AGM-158 JASSM

[Ozair]

But you don´t do such while the front remains static. Playing the attrition game with expensive cruise missiles like the 158A is not a winning strategy. Everything has to start with an offensive.
While the Ukrainians looks maxed out in term of the size of their defense, Russia dictates the game. I sincerely doubt that today Russia would be able to draft a million men as fast as Ukraine could do.

If putting Russian airfields at risk happens with JASSM it would go a long way to removing the advantage Russian currently has with their tactical aviation and support to front line troops which is where the current grind is. I expect the drone attacks are already having an impact and this would support that strategy.

 

[TomcatViP]

Do you really see AGM-158 strikes happening from Novosibirsk to Vladivostok?

When the NVAF faced B-52 beatings during the Linebackers raids, they didn´t do so at Guam or U-Tapao. Yet, they set up a credible defense that had a tangible impact on the battle: if the North Vietnamese regime wanted the raids to stop faster, the US command certainly didn´t want them to last longer.

 

[kqcke for you]

The only somewhat effectiv use JASSM could have would be to Hit facilitys for production of enemy equipment, vehicles and missiles. Tought those are probaly not really in range or maybe a low number of targets in the best case

 

[Forest Green]

The only somewhat effectiv use JASSM could have would be to Hit facilitys for production of enemy equipment, vehicles and missiles. Tought those are probaly not really in range or maybe a low number of targets in the best case

It would help push fighter bomber bases further back and make attack helis ususable. There are also important ammo dumps and some production facilities within range. The range of JASSM is believed to be around 500km despite being quoted at 370km officially, so I have drawn some 500km lines out from Ukraine and you can see a lot of red dots are within reach. These are military deployment areas, where forces bunch up before deployment.

 

[Ainen]

The only somewhat effectiv use JASSM could have would be to Hit facilitys for production of enemy equipment, vehicles and missiles. Tought those are probaly not really in range or maybe a low number of targets in the best case

Number of such targets within 500 km from Ukraine is very high, it's basically majority of Western Russia. Problem is, at some point it will lead to a signal strike on continental US.
Maybe BLM flag will be fake, but yield will be genuine.

 

[kqcke for you]

It would help push fighter bomber bases further back and make attack helis ususable.

Only if russia is not able to counter them (which seems to be likely) but you're right.

There are also important ammo dumps and some production facilities within range. The range of JASSM is believed to be around 500km despite being quoted at 370km officially, so I have drawn some 500km lines out from Ukraine and you can see a lot of red dots are within reach.

I only assumed the official range as we only know that for sure tought those Things are probaly in range for the 370km even when launched some distance off the front.

These are military deployment areas, where forces bunch up before deployment.

View attachment 739770

 

[Josh_TN]

I suspect any U.S. weapons are limited to usage inside occupied Ukraine. That still would allow for a lot targets. Given enough missiles, perhaps a campaign to disrupt rail traffic for an extended period of time might be attempted.

 

[Forest Green]

Number of such targets within 500 km from Ukraine is very high, it's basically majority of Western Russia. Problem is, at some point it will lead to a signal strike on continental US.

It won't. Deterrents don't work as a means of enforcing agression, only in defence. Otherwise nuclear powers could just go around saying, "let me annex you or I'll nuke you," which would lead to a ridiculous world best off destroyed.

Therte are indeeds lots of targets within 500km but even the things produced outside 500km range have to reach Ukraine and sooner or later end up inside 500km at some ammo storage location.

Maybe BLM flag will be fake, but yield will be genuine.

BLM flag?

 

[aim9xray]

Belorussian Lives Matter?

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1708226434442076605

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1708226434442076605

Belorussian Lives Matter?

An interesting possibility, I was going with 'Bullshit Lies Matter' as a first guess.

 

[Ainen]

It won't. Deterrents don't work as a means of enforcing agression, only in defence. Otherwise nuclear powers could just go around saying, "let me annex you or I'll nuke you," which would lead to a ridiculous world best off destroyed.

Nuclear weapons are that - weapon arsenals.
There are dedicated deterrent arsenals, they're much less so, sure. But Russian (and American) nuclear weapons capabilities are far beyond just that, and allow their respective owners to go straight to the end.

If the idea is that launching American stuff at Russia can be done from Ukrainian flag for no retaliation, because they won't dare - it's a very obvious road to hell.

