Which is why two warships in the far east of Crimea have been destroyed by Storm Shadow. Not to mention a submarine and a ship in the Dry Dock in Sevastapol and the HQ of the Black Sea fleet. @cjjk9142
There's no evidence that the SS sent to Ukraine as range-limited export variants, it's just a flawed assumption that the media have made. There might be an agreement to not use them against Russia directly, but the full range would help them bypass Russian air defences in occupied Ukrainian territory and thus be fair game.
@@jamesthomas4841 I wouldnt call them warships as they were a landing ship and a small landing boat... both super outdated so yeah... gj for clearing low value targets with billion dollar weapons :) The only "high value" target Ukraine managed to clear was the Moskva in the early stages... and that was really pure luck lol plus also a really outdate warship (but a "real" one at least)
@MrArkaneMage Desperate pro Russian nonsense. The landing ships are arguably of greater strategic value than other units of the Black Sea fleet. However you are ignoring the destruction of one attack submarine and a missile carrying corvette both courtesy of Storm Shadow/Scalp.
@@jamesthomas4841 "Desparate pro Russian nonsense"... this makes me not want to write with you tbh but i will despite this asking you for which "greater strategic value" LANDING ships offer to the russians when they already have roughly 100km into the land? also what attack submarine and missile carrying corvette are you talking about, i havent heard about that in the media and they are clearly way more valuable targets? wikipedia also does not state lost corvettes / submarines of the black sea fleet - you can check the list there... do you even know which ship are in it? i dont think you do, otherwise you wouldnt call landing ships a "high value" target... to me it just sounds like you are defending "nonsense attacks out of desparation to keep the war ongoing" aka to have some candy to show to the americans in order for them to keep pushing weapons into a lost state just for the sake of more money and terrorizing russian civilianz far away from the frontline
In today's world whether or not a country is tiny or huge in larger proportion than ever before depends on the scale of its economic power rather than on the population or territory
@@ruzziasht349the Russians do have the equivalent of the Storm shadow and even better ones, and in more numbers, so I don't see the excitement about these weapons. If such weapons would determine the battle, then Russia would have won it long ago.
@@truthfiction8408 russia really doesnt have this kind of kit. its biggest problem isnt development its the rampant corruption tech vehicles and fuel all stolen
I could be wrong here but from what i've noticed the west is only providing UA with enough weaponry for it not to loose instead of actually giving them the tools it wants/needs to win this war. It took the west months to provide them with modern tanks and apc's and because it took so long it gave the russians more then ample time to dig in and fortify their positions hence the failed long awaited summer offensive.
Well, the public is already hesitant about sending more, and giving them one big very expensive package is not a very good decision. That's probably why they do it over time.
You are forgetting the training and logistics that go into supporting this equipment. You can't just give someone a new weapon system without training them how to operate and repair it. You also have to give them parts to repair it with and make sure they have the logistics to properly disseminate the parts/systems. All of these things take time. Giving Ukraine weapons without training and a way to repair the equipment would literally do more harm than good.
@@bf5175 When we begin to consider all the work that went into establishing Bandera Summer Camps in Western Ukraine, since 1950. After the US trained the Azov guys the appearance of any actual desire of the remaining Citizens of Western Ukraine to die so Wall Street can produce profits by appropriating more weapons to threaten Russian seems to have diminished as fast as the support for Vietnam Domination after the TET Offensive. In 1967 the understanding that US Treasury funds could not afford a War on Poverty, the US began to withdraw support for that conflict, due to a lack of funds. Today as a group of Government Agencies shuffle cash between their departments and buy Treasury Notes and Bonds to insure some image of positive support for the Federal Reserve Note, the appearance of any real ability to provide the funds to hire the Workers to assemble the Weapons, looks pretty difficult to provide? You do need some form of Fiat Dollar that is supported by some actual form of Value, or you will have a Currency that resembles Deutschmarks in Germany between Wars. All the G-7 Guys appear to be suffering from BRICS hiding their former Colonial Empires from the exploitation that was so simple before 2014. So the Murdoch Rag that at one time did provide some form of information before the Internet began to become the source, will give you reassuring information. I was able to find the Wall Street Journal all over the USA during the 1980's as my travels caused me to seek information to decide where the flow of weapons was headed next in those troubled times. After Rupert bought them out, they were still a conservative media source, but we do need to understand that Rupert gets some income from promoting conflicts that sell weapons. The Media Giant did not get to the current position by simply providing facts.
oh thats definitely what weve been doing. Im not sure if they are scared of upsetting russia or scared of having russia lose or if there are some other sort of motives but weve most definitely been drip feeding aid to ukraine instead of supplying them outright with everything they need and more. With that being said, it makes it seem like the goal is to have ukraine weaken russia without giving ukraine enough to win. Idk but thats what it seems like anyway when we could have flooded ukraine with so much more aid but we have not for some strange reason
@@boredape1257 Actually no. Modern warfare is more terrifying. Drones hovering over your head at all times and knowing your position. It can feel hopeless. Old warfare, you have the fog of war, your biggest defense.
@@TemplarX2 he said old warfare was more BRUTAL which is most certainly was, the living conditions and fighting conditions as well as what happens after the battle were barabaric to say the least, sure modern warfare is deadlier but it still was a lot more personal when 80 thousand men are slaughtered by hand on the ancient battlefields
@@gefagnis Modern warfare is more brutal. Have you heard of white phosphorus, claymore mines etc? Getting personal is a more human (maybe not humane) way to fight. The living conditions in the past were not that bad if you were living off your enemy land and loots. In fact, it could be actually exhilarating.
@@TemplarX2 there are counter measures to drones being developed for a squad on the battlefield. It's not all hopeless, Ukraine has already patent a gun that uses signals to destroy drones
1:04 Actually, the range have been greatly improved since then, because Ukraine just performed a very successful strike in south Crimea, turning an entire weapon carrier into a smoking wreck and causing serious damages all around its dock.
@@gdutfulkbhh7537 Russians are used to Western Capitalists attacking them. They saw this conflict coming 20 years ago. The US has been spending money they do not have to present a unified NATO Attack on Russians. What happens to the last three Administrations when the evidence that the Pentagon has funneled cash to discreeth bank accounts, instead of producing weapons? Where did a few trillion Taxpayer Dollars go? Explain that better than Putin explaining how he is outwitting the Capitalists with their own Greed. Putin may be the most visionary leader since Alexander of Greece took over Babylon. Right?
ATACMS are easy to notice when launched because they shoot at a higher angle and have an extremely large back blast! The smaller GMLRS munitions can shoot at much lower angles. The ATACMS “pods” also resemble the front of all the other munitions as in it looks like a 6 rounder but splits apart at launch with only one missile inside vs 6 rockets.
ATACMS is launched from the same platform as HIMARs. But being that ATACMS is such a bigger missile the HIMARs launcher can only hold two ATACMS pods where as with HIMARS missiles it can hold six.
@@T.ring91 HIMARS is the launcher only. ATACMS and GMLRS are both missiles that are fired from the M142 HIMARS and M270 MLRS platforms. Both the M142 and M270 use the same pods; M142 has 1 pod, the M270 has 2. ATACMS only are 1 to a pod, so M142 only can fire 1 before reload, an M270 can fire 2. GMLRS is 6 to a pod, so, 6 fired by M142 and 12 by the M270.
To be honest, it looks like the Nato alliance doesn't wan Ukraine to win, they have only supplied just enough so that Ukraine doesn't lose. Ukraine's biggest mistake in this war was they didn't start preparing in advance when they had credible inputs about invasion only to protect there economy which eventually is destroyed. Had they mobilised earlier and built static defences, they might have still kept some of the territory they lost.
