The US is considering supplying Ukraine with a new longer-range rocket system that can hit targets up to about 100 miles away, twice the range of the artillery systems the US has been providing Ukraine.
According to a report from Reuters, Boeing has proposed to manufacture small precision-guided bombs that can be fit onto widely available rockets as US weapons makers are struggling to ramp up production of more advanced arms.
Boeing said in its proposal that the system, known as Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB), could be delivered to Ukraine as early as spring 2023. The system has been in development since 2019 and combines small-diameter bombs with the M26 rocket motor, which is widely available in US military inventories.
Boeing’s proposal is just one idea being mulled by the US to get new weapons for Ukraine, as the policy of shipping tens of billions in arms to the country has been a boon for the defense industry.
The Boeing plan would require waiving a mechanism that is in place to make sure the US government is getting a fair price. It would also mean that the main components for the GLSDBs would come from US military stockpiles, and other necessary parts would need to be expedited.
The longest-range rocket system that the US has sent Ukraine so far is the HIMARS, which are currently equipped with munitions that can hit targets up to 50 miles. The GLSDB would be viewed as a significant escalation by Moscow as it would give Ukraine the ability to strike deep behind Russian lines.
57 thoughts on “US Considering Sending Rockets With 100-Mile Range to Ukraine”
Have these WAR MONGERS lost their flipping minds???
Yep a long time ago
Did I mention that I think that you are awesome???
So few words, yet you capture the emotional spirit of various events 🙂
Profits over PEOPLE!
Does Ukraine think we actually give a rat’s a– about them?
All I want for Christmas is a Third World War, a Third World War, A Third World War… PEACE!
The Fourth World War will be fought with sticks and stones… Provided we don’t do ourselves in the Third World War…
It’ll be a battle between the remaining viruses and bacteria.
Rats and roaches will occupy the cities, four legged ones.
Nah, we’ll even kill them.
It will be fought in bunkers via what communications are left. U.S. communicates with Russia: you guys wear funny hats . Russia communicates with U.S.: you guys have bad breath. U.S. to Russia: you killed only 290 million of us. Russia to U.S.: are you still eating each other? So it will go.
How are they planning to manufacture it without aluminum? All Kremlin has to do is embargo all shipments to US and Boyang will go belly up.
and they seem to be very confident the op will last till spring of 2023.
China is the largest aluminium producer by far. It produces half of global output and growing. Then follows nothing for a long, long while and then you have India and Russia. When talking about bauxite, Australia tops the list. Then China. Then Brazil. Russia produces about 15 times less than Australia. Before the Ukraine war about 6% of annual US aluminium import originated from Russia.
The biggest problem now for aluminium plants in Europe is not demand or supply related (a substantial amount of new aluminium comes from recycled scrap for example) it’s the price of energy. Anyway the US has not to worry about Russian aluminium to produce rockets. That’s not going to be the limiting factor any time soon.
Any evidence that the Chinese or the Indians are preparing to stop trading with the west?
Looks as if the U.S. Military Offense Contractors plan on having this war continue for some time, perhaps down to the last Ukrainian.
As the Ukrainians want to fight unlike the Afghans the US plan to support them as long as they want do.
The Afghans DID fight. Long enough and hard enough to drive out the US military.
Took 20 years. Will there still be a war in Ukraine in 2042???
On that we agree – I should have been more specific the Afghans the US trained did not want to fight for the system the US had created for them.
At the end of WW1 the UK had a huge debt to us. Will Ukraine have a huge debt to us at the end of this war or is all US dollar support to Ukraine for free which means on our personal taxpayers?
Correct it wasn`t USDs the marshal plan was financed with Nazi loot stolen from the countries they invaded , Britain paid the last instalment 20 / 30 years ago , Russia more recently .
We entered the war because JP Morgan and other banks were losing their *sses. All about the money.
Some of it will be recovered, but very far from all – but then the US is supporting Ukraine at the very least in part to ward off the larger threat of the Chinese taking Taiwan.
Always talking about arming Ukraine into the future seems odd to me. Wouldn’t that give the “enemy” an incentive to escalate to the point that those future armaments won’t be a factor?
That is probably because few in the west believes that the Russians possess the ability to escalate beyond what they are already doing.
The Russian regime definitely possess the ability to escalate, as do the US/EU/NATO regimes.
But escalations entail costs, and the question is always “is what we’re trying to do worth the price we’d have to pay to do it?”
I think I suggested that they could use nukes, but otherwise I’m not convinced that they can escalate in Ukraine – but if you are suggesting that they could widen the conflict by involving other nations then sure – not clear to me however how that would benefit them.
They could increase the numbers of “mobilized”/committed troops.
The costs of doing so would be many, diffuse, and not necessarily predictable, though.
Those troops would have to be trained and equipped, which is a cost.
Those troops would be gone from civilian jobs, which is a cost.
A higher level of mobilization would likely increase domestic discontent, which is both a cost and a (possibly existential) risk.
