Thanks. And speaking of reduced range, my understanding was that delivering shorter-range versions required extensive and time-consuming technical modifications, and delivering the normal long-range version was contingent on the US delivering ATACMS. Again, just rumours.
I’m not sure that’s generally true. The ATACMS that were used operationally were the shorter range versions (M39), because these have more submunitions, which maximised the destructive effect on the airfields in Berdyanks and Luhansk. But I think longer-range versions (M39A1 and M57) will likely also be provided, as they reach their end-of-life, as Jake Broe explains.
That article is also six weeks old and talks about a decision to be taken “in two weeks”. Which I think was still “no” at that time. Also, the “relatively easy” range reduction was just a theoretical answer, and German thoroughness means that it may take a few months, anyway.
We’ll see what these great news from Germany are that Kuleba hinted at yesterday.
The ATACMS range was not reduced. There are different models of ATACMS and the one provided was an older variant that has less range but much more payload.
For the job they were used for, wrecking helicopter airfields, they were the correct tool for the job. For further away airfields, I would certainly like to see the US provide the longer range ATACMS as well.
Thanks. And speaking of reduced range, my understanding was that delivering shorter-range versions required extensive and time-consuming technical modifications, and delivering the normal long-range version was contingent on the US delivering ATACMS. Again, just rumours.
According to WSJ, the delivered US ATACMS have a reduced range:
Source: https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukraine-fires-atacms-missile-at-russian-forces-for-the-first-time-3bebcdb1
And reducing the Taurus range was an initial topic, where the manufacturer clarified that it’s not a problem:
“Taurus on the test bench”
“It had previously become known that the range of the cruise missiles can apparently be limited relatively easily from a technical point of view. This was the conclusion of a test conducted by the manufacturer on behalf of the German government. This would require a reprogramming of the built-in software.” (via DeepL, source in German (14.09.2023): https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/russische-kriegslogistik-gezielt-schwachen-ampel-politiker-dringen-bei-scholz-auf-schnelle-taurus-lieferung-10467682.html
I’m not sure that’s generally true. The ATACMS that were used operationally were the shorter range versions (M39), because these have more submunitions, which maximised the destructive effect on the airfields in Berdyanks and Luhansk. But I think longer-range versions (M39A1 and M57) will likely also be provided, as they reach their end-of-life, as Jake Broe explains.
That article is also six weeks old and talks about a decision to be taken “in two weeks”. Which I think was still “no” at that time. Also, the “relatively easy” range reduction was just a theoretical answer, and German thoroughness means that it may take a few months, anyway.
We’ll see what these great news from Germany are that Kuleba hinted at yesterday.
The ATACMS range was not reduced. There are different models of ATACMS and the one provided was an older variant that has less range but much more payload.
For the job they were used for, wrecking helicopter airfields, they were the correct tool for the job. For further away airfields, I would certainly like to see the US provide the longer range ATACMS as well.