You have to remember that Ukraine was the poorest nation in Europe pre war. They simply couldn’t afford to build up sufficiently. Thankfully, they were able to stuff the initial invasion and buy time for aid from NATO and the EU. I would say the US and EU really dropped the ball back in 2014 though.
Let’s be fair… only a few nato nations were prepared and had spare munitions let alone tanks. Poland you are a superstar as are the baltics and others that supported early on with fuel and safe places for Ukrainian People.
Atacams weren’t sent because we didn’t have a replacement at the start of the war, now we do the Prism system i think . With 2024 atacams can be sent on a 1 to 1 basis so when a prisim is made they can send a atacams . We only send Ukraine weapons the money gets spent here in production of new weapons we use replace the old stock we send Ukraine. A replacement is GLSDB but that has been delayed and is alot cheaper than atacams . Like 4 times cheaper do for 1 atacams u get 4 GLSDB . Helping Ukrainian people helps us .
You have replacement - there is a production line for ATACMS in the US. Moreover, you've found some ATACMS to send to Morocco. I don't see any war going on in Morocco, or even upcoming there.
@@chaoticneutral6729 atacams didn’t have a replacement at the start of this war . The Prisim missile system got fast tracked to 2024 because Ukraine want the long range atacams but because China are our next threat we needed to have the atacams incase China started anything so while this war was ongoing the prisim system was started now that is in place and production is next year USA would send a one for one when a prisim gets made a atacams can get released as we only send old stock to Ukraine and we make new stuff for ourselves. This has been said before not only by me .
@@chaoticneutral6729 they have contracts they need to stand bye . Or you get fines . . We should be sending them in my opinion but I’m only saying why we didn’t . Jake Broe has a RUclips channel he’s former military and funker530 American combat veteran and many others have mentioned why I’m not saying anything new
You can send what you like, but it only justifies reprisal and the line going that much further to ensure Russian security concerns. As Mearsheimer said, you are leading them to destruction.
Every little thing is not a game changer, they need weapons, no super pricey weapons, but ALOT of weapons. Its like bringing a box of paperclips into a newspaper printing factory... Yeah the clip is amazing it keeps papers in order but one box is useless.
For the problem too is you've got a country that's not built for war that has every other country in NATO supplying their equipment and that's who they're relying on so when you have a country like Ukraine going to the US and pretty much saying you need to give us this and you need to give us that as a US taxpayer it really puts a bad taste in your mouth. It's going to come to a point when The US and the rest of NATO is going to get tired of funding this war and they're just going to pull out all together. Watching videos online You just see soldiers blindly shelling from howitzers not realizing that those shells aren't from an endless stock.
Starstreak is MUCH faster than Stinger - 700+ mph faster, in fact. Storm Shadows in RAF service have a range of at least 340 miles, but those donated to Ukraine apparently have smaller fuel tanks. This is a mistake which is likely to cost us all dear: Russia needs to take significant damage to infrastructure on its own territory to allow Ukraine to bring the war to any successful or even remotely acceptable conclusion.
And you think that the NATO countries will be safe let’s not forget one thing Russia owns nuclear power and whatever it is what will do in return the USA will never put Hollywood in danger since if Ukraine receives few weapons it is because NATO together has no more stock Russia is demilitarising them to the bone 🦴
@@ssaini5028 Russia's position has always been go nuclear if its existence felt threatened. In other words, this war has only two outcomes: Russian wins, or EVERYONE dies. That everyone literally means every single living being, anywhere on the planet, friend or foe
@@ThisNoName Putin only explained the same Nuclear doctrine the west has adopted. Just like the west, if Russias very existence was at stake they would retaliate with its nuclear arsenal (just like the west). Russia has recently changed their defense only nuclear protocols to first strike. Same as the US, again show me where Russia has threaten anyone with Nuclear weapons?
they use it in the following manner: nato provides the equipment, nato provides the operators, nato provides the surveillance intelligence, nato provides the salaries for any remaining ukrainian soldier, nato takes the ultimate decision of what and where to hit, nato delivers the payload when the moment is right. so really, ukraine is not even in the picture anymore.
Not really, Tomahawk is closer to something like Kalibr. It’s a large, long-range heavy duty cruise missile that’s launched from surface ships and submarines. It’s far too large for air-launch. ATACMs isn’t an exact analogy either, I’ll grant, but it’s closer.
@@grahamstrouse1165 Tomahawk is only 4ft longer than Storm Shadow. Size isn't that much difference. ATACMS also is only a boost-glide. It's nothing like a cruise missile. Not even close.
@@nick4819That’s not insignificant, though. Storm Shadow is pushing the weight limits for most strike aircraft as is. That said, the mass difference between Storm Shadow & Tomahawk isn’t as great as I thought it was (without the Tomhawak’s booster.) I do kinda see your point now. One substantial difference is that Storm Shadow is high-subsonic & most versions of Tomahawk cruise along at roughly the same speed as an airliner. Also the fact that we don’t have any ground or ship-based version of Storm Shadow & every version of Tomahawk I’m aware of is surface launched. I suppose you could sling a few under a B-52. BTW: My understanding is that the USN is reviving the TASM. I just don’t know whether it’s really suited for that kind of job anymore is the thing. Is it going to be getting some kind of high-speed terminal boost phase, countermeasures or something like that? Interceptors are SO much more precise than they were when TASM was taken out of service. I apologize for being rude, btw.
Here in US, media and people have turned attention from Ukraine, towards the Middle East, and our own weather.... We cannot forget Ukraine! I'm glad to see 1.6M views in 1 month. Some of us are still paying attention.
An important thing to know about Storm Shadow is that they're surplus kit - aside from the fact they're all going EOL very soon to be replaced by SPEAR 5 as a direct replacement, the UK is moving to TLAM block 5, at some point the UK is going to have to destroy them which is an expensive process; by handing as many as feasibly possible to Ukraine without completely diminishing capability of last resort (which is covered by Trident anyway) they're all up for grabs over the next four years. People seem to miss this important fact - they're not going to be replaced in the stockpiles, and they're bought and paid for, so they are effectively zero cost to give to Ukraine outside a C-17 airlift to Poland or whatever they're doing; which is almost certainly cheaper and safer than destroying them otherwise.
It’s just great to learn that Ukraine is winning ! Let’s keep sending the money and keep this proxy death trap going . At least till the 2024 election! Then .. who cares …
As a courtesy for the rest of the world could you please use in your descriptions also the metric system (at least visually) ? Although your videos are well documented I don't feel like going back in time and convert all the miles and the inches to kilometers and millimeters. Thanks!
The Brits are now sending "Martlet" which is a little slower than Startreak but uses the same targeting system - It has a single proximity fragmentary warhead better suited to kill drones and Helicopters - about equal to being hit by a 40mm shell - perhaps more importantly it is still in production
I've worked firing tow missiles for over 20 years. I cannot imagine what it's like to try to keep a laser spot on a moving and maneuvering airplane. That I got to see to believe.
@@mrgrinch837 Here's the thing....you don't keep a laser spot on the target....the video is wrong. Starstreak and LMM (not Martlet, thats the name of the Royal Navy Wildcat and LMM combination) are laser beam riding. The operator just keeps the target in the sight, the system does the rest. It projects a 'grid' of laser light into the air. The missiles laser seekers actually point backwards to the launcher (so you can't jam them) by referencing this grid they know where they are and move accordingly to intercept. This also means the target will not detect it has been targeted as no laser light is 'painted' on it.
@@mrgrinch837 yeah that launcher weighs like 70 lbs. would be quite difficult to hit something with 70 lbs on your shoulder... imagine trying to aim a 70 lb rifle
the pathetic bubble of the Western military-industrial complex cannot produce artillery shells in the required quantity and therefore Ukraine was supplied with outdated cluster shells that explode 50%
You gotta give props to Zelensky for keeping Ukraine together for this long. People wrote him off early because he was a comedian but he ended up being a better leader than most other politicians.
