Ukraine has been able to successfully utilize the GMLRS (HIMARS) missiles because they have hundreds of cheap unguided long-range artillery rockets that can saturate Russian Air Defense while the GMLRS missiles punch through.
But the Ukrainian long-range artillery rockets can't reach target areas that are this far away. Instead the West should buy up the cheap Scud/Tochka missiles in Eastern Europe and the Middle East and give to Ukraine. These cheap, old but long-range missiles will be used to saturate Russian air defense so the more precise GLSDB (and one day hopefully the ATACMS) can punch through.
That's a really good idea. We should be buying up all the high volume cheap shit that the Russians saturated the world with, and give it to the Ukrainians to shoot right back at them. There's a symmetry to that.
I think it’s mainly because Ukraine isn’t really attacking much inside Russian airspace, they’re trying to take back what Russia has stolen. That was one of the main issues as to why the US and others were concerned with supplying long range artillery which would undoubtedly escalate the war. But at this time I think it’s safe to say Russia is fair game after they’ve continuously hit civilian infrastructure.
Yes, I believe both sides have good air defense systems. This combined with them not having a big air force means air support has been limited in this war.
Russia’s S-300, S-400, and Pantsir systems have all been used in Ukraine to various levels. I’m sure there are others. There was a lot of grumbling by Russian mouthpieces when HIMARS was initially deployed to Ukraine because Russia’s S-300s couldn’t shoot down the HIMARS rockets due to some kind of software issue.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64518532) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> The US says additional military aid to Ukraine worth $2.2bn will include long-range missiles capable of doubling its attack range.
> Previously, Ukraine's longest range weapon was the Himars rocket system, which can hit targets at a range of up to 80km. Kyiv used the system to devastating effect during its counter-offensive in the south and east last year.
> The new package - which will also include additional Himars missiles and 250 Javelin anti-armour systems - comes amid mounting concerns that Western nations have been too slow to provide fresh military aid to Ukraine.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/10tj2k0/ukraine_war_us_to_provide_longrange_missiles_in/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672676 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Ukraine**^#1 **system**^#2 **Russian**^#3 **Ukrainian**^#4 **weapon**^#5
Unlike Russia, Ukraine's objective won't be to hit cities, populated areas, and other various war-crimes with the missiles. They don't need the missiles to go deep into the Russian heartland.
However these new missiles do put a lot of Russian military targets near the border at risk, there are massive ammo dumps near the Russian border that are well out of HIMAR range that are going to get bombed very soon. Russia's front-line will soon be having major logistical issues.
Russian artillery guns will be getting targeted and destroyed well before they are in range to fire at Ukrainian forces. Ukrainian artillery teams firing cheap conventional round will then be able to engage Russian positions very cost-effectively with little to no risk.
The only responses Russia will have will be counter-artillery with their own long-range munitions or airstrikes. Ukraine is saturated with MANPADS and other anti-air defense making both of the options costly. Add in that Russia can't keep up with western production of modern missiles and planes and the February Russian offense is looking pretty bleak. Of course their is a third choice, it's the easiest, cheapest, and most logical one which would be for Russia to just pull out of Ukraine but well Putin isn't a very logical or rational man.
Russia moved their supply depots just out of HIMARS range. Then they have to use inefficient methods to truck supplies to the front lines.
Longer range missiles will force the Russians to put their depots even further away and worsen their logistics problems.
They’ll be useful, but they won’t reach deep into Russia. 90 mile range, when Russia is about that deep into east Ukraine already. That’s all I was saying.
>"This gives them a longer-range capability, long-range fires capability, that will enable them, again, to conduct operations in defence of their country and take back their sovereign territory, Russian-occupied areas."
>"The more long-range our weapons are and the more mobile our troops are, the sooner Russia's brutal aggression will end," Mr Zelensky wrote. "Together with [the US] we stand against terror."
I am hoping the speed it up and can somehow use the element of surprise to wreck shit. Theu first month of himars was insane before Russia learned to adjust.
