Is Ukraine about to have a war?
I believe thay can hold and they will hold and they need to hold with what they've got. It's a long front and there isn't enough western kit to spread out evenly.They need the new armored brigades in counter offensive for advancing through the Russian fortified lines in hand picked locations to make a breakthrough and fast advance to Russian rear, command posts and logistics and flank the most fortified positions.That is what they need Leos, Bradleys, CV90's, Abrams et al for, to get back the occupied territory.
I trust them, they will. If they have to abandon one or the other village that will not change the grand picture. What is important is to keep up the support in the long run when Ukraine is running out of more and more Soviet equipment/munitions. And to keep providing intelligence and allow them to hit the support lines. Hitting the support was what drove Russian occupied share from 27% back to 18%. Now the Russians are back to lines which they can't mostly supply from Railhubs on Russian soil. That's probably why the Ukrainian advances came to a halt. I consider GLSDB the next little game changer in that regard. Together with good intelligence that will force the Russians to stretch their supply lines out to >>100km. Regularly shelling supply roads/convois in mud season with little options to deviate would create challenges to the Russian Forces which the Ukrainian Forces could potentially benefit from.
Guest
I simply cannot understand the Wests intransigence against giving weapons to Ukraine for fear of upsetting Russia, the politicians really need their heads banging together and to wake up and smell the coffee, that particular boat has sailed over a year ago and it isn't coming back anytime soon, the sooner they commit and throw everything into the pot, the sooner the war will be over, I just pray it isn't to late.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Russia shutting down mobile internet service so no-one can post live videos from Ukraine.
Russia's February 2022 invasion was telegraphed in advance by many people posting videos of equipment on the move. The most likely explanation for the Internet shutdown discussed below is that they want to avoid this happening to their next big attack.
Russia's February 2022 invasion was telegraphed in advance by many people posting videos of equipment on the move. The most likely explanation for the Internet shutdown discussed below is that they want to avoid this happening to their next big attack.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,891
Received 2,829 Likes
on
1,207 Posts
A VPN will get round that and I read there has been a surge in sales in Russia
I simply cannot understand the Wests intransigence against giving weapons to Ukraine for fear of upsetting Russia, the politicians really need their heads banging together and to wake up and smell the coffee, that particular boat has sailed over a year ago and it isn't coming back anytime soon, the sooner they commit and throw everything into the pot, the sooner the war will be over, I just pray it isn't to late.
Germany has been in focus recently but their government is fragmented and the main party SPD is not likely to be banging a war drum anytime soon - go and read about German politics and you see.
Elsewhere in EU they are all struggling economically and throwing more billions at a war not obviously coming to their soil anytime soon isn’t winning national support.
same in the UK. and it’s coming to the US.
the longer this continues the more the public become disinterested in the basic message and more interested in how much is all this costing.
Boris banging the drum is building his part up to share in future spoils and because he is a great scholar of Churchill and sees this as his chance at mimicking his hero.
I also suspect that throwing western equipment into UKR likely involves as much £/€/$ spend in training as the equipment itself. That and if we talk aircraft we are not overly rich in “fighter” aircraft as we might like to be. I doubt there are many more than a low double digit number of fully capable Typhoons in the RAF and as has been suggested many are cannibalised for spares. Over and above the ability to operate them they are very sensitive- err canopy leaks anyone? Sat on the apron in the rain requires taping the canopy if you need to use one without drying for example.
so yeah lots of reasons to think before acting.
I simply cannot understand the Wests intransigence against giving weapons to Ukraine for fear of upsetting Russia, the politicians really need their heads banging together and to wake up and smell the coffee, that particular boat has sailed over a year ago and it isn't coming back anytime soon, the sooner they commit and throw everything into the pot, the sooner the war will be over, I just pray it isn't to late.
The West's intransigence has nothing to do with upsetting Russia. 10 Months ago it was 'unacceptable to send HIMARS to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' HIMARS is now there and being well employed. 1 Month ago it was 'unacceptable to send Main Battle Tanks to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' - they are now on the way. It is currently 'unacceptable to send fighter aircraft to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' - they will be along soon I assure you.