Yeah and you should pay more taxes to that 😅😅😅😅 pretty sure it's not good for your pocket but atleast it would be worth it, btw that thing was expensive the us should fund Ukraine like how the funded their own armed forces.
You need to worry about your own safety. Do you really think Russia will forget all the mistakes of England? Boris Johnson is a born Russophobe, calling for the destruction of Russia. I wonder what Grandpa's grudge against Russia is. He doesn't realize that Britain is just an island.
Cheap drones work well at attacking isolated infantry and observation. But bigger targets like command centersnand ships require bigger and more expensive missiles.
@@cybronichuman Russia 🇷🇺 would have lost the war in 3 days without the West. Wonder where all their weapons come from? Of course the west! Investigative journalists uncovered that over 30 components for their UAV came from the West, the rest was from China. It shows the lack of sophistication when Russia needs to use off-the-shelf components as they are not able to produce them themselves.
Not reliably or cost effectively and those munitions would be better used else where Also could never rely that it would even hit most or all the mines in that field Also could scatter its own duds around and make it more dangerous
True. Reason, primarily the GOP. 2nd reason, I sadly think the US would prefer to draw out the war. With the intent being to weaken Russia militarily & geopolitically. Biden admin would say it's "to avoid escalation". But I'm 99% sure that's just non sense. The US had sent alot (before GOP stopped funding) but it always came a week late, & a dollar short. Always withholding the most impact full types of weaponry. (Cruise missiles, long range fires, F16). If the US had gone all in at the beginning, Ukraine would be in a MUCH better position. The institute for the study of war has repeatedly mentioned this in its analysis. (It's run by widely respected & well known retired Generals & analysts) its a really fascinating organization & website. You should check it out. They also give daily analysis on the tactical & strategic landscape & events in Ukraine.
Finally, the US FINALLY approved ATACMS transfer within days of US military starting to receive the ATACMS replacement- PRSM. But US stockpile of ATACMS is "small" by US standards, which insists on having enough munitions to fight BOTH China & Russia AT THE SAME TIME lol. Basically, they keep ATACMS close by for emotional support munitions stock pile lol.
10:41 Misleading. Yes, there are variants of the ATACMS which can reach 190 miles (300 km). But as you've previously correctly stated that Ukraine got the older "bigger boom, smaller engine" one, the range is actually only about half that (100 miles/160 km).
95% percent of the money that is spend to support Ukraine never leaves the country of the production faciilities of these weapons. This means, it's money for workers, suppliers and taxpayers in these countries. I think, this is a great investment in the own industrial capacities and defence industry to save the freedom and prosperity of all of us here in the Western democraties. In Russland in comparison, every second or three quarters of a rubel lands in the pocket of the corrupt oligarchy class!
Let's be honest here. Ukraine has lost. Lost completely and unequivocally. Russia holds every inch of territory it actually wants and Ukraine has zero answer to impact the lines whatsoever
BEST part about HIMARS: its a great tool for quickly redoing the kitchen without hurting the landscaping. Worst part about HIMARS: when we use them with success, the media runs a story on it with mixed info and they get attention.
Nor HIMARS... Their own "state of the art" $1Bn S-400 can't even defend itself, twice! Patriot PAC-3 from 1995 annihilated Putins pet project the hypersonic Kinzehl missiles. Every. Single. One.
What makes this cruise missile so amazing and different from, lets say, Tomahawk? I tell you one thing. The lower it flies to the target, the harder its to intercept from the ground due to curvature of the earth. Maybe if some kind of airborne radar could detect them better, but for the most part, the low fly path makes them dangerous.
More like palming off old duds to Ukraine, and asking US taxpayers to pay full price for replacement from a greedy MIC. The US is shameless, controversy is a mere political tool, both foreign and domestic use.
that the report dont tell is each storm shadow attack needed 8 missiles to get trhough Russian Ad .....and also cost the launchers witch had been shot down ....
And that's why demand has increased for Western arms and decreased for Russian arms in the last year. I was reading about orders for Patriot batteries and HIMARS have increased to almost a 5-year backlog while militaries are now rethinking the effectiveness of the S-400.
The US tends to feed itself before giving to other, and once the ATACAMS replacement is delivered, the US will probably donate more of the older ATACAMS
The US sold more ATACMS to other countries than it purchased for itself. The vast majority of the US stockpile is in South Korea for good reason. Despite what many (mistakenly) believe, there are not thousands just laying around waiting to be sent. Certainly the delivery of the replacement system will free up some, but don't count on a sudden deluge.
The thing is the army doesn’t really NEED them. These are weapons which were designed to fight a land war in Europe. They wouldn’t be of much use in a conflict with China. The only other theater we might get in a major scrum in is the ME & ATACMS simply aren’t as valuable for that kind of fighting. Unless we’re planning on starting a land war with Canada I just don’t see the need to keep hoarding the things. Granted, Canada IS stupidly rich in natural resources & they have some of the world’s largest unspoiled fresh water reserves. Canada will also likely be one of the main beneficiaries of global warming in the next couple decades. Rising temperatures open up huge swathes of previously marginal land for human habitation & farming. And sea ice melt will likely make the Northwest passage not only vital but very lucrative. Okay, I changed my mind. Let’s save some ATACMs for Canada. Does Justin Bieber qualify as a causus belli just by existing and making terrible music or does he have to do something first?
We are always getting videos of how well Ukraine is doing, destroying bridges, ships jets etc, but they don't seem to be getting anywhere. I never hear much about how Russia is doing only how badly, them the next thing is I quietly hear Russia has taken another town. I hear yesterday Russia has taken Marinka
You don't understand the operational level of warfare. You don't get that Russian ability to wage war at the operational and strategic level is being engaged. Doesn't matter how much ground Russia gains if they don't control the key terrain, and grind themselves to dust doing it, until one day, either Ukraine puts Russian logistics nodes under fire control and starves them out, while it whittles away at the defenses elsewhere, or Russia decides they've had enough. This is doable as long as the West keeps up the support, since Russia can't compete with combined NATO ability to fund Ukraine's defense.
@@anthonykaiser974what a soup of meaningless words. In reality Russia does just that, it captures more and more ground, while Ukraine only makes pr stunts.
for every 10 russian tanks killed they have another 200 in reserve. Its not that nothings getting done, its just that the russians have DEEEEEEEEP pockets to pull from. Many ships have been sunk but russia just grabs others from their other fleets. Many planes get shot down but they just call up more from other bases inside russia etc edit - all these things arent bad though - every loss weakens any future russian ambitions. If they win this, it still needs to hurt so badly they wont be able to try elsewhere for decades to come, long after king putin is gone
And to think... Exported Storm Shadow's have their capabilities "halved" and the full ones... were considered obsolete before the Ukraine war and had a replacement coming. Also Storm Shadows were supplied by 2 Nations... not just UK. Starstreak system also can fire Marlet missiles, also provided to Ukraine. Martlet is slower, cheaper and around the same range... but uses Annular explosive instead of darts. But because it uses the StarSreak launch system... it can avoid decoys and avoid warning systems, as it uses the varying customisable 4 tier tracking system. For the Ukrainian and American cluster munitions... one fact stands tall in observation... Russia used them on Civilian Towns... Ukraine used them on occupied fields and trenches.
LoL. There are much more holes from this rounds in Donetck then in russian tranches. Ukranian forces 8 years before SMO fired at civilians in Donbass. they cannot just give up this vile habit of hitting a very easily accessible target that will not answer them.
Not quite halved. Also, Storm Shadow is far from obsolete. Modern weapons are at least as much about the sensors and software as there are about the hardware. Storm Shadow’s an excellent weapon. It’s only real weakness is it’s comparatively limited range.