Ukraine already tried to bullshit its way through *they won't dare* in 2021-22, now they're trying to do something about a war they're clearly losing. Ideally dragging West into the war, because for sure Russia will never dare.

 

[Scott Kenny]

But you don´t do such while the front remains static. Playing the attrition game with expensive cruise missiles like the 158A is not a winning strategy. Everything has to start with an offensive.
While the Ukrainians looks maxed out in term of the size of their defense, Russia dictates the game. I sincerely doubt that today Russia would be able to draft a million men & Women as fast as Ukraine could do.
On the contrary, punching harder and deeper with blatantly non-Ukrainian developed weapons just increases Russian regime momentum in their will to use their Strategic assets for a quick stand down.

Putting every single staging area under risk of attack is a good thing for Ukraine.

Plus it lets the US write off all the older missiles in stock and see how they do against a moderately competent (in numbers, if not in training) A2AD environment.

 

[Josh_TN]

If the earliest missiles are near their expiration date then donations likely save money over demilitarization. And upgrading the A version would probably be cost inefficient; it does not even use the same engine as the other versions and most of the electronics likely are also out of date. It was a big step from the A to the B, and an even bigger step to the D which I think enters production next year.

 

[joshjosh]

Number of such targets within 500 km from Ukraine is very high, it's basically majority of Western Russia. Problem is, at some point it will lead to a signal strike on continental US.
Maybe BLM flag will be fake, but yield will be genuine.

You are repeating Russian talking points. "The West can't do anything to us or we will nuke them." This is simply not true. Actual experts, meaning retired generals and the like, try to tell us that this isn't true.

If Russia nukes the United States, the United States will probably nuke Russia. This is what MAD is all about. The only point at which Putin would push the big red button is the point at which things can literally not get worse for him. If he is losing the war but still alive, healthy, and in charge, then he will have nothing to gain by pushing the big red button that guarantees his own death in about 30 minutes.

You say "we can't cross X arbitrary red line, or Putin will nuke us"

Ok, flip that around, imagine you are Russian: "We can't nuke the US or they will nuke us back."

See how that works?

 

[NMaude]

You are repeating Russian talking points. "The West can't do anything to us or we will nuke them." This is simply not true. Actual experts, meaning retired generals and the like, try to tell us that this isn't true.

This! Plus what is the actual state of Russia's tactical nuclear-arsenal? I won't be surprised if a lot of the warheads are no longer operational or will fizzle due to lack of proper maintenance and corruption.

Something else that needs to be kept in mind is that Xi Jinping has publicly and privately warned Putin NOT to use nukes in Ukraine, no doubt if Putin is foolish enough to issue the order, in addition to NATO going to war with Russia (Russia would be squashed in a conventional war with NATO) the PRC will almost certainly cutoff ALL materiel-aid it has been giving Russia.

Now as for the AGM-158A JASSM now that Ukraine has its' first F-16s in service it's a matter or when, not if, it gets the AGM-158A, as several posters have pointed outed out the A-model JASSMs must be approaching the end of their shelf-life. That means that they will need to be de-milled or remanufactured soon and both options cost money, giving them to Ukraine saves the US DoD those costs.

On another note has anyone looked at a ground-launched version of the AGM-158A (Probably using a Mk-114 launch-booster)? It would no doubt be handy for the Ukrainians to have such an option.

 

[Josh_TN]

I think Russian first nuclear use is not only out of the scope of this thread but generally out of the scope of this forum.

I think it likely AGM-158A is provided with restrictions on using it inside occupied parts of Ukraine, to include Crimea and the breakaway areas. I think that will be a huge advantage in terms of planning capability and inventory of weapons. I will leave it at that.

 

[zjz]

On another note has anyone looked at a ground-launched version of the AGM-158A (Probably using a Mk-114 launch-booster)? It would no doubt be handy for the Ukrainians to have such an option.

This??

Lockheed Martin Demonstrates LRASM Launch Capability from Topside Cani

Lockheed Martin Demonstrates LRASM Launch Capability from Topside Canister Lockheed Martin successfully conducted the fir

armyrecognition.com

 

[NMaude]

I think Russian first nuclear use is not only out of the scope of this thread but generally out of the scope of this forum.

I was responding to another post.

I think it likely AGM-158A is provided with restrictions on using it inside occupied parts of Ukraine, to include Crimea and the breakaway areas. I think that will be a huge advantage in terms of planning capability and inventory of weapons. I will leave it at that.