Why? Simple - the 'reluctance' to supply these systems was nothing of the sort and certainly not borne out of fear of Russia. It is a deliberate and carefully designed strategy to support Ukraine just enough so they don't lose, in order to continually degrade the Russian Military machine, kill morale and ultimately take down the regime. This is RealPolitik people - this is happening whether you like it or not.
Just look at what the West has done - always reacting, rather than being proactive. Always seemingly on the back foot. Constantly saying systems are not required/practical etc...until it looks like Russia may gain an upper hand, then suddenly it is acceptable to send them. Ask yourself why...Russia's nuclear threat did not change - the escalation value of the assets did not change...so why is something unacceptable previously, now the 'right thing to do'? I have had a lot of insults and ridicule but not a single reasoned argument as to why I am wrong (I am not, by the way).
The West is effectively fighting Russia using Ukraine as a proxy, and ensuring the conflict drags on as long as possible in order to degrade Russia as much as possible, at the price of Ukranian lives - it is orchestrated and it is deliberate - Ukraine will be given the tools to win when we want them to, and not before..
I know this. If you disagree then wonderful, that is your right - but I know where I work, I know what I hear, and I know this to be true.
Alternative opinions welcomed - why do you think the West only supplies systems when they are required for Ukraine to hold the line, rather than giving them what they need to win, which we could have done months ago?
The following 4 users liked this post by Baldeep Inminj:
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,891
Received 2,829 Likes
on
1,207 Posts
I believe thay can hold and they will hold and they need to hold with what they've got. It's a long front and there isn't enough western kit to spread out evenly.They need the new armored brigades in counter offensive for advancing through the Russian fortified lines in hand picked locations to make a breakthrough and fast advance to Russian rear, command posts and logistics and flank the most fortified positions.That is what they need Leos, Bradleys, CV90's, Abrams et al for, to get back the occupied territory.
Last edited by NutLoose; 3rd Feb 2023 at 09:48.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,891
Received 2,829 Likes
on
1,207 Posts
I have explained this before, got ridiculed, but whatever - I shall repeat the answer to your question.
The West's intransigence has nothing to do with upsetting Russia. 10 Months ago it was 'unacceptable to send HIMARS to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' HIMARS is now there and being well employed. 1 Month ago it was 'unacceptable to send Main Battle Tanks to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' - they are now on the way. It is currently 'unacceptable to send fighter aircraft to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' - they will be along soon I assure you.
Why? Simple - the 'reluctance' to supply these systems was nothing of the sort and certainly not borne out of fear of Russia. It is a deliberate and carefully designed strategy to support Ukraine just enough so they don't lose, in order to continually degrade the Russian Military machine, kill morale and ultimately take down the regime. This is RealPolitik people - this is happening whether you like it or not.
Just look at what the West has done - always reacting, rather than being proactive. Always seemingly on the back foot. Constantly saying systems are not required/practical etc...until it looks like Russia may gain an upper hand, then suddenly it is acceptable to send them. Ask yourself why...Russia's nuclear threat did not change - the escalation value of the assets did not change...so why is something unacceptable previously, now the 'right thing to do'? I have had a lot of insults and ridicule but not a single reasoned argument as to why I am wrong (I am not, by the way).
The West is effectively fighting Russia using Ukraine as a proxy, and ensuring the conflict drags on as long as possible in order to degrade Russia as much as possible, at the price of Ukranian lives - it is orchestrated and it is deliberate - Ukraine will be given the tools to win when we want them to, and not before..
I know this. If you disagree then wonderful, that is your right - but I know where I work, I know what I hear, and I know this to be true.
Alternative opinions welcomed - why do you think the West only supplies systems when they are required for Ukraine to hold the line, rather than giving them what they need to win, which we could have done months ago?
The West's intransigence has nothing to do with upsetting Russia. 10 Months ago it was 'unacceptable to send HIMARS to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' HIMARS is now there and being well employed. 1 Month ago it was 'unacceptable to send Main Battle Tanks to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' - they are now on the way. It is currently 'unacceptable to send fighter aircraft to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' - they will be along soon I assure you.
Why? Simple - the 'reluctance' to supply these systems was nothing of the sort and certainly not borne out of fear of Russia. It is a deliberate and carefully designed strategy to support Ukraine just enough so they don't lose, in order to continually degrade the Russian Military machine, kill morale and ultimately take down the regime. This is RealPolitik people - this is happening whether you like it or not.