What the Ukraine-Russian war has demonstrated is the US does not have the production capacity to support the US military if the US got into the same type of war. It's not a matter of being able to build more industrial capacity, because based on the kinds of manufacturing operations required to make these systems work reliably, it takes five to ten years to get a factory and its supply chain up and running.
We do need to start rebuilding our industrial capacity. Very much so. We’re in much, MUCH better shape in that regard than Russia, however. China’s a different story.
All of the Storm Shadows sent Ukraine so far are old stock approaching the end of their shelf-lives but the UK needs to ramp up production of new Storm Shadows. And since Ukraine has only a limited number of Su-24s then Germany and Britain should be looking at rendering to Ukraine any surplus Panavia Tornado GR.4s (Along with the needed spare parts) after training Ukrainian pilots and ground crews in flying and maintaining them.
@@markmaher4548 Assuming they haven't been scrapped they could be refurbished, that is completely dismantled, all components examined with the fatigued ones thrown away and replaced with new build components before being rebuilt. While an expensive process still cheaper than building completely new airframes.
Tornados are EOL, Bundeswehr still has some as Bombers,but midterm they are phased out and scrapped for F35. Airframes are nearly done,cant do much about it. In 2025 BW will be last user of Tornados till 2030ish.
@@frederickpallas7130 The old airframes can be salvaged if they haven't been scrapped, dismantling them down to their individual components, identifying and replacing the fatigued components with new build parts before reassembly will result in an aircraft that has an airframe life of several hundred hours, this what the Brits refer to as refurbishment.
28:39 *Modern* cluster munitions do not have a lower failure rate than conventional munitions, while they are much more effective in most cases. *If you tried to achieve the same effect in combat with conventional munitions, you would end up with even more unexploded ordnance in the ground and an even greater risk after the battle.* Older cluster munitions are different and not so reliable.
At first I thought this would be a useful overview. Yet I repeatedly found it annoying that whoever wrote and edited the script for this piece are unfamiliar with military terminology. For example, the narrator repeatedly says "gunman," instead of "gunner," to describe the soldier who fires an artillery system. Doesn't the WSJ have any military veterans or experienced war reporters or consultants on its staff? In addition, this article presents information that is several weeks or months out of date as if it were current, such as regarding U.S. supply of ATACMS missiles to Ukraine. Come on, WSJ, you can do better than this.
A relatively unreported feature of the war in Ukraine is the relationship between cost and functionality of weapons. A Storm Shadow and ATACMS can accurately target and destroy enemy targets at a distance of around 250km but it costs $1 million a shot.
Exactly. These are too expensive and limited. The cheap drones are driving the way. All this stuff is doing is telling Russia, they need to take more territory for a missile buffer.
Why use a really expensive missile against non military targets? To show off? Obviously , it will be used against to military targets due to its limited count
Storm Shadows max range is actually 320-340 miles. The UK and France just limit the range for the export versions.
Which is why two warships in the far east of Crimea have been destroyed by Storm Shadow. Not to mention a submarine and a ship in the Dry Dock in Sevastapol and the HQ of the Black Sea fleet.
@cjjk9142
There's no evidence that the SS sent to Ukraine as range-limited export variants, it's just a flawed assumption that the media have made. There might be an agreement to not use them against Russia directly, but the full range would help them bypass Russian air defences in occupied Ukrainian territory and thus be fair game.
@@jamesthomas4841 I wouldnt call them warships as they were a landing ship and a small landing boat... both super outdated so yeah... gj for clearing low value targets with billion dollar weapons :)
The only "high value" target Ukraine managed to clear was the Moskva in the early stages... and that was really pure luck lol plus also a really outdate warship (but a "real" one at least)
@MrArkaneMage
Desperate pro Russian nonsense. The landing ships are arguably of greater strategic value than other units of the Black Sea fleet. However you are ignoring the destruction of one attack submarine and a missile carrying corvette both courtesy of Storm Shadow/Scalp.
@@jamesthomas4841 "Desparate pro Russian nonsense"... this makes me not want to write with you tbh but i will despite this asking you for which "greater strategic value" LANDING ships offer to the russians when they already have roughly 100km into the land?
also what attack submarine and missile carrying corvette are you talking about, i havent heard about that in the media and they are clearly way more valuable targets?
wikipedia also does not state lost corvettes / submarines of the black sea fleet - you can check the list there... do you even know which ship are in it? i dont think you do, otherwise you wouldnt call landing ships a "high value" target...
to me it just sounds like you are defending "nonsense attacks out of desparation to keep the war ongoing" aka to have some candy to show to the americans in order for them to keep pushing weapons into a lost state just for the sake of more money and terrorizing russian civilianz far away from the frontline
5:49 Did anyone notice the patch?
Good situational awareness. 👍
I guess they have to have some kind of R&R.
Are they sponsoring ? Because i just noticed it for the first time!
This is more of a historical document than an up-to-date summary of the situation now.
😅
Accuracy is the biggest difference between western weapons and Russian weapons. That accuracy lessens the danger of collateral damage.
Have to say for a tiny country, the Brits do a great job - this and the NLAW are awesome!
In today's world whether or not a country is tiny or huge in larger proportion than ever before depends on the scale of its economic power rather than on the population or territory
@@Pootie_Tang interesting comment..... so how does Russia compare to the UK?
@@ruzziasht349the Russians do have the equivalent of the Storm shadow and even better ones, and in more numbers, so I don't see the excitement about these weapons.
If such weapons would determine the battle, then Russia would have won it long ago.
@@truthfiction8408 russia really doesnt have this kind of kit. its biggest problem isnt development its the rampant corruption tech vehicles and fuel all stolen
@@truthfiction8408 HIMARS is nothing special but still did a pretty good job. An upgrade on this and who knows.
I could be wrong here but from what i've noticed the west is only providing UA with enough weaponry for it not to loose instead of actually giving them the tools it wants/needs to win this war. It took the west months to provide them with modern tanks and apc's and because it took so long it gave the russians more then ample time to dig in and fortify their positions hence the failed long awaited summer offensive.
Well, the public is already hesitant about sending more, and giving them one big very expensive package is not a very good decision. That's probably why they do it over time.
You are forgetting the training and logistics that go into supporting this equipment. You can't just give someone a new weapon system without training them how to operate and repair it. You also have to give them parts to repair it with and make sure they have the logistics to properly disseminate the parts/systems. All of these things take time.
Giving Ukraine weapons without training and a way to repair the equipment would literally do more harm than good.
Its likely that the WEST is just ok for this war to las a decade or so. Imagine if in 2033 Ru and UA are still fighting for Donezk and Kherson.
@@bf5175 When we begin to consider all the work that went into establishing Bandera Summer Camps in Western Ukraine, since 1950. After the US trained the Azov guys the appearance of any actual desire of the remaining Citizens of Western Ukraine to die so Wall Street can produce profits by appropriating more weapons to threaten Russian seems to have diminished as fast as the support for Vietnam Domination after the TET Offensive.
In 1967 the understanding that US Treasury funds could not afford a War on Poverty, the US began to withdraw support for that conflict, due to a lack of funds.
Today as a group of Government Agencies shuffle cash between their departments and buy Treasury Notes and Bonds to insure some image of positive support for the Federal Reserve Note, the appearance of any real ability to provide the funds to hire the Workers to assemble the Weapons, looks pretty difficult to provide?
You do need some form of Fiat Dollar that is supported by some actual form of Value, or you will have a Currency that resembles Deutschmarks in Germany between Wars.
All the G-7 Guys appear to be suffering from BRICS hiding their former Colonial Empires from the exploitation that was so simple before 2014.
So the Murdoch Rag that at one time did provide some form of information before the Internet began to become the source, will give you reassuring information.
I was able to find the Wall Street Journal all over the USA during the 1980's as my travels caused me to seek information to decide where the flow of weapons was headed next in those troubled times.
