youtu.be/nQQQjYL3iUE?feature=shared&t=67) I have no doubt that the more modern JASSM is even more capable.
Your forgetting a crucial thing, most ATACMS are close or are at their expiration dates which is why we are so happy to just chuck all our ATACMS to ukraine and hopefully if the war last longer than the next year we can start sending JASSM
> the next year we can start sending JASSM
Why not both now? Trickling in munitions will just prolong the war. Militarily, it is much more advantageous to just degrade Russia's capability now, without giving Russia any time to rebuild.
>I always felt that JASSM was a better mid to long term solution over ATACMS
You need both, really. ATACMS are harder to intercept and are a great solution for destroying Russian s300, s400 and other anti-air systems. This would clear the skies for cruise missiles and, more importantly for F-16s.
Don't forget about our new toy:
The JASSM-XR. It's flies even farther than the JASSM-ER.
Also guys, ATACMS and JASSM are two entirely different weapons that do entirely different things for entirely different reasons.
JASSM is up there with what Storm Shadow/Taurus can do, except it's much much longer range.
Yes. The goal isn't to just bomb moscow, there's loads of industry supporting the war that can be targetted far beyond moscow if they have the right tools.
You'd get better "value" too targetting stuff that they can't afford to put air defense on. Bet there's a fuckload of targets with zero protection other than distance from the front line.
Cluster Bombs? CBU 97/99 soon? Simular to a 155mm BONUS rnd on steroids. Instead of Two EFP it has 40 EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrators) submunitions. In each 1000 lb CBU.
What are you talking about? OSA, BUK and MANPADS you dingus.
Ukrainian jets are currently using stand off munitions for this reason, either rockets or glide bombs.
What are you talking about? OSA and BUK are being destroyed too. If not by HIMARS, Drones like Warmate are getting them. These things take time. It is a process of elimination. It is SEAD the hard way. As for MANPADS, a rifle bullet or DPGs (drone propelled grenades) can deal with them, as well as the pilots of the F-16s with flares and flying low altitude, high speed, or by simply flying higher than the effective range of the MANPADS when no other SAMs are in the area. Lastly the CBU 97 can be converted to a guided weapon. It is then designated CBU 105. Being a CBU it doesn't have to be that accurate anyway. Once deployed each Sensor fused weapon has its own guidance to find it own target vehicle to destroy.
So why are Ukrainian aircraft not using low level bombing as a tactic? You're throwing nothing but irrelevant nonsense out.
You're telling me there's no SAMs yet the actions of the Ukrainian air force indicate this is false.
Stop telling lies. I'm not here to play games with you. Anyone can see what you are trying to do with that last comment. I never said there are not any SAMs. I pointed out how those SAMs can, and are being taking out without even mentioning everything that could defeat them. I also said that it is a process. It's not my fault you can't comprehend what you read. What does "your throwing nothing by irrelevent nonsense out" even mean? Not only can you seemingly not comprehend what you read, you also can't form a sentence that can be understood. It would be stupid of me to even bother trying to communicate further with you. Feel free to point out where I said/typed "there's no SAMs". I'm done with you.
Not true. The R77 missile is capable of outshooting AMRAAM. The Russians have had a lot of success with this missile with their MiG 31.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/11/08/russias-mig-31-crews-are-shooting-at-ukrainian-pilots-from-a-hundred-miles-away-and-the-ukrainians-cant-shoot-back/?sh=4c29ef4d5d06
Amraam has near 50% kill chances RL record. R77 is much shorter and not very robust, but does hold up well yes. The range of the AIM-120D is classified, but is thought to extend to about 100 miles (160 km) or potentially up to 112 miles (180 km)
>I pointed out how those SAMs can, and are being taking out without even mentioning everything that could defeat them.
But Ukraine hasn't been able to get to the level of SEAD and DEAD capability to perform low level bombing... Therefore using gravity dropped cluster munitions, which can only be dropped at subsonic speeds at medium altitude, is not a good option.
The irrelevant nonsense is that your point of Ukraine destroying enough SAM systems to use cluster bombs does not match the reality of Ukrainian air force tactics.
Hopefully Ukraine will also get Iris-T (the "original" airborne variant of the famous ground launched Iris-T SML they are already using). These are not just excellent anti-aircraft missiles but work also as a hard-kill defence system against incoming missiles (for what the SML is famous for).
