[Goose]

More on GLSDB

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-expecte...1675270504

This was the newsiest bit to me

The weapon hasn’t previously attracted any orders, and while Boeing confirmed it had available stocks, it declined to comment on any potential transfer to Ukraine.

I believe Boeing is playing fast and loose with the truth. They probably have some significant number of test items built, but nobody builds weapons for inventory (particularly weapons that have no targeted requirement and no previous customers). Also, I can't imagine the US would supply a weapon (that "we" pay for) that has never been through a government approved test program. What if due to some undiscovered design fault some of the missiles explode on launch, for example.

It does seem that long range precision munitions such as ATACMS or GLSDB would be so much more valuable, and particularly more cost effective, than jets. They can accomplish many similar things but cheaper, less dangerously, and far easier to train/maintain.

F16s would be cool, but an equivalent dollar value of HIMARS, GLSDB, or ATACMS would a lot more useful.

You are absolutely correct. While there are some things the rockets can't do, if it is a "one or the other" situation HIMARS/M270 firing ATACMS (or PrSM if we are ignoring reality) is the way to go. GLSDB would be a close second if we could actually get them and they do actually work. Of course, IMO both is the "right" answer. F-16s consume different Ukrainian resources so they don't conflict. ATACMS is great because it uses existing infrastructure and training. It also checks a lot of boxes.

[Goose]

More on GLSDB

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-expecte...1675270504

This was the newsiest bit to me

The weapon hasn’t previously attracted any orders, and while Boeing confirmed it had available stocks, it declined to comment on any potential transfer to Ukraine.

I believe Boeing is playing fast and loose with the truth. They probably have some significant number of test items built, but nobody builds weapons for inventory (particularly weapons that have no targeted requirement and no previous customers). Also, I can't imagine the US would supply a weapon (that "we" pay for) that has never been through a government approved test program. What if due to some undiscovered design fault some of the missiles explode on launch, for example.

It does seem that long range precision munitions such as ATACMS or GLSDB would be so much more valuable, and particularly more cost effective, than jets. They can accomplish many similar things but cheaper, less dangerously, and far easier to train/maintain.

F16s would be cool, but an equivalent dollar value of HIMARS, GLSDB, or ATACMS would a lot more useful.

You are absolutely correct. While there are some things the rockets can't do, if it is a "one or the other" situation HIMARS/M270 firing ATACMS (or PrSM if we are ignoring reality) is the way to go. GLSDB would be a close second if we could actually get them and they do actually work. Of course, IMO both is the "right" answer. F-16s consume different Ukrainian resources so they don't conflict. ATACMS is great because it uses existing infrastructure and training. It also checks a lot of boxes.