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
These are the 🇬🇧 UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carriers.
First, as you can see in this picture, only one actually carries aircraft. The UK barely had enough money to buy the F-35B for one. For the other the Blairites expected the US Marine Corps 1/9
to provide the required aircraft, because the two carriers were bought so the Royal Navy could fight alongside the US Navy against China in the Pacific.
But the US does NOT want the British carriers anywhere near its carrier strike groups, because the UK carriers would slow
2/9
down a US carrier strike groups, as the UK did not have the money for nuclear propulsion.
And as the UK doesn't have the money for the ships that make up a carrier strike group (destroyers, frigates, submarines) the UK expected the US Navy to detach some of its destroyers and 3/9
🇬🇧 decline: Only one SSN is operational, three are no longer fit for service and got no crews. One carrier has no air wing and has been sent to rust away. The other carrier only has an air wing when the RAF cedes a third of its fighters. Only 1 destroyer is operational. The
1/5
frigates are falling apart. New Type 31 frigates won't get Mark 41 VLS or bow Sonar. The RAF took 48 of its Eurofighters apart, because it got no money for spares. The army has just 14 155mm howitzers. The Ajax vehicle is injuring the troops it carries. The Warrior IFVs are
2/5
outdated and falling apart. They amphibious ships are not deployable / crewed for lack of funds. The UK has not anti-ballistic missile system (e.g.Patriot). There is only money for 12 F-35A, the smallest F-35A order on the planet. The tank force is at its smallest since 1938.
3/5
International Law is worthless paper if you cannot and will not back it up with military power.
Dictators do not care for international law. But they fear the US Air Force. The moment the US signaled it would no longer back "international law" putin annexed Crimea and Assad
1/10
gassed his people. International Law is what defence laggards hide behind to not have to spend for their own security (hoping the US will save them from their irresponsibility) .
European politicians like to grandstand about "international law" but NO European nation has the
2/n
the means (nor the will) to the enforce it. European politicians grandstanding about international law always do so in the belief that the US will enforce their balderdash.
So European politicians lecturing the US about "international law" now are utter morons, because they
3/n
All this "NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war in Ukraine" is ridiculous, because:
• of course NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war IN (!) Ukraine,
• because that is not how a NATO-russia war will be fought. NATO, even just European NATO,
1/4
fields: 244 F-35, 403 Eurofighter, 183 Rafale, 177 modern F-16, 3 Gripen E, and 896 older fighter types.
A total of 1,906+ fighters (without the US Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force; and with more new fighters entering European service every week).
russia, when counting
2/4
generously can't even put half that fighter strength into the field, and the 1,010 modern European NATO fighters would devastate russia's fighter force.
With NATO air supremacy comes absolute dominance of the battlefield. Every russian moving near the front would get bombed
3/4
Gripen fans keep hyping the Gripen with fake claims & as long as they do, I will counter them:
Scandinavian Air Force officer about the Gripen E: It can either be fully fueled or fully armed or flown from short runways. Never can 2 of these things be done at the same time.
1/25
The Gripen fans keep claiming that the Gripen has a better range than the F-35 and can fly from short runways... then admit that its max. range can only be achieved with external fuel tanks, which weigh so much that the Gripen E can no longer fly from short runways.
2/n
External fuel tanks also mean: the Gripen becomes slower, the radar cross section increases (making detection more likely), the fuel consumption increases,... and even with all 3 external fuel tanks the Gripen E carries 1,340 kg less fuel than the F-35A carries internally.
3/n
Gripen fans continue to spam my mention with claims how fantastic Sweden's Bas 90 and Gripen combination is... and that it would work for Canada's North too...
Ok, let's quickly compare Canada's three northern territories (Yukon, Northwest, Nunavut) and Sweden... ... 1/6
Land area:
🇸🇪 450,295 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
🇨🇦 terr.: 3,593,589 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
The land area of just the three territories (without Canada's 10 provinces) is already 8 times bigger than all of Sweden...
(In total Canada's land area is 9,984,670 km2
2/6
(3,855,100 sq mi) or 22 times Sweden).
Population:
🇸🇪 10.61 million
🇨🇦 terr.: 0.13 million
Sweden's population is 81.6 times bigger than that of the three territories... and if you look at population density:
🇸🇪 23,6/km2
🇨🇦 terr.: 0,013/km2
3/6