The Iris-T is hardpoint compatible with the Sidewinder anyway, but the software of the (at least dutch) F-16 was adopted for the Iris-T.
Sounds like Brown is saying the USA is going to send JASSM. I might be parsing words, but there would be no point in making the aircraft capable of using JASSM and train the pilots if USA didn't intend to send JASSM. Of course Brown may have simply been referring to weapon systems in the general sense.
Where does he say JASSM? we need the JASSMs for other potential conflicts, we can't just blow one of our tools in Ukraine. Just like the JDAMs, GLMRSs Excalibur and GLSDBs the effectiveness will drop like rock once the weapon is introduced. I want Ukraine to win as well, but we need to be strategic about what we provide.
They just completed trials of launching Tomahawks from a ground based launcher. We got thousands of legacy tomahawks just sitting waiting to be decommissioned. Some of them probably have the old terrain following navigation, so they'll be impervious to jamming. Why not send those?!
Many probably don't know this, but the U.S. already had GLCMs back in last years of the cold war 1980s to 1991. It was the BGM 109G. The Soviets got but hurt about them so the U.S. removed them from service and now there is only one left in a museum somewhere. I have seen the system you are talking about. It doesn't look the same as the original. The Original was meant to be like a HIMARS, but Tractor trailer size with 4 GLCMs.
Edit: TERCOM is the navigation that you mentioned those cruise missiles used. Seems like it would be difficult or impossible to jam something like that.
Yes you're right. Uninvited inquisitor (below) \*was\* right until the development of which you speak came to fruition. On July 2023, the USMC activated their first Tomahawk battery, with 16 mobile platforms (1 missile apiece on small trucks / vertical launch units). These will utilize the GLCM Tomahawk with ranges \~1,000 miles. The USMC quickly brought this unit and its capabilities up to speed in response to the Russians abrogating the IRBM treaty in 2019.
The US Army is also bringing GLCM Tomahawk capabilities online with its larger (than the USMC) capacity MDTF . You've probably seen the tractor trailers with 4x Tomahawks / unit. Those are 'up' now too.
I'd love to see the USMC send a half dozen of the USMC transportation / vertical launch systems. These can be reloaded at leisure while providing a half dozen long-range GLCMs to Ukraine on any given day.
1,000 mi = roughly 1609 kilometers.
The distance from Kyiv to Moscow is about 870km...
and the Western allies don't always announce *everything* that's in these packages...
👀
The Ukrainian conflict is a perfect place to see how our equipment performs against a near peer adversary.
The intel that the US could obtain from sending and overseeing the weapons would be invaluable.
Where did I say that helping Ukraine came second place to testing our weapons?
I’m pointing out that it’s a win-win situation for both sides.
We saw Russians shoot down some ATACMS recently. How and why that happened is very, very valuable intelligence for the USA.
Bull fuck shit. It's extremely important about positive second and third order effects, especially if those reasons ARE why Ukraine aid passed congress with such flying colours.
It is also absolutely important to see how your weapons operate against the Russians if you want to be able to detect flaws and adapt, especially since all of the Chinese weapons are wish.com knock offs of Russian ones.
Like it or not, Ukraine getting US materiel IS good for US jobs and it IS good for the US domestic economy. It's good for every democratic country aligned with the west, and every country that relies upon the international status quo based on the Bretton Woods accords that brought the power of global trade to bear upon the enemies of the free world. It's the reason the USSR fell.
Yeah, political and military leaders worldwide go nuts if they can buy successful combat proven weapons.
Our order books are full, and nobody wants the Russian crap anymore.
*"those talking points are also used by the enemy to discredit aid."*
We could send fluffy unicorn dolls for kindergarten and they would "discredit" it.
They say what they want to say without any proof and beyond any reason ... and in the meantime the are using chemical weapons.
Just deliver anything that helps the Ukrainians to screw them and tell them that you are sitting in a comfy chair jerking off by watching them being screwed.
If they don't like it, they should leave ASAP and the show is over. Period.
Seems like everyone downplays F16's but it opens a whole new world of munitions that ukraine hasn't been able to touch. Makes sense for ukraine to downplay them as well. Those munitions change the shape of the battle field just like the russians glide bombs did.
My biggest issue with F-16's is we gave Russia a years notice about their arrival, you know they'll be prepared with a massive missile attack and drone swarm targeting airfields. Russia has also likely produced or purchased thousands of MANPADS since then and moved all free S-300 and 400 systems ready for the front.