After Rupert bought them out, they were still a conservative media source, but we do need to understand that Rupert gets some income from promoting conflicts that sell weapons.
The Media Giant did not get to the current position by simply providing facts.
oh thats definitely what weve been doing. Im not sure if they are scared of upsetting russia or scared of having russia lose or if there are some other sort of motives but weve most definitely been drip feeding aid to ukraine instead of supplying them outright with everything they need and more. With that being said, it makes it seem like the goal is to have ukraine weaken russia without giving ukraine enough to win. Idk but thats what it seems like anyway when we could have flooded ukraine with so much more aid but we have not for some strange reason
excellent report!
5:49 ahhh yes a man of culture I see
Great detailed video...EXPERT
I like how he described the firecracker in your hand strait from the movie Armageddon
5:50 Beautiful patch
Modern warfare is terrifying.
dude old warfare was even more brutal.
@@boredape1257 Actually no. Modern warfare is more terrifying. Drones hovering over your head at all times and knowing your position. It can feel hopeless. Old warfare, you have the fog of war, your biggest defense.
@@TemplarX2 he said old warfare was more BRUTAL which is most certainly was, the living conditions and fighting conditions as well as what happens after the battle were barabaric to say the least, sure modern warfare is deadlier but it still was a lot more personal when 80 thousand men are slaughtered by hand on the ancient battlefields
@@gefagnis Modern warfare is more brutal. Have you heard of white phosphorus, claymore mines etc? Getting personal is a more human (maybe not humane) way to fight. The living conditions in the past were not that bad if you were living off your enemy land and loots. In fact, it could be actually exhilarating.
@@TemplarX2 there are counter measures to drones being developed for a squad on the battlefield. It's not all hopeless, Ukraine has already patent a gun that uses signals to destroy drones
1:04 Actually, the range have been greatly improved since then, because Ukraine just performed a very successful strike in south Crimea, turning an entire weapon carrier into a smoking wreck and causing serious damages all around its dock.
A landing/cargo ship....the same one they hit earlier this year and had just finished repairs
😄😄 CNN brainwashed you
If the Russians ever learn the truth about this disastrous war, Putin is toast.
@@gdutfulkbhh7537 Russians are used to Western Capitalists attacking them.
They saw this conflict coming 20 years ago.
The US has been spending money they do not have to present a unified NATO Attack on Russians.
What happens to the last three Administrations when the evidence that the Pentagon has funneled cash to discreeth bank accounts, instead of producing weapons?
Where did a few trillion Taxpayer Dollars go?
Explain that better than Putin explaining how he is outwitting the Capitalists with their own Greed.
Putin may be the most visionary leader since Alexander of Greece took over Babylon.
Right?
You read too much propaganda.
ATACMS are easy to notice when launched because they shoot at a higher angle and have an extremely large back blast! The smaller GMLRS munitions can shoot at much lower angles. The ATACMS “pods” also resemble the front of all the other munitions as in it looks like a 6 rounder but splits apart at launch with only one missile inside vs 6 rockets.
The sneaky little devils!
Thanks state department.
ATACMS is launched from the same platform as HIMARs. But being that ATACMS is such a bigger missile the HIMARs launcher can only hold two ATACMS pods where as with HIMARS missiles it can hold six.
@@T.ring91 HIMARS is the launcher only. ATACMS and GMLRS are both missiles that are fired from the M142 HIMARS and M270 MLRS platforms. Both the M142 and M270 use the same pods; M142 has 1 pod, the M270 has 2. ATACMS only are 1 to a pod, so M142 only can fire 1 before reload, an M270 can fire 2. GMLRS is 6 to a pod, so, 6 fired by M142 and 12 by the M270.
@3klipse1 yes I know this.
Great piece, but what's with the product placement? 5:48
To be honest, it looks like the Nato alliance doesn't wan Ukraine to win, they have only supplied just enough so that Ukraine doesn't lose.
Ukraine's biggest mistake in this war was they didn't start preparing in advance when they had credible inputs about invasion only to protect there economy which eventually is destroyed.
Had they mobilised earlier and built static defences, they might have still kept some of the territory they lost.
at least UK gave storm shadows. US/Germany are the real culprits
You have to remember that Ukraine was the poorest nation in Europe pre war. They simply couldn’t afford to build up sufficiently. Thankfully, they were able to stuff the initial invasion and buy time for aid from NATO and the EU. I would say the US and EU really dropped the ball back in 2014 though.
@@maxg4304 you can thank Obama for that... i was a supporter and even voted for him in his first term... but he really proved to be a dud...
Let’s be fair… only a few nato nations were prepared and had spare munitions let alone tanks. Poland you are a superstar as are the baltics and others that supported early on with fuel and safe places for Ukrainian
People.
@@vMufasamilitary budgets always go up try again to blame Obama for something… we know it’s all conservatards ever had.
Atacams weren’t sent because we didn’t have a replacement at the start of the war, now we do the Prism system i think . With 2024 atacams can be sent on a 1 to 1 basis so when a prisim is made they can send a atacams . We only send Ukraine weapons the money gets spent here in production of new weapons we use replace the old stock we send Ukraine. A replacement is GLSDB but that has been delayed and is alot cheaper than atacams . Like 4 times cheaper do for 1 atacams u get 4 GLSDB . Helping Ukrainian people helps us .
You have replacement - there is a production line for ATACMS in the US. Moreover, you've found some ATACMS to send to Morocco. I don't see any war going on in Morocco, or even upcoming there.
@@chaoticneutral6729 atacams didn’t have a replacement at the start of this war . The Prisim missile system got fast tracked to 2024 because Ukraine want the long range atacams but because China are our next threat we needed to have the atacams incase China started anything so while this war was ongoing the prisim system was started now that is in place and production is next year USA would send a one for one when a prisim gets made a atacams can get released as we only send old stock to Ukraine and we make new stuff for ourselves. This has been said before not only by me .
@@chaoticneutral6729 they have contracts they need to stand bye . Or you get fines . . We should be sending them in my opinion but I’m only saying why we didn’t . Jake Broe has a RUclips channel he’s former military and funker530 American combat veteran and many others have mentioned why I’m not saying anything new
Zig, who do you expect to be at war at, and what munitions could be needed.
You can send what you like, but it only justifies reprisal and the line going that much further to ensure Russian security concerns. As Mearsheimer said, you are leading them to destruction.
Definitely Ben Wallace should be the next Secretary General of NATO!
He won't do bro he doesn't even want to be 🇬🇧 MP
Ben is happy as he is many respects from 🇬🇧
Well made video. ;)
incredible. they present the arms like a video game
Every little thing is not a game changer, they need weapons, no super pricey weapons, but ALOT of weapons. Its like bringing a box of paperclips into a newspaper printing factory... Yeah the clip is amazing it keeps papers in order but one box is useless.
For the problem too is you've got a country that's not built for war that has every other country in NATO supplying their equipment and that's who they're relying on so when you have a country like Ukraine going to the US and pretty much saying you need to give us this and you need to give us that as a US taxpayer it really puts a bad taste in your mouth. It's going to come to a point when The US and the rest of NATO is going to get tired of funding this war and they're just going to pull out all together. Watching videos online You just see soldiers blindly shelling from howitzers not realizing that those shells aren't from an endless stock.
Starstreak is MUCH faster than Stinger - 700+ mph faster, in fact. Storm Shadows in RAF service have a range of at least 340 miles, but those donated to Ukraine apparently have smaller fuel tanks. This is a mistake which is likely to cost us all dear: Russia needs to take significant damage to infrastructure on its own territory to allow Ukraine to bring the war to any successful or even remotely acceptable conclusion.