I have a feeling that any restrictions imposed won't last long before being rescinded especially if a certain self-deterring coward gets the boot or resigns.

This??

Lockheed Martin Demonstrates LRASM Launch Capability from Topside Cani

Lockheed Martin Demonstrates LRASM Launch Capability from Topside Canister Lockheed Martin successfully conducted the fir

armyrecognition.com

That's what I was thinking of.

 

[TMA1]

You are repeating Russian talking points. "The West can't do anything to us or we will nuke them." This is simply not true. Actual experts, meaning retired generals and the like, try to tell us that this isn't true.

If Russia nukes the United States, the United States will probably nuke Russia. This is what MAD is all about. The only point at which Putin would push the big red button is the point at which things can literally not get worse for him. If he is losing the war but still alive, healthy, and in charge, then he will have nothing to gain by pushing the big red button that guarantees his own death in about 30 minutes.

You say "we can't cross X arbitrary red line, or Putin will nuke us"

Ok, flip that around, imagine you are Russian: "We can't nuke the US or they will nuke us back."

See how that works?

Pushing regime change to the edge of nuclear catastrophe. Nice! Give my regards to Victoria Nuland!


Russia wouldn't dare. China wouldn't dare. Let's play chicken and find out.

 

[Ozair]

If the idea is that launching American stuff at Russia can be done from Ukrainian flag for no retaliation, because they won't dare - it's a very obvious road to hell.

I think it works both ways. Russia is using North Korean missiles and Iranian drones across Ukraine. If it is okay for Russia to use those weapons in their campaign then it is okay for Ukraine to use western weapons in their defense, including into Russian territory.

 

[zjz]

Options for Fielding Ground-Launched Long-Range Missiles

Options for Fielding Ground-Launched Long-Range Missiles

At a Glance The Department of Defense (DoD) has expressed concern that potential adversaries such as Russia and China could prevent the United States from easily gaining air and naval superiority in future conflicts, which could hinder its ability to prosecute military campaigns in certain...

www.cbo.gov

 

[Forest Green]

Nuclear weapons are that - weapon arsenals.
There are dedicated deterrent arsenals, they're much less so, sure. But Russian (and American) nuclear weapons capabilities are far beyond just that, and allow their respective owners to go straight to the end.

If the idea is that launching American stuff at Russia can be done from Ukrainian flag for no retaliation, because they won't dare - it's a very obvious road to hell.

Attempting to annex a country in Europe was an obvious road to hell from the beginning (as proven by 2 world wars) and was inevitably going to be opposed directly by NATO. You don't get to begin an annexation and then make nuclear threats to mask your stupidity when it gets difficult, especially not when using weapons from Iran and North Korea to fire into that European country you're invading. Fire travels in both directions when you start a war.

Of course the one way round the political issue is to help Ukraine mass manufacture Hrim-2s instead, then it won't be a western missile but will have the same effect only with slightly longer range and shorter flight time.

Ukraine already tried to bullshit its way through *they won't dare* in 2021-22, now they're trying to do something about a war they're clearly losing. Ideally dragging West into the war, because for sure Russia will never dare.

Russia's 3 day war threat hasn't gone very well either. The only thing taken in 3 days was Sudzha. Let's face it, the aim is to re-establish the borders of the USSR, Belarus is already under the thumb and not independent anymore, so after Ukraine, it would just be the Baltics left. If Putin is really dumb enough to destroy the planet because someone dares to restrict his borders to largest most well-resourced country on Earth, so be it, he'll have much less afterwards.

 

[TMA1]

I recently reposted an old rand report discussing destabilizing Russia through stirring unrest, conflict and regime change in former WP nations. Putin didn't magically invade Ukraine just because he and his clique wants more territory. This is revisionism to erase our acts in causing this conflict.

 

[Forest Green]

I recently reposted an old rand report discussing destabilizing Russia through stirring unrest, conflict and regime change in former WP nations. Putin didn't magically invade Ukraine just because he and his clique wants more territory. This is revisionism to erase our acts in causing this conflict.

1. What do former Warsaw Pact nations have to do with Russia being destabilised? They're not inside Russia.

2. There was no conflict in Ukraine until Russian troops were sent in, there was just a President who alienated the people, parliament and members of his own party by u-turning on an important election promise and not seeking to win a new democratic mandate for his radical shift in direction, followed-up by the murder of >100 protestors.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB10014.html

Editor's Note, April 2022: We encourage you to explore this research brief and the full report that it is based on. However, because Russian state media entities and individuals sympathetic to Putin's decision to invade Ukraine have mischaracterized this research in recent weeks, we also encourage you to explore this helpful resource on Russia's “firehose of falsehood” approach to propaganda and our research on “Truth Decay,” which is a phenomenon that is driven in part by the spread of disinformation.

I'll also point out that rand is not the US government and does not write government policy, it examines potential scenarios and equivalent papers exist inside Russia, and I'll bet somewhere in those equivalent papers it mentions sponsoring a large attack on Israel to try and destabilise the Middle East.

I also recommend watching this - it's a fair and balanced view of the wrongs of both sides during the Cold War followed by a very interesting analysis of Putin's actions and motivations post-Cold War. After watching the last two episodes it's very difficult to make any excuses for him.

Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War - streaming

Is Netflix, Amazon, Now TV, etc. streaming Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War? Find it online now!

www.justwatch.com

 

[Ainen]

Attempting to annex a country in Europe was an obvious road to hell from the beginning

Ok, that's a good reason for your (mine, everyone's on the thread) family to die.
But at least you'll get to feel good on internet, so they all will not die in vain.

Russia's 3 day war threat hasn't gone very well either. The only thing taken in 3 days was Sudzha.

That's a turning point indeed. Why JASSM then, I thought the victory is just over that ridge?

 

[Forest Green]

Ok, that's a good reason for your (mine, everyone's on the thread) family to die.
But at least you'll get to feel good on internet, so they all will not die in vain.

So we're to blame for the malevolent errors of judgement by Putin? Transnistria - the west did nothing, South Ossetia and Abkhzia - the west did nothing... twice, Crimea - the west did nothing, whole of Ukraine - the west finally acted. How many times were they supposed to turn the other cheek exactly?

That's a turning point indeed. Why JASSM then, I thought the victory is just over that ridge?

Victory isn't just over the ridge for either side but there is a chance that Russia's liquid foreign currency reserves will dry up in around 6 years.

 

[TMA1]

...I looked at the cast of this documentary. You said it is fair and balanced. First person mentioned is a professor at the Henry Kissinger center for global affairs. Next person is Robert Gates, no need to add extra detail here. Next is a guy who was part of the Lincoln project. Another guy was an editor for The New Yorker. Etc...

I will watch, but I am pretty sure it is not fair and balanced. It will probably have some good info and thoughtful insights but it is still 99.8 percent probably going to follow MSM talking points.

 

[Forest Green]

...I looked at the cast of this documentary. You said it is fair and balanced. First person mentioned is a professor at the Henry Kissinger center for global affairs. Next person is Robert Gates, no need to add extra detail here. Next is a guy who was part of the Lincoln project. Another guy was an editor for The New Yorker. Etc...

I will watch, but I am pretty sure it is not fair and balanced. It will probably have some good info and thoughtful insights but it is still 99.8 percent probably going to follow MSM talking points.

Watch the whole thing, then decide.

 

[NMaude]

Defense Updates has just put out a video about how Ukraine's F-16s armed with the JASSM could be a game-changer:

Ukraine may soon be getting a potent weapon from the U.S.

This was first reported by Reuters.According to U.S. officials, the country is nearing an agreement to supply Ukraine with long-range cruise missiles capable of reaching deep into Russian territory, though Kyiv will have to wait several months as technical issues are resolved before delivery.Although no final decision has been made, several sources have revealed the inclusion of Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM) in a forthcoming weapons package, which is anticipated this fall. The sources requested anonymity, as they are not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how JASSM-armed F-16 fighters could be a real game changer for Ukraine ?

#defenseupdates #ukrainekurskoffensive #ukrainerussiawar

Chapters:

00:11 INTRODUCTION

01:46 AGM-158 JASSM

04:51 F-16 with AGM-158 JASSM

06:50 ANALYSIS

Now apparently the technical issues holding up the delivery of the AGM-158A to Ukraine is to do with integrating them with the MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters, IMO this sounds like an excuse to delay them as Ukraine now has F-16s in service and the AGM-158A has already been integrated with the F-16. No doubt that when the JASSM does arrive Ukraine will get a shitload of them as it has been mass-produced in large numbers already.