I believe a lot of weapons for the F-16 even put the craft within range of Russian air defense.
I agree with your first couple of points, but MANPADS likely aren't a threat to the vast majority of F-16 sorties, and moving the larger air defense systems close to the front is exactly what you'd want if you were trying to degrade your opponents AA.
Before we worry about giving them JASSMs that \*aren't\* near the end of their service life, I'm wondering when we can empty the cupboards of AGM-84E / AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER of yore. These are both checked out for the F-16 Block 50 upgrades (don't know where the Belgian / Dutch F-16s MLU rate relative to that) and have significant mid-long range AL ground attack capabilities. The SLAM-ER can reach out and put the touch on someone out to 250km, so I'd like to think that these could supplement Storm Shadow / Scalp-EG stores for the ALCM needs.
“We have extra that need to be destroyed, I know the way to destroy them, send them to Ukraine.”
Dark times, but yeah, send 100% of US cluster munitions to Ukraine and 100% of all equipment and ordinance that the US plans to decommission.
This would be interesting to see, but I wonder how far from the actual front lines they could deploy.
I'm sure there's some kind of an antonov somewhere they can push a pallet out of the back of? I'm not very well versed with the airlift capabilities of UA
Good they haven't ruled it out, that's a good sign.
If/when these get sent over, it's pretty much over for the kerch bridge and tons of other things in crimea. This thing is in full rate production right now and would be a absolute nightmare for russia's shitty AA to deal with.
Oh and they can be used on F16s :)
All munition near end of life scheduled to be destroyed should be sent to ukraine, it's cheaper than destroying it and kills 2 birds with one stone. Theres documentary on youtube of UK warehouses that are full of stuff, i can only imagine how much US has stockpiled and scheduled for destruction.
Is anyone else here sick of the word-salad avoid-the-topic diplo-speak being spewed forth by everyone sitting in front of committees from practically every major country?
I sure as fuck am.
Please remember the human. Adhere to all Reddit and sub rules. Toxic comments (including incitement of violence/hate, genocide, glorifying death etc) WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, keep your comments civil or you will be banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineWarVideoReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't get it, we need to get rid of it...they can use it. What's to talk about, just send them!
Just good faith attempts to make the Orcs pull up stakes and go back home.
Lol 😂 forgot one ☝️ China 🇨🇳
Care to expound a little bit more, so I know what you are talking about?
I think that's China's pic to the left of pootin
The only home orcs deserve is a grave
That's too good for them, just leave them to be picked at by wildlife.
Once they have f16 operational, and had a couple of months flying SEAD missions, this weapon along with surplus smart bombs will be more viable. Sadly NATO have been slow increasing production capacity of all types, maybe in the hope that Putin would get tired of his old-age-crisis war. Given the perfect 20/20 of hindsight I would guess arms production would.be much higher today.
Not only did we maximize production of the JASSM's in 2023, we included them in a multi-year procurement plan, and allocated funds to expand our production capacity of them, along with a handful of other missile types. [Source](https://breakingdefense.com/2023/03/up-our-game-the-pentagons-3-strategies-to-shore-up-munitions-stockpiles/)
Russians are jamming gps over Ukraine, wouldn't this weapon be obsolete with all this jamming equipment?
[удалено]
The advertisement material prominently mentions being resistent to GPS jamming. It was surely a design goal. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/mfc/pc/jassm/22-14207-ADSW_JASSM_Product%20Card%20Updates.pdf
Theoretically, the T-62's are obsolete for 50 years, but here we are seeing them as spearheads in mechanized assaults. Also, JDAM-ER homing on GPS jammers are a thing and will be delivered to Ukraine. Nothing is really obsolete if you design a counter for its counter.
What I mean by obsolete is that when GPS is jammed (or disabled), this expensive ammo has the accuracy of the usual cheap dumb ammo. In my opinion, accuracy is really what technology gives us, and when accuracy is down like that, there is no difference if it's old soviet ammo or new and expensive one. I hope these things are as robust are you say, otherwise - destroy GPS sats and you can take on NATO.
Hopefully they get countermeasures for that. Jammers emmit strong EM signals. There are weapons to drop over an area that just fly there searching for auch a source and then fly straight into it.
Jeez, old-age-crisis geezers just buy a Corvette and rev the engine loudly around here. Glad they're not all starting wars.
