0:08

Welcome to Geopolitics Decanted. I'm Dimitrijal

0:11

Parevich, Chairman of Silverado Policy Accelerator,

0:13

a geopolitics think tank in Washington DC,

0:16

and also an author of an upcoming book, World

0:19

on the Brink, How America Can Beat China

0:21

in the Race for the 21st Century. Pre-order

0:24

links for the book are available in the show notes, so

0:26

please check it out. This episode

0:29

today will be all about attackums,

0:31

the missile system that has achieved almost mythical

0:34

status in the 19 months of this war,

0:37

as sort of a wonder waffle

0:38

weapon system that some have argued Ukraine

0:40

needs the most. My guest today

0:43

to talk about what the system is, its various

0:45

variants, and what specific advantages it might

0:47

bring to Ukrainian firepower

0:49

is Canadian security analyst Kolby Badwar,

0:52

who

0:52

has written the terrific 72-part

0:54

ex, formerly known as Twitter

0:56

thread on attackums. Kolby,

0:58

welcome to the show.

1:00

Thank you so much for having me.

1:02

Let's start with what is attackums

1:05

and what are the various variants that we're talking

1:07

about here that could potentially be provided

1:09

to Ukraine?

1:11

Sure. So attackums

1:13

is a American surface-to-surface

1:17

quasi-ballistic missile that

1:19

was developed initially back

1:22

in the 80s and

1:24

has been built through the 90s

1:26

until today, and it's still in production.

1:29

And there have been several different variants

1:32

over the course of the program, but for

1:35

sort of our purposes discussing it,

1:38

really, there's just two things you need

1:40

to understand. There are some variants that

1:42

have cluster munition payloads,

1:45

and then there are a number of different variants

1:47

that have

1:48

a unitary warhead. So it's one

1:50

big massive of high explosive

1:53

that detonates on a specific

1:56

location.

1:57

And obviously, from a longer range perspective,

2:00

the of ukraine has already received muscles

2:02

such as the air wants storm

2:04

shadows may factored by

2:06

uk and france so

2:08

what are the primary differences in terms of capabilities

2:12

of those systems from the attack

2:14

and sat ukraine might receive

2:16

sure saw it as a bad the biggest

2:19

thing potentially is if

2:21

ukraine where to receive it happens

2:23

that do have feet the cluster munitions

2:25

payload which there's are

2:27

pouring from an ama outlets that have

2:29

suggested that is the variant of the

2:31

under consideration that's a a

2:34

quite different and

2:36

unique capability that would be

2:38

offered to ukraine there's

2:40

really no other system

2:42

available that provides

2:44

that capability of doing

2:47

precision strikes against area

2:49

targets storm shadow

2:52

scalp eg the german tourists

2:54

missile that's also something that ukraine is asking

2:56

for these all have unitary

2:59

we pipes was of warheads as well so they're very

3:01

good if you're trying to destroy up a precise

3:03

specific target but if

3:05

you wanted to destroy i

3:07

target that was more a distributed

3:10

such as a russian surface

3:12

to air missile battery then

3:14

it's very difficult to destroy the the entirety

3:17

of that that battery if you're using missile

3:20

such as have a a unitary explosive

3:22

warhead so having a missiles

3:24

that can deliver a precision

3:27

strike at long range against

3:29

a distributed target that's

3:31

a very important capability

3:33

and from the ukrainian perspective i think that's

3:35

when the reasons why they've been asking for attack

3:38

and since the beginning because it does

3:40

offer something that storm shadow and and

3:42

other systems do not offer let's

3:45

talk about the range has in our have

3:47

the gambler's of course artillery that

3:49

they want from high mars they're

3:51

gonna get jealous to be soon

3:53

likely this false talk about

3:55

the different ranges of those munitions

3:58

vs attack us

5:44

flying

6:00

Mach 2, Mach 3 and Storm

6:04

Shadow is subsonic. It

6:06

tops out at 0.8, Mach 0.8

6:10

I believe, so below the speed of sound.

