So much nonsense on twitter about the Ground-Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB)...
Ok, a thread 🧵
GLSDB uses a Lockheed Martin M26 MLRS rocket section with a Boeing GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb. 1/n
The M26 was the original rocket used with the M270 to deliver cluster munitions. M26 rockets are being dismantled, which means lots of M26 rocket sections are available.
M26 rockets come in pods of six. Pods that are filled with rockets at Lockheed Martin's plant in Arkansas. 2/n
The GBU-39/B Small Diameter Bomb is made by Boeing. It is an INS/GPS guided glide bomb.
Each BRU-61/A Bomb Rack Unit carries four GBU-39/B (or GBU-39A/B, GBU-39B/B).
Almost all NATO fighters and bombers can deploy GBU-39/B. 3/n
Once released the bombs deploys wings and glide (!) to their target. Glide means the bombs are slow when compared to missiles.
And they are INS/GPS guided bombs, which means they can only (!) hit stationary targets.
And have a good look at the GBU-39/B's steel nose cone. 4/n
Lots of people are tweeting that the GLSDB can hit "moving targets"... yes, but only if you mate the M26 rocket section with a Boeing GBU-39B/B Laser Small Diameter Bomb (LSDB), which has a totally different nose cone, because you have to attach a laser seeker to the bomb. 5/n
Here is a photo of a GBU-39B/B after being released from a AC-130J Ghostrider.
GBU-39B/B are absolutely useless for Ukraine. They are laser-guided SDBs: meaning there needs to be a plane or drone lasering the (moving) target, which means you have a Ukrainian aircraft flying 6/n
at the ideal height for and within range of russian air defense systems.
Forget all the tweets about "moving targets" and "accuracy of 1 meter" - because those specs are for the GBU-39B/B, which Ukraine can't use.
Likewise there is no home-on-jam (HOJ) SDB version.
7/n
HOJ SDB are still in development. They would be used to autonomously strike jamming and radar systems, as does the AGM-88 HARM already given to Ukraine.
And now to the GBU-53/B, which is something different entirely. 8/n
The GBU-53/B or Stormbreaker or Small Diameter Bomb Increment II (SDB II) is made by Raytheon and uses GPS/INS guidance plus either a millimeter wave active radar homing or semi-active laser guidance or infrared homing seeker.
It's a completely new weapon system. 9/n
GBU-53/Bs are also way more expensive than GBU-39/B.
And as said before they are manufactured by Raytheon, while the GBU-39/B is made by Boeing, and the M26 rocket sections are made by Lockheed Martin, and the GLSDB was developed by Saab/Boeing. 10/n
What Ukraine will get are GPS/INS guided GBU-39/B on M26 rocket sections, which carry less explosive than a GMLRS M31 rocket and without the added punch of a supersonic GMLRS missile slamming into a target.
Last but not least GLSDB isn't even in production... so before they can show up in Ukraine GLSDB has to enter production.
M26 rocket sections exist, GBU-39/B bombs exist - but the interstage connectors to mate these two need to be built. And the resulting rockets have to be
12/n
sent to Camden in Arkansas, where Lockheed Martin will mount them into M270/M142 HIMARS pods.
Yes, the GLSDB is a great weapon and will help Ukraine. But it will take some time to arrive and people need to stop mixing up GBU-39/B specs with GBU-39B/B and GBU-53/B specs. 13/n
Last but not least: the GBU-39A/B Focused Lethality Munition is a GBU-39/B variant with a carbon-fiber casing for ultra low fragmentation and a DIME explosive for a more focused-blast - both are used to reduce collateral damage.
Ukraine won't get it and doesn't need it.
14/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I am relaxed about the US ending the rotation of a light brigade through Romania.
Yes, it is bad optics and russia will use it for its propaganda, BUT two armored brigades, a combat aviation brigade, a division artillery, a division sustainment brigade, and a division HQ 1/4
continue to rotate to Poland and the Baltics.
Right now the:
• 3rd Infantry Division HQ (arrived in Poland 4 days ago - photo)
• 1st Armored Brigade, 1st Infantry Division
• 3rd Armored Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division
• 3rd Division Artillery
• 3rd Combat Aviation Brigade 2/4
are in Poland and the Baltics.
Ending the rotation of a light brigade to Romania is a far less bad than ending the rotation of the armored brigades. It is also understandable as the US Army's light divisions (10th Mountain, 25th Infantry, 82nd Airborne, 101st Airborne) are
3/4
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