Just look at what the West has done - always reacting, rather than being proactive. Always seemingly on the back foot. Constantly saying systems are not required/practical etc...until it looks like Russia may gain an upper hand, then suddenly it is acceptable to send them. Ask yourself why...Russia's nuclear threat did not change - the escalation value of the assets did not change...so why is something unacceptable previously, now the 'right thing to do'? I have had a lot of insults and ridicule but not a single reasoned argument as to why I am wrong (I am not, by the way).
The West is effectively fighting Russia using Ukraine as a proxy, and ensuring the conflict drags on as long as possible in order to degrade Russia as much as possible, at the price of Ukranian lives - it is orchestrated and it is deliberate - Ukraine will be given the tools to win when we want them to, and not before..
I know this. If you disagree then wonderful, that is your right - but I know where I work, I know what I hear, and I know this to be true.
Alternative opinions welcomed - why do you think the West only supplies systems when they are required for Ukraine to hold the line, rather than giving them what they need to win, which we could have done months ago?
I have explained this before, got ridiculed, but whatever - I shall repeat the answer to your question.
The West's intransigence has nothing to do with upsetting Russia. 10 Months ago it was 'unacceptable to send HIMARS to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' HIMARS is now there and being well employed. 1 Month ago it was 'unacceptable to send Main Battle Tanks to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' - they are now on the way. It is currently 'unacceptable to send fighter aircraft to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' - they will be along soon I assure you.
Why? Simple - the 'reluctance' to supply these systems was nothing of the sort and certainly not borne out of fear of Russia. It is a deliberate and carefully designed strategy to support Ukraine just enough so they don't lose, in order to continually degrade the Russian Military machine, kill morale and ultimately take down the regime. This is RealPolitik people - this is happening whether you like it or not.
Just look at what the West has done - always reacting, rather than being proactive. Always seemingly on the back foot. Constantly saying systems are not required/practical etc...until it looks like Russia may gain an upper hand, then suddenly it is acceptable to send them. Ask yourself why...Russia's nuclear threat did not change - the escalation value of the assets did not change...so why is something unacceptable previously, now the 'right thing to do'? I have had a lot of insults and ridicule but not a single reasoned argument as to why I am wrong (I am not, by the way).
The West is effectively fighting Russia using Ukraine as a proxy, and ensuring the conflict drags on as long as possible in order to degrade Russia as much as possible, at the price of Ukranian lives - it is orchestrated and it is deliberate - Ukraine will be given the tools to win when we want them to, and not before..
I know this. If you disagree then wonderful, that is your right - but I know where I work, I know what I hear, and I know this to be true.
Alternative opinions welcomed - why do you think the West only supplies systems when they are required for Ukraine to hold the line, rather than giving them what they need to win, which we could have done months ago?
The West's intransigence has nothing to do with upsetting Russia. 10 Months ago it was 'unacceptable to send HIMARS to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' HIMARS is now there and being well employed. 1 Month ago it was 'unacceptable to send Main Battle Tanks to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' - they are now on the way. It is currently 'unacceptable to send fighter aircraft to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' - they will be along soon I assure you.
Why? Simple - the 'reluctance' to supply these systems was nothing of the sort and certainly not borne out of fear of Russia. It is a deliberate and carefully designed strategy to support Ukraine just enough so they don't lose, in order to continually degrade the Russian Military machine, kill morale and ultimately take down the regime. This is RealPolitik people - this is happening whether you like it or not.
Just look at what the West has done - always reacting, rather than being proactive. Always seemingly on the back foot. Constantly saying systems are not required/practical etc...until it looks like Russia may gain an upper hand, then suddenly it is acceptable to send them. Ask yourself why...Russia's nuclear threat did not change - the escalation value of the assets did not change...so why is something unacceptable previously, now the 'right thing to do'? I have had a lot of insults and ridicule but not a single reasoned argument as to why I am wrong (I am not, by the way).
The West is effectively fighting Russia using Ukraine as a proxy, and ensuring the conflict drags on as long as possible in order to degrade Russia as much as possible, at the price of Ukranian lives - it is orchestrated and it is deliberate - Ukraine will be given the tools to win when we want them to, and not before..