6:13

So it

6:14

happens when you're... And then there's also

6:17

an issue that you have to launch the jets from

6:19

which you're going to fire those Storm Shadows,

6:21

right? And they could potentially be tracked by radar

6:24

as well.

6:24

Yeah. That's something

6:27

you have to take into consideration as well.

6:29

It's Acacoms because it has the advantage of it's

6:32

being fired from either HIMARS

6:34

or M270 or its derivatives

6:36

that Ukraine has. Those systems are closer

6:39

to the front line already. So

6:42

the targeting cycle, I

6:44

would argue, is shorter for Acacoms

6:46

than it is for an air launched

6:48

cruise vessel, which I explained

6:51

in a thread. These fighter jets, the

6:53

SU-24s, they're based further

6:55

back in Western Ukraine. So first you have to

6:58

get them airborne. They have to fly

7:00

closer to the front and then release their missile

7:03

to do a strike against whatever they're

7:06

shooting at targeting. So potentially

7:08

it's a longer period of time

7:10

that it would take.

7:12

Assuming that you do have a target acquired

7:14

and you know what the coordinates are, Acacoms is

7:16

much more responsive to a

7:18

target that might be time sensitive and

7:21

you need to hit it as soon as possible for whatever

7:23

reason. And given that the speed

7:25

of the missile is much greater than

7:28

the Storm Shadows, do you think that would make

7:30

it harder to intercept?

7:32

Yeah, so there's some nuance

7:34

here when we're talking about the difficulty of intercepting.

7:37

So I would say that in general

7:40

ballistic and especially sort of quasi ballistic

7:43

missiles like Acacoms, which are

7:45

able to actually maneuver in flight, which the Russian

7:47

Scander is also able to do, they are

7:50

generally speaking difficult to intercept.

7:53

That said, it is easier

7:56

to detect Acacoms.

7:59

that it is

8:01

to detect storm shadow or scalpelage

8:03

because they have very, very advanced

8:05

low observability features. So for Russian

8:08

radars, they're having a very difficult

8:11

time even detecting the

8:13

storm shadow missiles as they come in. And we

8:15

can see by the results, the Russians do not

8:17

have a particularly good track record

8:19

of downing these cruise missiles. And I would mostly

8:22

attribute to that, that they're just having a

8:24

very difficult time detecting them. So

8:27

overall, when we're talking about Russian

8:29

integrated air and missile defense capabilities, their

8:32

primary ballistic missile

8:34

defense system they had in theater is the

8:36

S-300V system. And

8:39

that is a system that should not be underestimated.

8:42

I would say it actually has a better chance

8:45

of intercepting an attack on this than

8:48

Russia's main air defense systems.

8:50

S-300P and S-400 have against

8:54

storm shadow and scalpelage. But

8:56

that said, I think attack them is still

8:58

gonna be useful. It's gonna be able to penetrate

9:01

Russia's integrated air missile defense systems.

9:04

But

9:05

I think we should expect that some of them probably

9:07

will be shot down,

9:08

but I would still tip the

9:11

favor in terms of attack them, I think. So

9:13

there's been a range of reasons

9:16

why the US has been hesitant to provide

9:18

attack them. One of them had to do

9:20

with escalation concerns, which I think over

9:23

time have lessened and particularly

9:25

since longer range missiles like storm shadows

9:27

have been provided by others. But the

9:30

other reasons were practical

9:32

concerns. One of them was just about

9:34

the timing of provision of certain munitions.

9:37

The administration said on many occasions that

9:40

given their limited budgets

9:43

that have been authorized by Congress for

9:45

their drawdown authorities, they wanted

9:47

to prioritize things that Ukraine needed the

9:49

most at a particular time of the fight.