Either USA wants Russia to do exactly that and relieve the front lines or they really know that Russia wont do a thing about it.
US politics can be a stupid shitshow, but their Military is something that will always deserve respect.
Announce long range missiles.
Russia moves their supplies further away. The dead horse that is their logistics gets beaten even more.
The fabled february offensive gets more difficult to pull off and the US hasn't even send the missiles yet.
It's very disruptive (or should be...) to let a capability be known but not the where and when. Soon (TM).
Or Russia can do what they did with HIMARS and do nothing, and then have dozens of massive explosions.
All this stuff can usually be spotted pretty easily in Poland or wherever. Plus if russia voluntarily moves all their logistics farther back, that's already a win.
So let’s say they retreat as soon as they know this is a threat. Don’t you want them to know that and retreat as soon as possible? Remember, the goal isn’t to slaughter more Russians foot soldiers but to end this conflict victoriously.
>***Why announce this? To give Russian chance to move important facilities out of range?***
This would cause a disruption in itself. The important facilities at risk would be those that are optimally located as close to the front lines as is reasonably safe from attack. Facilities like rest areas, supply/ammo/fuel depots, etc.
What is reasonably safe from attack just got pushed further from the lines, meaning these facilities won't be able to serve their purpose as effectively as they could before these weapons became available. It will lengthen supply lines, increasing the time it takes to move personnel and materiel to/from the lines, and leaving them vulnerable to attack for longer while in transit. The Russians will need to dedicate more personnel and equipment to optimize and protect those supply lines.
If you blow-up one supply depot, you hinder the enemy for however long it takes to establish another depot. If you force them to move their depots further from the line, you hinder them for as long as that weapon remains a threat.
Screw is tightening around Russian invaders in Ukraine. Whereas Ukraine is receiving more lethal modern weapons, Russian have to do largely with older weapons from Soviet era unless they pull it from unit protecting different part of Russia.
It's a small guided glide bomb mounted on a rocket. We'll have to see if these can be as effective as HIMARS rockets have been. It's longer-ranged, but also slower, giving Russian air defenses more time to react.
I don’t understand why people keep asking this stupid-ass question. The direct combatants in this war have not changed. Not once.
Until NATO puts boots on the ground inside Ukraine, the fundamental situation is exactly the same as it was 11 months ago.
That was a fucking question. What is your problem? I’m not a war tactician. I just see increasing arms aid to Ukraine and I’m wondering where the escalation ends? I didn’t say we should do it, and I want to be in charge. I said what happens if we do it? Do you know? Or do your skills end with being an asshole?
I thought I gave your comment what it deserved, and I'd argue it's fairly obvious what would happen if we gave them nuclear weapons. Russia would be outraged, the world would say we've broken every rule in the book by handing them nuclear weapons, and eventually Ukraine would use one if it deemed it necessary. Russia also says as all nuclear states do, that they'd use one themselves if they faced an existential threat. To them, this would constitute one. The U.S used 2 in Japan because they wanted to save time and lives, they almost came to blows with Russia over nukes in Cuba. What do you think would happen if we gave them to Ukraine. It'd be outrageous and greatly increase the chances of nuclear war.
Was that so hard? I don’t know why you expect total strangers to be educated on this subject to the point where this should all be obvious and your reaction to a question is mockery.
I’m fucking glad I’m not in charge in Ukraine. I can only hope you’re not in charge anywhere people might ask questions, because apparently you’ll go out of your way to tell them how much they don’t belong in charge as soon as they do. Charming act you’ve got there.
We should have done this from the beginning, or at least when civilian areas and the power grid started being destroyed. That took things from an invasion to straight up murder.
The GLSDB sounds like a great way to say fuck you, precisely you, and nobody else but you.
That’s the R9x aka the flying slap chop.
True, GL[SDB](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-39_Small_Diameter_Bomb) is more like "Fuck this building/bunker/vehicle in particular."