I know this. If you disagree then wonderful, that is your right - but I know where I work, I know what I hear, and I know this to be true.
Alternative opinions welcomed - why do you think the West only supplies systems when they are required for Ukraine to hold the line, rather than giving them what they need to win, which we could have done months ago?
The West just lost in Afghanistan, and all that military equipment fell to the Taliban, so I understand why there was initially a cautious approach to gifting high tech weaponry. I think that attitude is changing, but our leaders are slow and risk averse.
I find the conspiracy theory that the Free World is trying to string out the conflict not credible. It sounds too much like the Russian psyops specifically designed to place fear and doubt in Ukranian minds.
I find the conspiracy theory that the Free World is trying to string out the conflict not credible. It sounds too much like the Russian psyops specifically designed to place fear and doubt in Ukranian minds.
The following users liked this post:
I have explained this before, got ridiculed, but whatever - I shall repeat the answer to your question.
The West's intransigence has nothing to do with upsetting Russia. 10 Months ago it was 'unacceptable to send HIMARS to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' HIMARS is now there and being well employed. 1 Month ago it was 'unacceptable to send Main Battle Tanks to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' - they are now on the way. It is currently 'unacceptable to send fighter aircraft to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' - they will be along soon I assure you.
Why? Simple - the 'reluctance' to supply these systems was nothing of the sort and certainly not borne out of fear of Russia. It is a deliberate and carefully designed strategy to support Ukraine just enough so they don't lose, in order to continually degrade the Russian Military machine, kill morale and ultimately take down the regime. This is RealPolitik people - this is happening whether you like it or not.
Just look at what the West has done - always reacting, rather than being proactive. Always seemingly on the back foot. Constantly saying systems are not required/practical etc...until it looks like Russia may gain an upper hand, then suddenly it is acceptable to send them. Ask yourself why...Russia's nuclear threat did not change - the escalation value of the assets did not change...so why is something unacceptable previously, now the 'right thing to do'? I have had a lot of insults and ridicule but not a single reasoned argument as to why I am wrong (I am not, by the way).
The West is effectively fighting Russia using Ukraine as a proxy, and ensuring the conflict drags on as long as possible in order to degrade Russia as much as possible, at the price of Ukranian lives - it is orchestrated and it is deliberate - Ukraine will be given the tools to win when we want them to, and not before..
I know this. If you disagree then wonderful, that is your right - but I know where I work, I know what I hear, and I know this to be true.
Alternative opinions welcomed - why do you think the West only supplies systems when they are required for Ukraine to hold the line, rather than giving them what they need to win, which we could have done months ago?
The West's intransigence has nothing to do with upsetting Russia. 10 Months ago it was 'unacceptable to send HIMARS to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' HIMARS is now there and being well employed. 1 Month ago it was 'unacceptable to send Main Battle Tanks to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' - they are now on the way. It is currently 'unacceptable to send fighter aircraft to Ukraine as it would be seen as a provocative escalation' - they will be along soon I assure you.
Why? Simple - the 'reluctance' to supply these systems was nothing of the sort and certainly not borne out of fear of Russia. It is a deliberate and carefully designed strategy to support Ukraine just enough so they don't lose, in order to continually degrade the Russian Military machine, kill morale and ultimately take down the regime. This is RealPolitik people - this is happening whether you like it or not.
Just look at what the West has done - always reacting, rather than being proactive. Always seemingly on the back foot. Constantly saying systems are not required/practical etc...until it looks like Russia may gain an upper hand, then suddenly it is acceptable to send them. Ask yourself why...Russia's nuclear threat did not change - the escalation value of the assets did not change...so why is something unacceptable previously, now the 'right thing to do'? I have had a lot of insults and ridicule but not a single reasoned argument as to why I am wrong (I am not, by the way).
The West is effectively fighting Russia using Ukraine as a proxy, and ensuring the conflict drags on as long as possible in order to degrade Russia as much as possible, at the price of Ukranian lives - it is orchestrated and it is deliberate - Ukraine will be given the tools to win when we want them to, and not before..
I know this. If you disagree then wonderful, that is your right - but I know where I work, I know what I hear, and I know this to be true.
Alternative opinions welcomed - why do you think the West only supplies systems when they are required for Ukraine to hold the line, rather than giving them what they need to win, which we could have done months ago?