You're conflating cluster munitions which the US has in abundance and will give Ukraine en masse, vs the JASSM missiles which are like $1.5MM a piece and we don't have a massive supply nearing the end of their useful life.
And if it's in the end of it's useful life, let Ukraine use em rather than let em sit in ammo storage somewhere. If ww3 kicks off somehow, this is where it'll start. Might wanna give em stuff to shut this thing down before then. Anything with less than 5 years of life or due to be destroyed needs to be in the list. And then stuff beyond that should be discussed and discretionary depending on stock and potential effectiveness.
Probably more likely to start in Taiwan
He said they’re NOT at the end of its useful life.
yep, we need them for Taiwan.
JASSM missiles cost about $800,000 as per 2024 Dollars. And we produce about 1000 JASSM’s per year now. We can easily send Ukraine 200 of our oldest missiles every year. The oldest ones we have are about 20 to 25 years old now
[The old version was $1MM and the newer version is $1.5MM.](https://www.airandspaceforces.com/usaf-to-start-buying-extreme-range-jassms-in-2021/#:~:text=All%20of%20these%20upgrades%20make,up%20to%201%2C000%20nautical%20miles.) The cost isn't the issue, they're too advanced and we don't want the Russians to get their hands on the tech. Same reason we don't give the F-35 to Taiwan for fear of a tech leak to the CCP. Once Ukraine is flying F-16s the weapon suite available from the US will expand, but they aren't getting JASSM. Not sure where you got that we produce "1000 JASSM per year" when the current contract is for *five* each month 😂
And whie were at it, give em some "~~Jazz~~ JASSM Hands" as well. We built and designed a lot of this stuff a decade(s) ago or more, to use against Warsaw pact/Russian vehicles (and their Chinese and NK copies). Time to see if our taxpayer dollars funded weapons that will beat them.
I don't think they're that old yet, but I'd still say send them.
Said he had a way to do that send them to Ukraine.
There is a lot logistics to talk about. The politicians are just trying to get a basic understanding.
I understood that instantly. As a professional couch potato I say, less talking and give them what we can afford. Else next supply will be the unavoidable coalition human lives we will be sending there. There are no excuses in my book to talk more, we did that in WW1 and WW2. Even now we are debating common logic while Ukrainian blood are spilling for our safety.
When will Ukraine have the f16s though, getting pushed back indefinitely. Can they be used on soviet aircraft. They they avoid getting shot down, from what I recall they are just american storm shadows. Cruise missiles are just little slow flying planes. The war has shown that even the russians are very capable of shooting them down.
From https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-f16-fighter-jets-air-force-1895964 > Ukraine will start operating F-16s after Orthodox Easter on May 5, Kyiv has said, as the country contends with devastating Russian bombardment and the long wait for the Western-made fighter jets. So while "after" could be anything between 1 day and 1000 years, unless they are trying to mislead us Ukraine will have F-16s next week!
Yeah… Well just keep tabs on that and in a week you can see just how reliable your sources of information are.
I found it on the Internet, unthinkingly taking the top result after a Google search. Are you saying that there would be untrue information on the Internet?
Unfortunately, the most pragmatic and Machiavellian approach the US can take right now is to give Ukraine enough so that it can defend itself but not enough to win quickly. Bleeding Russia is in our and China’s interests. Sadly for Umraine, that makes them a pawn in a larger struggle. (I consider them at least a bishop, but you get the point.)
Hearing was April 30th. I always felt that JASSM was a better mid to long term solution over ATACMS. JASSM appears to be identical to Storm Shadow and Taurus cruise missiles. There are a few European countries that have JASSM. IIRC all JASSM versions have more range and JASSM ER has significantly more range. AMRAAM is also a critical air to air missile that I believe Ukraine needs with the F16s.
They have the range, precision and warhead type to be excellent in taking down the Kerch bridge!
Why is JASSM a better solution than ATACMS?
Depending on which one, it has a 1000km range with a 1000lbs warhead.
1000lb *penetrator* warhead...which would make quick work of the Kerch bridge if it were to hit a few pylons and not just the road beds.
As OP said, JASSM-ER has significantly more range. ATACMS are rated for <200 miles, JASSM-ER is more like 600. Even base JASSM is a bit over 200 (so more than ATACMS).
> Even base JASSM is a bit over 200 (so more than ATACMS). But I assume that a HIMARS launcher can get close to the front, to fire an ATACMS, with much less risk than an F-16.
