Pussig, men jeg har trodd, åpenbart feil, at vestlige systemer kan tracke russiske fly på tokt mot Ukraina. Jeg tenker spesielt på satelitter fremfor radarer. Men det synes ikke å være tilfelle. Jeg er skuffet over at Patriot systemer heller ikke kan ta dem. Rart at disse gammeldagse systemene får herje sånn. (Red.)
A Russian aviator checks the FAB-500 bombs
on a Su-34 bomber before a mission to the Avdiika area on March 8, 2024. Russian Defense Ministry/Handout/Anadolu via
Getty Images
JELA
Adobe licensing, exclusively for the DoD
Why there’s no easy answer
to Russia’s glide bombs
Allies are still discussing how to counter them,
with officials indicating that Ukrainian drone attacks may be the best bet.
Staff Writer
September 10, 2024 10:21 AM ET
As the West hunts for a way to help Ukraine stem
Russia’s devastating glide bomb attacks, officials and analysts have said Kyiv’s request to use U.S. missiles
won’t address the problem, while other methods come with drawbacks as well.
The munitions, which are dropped by Russian
aircraft, are cheap but powerful. Each bomb consists of an unguided aerial
bomb, of which Russia has many, to which a guidance kit is retrofitted for a cost of $30,000. Weighing up to 6,000 pounds, some contain
enough explosives to level entire buildings with a single strike.
Russia is dropping as many as 3,500 glide bombs a
month, Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskyy said earlier this year. Ukrainian troops cite the weapon as a key
reason for Russian advances in eastern Ukraine.
For months, Ukraine has sought U.S. permission to
use the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, to strike the Russian
airfields that launch the glide-bomb missions. In May, Ukrainian
parliamentarians pressed U.S. officials in D.C., followed by Zelenskyy’s appeal in July.
In late August, Ukrainian Defense Minister Rustem Umerov presented U.S. officials with a list of Russian airfields and other targets
within Russia that Ukraine would like to hit with ATACMS.
So far, the United States has been unmoved. On
Sept. 4, U.S. National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said ATACMS
would have little utility because Russia had moved 90 percent of its glide-bomb-dropping jets out of range.
An official from a NATO member state agreed,
saying that it was an open question as to what the right weapon was for
reducing glide bomb strikes.
The United States, Ukraine, and its allies
continue to discuss ways to counter the glide bombs, though, according to the
official.
“It may be that actually it's better to focus on
the current things [Ukraine] does now," with long-range attack drones, the
official said.
Speaking to reporters on Sept. 6 after meeting
with Ukrainian officials, U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin likewise appeared
to suggest Ukrainian drone strikes were the best solution. Ukraine has “a
lot of capability” in terms of drones to strike targets in Russia, he
said.
Austin did not directly address other arguments
that ATACMS could be useful for striking command posts and other targets that remain within
reach.
Ukraine has struck Russian airfields multiple
times with drones, although it’s unclear how effective those strikes have been.
John Hoehn, an associate policy researcher at the
think tank RAND, agreed that using Western missiles against Russian airfields
was unlikely to be effective.
For one, the number of Ukraine’s long-range
Western missiles is relatively limited, said Hoehn. Russia, meanwhile, is dispersing its planes such that each plane would require a missile each.
Ukraine could also use the missiles to attack Russian runways, Hoehn said,
which would likely be repaired within days or weeks.
Hoehn said a better approach might be to send
Ukraine more Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles, or AMRAAMs—particularly the AIM-120D variant—to down Russian planes before they
can drop their bombs.
The AIM-120D, produced only for the U.S. military
and select allies, has a reported range of 100 miles.
Ukraine has already received some AMRAAMs.
However, these appear to be older variants such as the 1990s-era AIM-120B.
The U.S. has said it will eventually export new AIM-120s to Ukraine. These are likely the
AIM-120-C8-s, which are designated as the “export” variant, rather than the AIM-120D, which are designated for domestic
use.
The AIM 120-C8, which has identical specifications to the older AIM-120-C-7, has a shorter range than the AIM-120D. Delivery of those missiles will also
take between three and five years.
Hoehn said providing Ukraine with AIM-120D
variants comes with problems. For one thing, it would give potential U.S.
allies a close look at the combat performance of one of its most advanced air
defense weapons, while also driving down the number available to the United
States in case of a war with China. Shooting down planes deep within Russian
territory is also a political risk, he added.
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar
Merk: Bare medlemmer av denne bloggen kan legge inn en kommentar.