07-21-2022, 10:14 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-agrees-to-...13303.html
This article summarizes the HIMARS state of play. It covers in one place a summary of the good effects of the HIMARS delivers to Ukrainian prospects. By the end of July Ukraine will have 25 HIMARS/M270 type launchers. They are still saying they need 50 to completely stabilize the front and about 100 to go on the offensive. Probably a bit of want rather than need to some extent, but Ukraine has been consistent in this estimate and there are reasons for it.
ATACMS is discussed but there is nothing "new" here other than the idea of hitting the subsequent railway tunnel instead of the Kerch bridge. Others do share my concern about Russia's reaction to an attack on that bridge, so if the same effect is possible without taking that risk, it is a good alternative.
This article does not address the potential shortfall in replacement rounds for the HIMARS systems. It is evident that the Ukrainians need to "feature" these weapons to an extent much greater than the US forces would to accomplish the same mission. This is caused by the fact the US would use air power to do many of these missions and that option is not available to Ukraine. Arguably, the US did not manufacture adequate stocks of these missiles even for US needs/usage rates, so the increased consumption rate may become a problem. At one time we had a very large number of the cluster munition rockets. As these rockets aged, they were not replaced because the US was trying to get out of the cluster munition business. In my view that policy was and is mistaken, but at the very least these rockets should have been replaced one for one with the newer unitary warhead missiles. They were not, and here we are. I really do hope this issue is being addressed. The US needs to look at future needs in Ukraine which could be substantially higher that they are today as the number of launchers increase and the Ukraine goes on the offensive.
The HIMARS systems do have important limitations. The warheads are not very big compared to say a MK-84 (about 10 to 1). That is fine if you are firing at a target that is not "hardened" and you know exactly where it is. If you are a bit uncertain as to the target location or the target has 15 feet of dirt over it, a single missile likely will not destroy it. As we are seeing they also won't demolish a concrete road bridge in one blow either. To do that you need several hits. If the target is spread out over a fairly large area (say a BTG in laager) a single GMLRS with a unitary warhead may do some damage but will not incapacitate (or really damage much unless it hits an ammunition truck) the unit. An rocket with a cluster munition is much more effective in that case but we don't have many of those anymore. The GMLRS AW/DPICM is available (I think, that program had it's troubles), but does Ukraine have any?
The GMLRS rounds are also subject to GPS jamming. Russia has extensive GPS jamming capabilities. They do work, subject to some caveats. These jammers fall in to two classes, some that cover many km and some that are much more localized. The wide area jammers are large and fairly easy to locate because they transmit lots of power. Obviously, destroying them is a priority but you probably can't use a GPS guided rocket to do it. You need an anti-radiation missile. You also need an aircraft that can get close enough to launch it. I don't think Ukraine has any AARGM-ERs lying around and they certainly don't have aircraft that can launch it if they did.
The "local" ones are a different case. They don't emit enough power to easily be located. Their purpose is to disrupt the GMLRS rounds as they approach "high value" targets and cause near-misses. How well they work I don't know, and probably nobody does really. They are a "niche" thing but if they work (and if they have "enough" of them) Russia will lose fewer Generals.
This article summarizes the HIMARS state of play. It covers in one place a summary of the good effects of the HIMARS delivers to Ukrainian prospects. By the end of July Ukraine will have 25 HIMARS/M270 type launchers. They are still saying they need 50 to completely stabilize the front and about 100 to go on the offensive. Probably a bit of want rather than need to some extent, but Ukraine has been consistent in this estimate and there are reasons for it.
ATACMS is discussed but there is nothing "new" here other than the idea of hitting the subsequent railway tunnel instead of the Kerch bridge. Others do share my concern about Russia's reaction to an attack on that bridge, so if the same effect is possible without taking that risk, it is a good alternative.
This article does not address the potential shortfall in replacement rounds for the HIMARS systems. It is evident that the Ukrainians need to "feature" these weapons to an extent much greater than the US forces would to accomplish the same mission. This is caused by the fact the US would use air power to do many of these missions and that option is not available to Ukraine. Arguably, the US did not manufacture adequate stocks of these missiles even for US needs/usage rates, so the increased consumption rate may become a problem. At one time we had a very large number of the cluster munition rockets. As these rockets aged, they were not replaced because the US was trying to get out of the cluster munition business. In my view that policy was and is mistaken, but at the very least these rockets should have been replaced one for one with the newer unitary warhead missiles. They were not, and here we are. I really do hope this issue is being addressed. The US needs to look at future needs in Ukraine which could be substantially higher that they are today as the number of launchers increase and the Ukraine goes on the offensive.
The HIMARS systems do have important limitations. The warheads are not very big compared to say a MK-84 (about 10 to 1). That is fine if you are firing at a target that is not "hardened" and you know exactly where it is. If you are a bit uncertain as to the target location or the target has 15 feet of dirt over it, a single missile likely will not destroy it. As we are seeing they also won't demolish a concrete road bridge in one blow either. To do that you need several hits. If the target is spread out over a fairly large area (say a BTG in laager) a single GMLRS with a unitary warhead may do some damage but will not incapacitate (or really damage much unless it hits an ammunition truck) the unit. An rocket with a cluster munition is much more effective in that case but we don't have many of those anymore. The GMLRS AW/DPICM is available (I think, that program had it's troubles), but does Ukraine have any?
The GMLRS rounds are also subject to GPS jamming. Russia has extensive GPS jamming capabilities. They do work, subject to some caveats. These jammers fall in to two classes, some that cover many km and some that are much more localized. The wide area jammers are large and fairly easy to locate because they transmit lots of power. Obviously, destroying them is a priority but you probably can't use a GPS guided rocket to do it. You need an anti-radiation missile. You also need an aircraft that can get close enough to launch it. I don't think Ukraine has any AARGM-ERs lying around and they certainly don't have aircraft that can launch it if they did.
The "local" ones are a different case. They don't emit enough power to easily be located. Their purpose is to disrupt the GMLRS rounds as they approach "high value" targets and cause near-misses. How well they work I don't know, and probably nobody does really. They are a "niche" thing but if they work (and if they have "enough" of them) Russia will lose fewer Generals.