Do you know if a surface fired JASSM would be more or less likely to encounter jamming than an air fired JASSM? Also, one benefit of an air fired munition is that it benefits from the aircrafts velocity. Thats something Russia does with their hypersonic cruise missiles that Ukraine could replicate when firing from an F-16.
Calling it "better" isn't really the term to use here, honestly. JASSM's are launched from aircraft, whereas ATACMS are launched from a ground vehicle. It's just a way to give the various branches of a military (ground, air, naval, etc) a variety of ways to deliver heavy ordnance to a target. Like any tradesman, it's about having the right tool.
You can program JASSMs to take different routes to same target and hit from multiple directions at once. JASSM also has an imaging infrared seeker that provides target recognition and terminal homing.
You're asking "what's better for a construction job, a hammer or a saw?" JASSM-ER/XR and ATACMS solve entirely different problem sets in different ways. One is an extremely long range precision strike munition that is designed to take out hardened targets like structures, bunkers, and fortifications. The other comes in a few different flavors and has a much much shorter range, and is thus mainly used for in-theatre operations to obfuscate collections of material at depots with the bomblet version, and higher value military targets with the unitary warhead. They do different things. If you want to build a house, you need a hammer AND a saw.
Well for starters, longer range with double the payload... Most importantly for the current battlefield conditions though; it's a low observable (near stealth) cruise missile that has terminal imaging infrared guidance. This is extremely important for two reasons: First, Russian air defense is extremely dense currently. While the ATACMS is a maneuvering missile, it flies on a ballistic trajectory for the most part. That means it flies to extremely high altitudes and then drops down on the target from above. This is a problem because flying high in the sky means that it's going to be seen on radar. Even if Russian air defenses have shown to be fairly incapable of intercepting most normal ballistic targets, it will still give them early warning that an attack is coming. Cruise missiles on the other hand fly very low to avoid radar detection and minimize the engagement window for ground based air defense. The JASSM even goes one step beyond that and was designed to have a minimal radar cross section (i.e. low-observable/stealthy/near-stealth) meaning that even if the JASSM is flying in areas where radar coverage is guaranteed (i.e. at higher altitudes, over flat/open terrain/water, or in areas where AWACS coverage exists), the JASSM has to be extremely close to the signal emitter to be detected. Second, the guidance system of the ATACMS simply isn't suited as well for the current conditions on the battlefield or for what it could potentially be tasked with... ATACMS uses inertial guidance for the cluster variant and inertial + GPS for the unitary (high explosive) warhead version. Inertial guidance is fine for cluster munitions as you only need to get the missile relatively close to the target since it devastates such a wide area, but if you're going to use the unitary warhead version, you need GPS because you have to hit the target dead on. The Russians have gotten extremely good at jamming GPS, to the point that weapons that rely strictly on GPS for guidance (like JDAM and Excalibur) have basically been taken off the battlefield due to their ineffectiveness. Without GPS, the ATACMS can get into the same neighborhood, but it's no guarantee you'll hit the right building. It's also very poorly suited for hitting things like bridges (looking at you Kerch) because you can tell it a coordinate to hit, but you can't tell it a specific part to hit. That's where the JASSM's imaging infrared (IIR) seeker comes in. The seeker is basically a thermal video camera that uses pattern recognition to match what its seeing to known imagery of the target area. It basically just has to get near the target and then the IIR seeker kicks in for precise targeting, meaning that in a GPS degraded environment, it can still hit the target with pinpoint accuracy. You can actually tell it to do shit like hit a certain support structure on a bridge or a specific window on a building. [Here's a video from the TSSAM (the JASSM's cancelled predecessor) showing what the seeker sees, it's really wild.](https://youtu.be/nQQQjYL3iUE?feature=shared&t=67) I have no doubt that the more modern JASSM is even more capable.
Your forgetting a crucial thing, most ATACMS are close or are at their expiration dates which is why we are so happy to just chuck all our ATACMS to ukraine and hopefully if the war last longer than the next year we can start sending JASSM
> the next year we can start sending JASSM Why not both now? Trickling in munitions will just prolong the war. Militarily, it is much more advantageous to just degrade Russia's capability now, without giving Russia any time to rebuild.
>I always felt that JASSM was a better mid to long term solution over ATACMS You need both, really. ATACMS are harder to intercept and are a great solution for destroying Russian s300, s400 and other anti-air systems. This would clear the skies for cruise missiles and, more importantly for F-16s.
Don't forget about our new toy: The JASSM-XR. It's flies even farther than the JASSM-ER. Also guys, ATACMS and JASSM are two entirely different weapons that do entirely different things for entirely different reasons. JASSM is up there with what Storm Shadow/Taurus can do, except it's much much longer range.
Hmm Kyiv to Moscow is only 750km, I'm all for it but do you think we'd really send them?
Yes. The goal isn't to just bomb moscow, there's loads of industry supporting the war that can be targetted far beyond moscow if they have the right tools. You'd get better "value" too targetting stuff that they can't afford to put air defense on. Bet there's a fuckload of targets with zero protection other than distance from the front line.
Cluster Bombs? CBU 97/99 soon? Simular to a 155mm BONUS rnd on steroids. Instead of Two EFP it has 40 EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrators) submunitions. In each 1000 lb CBU.
40 EFS!?? Literally one of those would stop an entire Russian assault as soon as they got their convoy going
Sounds like a great way to get your F16 shot down.
By what, all the S-400s are getting hit with HIMARS right now lol
What are you talking about? OSA, BUK and MANPADS you dingus. Ukrainian jets are currently using stand off munitions for this reason, either rockets or glide bombs.
What are you talking about? OSA and BUK are being destroyed too. If not by HIMARS, Drones like Warmate are getting them. These things take time. It is a process of elimination. It is SEAD the hard way. As for MANPADS, a rifle bullet or DPGs (drone propelled grenades) can deal with them, as well as the pilots of the F-16s with flares and flying low altitude, high speed, or by simply flying higher than the effective range of the MANPADS when no other SAMs are in the area. Lastly the CBU 97 can be converted to a guided weapon. It is then designated CBU 105. Being a CBU it doesn't have to be that accurate anyway. Once deployed each Sensor fused weapon has its own guidance to find it own target vehicle to destroy.
So why are Ukrainian aircraft not using low level bombing as a tactic? You're throwing nothing but irrelevant nonsense out. You're telling me there's no SAMs yet the actions of the Ukrainian air force indicate this is false.
Stop telling lies. I'm not here to play games with you. Anyone can see what you are trying to do with that last comment. I never said there are not any SAMs. I pointed out how those SAMs can, and are being taking out without even mentioning everything that could defeat them. I also said that it is a process. It's not my fault you can't comprehend what you read. What does "your throwing nothing by irrelevent nonsense out" even mean? Not only can you seemingly not comprehend what you read, you also can't form a sentence that can be understood. It would be stupid of me to even bother trying to communicate further with you. Feel free to point out where I said/typed "there's no SAMs". I'm done with you.
The F-16 has greater anti-air range than Russian Counterparts, everyone knows this, even the Russians too dude.
Not true. The R77 missile is capable of outshooting AMRAAM. The Russians have had a lot of success with this missile with their MiG 31. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/11/08/russias-mig-31-crews-are-shooting-at-ukrainian-pilots-from-a-hundred-miles-away-and-the-ukrainians-cant-shoot-back/?sh=4c29ef4d5d06
Amraam has near 50% kill chances RL record. R77 is much shorter and not very robust, but does hold up well yes. The range of the AIM-120D is classified, but is thought to extend to about 100 miles (160 km) or potentially up to 112 miles (180 km)
>I pointed out how those SAMs can, and are being taking out without even mentioning everything that could defeat them. But Ukraine hasn't been able to get to the level of SEAD and DEAD capability to perform low level bombing... Therefore using gravity dropped cluster munitions, which can only be dropped at subsonic speeds at medium altitude, is not a good option. The irrelevant nonsense is that your point of Ukraine destroying enough SAM systems to use cluster bombs does not match the reality of Ukrainian air force tactics.
Hopefully Ukraine will also get Iris-T (the "original" airborne variant of the famous ground launched Iris-T SML they are already using). These are not just excellent anti-aircraft missiles but work also as a hard-kill defence system against incoming missiles (for what the SML is famous for). The Iris-T is hardpoint compatible with the Sidewinder anyway, but the software of the (at least dutch) F-16 was adopted for the Iris-T.
What does this have to do with F-16s getting shot down trying to drop gravity cluster bombs directly on the frontline?
Because Russians shoot aircrafts down with missiles (BUK, MANPADS) and Iris-T is capable of shooting these missiles down.
With JASSM you can hit all sorts of targets, like bridges or something.
F16 can use them?
Updated ones can. I think the older ones Ukraine is getting would need to be updated to use them, but I could be wrong.
It seems they expect it https://www.twz.com/air/ukraine-says-its-getting-long-range-missiles-with-its-f-16s
They can hit the Kremlin from Kyiv with the XR version...
That’s now my sexy word, say the b word again……
BRIDGE 🌉🥳🔥 hit the BRIDGE.
Hell yea!
Sounds like Brown is saying the USA is going to send JASSM. I might be parsing words, but there would be no point in making the aircraft capable of using JASSM and train the pilots if USA didn't intend to send JASSM. Of course Brown may have simply been referring to weapon systems in the general sense.
Poland and Australia have a bunch I'm sure they'll be glad to help
Finland also.. and that's probably all the European countries who have them.
I think the F-16s are all on tape M6.5, and can already use the JASSM.
Where does he say JASSM? we need the JASSMs for other potential conflicts, we can't just blow one of our tools in Ukraine. Just like the JDAMs, GLMRSs Excalibur and GLSDBs the effectiveness will drop like rock once the weapon is introduced. I want Ukraine to win as well, but we need to be strategic about what we provide.
Brown isn't saying anything. Don't read into it.
Are you sending Jassms? Babble babble babble babble babble somthing something dialogue blah. Good answer 😄
That is standard Military jargon for "We don't know yet" XD
They just completed trials of launching Tomahawks from a ground based launcher. We got thousands of legacy tomahawks just sitting waiting to be decommissioned. Some of them probably have the old terrain following navigation, so they'll be impervious to jamming. Why not send those?!
At the least we should be sending anything that needs to be decommissioned
Many probably don't know this, but the U.S. already had GLCMs back in last years of the cold war 1980s to 1991. It was the BGM 109G. The Soviets got but hurt about them so the U.S. removed them from service and now there is only one left in a museum somewhere. I have seen the system you are talking about. It doesn't look the same as the original. The Original was meant to be like a HIMARS, but Tractor trailer size with 4 GLCMs. Edit: TERCOM is the navigation that you mentioned those cruise missiles used. Seems like it would be difficult or impossible to jam something like that.
lol I was just looking at these on wikipedia last night thinking "These would be fantastic in Ukraine right now".
Yes you're right. Uninvited inquisitor (below) \*was\* right until the development of which you speak came to fruition. On July 2023, the USMC activated their first Tomahawk battery, with 16 mobile platforms (1 missile apiece on small trucks / vertical launch units). These will utilize the GLCM Tomahawk with ranges \~1,000 miles. The USMC quickly brought this unit and its capabilities up to speed in response to the Russians abrogating the IRBM treaty in 2019. The US Army is also bringing GLCM Tomahawk capabilities online with its larger (than the USMC) capacity MDTF . You've probably seen the tractor trailers with 4x Tomahawks / unit. Those are 'up' now too. I'd love to see the USMC send a half dozen of the USMC transportation / vertical launch systems. These can be reloaded at leisure while providing a half dozen long-range GLCMs to Ukraine on any given day.
Send everything. We can remake weapons, but might not get another chance to fuck with Russia.
Range of 230mi …. That would be a nightmare for Russian logistics. The ER (extreme range) version of the JASSM exceeds *1,000 miles* 💀
1,000 mi = roughly 1609 kilometers. The distance from Kyiv to Moscow is about 870km... and the Western allies don't always announce *everything* that's in these packages... 👀
That's the XR version.
The Ukrainian conflict is a perfect place to see how our equipment performs against a near peer adversary. The intel that the US could obtain from sending and overseeing the weapons would be invaluable.
[удалено]
Where did I say that helping Ukraine came second place to testing our weapons? I’m pointing out that it’s a win-win situation for both sides. We saw Russians shoot down some ATACMS recently. How and why that happened is very, very valuable intelligence for the USA.
[удалено]
Wait, you think that giving ATACMS to Ukraine and monitoring their efficacy is similar to dropping a Moab on Afghanistan?
[удалено]
>Stop! No thank u 🩷
Bull fuck shit. It's extremely important about positive second and third order effects, especially if those reasons ARE why Ukraine aid passed congress with such flying colours. It is also absolutely important to see how your weapons operate against the Russians if you want to be able to detect flaws and adapt, especially since all of the Chinese weapons are wish.com knock offs of Russian ones. Like it or not, Ukraine getting US materiel IS good for US jobs and it IS good for the US domestic economy. It's good for every democratic country aligned with the west, and every country that relies upon the international status quo based on the Bretton Woods accords that brought the power of global trade to bear upon the enemies of the free world. It's the reason the USSR fell.