\Six months ago I thought the same , but am now no longer certain. Nearly all countries except the US had decisively reduced stocks of all kinds, so major supplies not only had a significant monetary cost, but also a strategic one that ill-prepared civilian politicians had to judge. This then quickly became merged with the vision that the ramifications of this conflict meant a significantly different - and more costly - political/military landscape, and so I am not surprised that the politicos are not rushing to do things. It may be that rushing would be the best policy, but that is not generally their nature and they are completely without experience in this landscape..
The following 4 users liked this post by Tartiflette Fan:
Yes, that is the same Johnson a$%&&*) who as a Putin-apologist said that it was the nasty EU that forced Putin to invade Crima in 2014, saying so in 2016 when it suited Johnson to spew these filthy lies
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2024817.html
https://khpg.org/en/1462833443
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/boris-jo...raine-war-6338
Only in 2018 did he start to backtrack on his mendacity
https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...-boris-johnson
Johnson is - and always has been - a repeated liar who will say anything for money, power, and to further his own interests. And he has been repeatedly sacked for this dreadful behavior, most recently by the Cons.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b2024817.html
https://khpg.org/en/1462833443
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/boris-jo...raine-war-6338
Only in 2018 did he start to backtrack on his mendacity
https://www.gov.uk/government/speech...-boris-johnson
Johnson is - and always has been - a repeated liar who will say anything for money, power, and to further his own interests. And he has been repeatedly sacked for this dreadful behavior, most recently by the Cons.
His comments were pretty vague at the time. Yes they were interpreted by The "Independent" as Putin apology, but let's face it that rag wouldn't have an unbiased opinion on anything vaguely related to Brexit - and I'm saying that as someone who thought Brexit a generally dumb idea. Johnson quickly refuted the interpretation (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...er-being-bran/). Another interpretation would be that the EU had no coordinated or effective defence response to the Crimea annexation - which given where we are today seems pretty accurate. Even now, with war raging on its borders, it does struggle to present a united front.
Boris is an opportunistic chancer who blows with the wind on many topics, but his position on Ukraine has been consistent.
[
[QUOTE=Tartiflette Fan;11378960]I just wonder why you feel the need to keep repeating it.
Because people continually keep denying/ignoring it and then wondering why we aren’t supporting Ukraine with everything we have.
Pretty bloody obvious to be fair.
[QUOTE=Tartiflette Fan;11378960]I just wonder why you feel the need to keep repeating it.
Because people continually keep denying/ignoring it and then wondering why we aren’t supporting Ukraine with everything we have.
Pretty bloody obvious to be fair.
[QUOTE=Baldeep Inminj;11378981][
I am not sure anyone has said that you are 'wrong', but as others have said, what you say is one way of looking at it. The Russians particularly trot out this view of the cynical West with regularity on mass media to further gather their faithful. I am quite sure there are some, perhaps many at the top in the West who fall into that comfortable way of seeing the situation, but those who are really on the ball will keep that as one option, one aspect, one angle, whie they try to zero in on the best plan of action.
I am more afraid that those same planners will compromise with Russia on a demarcation line along the present, or near future, scene of fighting. Perhaps the next 'big' Russian push could be a further blatant attempt at serious landsmash and grab just before their desperately-needed 'peace' talks begin.
I am more afraid that those same planners will compromise with Russia on a demarcation line along the present, or near future, scene of fighting. Perhaps the next 'big' Russian push could be a further blatant attempt at serious land
I am not a politician or General, but I do work in Defence at a high level.......I know this. If you disagree then wonderful, that is your right - but I know where I work, I know what I hear, and I know this to be true
The following 7 users liked this post by megan:
I do worry as to the skill set of those troops in the line and how many battle hardened Western trained troops from 2004 and on they have left, it’s okay throwing fresh troops in there, but it’s the highly skilled and capable troops you need, that said the latest wave of Russians may well not be up to the task, time will tell.
The Z-team however has shown lots of incompetence, low morale, bad equipment and poor logistics. For assault you'd need 3:1 manpower but apparently they've already thrown in Bakhmut even higher ratio of troops in to the fire. Yhere's plenty of reports and videos pf zombies walking towards UKR lines, not in waves but en masse.