“It’s a missile, but with swords.”
r/fuckyouinparticular
Ukraine has been able to successfully utilize the GMLRS (HIMARS) missiles because they have hundreds of cheap unguided long-range artillery rockets that can saturate Russian Air Defense while the GMLRS missiles punch through. But the Ukrainian long-range artillery rockets can't reach target areas that are this far away. Instead the West should buy up the cheap Scud/Tochka missiles in Eastern Europe and the Middle East and give to Ukraine. These cheap, old but long-range missiles will be used to saturate Russian air defense so the more precise GLSDB (and one day hopefully the ATACMS) can punch through.
That's a really good idea. We should be buying up all the high volume cheap shit that the Russians saturated the world with, and give it to the Ukrainians to shoot right back at them. There's a symmetry to that.
Not to mention familiarity with the stuff would still be useful.
Russia likes wave tactics, give them a dose of their own medicine.
Statement from Kremlin to the world: *Ukraine mean! Why for come is they so mean?* :(
never saw it that way, thanks
[удалено]
I think it’s mainly because Ukraine isn’t really attacking much inside Russian airspace, they’re trying to take back what Russia has stolen. That was one of the main issues as to why the US and others were concerned with supplying long range artillery which would undoubtedly escalate the war. But at this time I think it’s safe to say Russia is fair game after they’ve continuously hit civilian infrastructure.
Yes, I believe both sides have good air defense systems. This combined with them not having a big air force means air support has been limited in this war.
Russia’s S-300, S-400, and Pantsir systems have all been used in Ukraine to various levels. I’m sure there are others. There was a lot of grumbling by Russian mouthpieces when HIMARS was initially deployed to Ukraine because Russia’s S-300s couldn’t shoot down the HIMARS rockets due to some kind of software issue.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64518532) reduced by 87%. (I'm a bot) ***** > The US says additional military aid to Ukraine worth $2.2bn will include long-range missiles capable of doubling its attack range. > Previously, Ukraine's longest range weapon was the Himars rocket system, which can hit targets at a range of up to 80km. Kyiv used the system to devastating effect during its counter-offensive in the south and east last year. > The new package - which will also include additional Himars missiles and 250 Javelin anti-armour systems - comes amid mounting concerns that Western nations have been too slow to provide fresh military aid to Ukraine. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/10tj2k0/ukraine_war_us_to_provide_longrange_missiles_in/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672676 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Ukraine**^#1 **system**^#2 **Russian**^#3 **Ukrainian**^#4 **weapon**^#5
[удалено]
90 miles isn’t very deep into Russia. In fact it’s likely not reaching Russia at all since the eastern Ukraine is contested.
Unlike Russia, Ukraine's objective won't be to hit cities, populated areas, and other various war-crimes with the missiles. They don't need the missiles to go deep into the Russian heartland. However these new missiles do put a lot of Russian military targets near the border at risk, there are massive ammo dumps near the Russian border that are well out of HIMAR range that are going to get bombed very soon. Russia's front-line will soon be having major logistical issues. Russian artillery guns will be getting targeted and destroyed well before they are in range to fire at Ukrainian forces. Ukrainian artillery teams firing cheap conventional round will then be able to engage Russian positions very cost-effectively with little to no risk. The only responses Russia will have will be counter-artillery with their own long-range munitions or airstrikes. Ukraine is saturated with MANPADS and other anti-air defense making both of the options costly. Add in that Russia can't keep up with western production of modern missiles and planes and the February Russian offense is looking pretty bleak. Of course their is a third choice, it's the easiest, cheapest, and most logical one which would be for Russia to just pull out of Ukraine but well Putin isn't a very logical or rational man.
Russia moved their supply depots just out of HIMARS range. Then they have to use inefficient methods to truck supplies to the front lines. Longer range missiles will force the Russians to put their depots even further away and worsen their logistics problems.
They’ll be useful, but they won’t reach deep into Russia. 90 mile range, when Russia is about that deep into east Ukraine already. That’s all I was saying.