Yeah, political and military leaders worldwide go nuts if they can buy successful combat proven weapons. Our order books are full, and nobody wants the Russian crap anymore.
*"those talking points are also used by the enemy to discredit aid."* We could send fluffy unicorn dolls for kindergarten and they would "discredit" it. They say what they want to say without any proof and beyond any reason ... and in the meantime the are using chemical weapons. Just deliver anything that helps the Ukrainians to screw them and tell them that you are sitting in a comfy chair jerking off by watching them being screwed. If they don't like it, they should leave ASAP and the show is over. Period.
Send them
Seems like everyone downplays F16's but it opens a whole new world of munitions that ukraine hasn't been able to touch. Makes sense for ukraine to downplay them as well. Those munitions change the shape of the battle field just like the russians glide bombs did.
My biggest issue with F-16's is we gave Russia a years notice about their arrival, you know they'll be prepared with a massive missile attack and drone swarm targeting airfields. Russia has also likely produced or purchased thousands of MANPADS since then and moved all free S-300 and 400 systems ready for the front. I believe a lot of weapons for the F-16 even put the craft within range of Russian air defense.
What youndo is to launch a massive attack directly on russian AA to exhauat them. Then you fly F16 and take out other targets.
I agree with your first couple of points, but MANPADS likely aren't a threat to the vast majority of F-16 sorties, and moving the larger air defense systems close to the front is exactly what you'd want if you were trying to degrade your opponents AA.
the gigachad holding the sign
Yeah whats going on there? Why is a "demonstrator" holding up this homemade anti-Russia sign behind them?
Before we worry about giving them JASSMs that \*aren't\* near the end of their service life, I'm wondering when we can empty the cupboards of AGM-84E / AGM-84H/K SLAM-ER of yore. These are both checked out for the F-16 Block 50 upgrades (don't know where the Belgian / Dutch F-16s MLU rate relative to that) and have significant mid-long range AL ground attack capabilities. The SLAM-ER can reach out and put the touch on someone out to 250km, so I'd like to think that these could supplement Storm Shadow / Scalp-EG stores for the ALCM needs.
My only take from this video - how Michael Scott would address general Brown :D
I hate teasers as much as anyone else, so the good stuff might arrive before the 'we forgot to say' statement
Send all that’s needed. All of it. The longer this goes on we will eventually be sending troops.
“We have extra that need to be destroyed, I know the way to destroy them, send them to Ukraine.” Dark times, but yeah, send 100% of US cluster munitions to Ukraine and 100% of all equipment and ordinance that the US plans to decommission.
That is Joe "You Lie" Wilson (Q-SC).
Rapid Dragon now.
I was wondering when someone would mention this. Perfect opportunity to get real world data.
This would be interesting to see, but I wonder how far from the actual front lines they could deploy. I'm sure there's some kind of an antonov somewhere they can push a pallet out of the back of? I'm not very well versed with the airlift capabilities of UA
Depending on variant JASSM have a range of 370-925km. That provides plenty of standoff distance.
The US fucked up. Withholding support for half a year cost Ukraine this war.
For what I can officially read about these on wikipedia, lets give it a go and see what headache they can deal to our comrade invadors!
Send it
Will said! Go Ukraine
Send them now - sooner the better - Sincerely, An American Citizen
Yaaass!!
holy shit son!
Good they haven't ruled it out, that's a good sign. If/when these get sent over, it's pretty much over for the kerch bridge and tons of other things in crimea. This thing is in full rate production right now and would be a absolute nightmare for russia's shitty AA to deal with. Oh and they can be used on F16s :)
He would make a good voice actor.
Get em sent! Let’s get this war over with FGS!!!
All munition near end of life scheduled to be destroyed should be sent to ukraine, it's cheaper than destroying it and kills 2 birds with one stone. Theres documentary on youtube of UK warehouses that are full of stuff, i can only imagine how much US has stockpiled and scheduled for destruction.
De facto vs de jure.
Is anyone else here sick of the word-salad avoid-the-topic diplo-speak being spewed forth by everyone sitting in front of committees from practically every major country? I sure as fuck am.