After a Taurus announcement, it would still take months to fire one, as Ukraine currently has no platform to launch them from.
Sweden already probed the possibility to send their JAS 39 Gripen fighter jets, which can fire Taurus. But the consideration from Sweden is dependent on the NATO membership, to be able to defend itself. After the membership and following consideration and decision, then it would take a new training program for Ukrainian pilots in Sweden for the Gripen (and Taurus). That’s why it would take a few months before launching a Taurus, after a possible announcement from Germany.
On top, one of the initial requests from the German government to the Taurus manufacturer was the option for a reduced range. So reaching the bridge would even then not be guaranteed.
It’s a different system and currently only tested on Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab JAS 39 Gripen, as the Taurus was a cooperation project between Germany and Sweden. Wikipedia lists additional untested launch platforms: Tornado, F/A-18, F-15K but none of those are in Ukraine.
The only one that I heard of that was up for discussion so far, was the Gripen. F/A-18 and F-15K would be up to USA again and German Tornados are old and the ones still in use are required operational in Germany for carrying US nuclear weapons, as there are currently no other approved platforms.
Thanks. And speaking of reduced range, my understanding was that delivering shorter-range versions required extensive and time-consuming technical modifications, and delivering the normal long-range version was contingent on the US delivering ATACMS. Again, just rumours.
I’m not sure that’s generally true. The ATACMS that were used operationally were the shorter range versions (M39), because these have more submunitions, which maximised the destructive effect on the airfields in Berdyanks and Luhansk. But I think longer-range versions (M39A1 and M57) will likely also be provided, as they reach their end-of-life, as Jake Broe explains.
That article is also six weeks old and talks about a decision to be taken “in two weeks”. Which I think was still “no” at that time. Also, the “relatively easy” range reduction was just a theoretical answer, and German thoroughness means that it may take a few months, anyway.
We’ll see what these great news from Germany are that Kuleba hinted at yesterday.
The ATACMS range was not reduced. There are different models of ATACMS and the one provided was an older variant that has less range but much more payload.
For the job they were used for, wrecking helicopter airfields, they were the correct tool for the job. For further away airfields, I would certainly like to see the US provide the longer range ATACMS as well.
I wonder if they are working on integrating Taurus with F-16. While Ukraine doesn’t have F-16s yet, their small Su-24 fleet is already taxed pretty heavily.
After a Taurus announcement, it would still take months to fire one, as Ukraine currently has no platform to launch them from.
Sweden already probed the possibility to send their JAS 39 Gripen fighter jets, which can fire Taurus. But the consideration from Sweden is dependent on the NATO membership, to be able to defend itself. After the membership and following consideration and decision, then it would take a new training program for Ukrainian pilots in Sweden for the Gripen (and Taurus). That’s why it would take a few months before launching a Taurus, after a possible announcement from Germany.
On top, one of the initial requests from the German government to the Taurus manufacturer was the option for a reduced range. So reaching the bridge would even then not be guaranteed.
I read that they could use the same mounts and interfaces as the Storm Shadow, but that may have been wrong.
It’s a different system and currently only tested on Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab JAS 39 Gripen, as the Taurus was a cooperation project between Germany and Sweden. Wikipedia lists additional untested launch platforms: Tornado, F/A-18, F-15K but none of those are in Ukraine.
The only one that I heard of that was up for discussion so far, was the Gripen. F/A-18 and F-15K would be up to USA again and German Tornados are old and the ones still in use are required operational in Germany for carrying US nuclear weapons, as there are currently no other approved platforms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taurus_KEPD_350
Thanks. And speaking of reduced range, my understanding was that delivering shorter-range versions required extensive and time-consuming technical modifications, and delivering the normal long-range version was contingent on the US delivering ATACMS. Again, just rumours.
According to WSJ, the delivered US ATACMS have a reduced range:
Source: https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/ukraine-fires-atacms-missile-at-russian-forces-for-the-first-time-3bebcdb1
And reducing the Taurus range was an initial topic, where the manufacturer clarified that it’s not a problem:
“Taurus on the test bench”
“It had previously become known that the range of the cruise missiles can apparently be limited relatively easily from a technical point of view. This was the conclusion of a test conducted by the manufacturer on behalf of the German government. This would require a reprogramming of the built-in software.” (via DeepL, source in German (14.09.2023): https://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/russische-kriegslogistik-gezielt-schwachen-ampel-politiker-dringen-bei-scholz-auf-schnelle-taurus-lieferung-10467682.html
I’m not sure that’s generally true. The ATACMS that were used operationally were the shorter range versions (M39), because these have more submunitions, which maximised the destructive effect on the airfields in Berdyanks and Luhansk. But I think longer-range versions (M39A1 and M57) will likely also be provided, as they reach their end-of-life, as Jake Broe explains.
That article is also six weeks old and talks about a decision to be taken “in two weeks”. Which I think was still “no” at that time. Also, the “relatively easy” range reduction was just a theoretical answer, and German thoroughness means that it may take a few months, anyway.
We’ll see what these great news from Germany are that Kuleba hinted at yesterday.
The ATACMS range was not reduced. There are different models of ATACMS and the one provided was an older variant that has less range but much more payload.
For the job they were used for, wrecking helicopter airfields, they were the correct tool for the job. For further away airfields, I would certainly like to see the US provide the longer range ATACMS as well.
I wonder if they are working on integrating Taurus with F-16. While Ukraine doesn’t have F-16s yet, their small Su-24 fleet is already taxed pretty heavily.