 

[Josh_TN]

The U.S. likely only is willing to part with some hundred or two of the oldest missiles in my estimation. AGM-158 is still a front line system, even the A model. I would expect the supply to be largely limited to those hitting their end of life dates.

 

[NMaude]

The U.S. likely only is willing to part with some hundred or two of the oldest missiles in my estimation.

Even 100-200 would be a lot for Ukraine and when they are supplied I hope the US will have dropped those idiotic restrictions* they've imposed Ukraine's use of donated US weapons so that they can strike a LOT of Russian targets.

*These restrictions are mainly due to that self-deterring coward Jake Sullivan (President Biden's national security advisor, Biden needs to dismiss him ASAP).

 

[Forest Green]

The U.S. likely only is willing to part with some hundred or two of the oldest missiles in my estimation. AGM-158 is still a front line system, even the A model. I would expect the supply to be largely limited to those hitting their end of life dates.

As orders of the D variant come through, more and more As will become available IMO.

 

[TomS]

As orders of the D variant come through, more and more As will become available IMO.

Planning for a possible war in the Pacific puts a LOT of pressure to increase standoff inventories. They are going to be very reluctant to give up even the older JASSM.

 

[Josh_TN]

As orders of the D variant come through, more and more As will become available IMO.

I think the deciding factor will be how many weapons are reaching end of life, not how many are being produced, regardless of version. The USAF is attempting to stockpile >10,000 of all types. Public wargames have them expending the full inventory in a matter of weeks. And the D version I do not believe even enters production until next year.

 

[Forest Green]

I think the deciding factor will be how many weapons are reaching end of life, not how many are being produced, regardless of version. The USAF is attempting to stockpile >10,000 of all types. Public wargames have them expending the full inventory in a matter of weeks. And the D version I do not believe even enters production until next year.

You're right, I meant the B, which is the -ER (1000km), the D has a range of 1900km allegedly. I thought 40 were to be produced as part of Lot 19 though.

USAF Orders Ramp Up of JASSM, LRASM Air-Launched Missiles Production

Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $130-million contract modification to ramp up the production of JASSM and LRASM missiles.

thedefensepost.com

 

[kqcke for you]

You're right, I meant the B, which is the -ER (1000km), the D has a range of 1200km allegedly. I thought 40 were to be produced as part of Lot 19 though.

USAF Orders Ramp Up of JASSM, LRASM Air-Launched Missiles Production

Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $130-million contract modification to ramp up the production of JASSM and LRASM missiles.

thedefensepost.com

1200km makes more sense than those 1200 miles which everyone has in there head. But only if this new wing or what i also heard some new missile Front and wing kit.

 

[Forest Green]

1200km makes more sense than those 1200 miles which everyone has in there head. But only if this new wing or what i also heard some new missile Front and wing kit.

Sorry, I typo'd, the link actually says 1200 miles - corrected. It's a longer missile I think, basically an AGM-86C replacement.

 

[kqcke for you]

Sorry, I typo'd, the link actually says 1200 miles - corrected. It's a longer missile I think, basically an AGM-86C replacement.

The D is atleast based of existing papers the same air frame. I mean yes both a new wing and chine we're mentioned but nothing like Double the range or warhead given the old "XR" design. Like any new JASSM becomes the JASSM-XR concept which once was mentioned

 

[Forest Green]

The D is atleast based of existing papers the same air frame. I mean yes both a new wing and chine we're mentioned but nothing like Double the range or warhead given the old "XR" design. Like any new JASSM becomes the JASSM-XR concept which once was mentioned

I think the -XR is separate to the -D.

 

[Josh_TN]

You're right, I meant the B, which is the -ER (1000km), the D has a range of 1900km allegedly. I thought 40 were to be produced as part of Lot 19 though.

USAF Orders Ramp Up of JASSM, LRASM Air-Launched Missiles Production

Lockheed Martin has been awarded a $130-million contract modification to ramp up the production of JASSM and LRASM missiles.

thedefensepost.com

That article seems to be misinformed. The warhead of the AGM-158 series is consistent as far as I konw; all have a 1000# class titanium penetrator, even LRASM. I also am unaware of any large scale range increase for the D version; I think there was a modification to airfoil to increase efficiency but otherwise I do not believe it is a larger weapon or has a different engine. The primary change is a weapon datalink and I think M code GPS, along with all the B2 airfoil improvements. Though M code might have been part of B2 as well.