And so on, and so forth.
I personally don’t expect much in the way of escalation from the Russian side. I think Putin is hoping to wrap the “Special Military Operation” up ASAP, with Russian control of the LPR, the DPR, and a land corridor to Crimea, stoutly enough defended to allow for a unilateral ceasefire that Zelenskyy won’t be able to afford domestically to repudiate.
Given that they cannot equip nor supply the ones they have on the front I kind of doubt this would work out to their favor – especially given the very substantial number of well qualified Russians who went into hiding / emigrated to avoid the first partial mobilization.
They currently have troops suffering from hypothermia at the front so could they really equip and sustain far more?
Their economy is judging from the few figures available contracting so fast that they do not ‘need’ to fight inflation.
I think this and their inability to supply the troops at the front is what limited the first round of mobilization – it would be really callus of Putin to use too few troops to get the job done otherwise, would you not agree?
I do not see the pressure on Zelenskyy but then things may change – the problem with such a peace is that it would do very little to get the sanctions lifted so Putin would still be in a very bad situation.
I have no educated opinion on the regime’s capabilities vis a vis equipping troops of various types (infantry, armor, etc.).
One virtue of the retreat to an LPR/DPR line is that it shortens Russian supply lines and leaves more of those supply lines in territory where they’re not so vulnerable. Every time the Russians fall back, they have less territory to defend, and defensive warfare on a shorter front with shorter supply lines through friendly territory requires fewer troops than offensive warfare on a longer front with longer supply lines through unfriendly territory.
So long as Russian troops are in, and indicate a potential to advance from or assimilate, Ukrainian territory outside the LPR/DPR, there will presumably be plenty of popular Ukrainian support for continuing to fight.
Once the Russian troops are simply defending LPR/DPR, which have been de facto seceded for nearly nine years now anyway, that support will likely fall precipitously. The attitude will start turning toward “there’s a ceasefire on offer, so why continue fighting for something we haven’t really had since 2014 and have even less of a chance of ever retaking now than we did a year ago?”
Those who claim the Russian force is getting stronger versus the Ukrainian force are right, but not in the way they think they are. The war is turning in ways that require more Ukrainian troops, and fewer Russian troops, to prosecute, because the defensive on short/interior lines requires fewer troops to maintain than the offensive on long/exterior lines.
Very good points – though you do not address the mastodon in the room i.e. what is the incentive for the Russians to offer any peace when that does not include lifting of the sanctions (something they were AFAIK insisting on even back in March/April).
Moreover the Ukrainian incentive to agree to terms that will have the cede claims to sovereignty of some of their more valuable territories (the land bridge from 20 km east of Mariupol to the east bank of the Dnipro) – I could see them ending major offensives to save manpower, but agreeing to terms that are only marginally short of Munich 38…?
I said “unilateral ceasefire,” not “offering peace.”
Nobody has to “agree” to anything.
The Russians say “we’ve secured this area. We’re keeping it. We declare victory. We’re not attacking any more. Your move.”
The Russian regime knows that getting rid of the sanctions — to the extent that they feel the need to — will be a process of peeling off European countries with offers of really good energy deals until the sanctions are meaningless. Hungary will probably get the first offer.
My bad – as I see it this Putin can do all day and there will be no pressure on Zelenskyy to accept an actual ceasefire, not before Mariupol is safly back in Ukrainian hands – but then Putin will no longer want a ceasefire as I understand you.
As for peeling off EU countries that will not be nearly as easy as you imply – most of them have come to know that energy can be bought too expensively – i.e. there is no, and is unlikely to be a severe desire to get back into that trap – I think people here have somehow ignored how much things changed in February.
Hungary is already exempt from the sanctions – trying to use a country that is already sabotaging the EU collaboration will potentially provoke Hungary to leave EU, it will not make more allies of Russia.
For Sweden and Finland to change their national stance – that took very deep changes – it is very unlikely that EU would have any appetite for splitting itself over sidelining essential security concerns of a very significant part of its members to get cheaper gas – sort like it was unlikely that EU was going to ignore Irelands concerns to get a good Brexit deal with UK.
It’s a war. Facing realities produced by a war are part of the aftermath.
There’s no reset button. That’s just for the kiddies and their video games.
We agree there is no reset button – sanctions will stay on until Russia is out of all of the newly occupied areas – sanctions started over the Crimean occupation will stay on as long as Crimea is occupied – and some sanctions are likely to stay on until Russia is fundamentally changed.
There’s a good chance it won’t matter. A large number of nations have been adversely affected by US policies, interventions, and proxy wars, whose effects in large part have been significant economic disruption and instability.
My guess (and it’s a hunch) is that the international monetary situation as it applies to trade and related business arrangements is headed for new territory.
You seem to be of the opinion that Russia is somehow an unacceptable player and must change. Yet you seem also to be of the opinion that the US does not, that we can continue to rule over the world indefinitely, dictating the terms of evolution of nations.
I completely reject this viewpoint and advocate for equality and mutual respect among nations and cultures. The US chooses to operate exclusively in a world of potential adversaries.
In my opinion, the US is the real problem. The US encouraged the present conflict by refusing to acknowledge that the Russians have the same rights to freedom from hostile neighbors as we do. NATO should have been shitcanned in 1992.
I know you disagree that NATO is an aggressive presence to the Russians. I believe you are willfully blind to the implied threat of a military presence on the Russian border, and therefore will never admit our part in the present conflict and catastrophe.
on this part we agree.
I’m thinking that this is also a distinct possibility though where we are moving (if we are) is not yet clear.
Not entirely right – the Russians are here guilty of war of territorial conquest that has to be sanctioned otherwise contagion is the name of the game. As much as I would like the US to change it is not likely that they will – or that the next dominant nation will after the US has passed its primacy.
I’m against wars and if there was a way to get the thing stopped I would support it – so far we have at least in Europe been able to end wars of territorial conquest that is up to 2008, that is the most dangerous kind of wars because though the war may be expensive the payoff from territorial conquest can in the long run make war a good national business.
No the Russians do not have the right to freedom from hostile neighbors none of us have that right – where did you get the idea that this was or is a right?
Yes I reject that notion – but I accept that this is how the Russians see it – our part in this is that we treated Ukraine according to the Budapest Memorandum i.e. as a sovereign state.
And from the few reports I’ve seen, an increasing number of Russians would favor a significant ramping up of the violence level and believe Putin is being far too circumspect re the current violence level. The reports of an execution of Russian captives (if true my guess, by Azov troops) make it a bit more difficult for Putin to finesse this war.
We’ll put these “facts on the ground” of yours down to your personal beliefs.
I think your assessment is correct. However, another significant factor is the increasing number of EU citizens running around telling one another that Russia is trying to conquer Europe, a lie that continues to significantly prolong this conflict.
My opinion re the special operation from the start has been the eastern oblasts and secure water and access to Crimea.
As for NATO, the Russian side has concluded that NATO will be in Ukraine unless Russia turns it into a radioactive wasteland, something Putin will simply never do.
For the immediate future (say 50 years) I think Russia will work hard to turn her back on what remains of Europe.
Those guys have blown through our stocks of old and semi obsolete weapons now it looks like we are going to try our latest stuff.
“… the idea is being mulled”
Ukraine is already without electricity and gas. Further escalation on Washington’s part will inevitably/predictably result in the elimination of the entire governmental structure. I’m not sure the Ukrainian people desire them so much as Kuleba.
I have got to read all the comments before I make one. I repeated what you said before I read your comment.
Few if any believes that the Russians have the ability to achieve the purpose you describe without using nukes – are you proposing they will go that far?
They can achieve a lesser goal that still makes life unbearable for Ukrainians. The question will be: Has enough damage been done to get people to migrate west? And will it be enough to stop or at least hamper the movement of NATO mercenaries and weapons east?
This seems somewhat doable.
I think this would be the case if the Russians had offered them a viable alternative – that however is not what the Ukrainians can see for themselves on Russian state TV.
I rather doubt this is feasible now – in February March perhaps, but by now they can only drive people to flee via the missile strikes and that does not provoke flood levels of refugees – it will be many in total, but they will be coming on available transport going west – the last strike did achieve a measurable up tic in refugees, but nothing like the February/March levels.
You haven’t been paying attention. They have demonstrated precision conventional weaponry to every corner of Ukraine and careful to kill no civilians. Nukes are a blunderbuss and counterproductive. OTOH the Ukro-nazis have been trying for a nuclear terror effect false flag to trip-wire a WW III.
That is not the view in Ukraine, Europe or the wider west – as in there is very few that see this as a Russian campaign of precision weaponry (though such weapons have been used to bomb infrastructure) – so even if analysis in some years time was to show that you were right, this is most certainly not how it is seen right now.
If they had the precision guided capacity then they should have taken out the bridges over Dnipro and in this way been able to secure their goals in the Donbas – you might ponder why they have not done this given that most here believe that they do not have designs on Ukraine west of the Dnipro.
Yes, I know that the official and widely accepted narrative line in the West has Ukraine winning and the Russian military pathetically incompetent, poorly led, and ill-equipped; but, don’t believe it for a minute; and, the recent missile strikes have been precise and effective, taking out almost all their electricity distribution without touching the generating plants or killing civilians.
You should not believe what one party says about their opponent, but you should believe what the Russian’s admit about themselves.
This is true, but it is unlikely to win the war as it is very unlikely to make the Ukrainian’s ask for the alternative offered to them by the Russians:
So just see what the Russians admit and what they plan to see why they are unlikely to prevail – they cannot provide even simple gear for their troops and they offer no better alternative to fighting even without electricity.
File under: “American Wanker Foreign Policy”
Comments are closed.