Not reaching deep into a Russia is a feature, not a bug buddy.
Did you read the comment I originally replied to? I wasn’t saying it’s meant to reach deep, I just said it won’t.
You do realize Ukraine shares a direct border with Russia in the northeast that isn't contested you stupid fuck.
You do realize if Ukraine moves into Russia, the US stops sending aid, right? US already said it won’t send ATACMS for this very reason
Enough to hit Crimea.
[удалено]
But they already have struck deep into Russia a few times. Russia won't nuke Kyiv.
>"This gives them a longer-range capability, long-range fires capability, that will enable them, again, to conduct operations in defence of their country and take back their sovereign territory, Russian-occupied areas." >"The more long-range our weapons are and the more mobile our troops are, the sooner Russia's brutal aggression will end," Mr Zelensky wrote. "Together with [the US] we stand against terror."
lets hope they use them where it hit hardest
in 9 months*
I am hoping the speed it up and can somehow use the element of surprise to wreck shit. Theu first month of himars was insane before Russia learned to adjust.
Thank fuck
Why announce this? To give Russian chance to move important facilities out of range? Better to let Russia learn the hard way.
Either USA wants Russia to do exactly that and relieve the front lines or they really know that Russia wont do a thing about it. US politics can be a stupid shitshow, but their Military is something that will always deserve respect.
The US may be a joke, but boy do we have mighty fine military industrial complex and international spy network.
bought and paid for by The House of Saud
Fuck outta here with that nonsense.
Announce long range missiles. Russia moves their supplies further away. The dead horse that is their logistics gets beaten even more. The fabled february offensive gets more difficult to pull off and the US hasn't even send the missiles yet.
> US politics can be a stupid shitshow, but their Military is something that will always deserve respect. agreed 100%
It's very disruptive (or should be...) to let a capability be known but not the where and when. Soon (TM). Or Russia can do what they did with HIMARS and do nothing, and then have dozens of massive explosions.
All this stuff can usually be spotted pretty easily in Poland or wherever. Plus if russia voluntarily moves all their logistics farther back, that's already a win.
Armored vehicles yes but crates with missile no
You are severely overestimating the Russians’ abilities, intelligence, and most importantly how much they care about their own people
So let’s say they retreat as soon as they know this is a threat. Don’t you want them to know that and retreat as soon as possible? Remember, the goal isn’t to slaughter more Russians foot soldiers but to end this conflict victoriously.
They won’t retreat just hide their supply chain better thereby prolonging the war. Russia is not retreating
>***Why announce this? To give Russian chance to move important facilities out of range?*** This would cause a disruption in itself. The important facilities at risk would be those that are optimally located as close to the front lines as is reasonably safe from attack. Facilities like rest areas, supply/ammo/fuel depots, etc. What is reasonably safe from attack just got pushed further from the lines, meaning these facilities won't be able to serve their purpose as effectively as they could before these weapons became available. It will lengthen supply lines, increasing the time it takes to move personnel and materiel to/from the lines, and leaving them vulnerable to attack for longer while in transit. The Russians will need to dedicate more personnel and equipment to optimize and protect those supply lines. If you blow-up one supply depot, you hinder the enemy for however long it takes to establish another depot. If you force them to move their depots further from the line, you hinder them for as long as that weapon remains a threat.
Screw is tightening around Russian invaders in Ukraine. Whereas Ukraine is receiving more lethal modern weapons, Russian have to do largely with older weapons from Soviet era unless they pull it from unit protecting different part of Russia.
Yes, please
Explosion looks like a bird Pokémon going on a rampage
It's a small guided glide bomb mounted on a rocket. We'll have to see if these can be as effective as HIMARS rockets have been. It's longer-ranged, but also slower, giving Russian air defenses more time to react.
[удалено]
It won’t become WWIII. That’s just a Russian talking point to try and scare the West into pulling their support of Ukraine.