And you think that the NATO countries will be safe let’s not forget one thing Russia owns nuclear power and whatever it is what will do in return the USA will never put Hollywood in danger since if Ukraine receives few weapons it is because NATO together has no more stock Russia is demilitarising them to the bone 🦴
Remember last year when Putin threatened to use nuclear weapons if Ukraine were to receive long-range missiles? Pepperidge farm remembers.
No, nobody remembers this because it never happened.
I cant find the nuclear threat from Putin anywhere
"Pepperidge farm remembers". Man, that was so cold I had to crank up the heat.
@@ssaini5028 Russia's position has always been go nuclear if its existence felt threatened. In other words, this war has only two outcomes: Russian wins, or EVERYONE dies. That everyone literally means every single living being, anywhere on the planet, friend or foe
@@ThisNoName Putin only explained the same Nuclear doctrine the west has adopted. Just like the west, if Russias very existence was at stake they would retaliate with its nuclear arsenal (just like the west). Russia has recently changed their defense only nuclear protocols to first strike. Same as the US, again show me where Russia has threaten anyone with Nuclear weapons?
This is one of the best video I have seen so far. NICE JOB!!!
good overview of weapons... thank you
I throughly enjoyed this informative piece. You covered alot of didn't types of munitions! Thank you
This was a solid story.
Scotlands Stormshadow is amazing and strikes fear on Russian troops.
Delusional
450mph stormshadow
@@William366Evans your 8 months late on this video bro.
Thank you for this, I value the work you do
Superb video top audio naration😮👍
Learned a lot from this. 👍🏼🇺🇸🇺🇦
they use it in the following manner: nato provides the equipment, nato provides the operators, nato provides the surveillance intelligence, nato provides the salaries for any remaining ukrainian soldier, nato takes the ultimate decision of what and where to hit, nato delivers the payload when the moment is right. so really, ukraine is not even in the picture anymore.
The ATACMS isn't the equivalent of a Storm Shadow/SCALP. The equivalent would be the Tomahawk. Except the Tomahawk has a MUCH longer range.
Not really, Tomahawk is closer to something like Kalibr. It’s a large, long-range heavy duty cruise missile that’s launched from surface ships and submarines. It’s far too large for air-launch. ATACMs isn’t an exact analogy either, I’ll grant, but it’s closer.
@@grahamstrouse1165 Tomahawk is only 4ft longer than Storm Shadow. Size isn't that much difference. ATACMS also is only a boost-glide. It's nothing like a cruise missile. Not even close.
@@nick4819That’s not insignificant, though. Storm Shadow is pushing the weight limits for most strike aircraft as is. That said, the mass difference between Storm Shadow & Tomahawk isn’t as great as I thought it was (without the Tomhawak’s booster.) I do kinda see your point now.
One substantial difference is that Storm Shadow is high-subsonic & most versions of Tomahawk cruise along at roughly the same speed as an airliner. Also the fact that we don’t have any ground or ship-based version of Storm Shadow & every version of Tomahawk I’m aware of is surface launched. I suppose you could sling a few under a B-52.
BTW: My understanding is that the USN is reviving the TASM. I just don’t know whether it’s really suited for that kind of job anymore is the thing. Is it going to be getting some kind of high-speed terminal boost phase, countermeasures or something like that? Interceptors are SO much more precise than they were when TASM was taken out of service.
I apologize for being rude, btw.
Here in US, media and people have turned attention from Ukraine, towards the Middle East, and our own weather....
We cannot forget Ukraine!
I'm glad to see 1.6M views in 1 month. Some of us are still paying attention.
High quality reporting as always
High quality brainwashing
Good report, thank you.
An important thing to know about Storm Shadow is that they're surplus kit - aside from the fact they're all going EOL very soon to be replaced by SPEAR 5 as a direct replacement, the UK is moving to TLAM block 5, at some point the UK is going to have to destroy them which is an expensive process; by handing as many as feasibly possible to Ukraine without completely diminishing capability of last resort (which is covered by Trident anyway) they're all up for grabs over the next four years. People seem to miss this important fact - they're not going to be replaced in the stockpiles, and they're bought and paid for, so they are effectively zero cost to give to Ukraine outside a C-17 airlift to Poland or whatever they're doing; which is almost certainly cheaper and safer than destroying them otherwise.
You're saying that disposing of them by helping poison Ukraine is a good thing? That's a reason to send them?
It’s just great to learn that Ukraine is winning ! Let’s keep sending the money and keep this proxy death trap going . At least till the 2024 election! Then .. who cares …
Storm Shadow missiles are already in Russian weapon laboratories
@@efghggdxlmfn33a) that's not how that works b) even if it was Russia couldn't handle them, it'd be more like China c) so what, they're ancient tech.
@@jamesgornall5731In even if I didn't reject your assessment entirely, you're going to have to explain in what way Storm Shadow is poisoning Ukraine.
As a courtesy for the rest of the world could you please use in your descriptions also the metric system (at least visually) ? Although your videos are well documented I don't feel like going back in time and convert all the miles and the inches to kilometers and millimeters. Thanks!
It's not complicated. 1 Mile = 1.6 Kilometre
Liberia, Myanmar and USA. Only countries not using metric.
The Brits are now sending "Martlet" which is a little slower than Startreak but uses the same targeting system - It has a single proximity fragmentary warhead better suited to kill drones and Helicopters - about equal to being hit by a 40mm shell - perhaps more importantly it is still in production
I've worked firing tow missiles for over 20 years. I cannot imagine what it's like to try to keep a laser spot on a moving and maneuvering airplane. That I got to see to believe.
@@mrgrinch837 Here's the thing....you don't keep a laser spot on the target....the video is wrong. Starstreak and LMM (not Martlet, thats the name of the Royal Navy Wildcat and LMM combination) are laser beam riding. The operator just keeps the target in the sight, the system does the rest. It projects a 'grid' of laser light into the air. The missiles laser seekers actually point backwards to the launcher (so you can't jam them) by referencing this grid they know where they are and move accordingly to intercept. This also means the target will not detect it has been targeted as no laser light is 'painted' on it.
@@mrgrinch837 yeah that launcher weighs like 70 lbs. would be quite difficult to hit something with 70 lbs on your shoulder... imagine trying to aim a 70 lb rifle
how's your economy going "mate"?! lol.
@@mrgrinch837 You don't have to keep the laser on the target - you put the target in a box and the optics track
How did the counter offensive went?
Grad can be a psychological weapon. Falling random is worse than running away from a known potential target.
very good point !
You don't win wars by being hesitant or timid.
You don't win wars by cheating ask russia
5:49 hahahah look at the solider in the middle, look at his emblem at his chest
Thank you UK for being the real leader of democracy.
Aren't cluster bombs prohibited? Why are they still produced?
the pathetic bubble of the Western military-industrial complex cannot produce artillery shells in the required quantity and therefore Ukraine was supplied with outdated cluster shells that explode 50%
You gotta give props to Zelensky for keeping Ukraine together for this long. People wrote him off early because he was a comedian but he ended up being a better leader than most other politicians.
We should send 10 times more of that stuff.
Yeah and you should pay more taxes to that 😅😅😅😅 pretty sure it's not good for your pocket but atleast it would be worth it, btw that thing was expensive the us should fund Ukraine like how the funded their own armed forces.
You need to worry about your own safety. Do you really think Russia will forget all the mistakes of England? Boris Johnson is a born Russophobe, calling for the destruction of Russia. I wonder what Grandpa's grudge against Russia is. He doesn't realize that Britain is just an island.
This won't change the outcome of this conflict : Ukraine will lose.
Isn't that what your people have been saying for almost 2 years?
@@ruzasuka in a war of attrition time is on the side with the guy who has the firepower, numbers and funding. none of which ukraine has.
@@operator9858 Thanks to the west, it does.
@@ruzasuka ukraine has lost 3 armies and is trying to build a 4th and each time they do so is more difficult then the last.
@@operator9858 Source?
So many Wunderwaffen that cost millions while cheap drones rule the battlefield
You have no idea what that word means😂
Cheap drones work well at attacking isolated infantry and observation. But bigger targets like command centersnand ships require bigger and more expensive missiles.
@@maxg4304 don't project your insecurities onto others pal
Cheap drone to attack civilian infrastructure like powerplant, seems legit
@@cybronichuman Russia 🇷🇺 would have lost the war in 3 days without the West. Wonder where all their weapons come from? Of course the west! Investigative journalists uncovered that over 30 components for their UAV came from the West, the rest was from China. It shows the lack of sophistication when Russia needs to use off-the-shelf components as they are not able to produce them themselves.
Could cluster munition be used to clear land mines ?
No.
Not reliably or cost effectively and those munitions would be better used else where
Also could never rely that it would even hit most or all the mines in that field
Also could scatter its own duds around and make it more dangerous
21:52 wrong. Those were Ukrainian fierd us supplied missiles . Do you not vet any of your sources material?
Very good overview and details. Sincere thanks to WSJ crew for putting that together and airing it.
I don't understand why we are not sending more weapons?! We send old stuff we will replace anyway. ATACMS is already 30 years old!
Because we can't
True. Reason, primarily the GOP. 2nd reason, I sadly think the US would prefer to draw out the war. With the intent being to weaken Russia militarily & geopolitically. Biden admin would say it's "to avoid escalation". But I'm 99% sure that's just non sense. The US had sent alot (before GOP stopped funding) but it always came a week late, & a dollar short. Always withholding the most impact full types of weaponry. (Cruise missiles, long range fires, F16). If the US had gone all in at the beginning, Ukraine would be in a MUCH better position. The institute for the study of war has repeatedly mentioned this in its analysis. (It's run by widely respected & well known retired Generals & analysts) its a really fascinating organization & website. You should check it out. They also give daily analysis on the tactical & strategic landscape & events in Ukraine.
Finally, the US FINALLY approved ATACMS transfer within days of US military starting to receive the ATACMS replacement- PRSM. But US stockpile of ATACMS is "small" by US standards, which insists on having enough munitions to fight BOTH China & Russia AT THE SAME TIME lol. Basically, they keep ATACMS close by for emotional support munitions stock pile lol.
What are the speed off these missiles??
Atacms were send months ago. Good reporting
I know right
We have better stuff already.
We are not 'short' of anything giving these resources to Ukraine.
Great segment.
Thank you.
Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦
Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦 ❤ !
Slava 🇺🇦 from 🇬🇧
What do they have to show for it?
10:41 Misleading. Yes, there are variants of the ATACMS which can reach 190 miles (300 km). But as you've previously correctly stated that Ukraine got the older "bigger boom, smaller engine" one, the range is actually only about half that (100 miles/160 km).
Good grief. The cost and availability of an ATACMS is and has been a non-factor in this war.
95% percent of the money that is spend to support Ukraine never leaves the country of the production faciilities of these weapons. This means, it's money for workers, suppliers and taxpayers in these countries. I think, this is a great investment in the own industrial capacities and defence industry to save the freedom and prosperity of all of us here in the Western democraties.
In Russland in comparison, every second or three quarters of a rubel lands in the pocket of the corrupt oligarchy class!
😂😂😂,,you are silly !
No wonder Putin hates the UK 😂😂😂
UK healthcare, living cost, housing & heating and emloyment are laughing back 😂😂😂
@@CopemaxxObviously you don’t live in the U.K. 😂😂😂
@@Copemaxx UK is much better than shitrusia. That is fact.
Remarkable show.
You really have certain class, thankyou WSJ team.
D@mn good explanation !
Excellent overview of rocket artillery in current use - thank you WSJ!
Let's be honest here. Ukraine has lost. Lost completely and unequivocally. Russia holds every inch of territory it actually wants and Ukraine has zero answer to impact the lines whatsoever
you talk like rusian bot.
Kherson ? Kharkiv ? Donetsk Oblast ? Bilohorivka ? Lyman ?
Tf are you on about ?
@5:49 excuse me sir, we said Storm Shadow, not Stormy Daniels
For starters, what offensive? is that located in la, la, la Land? Storm shadows are not changing anything or haven't you watched the news lately?
BEST part about HIMARS: its a great tool for quickly redoing the kitchen without hurting the landscaping. Worst part about HIMARS: when we use them with success, the media runs a story on it with mixed info and they get attention.
Russia has never intercepted storm shadow.
Nor HIMARS...
Their own "state of the art" $1Bn S-400 can't even defend itself, twice!
Patriot PAC-3 from 1995 annihilated Putins pet project the hypersonic Kinzehl missiles. Every. Single. One.
Yes they have they showed wreckage of the missile on Telegram
@@Triple_J.1 HIMARS wreckage has been shown and confirmed
@@ssaini5028not of intercepted missile. It’s the missile that missed its target
What makes this cruise missile so amazing and different from, lets say, Tomahawk? I tell you one thing. The lower it flies to the target, the harder its to intercept from the ground due to curvature of the earth. Maybe if some kind of airborne radar could detect them better, but for the most part, the low fly path makes them dangerous.
Za Pobedy Russian Friends , thank you for fighting for us that believe in the multipolar world
Hahahahahahhahahhaa
The cluster munitions issue is just the US tryna get rid of dead weight inventory because of the controversy around their use
No
More like palming off old duds to Ukraine, and asking US taxpayers to pay full price for replacement from a greedy MIC. The US is shameless, controversy is a mere political tool, both foreign and domestic use.
The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't.
that the report dont tell is each storm shadow attack needed 8 missiles to get trhough Russian Ad .....and also cost the launchers witch had been shot down ....
And that's why demand has increased for Western arms and decreased for Russian arms in the last year. I was reading about orders for Patriot batteries and HIMARS have increased to almost a 5-year backlog while militaries are now rethinking the effectiveness of the S-400.
yeah...sure 😏
only in Hollywood studios with your fantasy keep on dreaming Western weapons are garbage
Hope Turkey kept the receipts for S-400 they bought, its junk lol
The US tends to feed itself before giving to other, and once the ATACAMS replacement is delivered, the US will probably donate more of the older ATACAMS
The US sold more ATACMS to other countries than it purchased for itself. The vast majority of the US stockpile is in South Korea for good reason. Despite what many (mistakenly) believe, there are not thousands just laying around waiting to be sent. Certainly the delivery of the replacement system will free up some, but don't count on a sudden deluge.
The thing is the army doesn’t really NEED them. These are weapons which were designed to fight a land war in Europe. They wouldn’t be of much use in a conflict with China. The only other theater we might get in a major scrum in is the ME & ATACMS simply aren’t as valuable for that kind of fighting.
Unless we’re planning on starting a land war with Canada I just don’t see the need to keep hoarding the things. Granted, Canada IS stupidly rich in natural resources & they have some of the world’s largest unspoiled fresh water reserves. Canada will also likely be one of the main beneficiaries of global warming in the next couple decades. Rising temperatures open up huge swathes of previously marginal land for human habitation & farming. And sea ice melt will likely make the Northwest passage not only vital but very lucrative.
Okay, I changed my mind. Let’s save some ATACMs for Canada.
Does Justin Bieber qualify as a causus belli just by existing and making terrible music or does he have to do something first?
We are always getting videos of how well Ukraine is doing, destroying bridges, ships jets etc, but they don't seem to be getting anywhere. I never hear much about how Russia is doing only how badly, them the next thing is I quietly hear Russia has taken another town. I hear yesterday Russia has taken Marinka
You don't understand the operational level of warfare. You don't get that Russian ability to wage war at the operational and strategic level is being engaged. Doesn't matter how much ground Russia gains if they don't control the key terrain, and grind themselves to dust doing it, until one day, either Ukraine puts Russian logistics nodes under fire control and starves them out, while it whittles away at the defenses elsewhere, or Russia decides they've had enough. This is doable as long as the West keeps up the support, since Russia can't compete with combined NATO ability to fund Ukraine's defense.
