10
Loading video...
By Ellie Cook
Senior Defense Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
The U.S. appears to be inching closer to providing Ukraine with the long-range strike weapons that experts say could be a game changer as it seeks to step up its counteroffensive and retake more occupied territory from Russia.
The Pentagon has so far resisted pressure to supply Ukraine with Army Tactical Missile Systems, known as ATACMS, which have a range just shy of 200 miles. Experts told Newsweek that Ukraine could use ATACMS to strike far behind the front lines in the south and east of the country, offering an advantage over the U.K.'s Storm Shadow and French SCALP missiles that have already been pledged.
General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Defense One website in March that the U.S. has "relatively few ATACMS, we do have to make sure that we maintain our own munitions inventories, as well." In late June, Pentagon Press Secretary Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder told the media there were no "imminent decisions as it relates to ATACMS."
Read More
Russia Loses 17 Artillery Systems, 33 UAVs in a Day: Ukraine3 min read
Henry Kissinger Pranked Into Thinking He’s Speaking Privately With Zelensky3 min read
Putin’s ‘Bad Bet’ in Ukraine Won’t Get Better, Jake Sullivan Says4 min read
But recent reports have suggested the Biden administration is heading towards giving the go-ahead for ATACMS. Britain pledging Storm Shadow missiles in May brought the question of ATACMS into sharper focus, as did France's new commitment to provide SCALP missiles at the NATO summit in Vilnius.
A Pentagon spokesperson told Newsweek they could not speculate on how the Ukrainian army would use ATACMS, adding that no decision on providing ATACMS has been made at this time.
...
In May, defense expert David Hambling told Newsweek that the U.K.'s move hinted that "thinking has changed, and in effect further ratchets up the level of support the West is willing to provide."
Oksana Markarova, Ukraine's ambassador in Washington, D.C., indicated in mid-June that the U.S. had "changed its tone" on ATACMS in the previous few weeks.
House Republicans have called for the Biden administration to provide ATACMS several times, including just after the counteroffensive got underway and when the U.S. pledged cluster munitions to Ukraine on July 7.
The ATACMS have a range around 30 miles longer than Storm Shadow and SCALP missiles. This will allow Ukraine to hit Russian targets at a slighter greater distance, as long as Kyiv's intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance can operate at that distance, according to Ed Arnold, a research fellow in European security at the London-based Royal United Services Institute think tank.
"However, the main benefit is not range but simply capacity," Arnold told Newsweek. Ukraine would have more chances to hit Russian targets than it would with its supplies of Storm Shadows and SCALP missiles, he said.
"Quantity has a quality of its own," agreed Fabian Hoffmann, a doctoral research fellow at the University of Oslo, Norway.
"The more, the better for Ukraine," Frederik Mertens, a strategic analyst at The Hague Center for Strategic Studies, told Newsweek. "If sufficient missiles are at hand, you would execute planned attacks with multiple launchers at once to confuse the Russian air defenses," he added.
Whereas Storm Shadow and SCALP missiles are long-range, air-to-air cruise missiles, ATACMS are surface-to-surface systems with some ability to maneuver during flight.
The ATACMS are faster, able to reach targets around 250 kilometers (155 miles) away in around five minutes, rather than the Storm Shadow and SCALP's travel time of 15 minutes, Hoffmann said.
"That could be really useful for Ukraine, if it wants to engage time-sensitive targets" that may be on the move, he argued to Newsweek. "The greatest advantage is probably the speed with which an ATACMS can react when a target is detected," Mertens argued.
"Mobile targets that might move before a cruise missile could arrive," could be taken out by ATACMS, added Ian Williams, deputy director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Although comparable and frequently considered in the same breath, ATACMS provide different capabilities from the Storm Shadow and SCALP weapons. "SCALP and Storm Shadows are similar in range and lethality to ATACMS," Williams said, but Ukraine has a limited number of aircraft that can launch the former.
ATACMS warheads aren't designed to specifically destroy harder targets, and would more likely be used to engage softer targets such as warehouses or storage depots, rather than bunkers or fortified targets.
"Overall, what ATACMS really brings to the table is just that it is a different capability profile than the long-range strike weapons that Ukraine already has," Hoffmann said. "That just provides Ukraine with more flexibility."
Russia may also find it difficult to intercept ATACMS, and Moscow has sometimes struggled to shoot down Storm Shadows, added Mertens.
"Just as Ukraine was unable to intercept Russian Iskander ballistic missiles prior to receiving Patriot, Russian air defenses would struggle against ATACMs," Williams said.
Ukraine's military could fire ATACMS from positions of "relative security," Mertens said, unlike launching Storm Shadows or SCALPs from more vulnerable fighter aircraft like the Su-24. It is also "significantly cheaper to maintain and operate" ground-based systems than fighter aircraft, Williams continued.
"ATACMS will really make a difference," Mertens said. "Ukraine could use them to kill Russian high value targets and drive them even further back," he continued, particularly alongside an effective ground offensive.
Newsweek has contacted the Russian Defense Ministry for comment via email.
Update 07/13/23, 7:15 a.m. ET: This article was updated with a response from the Pentagon and commentary from Ian Williams.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines