Thread by @MarkHertling

Warning: This will NOT be a popular thread. I anticipate a high degree of pushback from those who follow me.

But...I thought it might be useful to provide some thoughts as to why the US may be "rebuffing" the request to provide ATACMS to Ukraine.
1/15
cnn.com/2022/09/15/pol…

This topic will be a topic as @POTUS announces the next Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA) for Ukraine military aid, which may occur in 2-3 days, with a new tranche figure somewhere between $500-750M.

The package will likely consist of mostly HIMAR pods & artillery 2/

Many will ask: "Why no longer range ATACMS?"

Most of those asking may not know the difference - besides the extended range - of ATACM missiles versus HIMAR rockets. So here's some details comparisons: 3/

A GMLRS rocket (pronounced GIM-LERS, Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System) is fired by the HIMARS.

These rockets:
-Are 6 rockets to a "pod"
-each has a 200 lb warhead
-with range of 15-92+ km (9-57+ miles)
-extremely precise (hit w/in 10 m of target)
-cost about $160k/rocket 4/

An ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) Missile was developed in the '80's as part of a "deep strike" weapon to hit 2d echelon Soviet Targets.

The missile:
-is 1 missile per pod (6 "caps" on pod are for deception)
-with a 500lb warhead
-has a 300km/190mile range
-cost $850k
5/

So, key comparisons:

HIMARS can hit 6 different targets with GPS precision, with a 200 lb "bomb" for each target, at 50+ miles

ATACMS can precisely hit 1 target, at longer range, with a 500 lb explosion.

The two are below. 6/

Key decisions since the start of support to UKR ask "what do they need in this phase of the fight?"

In phase 1 (the attack on Kyiv) it was Javelin & Stinger. Shoulder fired, easy to use.

In phase 2 (Donbas) it was a lot of artillery, radars, trucks, HIMARS, precision ammo. 7/

During each stage, questions were:

-What do they need...right now?
-Can we get it there, can they logistically support it?
-How will they use it?
-What are the number of targets that need to be struck?
-How much can we draw from US stocks/ammo supplies?

&

What's the cost?
8/

UKR would like a technologically advanced, modern army...right now!

But every nation has national security requirements...& not many have additional/usable "stocks."

One guy tweeted me "yeah, but we have 1000 M1 tanks in a desert boneyard" with this picture: 9/

Yes. Those are M1 tanks (they fire a 105 mm rounds; the M1A1 we use today fires a 120mm) & I'd suggest they have pretty dry seals & unworkable engines/transmissions. Not good without mechanics, parts, supplies, ammo.

Ah, but I digress from ATACMs.... 10/

On ATACMS, @SecDef - a smart guy with battlefield savvy - likely weighed a lot of advantages/disadvantages of providing ATACMS to UKR.

I don't know what those were, but that's his job.

He then recommended to POTUS: "not right now. UKR is doing great without them." 11/

His reasons might be cost/effectiveness per round, capability of acquiring targets at over 100km (you have to see what you want to hit), # of targets, # of missiles in US stock required to meet US contingency plans, and more. All likely played a part in the discussion. 12/

But he and POTUS also wanted to prevent even further conflict escalation. US/NATO/UKR has done a great job of "managing" & fighting so far.

RU threats may seem lame, but there's still potential for more violence. RU general mobilization, WMD use, more intensive strikes. 13/

Putin still wants to blame the US/NATO, pull us into this. He may believe a way out is further widening the conflict.

That's dumb, but Putin hasn't been smart so far.

So having ATACM missiles with "USA" on the side hitting targets inside RU probably isn't the best thing. 14/

Ukraine is marching toward victory & they will have a modern army in the near future. Some may *want* ATACMs right now, but they're doing great in the close fight. ATACMS aren't needed now.

See...toldja these thoughts wouldn't be popular. 15/15