@@anthonykaiser974what a soup of meaningless words. In reality Russia does just that, it captures more and more ground, while Ukraine only makes pr stunts.
@@chebysh8047 nice try, comrade Trollsky 🤡 I'm sorry you don't understand the nature of modern warfare.
for every 10 russian tanks killed they have another 200 in reserve. Its not that nothings getting done, its just that the russians have DEEEEEEEEP pockets to pull from. Many ships have been sunk but russia just grabs others from their other fleets. Many planes get shot down but they just call up more from other bases inside russia etc edit - all these things arent bad though - every loss weakens any future russian ambitions. If they win this, it still needs to hurt so badly they wont be able to try elsewhere for decades to come, long after king putin is gone
@@anthonykaiser974 Ukraine is being ground to dust? Starved out? What a fool.
This ended well. How were the missile strikes overnight?
Future generations will evaluate historical records like these.
And to think... Exported Storm Shadow's have their capabilities "halved" and the full ones... were considered obsolete before the Ukraine war and had a replacement coming. Also Storm Shadows were supplied by 2 Nations... not just UK.
Starstreak system also can fire Marlet missiles, also provided to Ukraine. Martlet is slower, cheaper and around the same range... but uses Annular explosive instead of darts. But because it uses the StarSreak launch system... it can avoid decoys and avoid warning systems, as it uses the varying customisable 4 tier tracking system.
For the Ukrainian and American cluster munitions... one fact stands tall in observation... Russia used them on Civilian Towns... Ukraine used them on occupied fields and trenches.
Tell that to the citizens of Donbass
LoL. There are much more holes from this rounds in Donetck then in russian tranches. Ukranian forces 8 years before SMO fired at civilians in Donbass. they cannot just give up this vile habit of hitting a very easily accessible target that will not answer them.
@@KoT_3JIoBpEg They don't leave holes... they leave chasms.
Not quite halved. Also, Storm Shadow is far from obsolete. Modern weapons are at least as much about the sensors and software as there are about the hardware. Storm Shadow’s an excellent weapon. It’s only real weakness is it’s comparatively limited range.
5:48 Z battalion sponsored by backrock and pornhub 😂
Hunter approves this message .
thank God the UK and French governments provided these missiles. UK taxpayer
So why did Ukraine lose so miserably? Ukraine is running out of people to draft into the army! They are down to the last Ukrainian! Focus on that!
those missiles are launched by Brits expert or US specialists
What the Ukraine-Russian war has demonstrated is the US does not have the production capacity to support the US military if the US got into the same type of war. It's not a matter of being able to build more industrial capacity, because based on the kinds of manufacturing operations required to make these systems work reliably, it takes five to ten years to get a factory and its supply chain up and running.
US prob does just like russia, keeping better stuff for themselves and stockpiles, instead of giving it to someone whos going to lose anyway
@@devilik3692 The US destroyed its manufacturing base and lost an entire class of workers with the necessary qualifications
Se nota que no sabes nada del poder industrial que posee los EEUU, lo que dices más aplica para Rusia.
We do need to start rebuilding our industrial capacity. Very much so. We’re in much, MUCH better shape in that regard than Russia, however. China’s a different story.
All of the Storm Shadows sent Ukraine so far are old stock approaching the end of their shelf-lives but the UK needs to ramp up production of new Storm Shadows. And since Ukraine has only a limited number of Su-24s then Germany and Britain should be looking at rendering to Ukraine any surplus Panavia Tornado GR.4s (Along with the needed spare parts) after training Ukrainian pilots and ground crews in flying and maintaining them.
The RAF retired their last GR4 Tornados in 2019, the airframes were knackered.
@@markmaher4548 Assuming they haven't been scrapped they could be refurbished, that is completely dismantled, all components examined with the fatigued ones thrown away and replaced with new build components before being rebuilt. While an expensive process still cheaper than building completely new airframes.
Tornados are EOL, Bundeswehr still has some as Bombers,but midterm they are phased out and scrapped for F35. Airframes are nearly done,cant do much about it. In 2025 BW will be last user of Tornados till 2030ish.
@@frederickpallas7130 The old airframes can be salvaged if they haven't been scrapped, dismantling them down to their individual components, identifying and replacing the fatigued components with new build parts before reassembly will result in an aircraft that has an airframe life of several hundred hours, this what the Brits refer to as refurbishment.
@@nicholasmaude6906 Oldtimer restauration isnt it, imho.
SLAVA UKRAINE 🇺🇦
Slava 🇺🇦 from 🇬🇧
28:39 *Modern* cluster munitions do not have a lower failure rate than conventional munitions, while they are much more effective in most cases. *If you tried to achieve the same effect in combat with conventional munitions, you would end up with even more unexploded ordnance in the ground and an even greater risk after the battle.*
Older cluster munitions are different and not so reliable.
22:11
Sentence structure about grad hit flawed.
Noticed a similar anomaly earlier as well.
AI preparing these. Has holes.
At first I thought this would be a useful overview. Yet I repeatedly found it annoying that whoever wrote and edited the script for this piece are unfamiliar with military terminology. For example, the narrator repeatedly says "gunman," instead of "gunner," to describe the soldier who fires an artillery system. Doesn't the WSJ have any military veterans or experienced war reporters or consultants on its staff? In addition, this article presents information that is several weeks or months out of date as if it were current, such as regarding U.S. supply of ATACMS missiles to Ukraine. Come on, WSJ, you can do better than this.
No, WSJ does not hire from lower classes. Your job is to die for the corporations, not to think or have an opinion.
lets be real all news does that
A relatively unreported feature of the war in Ukraine is the relationship between cost and functionality of weapons. A Storm Shadow and ATACMS can accurately target and destroy enemy targets at a distance of around 250km but it costs $1 million a shot.
Next time Putin goes to visit his cannon-fodder boys in or near Ukraine.....
that was literally in the video
@@erenharcayan No they dont... Ukraine hit a Russian Warship with Storm Shadows while there was a S400 a few KM away that couldnt shoot them down...
Exactly. These are too expensive and limited. The cheap drones are driving the way. All this stuff is doing is telling Russia, they need to take more territory for a missile buffer.
@@vanfja If Russia wouldnt attack other Countries they wouldnt need a buffer...
That is just some BS to justify their Invasion
Russia's being followed by a Storm Shadow, Storm Shadow, Storm Shadow
They need to keep being followed
Great song 🎵 that
Excellent for Home Defense in Florida and New Jersey.
the ammount of seething, coping russian trolls here is funny to me 😂
The trolls always come out when Russia is suffering badly on the battlefield.
You're hallucinating again.
Ukraine as test operator😂 Russia as test targets..
The Middle East is where Russia will test weaponry on US outposts, it goes both ways.
Russia will neither forgive or forget & retribution will come & that’s the truth.
ruSSia can barely handle their neighboring country, they've got no chance taking on the EU or NATO. But best of luck, Ivan.
I absolutely love the use of small drones. They're like little buzzing mosquitoes swat at them all you want, but that never eliminates them.
Y Ukraine didd'nt destroy the Kersh bridge using this missil untill now???
USA can never be relied on.
Sad
From 🇬🇧
@@WilliamEvans-py4gq ...but true.
Very effective against non military targets.
well no. firstly unlike the stuff russia is using against civilians, this is a highly accurate missile used against high value targets.
Why use a really expensive missile against non military targets? To show off? Obviously
, it will be used against to military targets due to its limited count