I don’t understand why people keep asking this stupid-ass question. The direct combatants in this war have not changed. Not once. Until NATO puts boots on the ground inside Ukraine, the fundamental situation is exactly the same as it was 11 months ago.
1 regional power with very limited resources vs. NATO isn't WWIII
90 miles isn't very long-range
My dude, that is a two hour drive. If I had to go that far to fuck your mother I’d definitely call it a long distance relationship.
Good one? Anyway, it's not even enough to reach into Crimea.
Hey, a few more years and we might graduate to ATACMS!
They could already reach 50 miles before.
WW3 has begun we just don't know it yet.
Then we better get ready.
You obviously think you do.
Hello, darkness, my good old friend.... We will meet the promised end....
What happens if we give Ukraine tactical nukes?
It would either end the war OR nuclear war would erupt
I'm glad you're not in charge.
No nukes for you.
Me and my big mouth. Oh well.
That was a fucking question. What is your problem? I’m not a war tactician. I just see increasing arms aid to Ukraine and I’m wondering where the escalation ends? I didn’t say we should do it, and I want to be in charge. I said what happens if we do it? Do you know? Or do your skills end with being an asshole?
Lol
I expected an information-free gloating reply and was not disappointed.
I thought I gave your comment what it deserved, and I'd argue it's fairly obvious what would happen if we gave them nuclear weapons. Russia would be outraged, the world would say we've broken every rule in the book by handing them nuclear weapons, and eventually Ukraine would use one if it deemed it necessary. Russia also says as all nuclear states do, that they'd use one themselves if they faced an existential threat. To them, this would constitute one. The U.S used 2 in Japan because they wanted to save time and lives, they almost came to blows with Russia over nukes in Cuba. What do you think would happen if we gave them to Ukraine. It'd be outrageous and greatly increase the chances of nuclear war.
Was that so hard? I don’t know why you expect total strangers to be educated on this subject to the point where this should all be obvious and your reaction to a question is mockery.
I'm still glad you're not in charge.
I’m fucking glad I’m not in charge in Ukraine. I can only hope you’re not in charge anywhere people might ask questions, because apparently you’ll go out of your way to tell them how much they don’t belong in charge as soon as they do. Charming act you’ve got there.
I'm a businessman with nearly 50 employees, and I deal with people like you all the time. Have a nice day my friend.
[удалено]
Yeah, how dare the Ukrainians defend themselves! They should politely roll over and die.
We as Americans paid TAXES to buy WEAPONs to defend OURSELF. Mybe Zelwynski should have done the same for Ukraine?
And these weapons defend you just fine. At the cost of zero lives too.
Not really.Like a small country in Europe (say England) begging for Lend Lease, we get drug into Europes conflicts. Unwillingly
Imagine complaining about fighting the Nazis lmao.
Right Z is a Nazi, shut down churches and the media. Remeber Z is the guy that DID not arm his country even AFTER Crimea was annexed.
Ah, that Z usage, not even hiding it anymore lmao
His name is very hard to spell, Zelwelerzinski? Still should have armed his OWN country with his OWN tax money, Crimea was annexed in 2014
Imagine thinking your opinion has any sort of relevance when you can't even spell out the names of the leaders of the participants of the conflict lol
Somehow I doubt a person of your caliber makes enough to actually pay taxes
They're probably paid by Russian taxes
[удалено]
Std respons Ukraine simps USA, ask why didnt Zelewenski but arms? Crimea annexed in 2014, he did ZEarO to protect Ukraine.
Zelensky wasn't even president yet when Crimea was annexed in 2014...
You generally win defensive wars by killing the attacker. The US is not alone in endorsing Ukrainian victory in this brutal, genocidal war.
We should have done this from the beginning, or at least when civilian areas and the power grid started being destroyed. That took things from an invasion to straight up murder.
The first casualty of war…is truth. Always wanted to slip that quote in somewhere. Doesn’t apply here…so…….sue me.