Chris posted a good thread about NASAMS, which the US might provide to Ukraine.
Check it out, then come back and I will add a bit more missile info if you like tech specs.
NASAMS comes in three versions numbered 1 to 3. As of 2022 only NASAMS 2 and NASAMS 3 are in service.
We do not know yet if they US bought used NASAMS 2 or brand new NASAMS 3 systems, which are currently being produced by Norway for Lithuania, Qatar, Hungary, and Australia.
2/n
NASAMS 2 & 3 use the AN/MPQ-64F1 Sentinel radar, with a range of 120 km.
Ukraine already received four AN/MPQ-64A1 Sentinel to cue Stinger teams onto approaching russian planes & helicopters.
(The new GhostEye MR radar was unveiled last October and is not yet in production) 3/n
NASAMS 2 uses the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile, which is the most produced Western air-to-air missile. Specifically the AIM-120B, AIM-120C-5, or AIM-120C-7/C-8 are used.
However when these air-to-air missiles are launched from the ground and not from fighters flying at supersonic 4/n
speed at altitude they lose much of their range.
I.e. the Spanish Army's NASAMS 2 uses AIM-120C-5 missiles. The range of a AIM-120C-5 launched at supersonic speed at 6,000m is 105+ km, while the range of a ground launched AIM-120C-5 is 25 km:
A ground launched AIM-120C-7 has a range of 30+ km. NASAMS 3 rectifies this by adding the new AMRAAM-ER missile.
AMRAAM-ER combines the AIM-120C-7's WDU-41/B warhead and active radar homing seeker with the motor of the US Navy's RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM).
6/n
The RIM-162 is a ground launched missile with a 3 inch wider diameter and more powerful rocket motor than the AIM-120. The RIM-162's rocket motor alone weighs 168 kg, while a complete AIM-120C-7 weighs 152 kg.
Additionally the RIM-162 has thrust vector control, which gives
7/n
it a better maneuverability than the AIM-120.
RIM-162 missiles have a 50+km range, while AMRAAM-ER's have a slightly greater range, as the AIM-120C-7's WDU-41/B warhead (18kg) and seeker weigh less than those of the RIM-162 (i.e. warhead 39 kg).
Photo: launch of a AMRAAM-ER 8/n
If you google AMRAAM-ER, most images you get are actually AIM-120 missiles.
So here is a photo to help distinguish the missiles NASAMS 3 can use - from left to right:
AIM-120C-7 (two sets of 4 canards)
AMRAAM-ER (1 set of 4 canards & thick motor section)
AIM-9X Block II
9/n
The AIM-9X Block II is variant of the Sidewinder missile meant to shoot down cruise missile and drones that come within 10 km of a NASAMS launcher. Unlike the active radar homing AIM-120 and the AMRAAM-ER the smaller AIM-9X uses a cheaper passive Infrared seeker (see photo). 10/n
As NASAMS 3 also includes a more powerful Fire Distribution Center (FDC) (see rendering) I hope the US bought that one.
One FDC can be connected with up to 8 radars and a dozen missile launchers... but 2-3 radars and 4-6 launchers will be more likely what Ukraine gets.
11/n
We don't know yet what system and how many of it the US bought. We also don't know what missiles will come with it; so we can't speculate now where Ukraine will deploy them: Kyiv or Donbas or Kherson?
But: here is a AMRAAM-ER launch. I hope we will see this in Donbas next.
12/.
To answer some questions:
• NATO members store 10,000+ AIM-120C
• yearly AIM-120D production capacity is 800+ missiles
• AMRAAM-ER missiles are in production, and as far as I know use the seeker and warheads of stored AIM-120C-7 and pair them with newly built RIM-162 engines
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Of course russia can quickly seize the Suwałki Gap and cut of the Baltics from the rest of NATO... but have you had a look at Kaliningrad's border and the flat dry country beyond?
There are 9 Polish brigades in that area (and 11 in reserve, with 4 more forming). Sure russia 1/5
could move 50,000+ men to Kaliningrad to secure the border or build a defence line along the Pregoła river... but those need to be supplied from Belarus, which also is easily invaded unless russia sends 50,000+ troops to secure its flank there. A buildup of 200,000+ russian
2/5
troops in Belarus would be noticed by NATO (and ordinary people in Belarus, who would upload 100s of videos of the arriving russians).
In summary the main risk isn't that russia suddenly seizes and fortifies the Suwałki Gap... the main risk is that russia starts building up
3/5
The North Atlantic - one of the key battles in a russia-Europe war.
If Europe is defeated here, which with Europe's current forces and capabilities, is almost certain to happen... then russia can nuke the UK without fear of retaliation.
This will be a unsettling thread:
1/40
This battle will be very different from the battles in the Black Sea and Baltic Sea, which I discussed in an early thread, which is linked below.
To understand the North Atlantic Battle we need to look at Imperial Germany's WWI submarine campaign,
2 days ago I did a thread about the reasons russia can't defeat Ukraine and yet is still a deadly threat to Europe and NATO (link to the thread the next tweet).
Today I will talk about three of the fronts of a russia-Europe war: 1) Black Sea 2) Baltic Sea 3) North Atlantic
1/36
These three fronts will be air and sea battles, while Finland and the Baltics will be air and land battles; about which I will talk in another thread in the coming days.
I do not believe the US under control of Trump or Vance would come to the aid 2/n
• russia has no chance to defeat Ukraine
• russia is a deadly threat to NATO and the EU
Both of these are true... because as of 2025 Ukraine fields a far more capable military than NATO's 30 European members combined (!).
Let me explain.
1/39
As of August 2025 russia fields more than 1,3 million troops; at least half of which are fighting in or against Ukraine.
Ukraine has an estimated 1 million troops... maybe even 1,1 million troops. NATO's European members have double that: some 2.2 million troops, but 2/n
(there is always a "but" with European militaries):
• with more than double the personnel European NATO members manage to field only 20% more combat brigades than Ukraine. Partly because Western navies and air forces are bigger, but mostly because in all European militaries 3/n
People forget that for most if its history Europe was much, much more militarized than even during the Cold War.
Italy, from the end of the Third War of Independence in 1866 to 1939 fielded always 360-400 battalions, which fell to 110-115 during the Cold War, as the US
1/14
backed its European allies with the its massive air force. Today Italy fields 41 battalions (infantry, tanks, recon, special forces, rangers).
Likewise the British Army fielded for most of its history (especially after the 1908 Haldane reforms) 450-480 battalions, which came 2/n
in three types: 150-160 regular battalions (of which a third was always in India), around 100 reserve battalions to provide replacements for the regular battalions, and 200-220 territorial battalions, which (at least on paper) could not be deployed overseas. The British Army
3/n
And this is how Berlin would look like 3 days after putin attacks Europe... because Germany doesn't have the air defence ammo to defend any of its city for more than 2 days.
1/12
This is Copenhagen.
And this is how Copenhagen would look like the morning after putin attacks Europe... because Denmark doesn't have any air defence to defend itself.
2/12
This is Paris.
And this is how Paris would look like a day after putin attacks Europe... because France only has SAMP/T air defence systems, which is as of now has very limited capabilities against ballistic missiles.
3/12