I'd say the defender has some extra benefit there compared to the aggressor. No doubt something is cooking if there are 500k Z-ombies in Donbas and no doubt it will be a hard fight for the Ukrainians but I am looking forward to seethem overcoming the assault and turning it into a counter offensive with some big cats.
You see, I knew you wanted to
His comments were pretty vague at the time. Yes they were interpreted by The "Independent" as Putin apology, but let's face it that rag wouldn't have an unbiased opinion on anything vaguely related to Brexit - and I'm saying that as someone who thought Brexit a generally dumb idea. Johnson quickly refuted the interpretation (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...er-being-bran/). Another interpretation would be that the EU had no coordinated or effective defence response to the Crimea annexation - which given where we are today seems pretty accurate. Even now, with war raging on its borders, it does struggle to present a united front.
Boris is an opportunistic chancer who blows with the wind on many topics, but his position on Ukraine has been consistent.
His comments were pretty vague at the time. Yes they were interpreted by The "Independent" as Putin apology, but let's face it that rag wouldn't have an unbiased opinion on anything vaguely related to Brexit - and I'm saying that as someone who thought Brexit a generally dumb idea. Johnson quickly refuted the interpretation (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...er-being-bran/). Another interpretation would be that the EU had no coordinated or effective defence response to the Crimea annexation - which given where we are today seems pretty accurate. Even now, with war raging on its borders, it does struggle to present a united front.
Boris is an opportunistic chancer who blows with the wind on many topics, but his position on Ukraine has been consistent.
"[Johnson] might be more convincing if he explained rather more credibly what he had meant, ............ parroting Russia’s excuses for its aggression against Ukraine hardly enhances the Brexit camp’s position. "
- Kharkiv Human Rights Project (Ukraine), 10-May-2016
https://khpg.org/en/1462833443
At best Johnson-the-liar has consistently acted in his self-interests, and acted in concert with those who have been pwned by the Kremlin. Less charitably Johnson-the-liar is that willingly pwned fool. Who then acted to ensure investigations were stopped.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-whistleblower
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...erendum-brexit
Recent concentration on the supply of tanks seems to have occupied much of the discussion about what and when to send to Ukraine. However recently the announcement of supply of GLSDBs* doesn't seem to have received much attention. As I understand it the rocket components for these missiles are available in vast numbers following the US decision to decommission cluster warheads. Mounting the precision guided SDBs (said to have a CEP of 1M) incorporating 100kg of explosive, on these rockets is apparently not technically challenging. Total cost per unit has been estimated at $30K - which is a bargain compared to the £100K for one GMLRS as used by HIMARS.
In addition, I understand that these GLSDBs can be launched from almost anything tubular as all the targeting intelligence is in the warhead, unlike the enormously expensive HIMARS units. Also the GLSDB has a range of up to 150 Km, almost twice that of the GMLRS/HIMARS system. An inherent limitation is said to be the fact that the warhead glides to the target at relatively low speed, hence relatively easy to intercept. However it also has the capacity for indirect routing, offsetting the preceding to some extent.
Most of this is taken on trust from TWZ, which I regard as a very reputable source. If correct, it seems to me that these weapons are actually hugely significant - for what I hope are obvious reasons.
* GLSDB: Ground launched small diameter bombs. Acronyms are getting out of hand! The most recent neo-acronym I've encountered is MLCOA: most likely course of action. How long before we start to see SIX-letter acronyms?
In addition, I understand that these GLSDBs can be launched from almost anything tubular as all the targeting intelligence is in the warhead, unlike the enormously expensive HIMARS units. Also the GLSDB has a range of up to 150 Km, almost twice that of the GMLRS/HIMARS system. An inherent limitation is said to be the fact that the warhead glides to the target at relatively low speed, hence relatively easy to intercept. However it also has the capacity for indirect routing, offsetting the preceding to some extent.
Most of this is taken on trust from TWZ, which I regard as a very reputable source. If correct, it seems to me that these weapons are actually hugely significant - for what I hope are obvious reasons.
* GLSDB: Ground launched small diameter bombs. Acronyms are getting out of hand! The most recent neo-acronym I've encountered is MLCOA: most likely course of action. How long before we start to see SIX-letter acronyms?