Ukraine seeks U.S. HIMARS, ATACMS to push Russia back from east - The Washington Post
“The Defense Department said in 2020 that the United States had a supply of 410 HIMARS, but the Pentagon declined to produce a current figure. Stockpiles are “internal to DoD,” said spokesperson Jessica Maxwell.”
Looks like they’re only produced in the US.
So the US could double or triple the number sent to Ukraine without much difficulty. You have to wonder what the Russians are thinking about that possibility, when the ones already sent are having such an impact.
The issue isn’t so much the number of HIMARS in Ukraine - we could give them 100, as you pointed out - but rather, that there is a limited supply of GMLRS rockets for the HIMARS to use. Ukraine’s handful of HIMARS are capable of going through thousands of rockets per week. At such a rate they could (theoretically) deplete the entire U.S. arsenal of GMLRS rockets in short order.
The real bottleneck right now is Lockheed Martin, and just how fast it can churn out additional rockets on its assembly line.
As of right now, Ukraine is having to budget its scarce GMLRS rockets carefully, treating them sort of as silver bullets. And not just that, but each GMLRS rocket needs to be driven by truck from the Polish border.
Don’t confuse rockets with missiles. The GMLRS are indeed missiles with precise targeting, <9m usually less. They are not going to be barrage launched like you may have seen during Desert Storm with the comparatively dumb rockets. The rockets were adjusted for azimuth, elevation, and time for submunition dispensing.
The Ukrainians do not have thousands of targets (yet).
For a comprehensive overview of the MLRS/GMLRS system see the Wiki article. Good info as to explosive packages, variants, countries using.M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System - Wikipedia
It seems like the HIMARS are in their perfect environment. Relatively fat, immobile targets with lots of targeting intel from partisans and recon assets. And their long range and high mobility reduce the possibility of Russian counter battery fire. But the fat targets are rare and will get rarer as they are destroyed or scattered into many smaller, better hidden, targets.
And Russia is largely unwilling and/or incapable of using their significant air superiority to suppress them. Really the failure of the disparity in air assets to have a significant impact of the ground fighting has been the most surprising thing about this whole war. Who knew the Russian air force would be so hamstrung?
Though I suppose the tiny silver-lining for Russia is that it is damn fine advertising for Russian-designed air defense systems. At least if you’re going to be using them to fight Russia 
.
Yes. Or rather, it’s a feature of Slavic languages.
The “a” ending is feminine. “y” is masculine.
Probably seems strange to English speakers who don’t change name forms based on a person’s gender. Not an expert, but I think the practice of male and female versions of surnames is not universal among Slavic speakers. It would be nice if someone who knows more Ukrainian or Russian could expand further on this.
I remember from high school Spanish words can signal gender. Señor and Señora. Mr and Mrs.
A dentist = el dentista or la dentista
I don’t recall it applying to names.
The idea was recently floated to provide Ukraine with some of our aging A-10’s. On the surface, it sounds like a it’s potentially a good idea given how the conflict has been primarily a ground war focused on heavy weapons, which the A-10 was designed specifically to deal with, unfortunately, the half century old aircraft design is highly vulnerable to modern anti-air defenses, which the Russians have lots of. Ukraine ultimately said ‘no’ to the A-10s but would much prefer F-16 multi-role fighters instead.
Ukraine Says It Doesn’t Want U.S. A-10s (Updated) - AVweb
F-16s have been around for almost as long as A-10’s but have stayed relevant longer due to the many advances in avionics upgrades. NATO forces are transitioning to the next generation of fighter aircraft. Now may be a good time to provide Ukraine with them.
Objections to providing F-16s to Ukraine would include: 1) represent an escalation in the conflict in the eyes of Russia, 2) requires a very substantial commitment to the necessary logistical train to support these aircraft and keep them flying
THe US and NATO would need to setup a maintenance training facility. It could train support personnel from NATO countries that use the F16 and Ukrainian personnel.
The US may already have a maintenance school. It would need to add Ukrainian translators.
I know we’ve trained foreign pilots for a long time.
According to Wikipedia, Ukraine had 31 Sukhoi Su-25 ‘Frogfoot’ attack/close air support aircraft in February, 2022. When I was looking into the Su-25 and the A-10 a couple of months ago, it looked to me as if the Frogfoot would be a better choice in the situation. It’s faster and more maneuverable.
This article from December 2021 also says that the Sukhoi was designed to operate out of unimproved/improvised runways and that they are less picky about fuel.
The U.S. goes in with a huge logistics train to set up huge bases of operations a relatively safe distance away from the front lines, with AEW assets, tankers for air-to-air refuelling, and everything else. Ukraine doesn’t have all of that.
And the Ukrainian pilots already know how to fly the Su-25s, the mechanics are trained in maintaining them, and parts are readily available.
I think the Thunderbolt II is an excellent asset for the way the U.S. fights, but I agree with the author of the article that the Frogfoot is better choice for Ukraine.
Where could Ukraine get SU-25’s? It would have to be a former Soviet state?
Interesting analysis. Ukraine wants to limit damage. Imho that’s tying one hand behind their back.
I have been pondering this very thing ever since Russia occupied Kherson. Russia has had and still has very different objectives in this conflict than Ukraine. If the Rus happen to capture a city intact as they did in the case of Kherson during the early days of the war, that’s a nice prize. But if it means levelling an entire city and all its inhabitants to take it out of Ukraine’s hands as they did with Mariupol or Severodonetsk, that’s also acceptable from their standpoint. Ukraine, on the other hand is trying to preserve their country, or at the very least preserve the means to restore what the Russians have destroyed. That means saving the lives of people as well as property. That’s difficult to do when a defender digs into a city using it as a shield.
Apparently they got a few through intermediaries from Bulgaria. But generally they aren’t that available. Either they were retired decades ago or they’re still in use and not available (place like Armenia and Georgia with serious security concerns). Ukraine had a slew of them in storage, 70 or more, but most were not airworthy when fighting broke out.
It sounds like an opportunity for a company in Gernany or Poland to restore SU-25’s. Machine new parts as needed. Upgrade the electronics.
Getting the planes out of Ukraine for repairs would be difficult. The Russians may have already targeted where they were warehoused.
The planes are old/Russian technology. The radars cannot “see or direct munitions against” many of the threats; hypersonic missiles, low flying cruise missiles, stealth drones/planes. Self defense equipment has performed poorly. Without major expense, the planes cannot be converted to NATO weapons or communication systems. There is no likelihood of obtaining replacement Russian missiles or other gear and it’s of dubious quality/performance.
Nobody remembers Babylon 5?
Check how Susan introduces herself and names her parents.
Same problem as the A-10. It’s a great gun platform for ground attack, but its electronics and radar is too obsolete.
The Air Force has kept them well maintained.
Here:
This page says ‘At the outbreak of the war in Donbas, the Ukrainian Air Force had a fleet of around 70 Su-25s, but only about 15 were considered flyable. During the first two months of the conflict, between six and ten more Su-25s were made airworthy. As of 2021, 17 aircraft were operational.’
The first link says that ‘14 [aircraft were] donated by an undisclosed country.’ So their 17 plus the 14 donated aircraft add up to 31 aircraft.
They’ve lost at least 11 since the start of fighting in 2022 per wikipedia. At least - Fog of War and unwillingness to detail losses if they don’t have to means that count could be higher. Not to mention any spare part/maintenance issues. I doubt they can keep many flying at any one time.