9:51

So early on in the Russian invasion,

9:54

they focused on anti-tank

9:56

guided missiles and later

9:59

on it was more about them. artillery and

10:01

as the Ukrainians were launching it offensive it was

10:03

all about armor so they've been arguing

10:05

that attackings were not what the Ukrainians

10:08

needed at a particular point of time but

10:10

the other concern has been around numbers

10:13

and how much we have in

10:16

the United States in our inventory and how

10:18

much we would need for various contingencies

10:21

primarily North Korea and potentially

10:24

Iran less so probably Taiwan

10:26

due to range difficulties but talk a little bit

10:28

about that last element

10:30

of do we have the numbers to provide significant

10:33

number of missiles to

10:36

Ukraine obviously

10:38

given the constraints that the actual numbers are classified

10:41

but based on open source estimates

10:43

of what we think are in US

10:45

arsenal

10:46

yeah for sure so this is one

10:49

of the main reasons why I wanted to write

10:51

the threat is because everybody seemed to have a different

10:53

idea of how many attack them says the United

10:56

States has how many have been produced are they

10:58

still being produced or not so

11:00

I wanted to try and answer that that question and

11:03

even though the Department of Defense says

11:05

that you know the the inventory

11:08

is officially classified there

11:10

there's a lot of open source information

11:13

from the Department of Defense that allowed

11:15

me that I think get a pretty accurate

11:18

read of what the inventory actually is

11:20

by looking at the budget documents

11:23

which list you know how many attackings

11:25

have been produced and there's

11:28

also information that's been made available about

11:30

expenditure rates in combat

11:33

so putting all those pieces together I was

11:35

able to I think get a pretty

11:38

accurate and you took into account

11:40

that some of the missiles have been produced when I

11:42

produced for the US but for other customers yeah

11:45

yeah I was able to get all of the

11:47

foreign military sales information as well through

11:50

a number of different sources so I

11:53

think I got a very accurate picture of how many

11:55

have been produced total but specifically

11:57

how many are available in American inventory

13:59

It would be much easier

14:02

for us to give them up without jeopardizing on

14:04

security, right? Yeah, absolutely.

14:06

Yeah, and I know in the thread that at one

14:08

point the United States had a very

14:11

very small number of missiles

14:13

that were

14:15

That were not expired back in 2017 before

14:19

they initiated the service life extension

14:22

program to start refurbishing these old

14:24

missiles. They only had 269 missiles

14:28

that were actually not Expired

14:30

according to this 10-year shelf life criteria

14:33

so the suggestion that if

14:35

the United States were to give up any number of attack

14:37

them that contingency plans would

14:39

be compromised is a little bit suspect

14:42

because That was suggested those those

14:44

contingency plans that have been in place

14:46

for work would have definitely already been compromised

14:49

if if they only had 269 missiles

14:53

that were Actually fit

14:55

for service according to their own criteria So

14:58

I have doubts about that

15:00

line of argument one other thing

15:03

here that is worth mentioning is the

15:05

new missile that is supposed to be the replacement

15:07

for attack comes the precision strike missile

15:09

is Not only has entered

15:12

production But it has been confirmed

15:14

I believe in the last couple of weeks by DOD

15:16

that they've already received Several

15:18

of these missiles Talk a little bit about

15:20

the difference between attack him's and and

15:22

this new missile and the advantages that it offers

15:25

and what numbers Are we talking about and

15:27

it's planned rate of production?

15:29

Sure. So there are still

15:31

some details that we don't know about

15:34

precision strike missile But what's

15:36

out there in in the public domain is around

15:40

a range of 500 kilometers

15:42

or some sources say over 400 but probably 500 and

15:45

there's Discussion

15:48

about even pushing it beyond that now

15:50

that since the INF treaties

15:52

been abrogated So

15:55

it's longer in range. It's much

15:58

narrower in so

16:00

whereas a

16:01

High Mars launcher could carry one attack

16:04

ems

16:05

or an M270 could carry two

16:08

attack ems precision might strike

16:10

missile you can fit two in the place

16:12

of one so either two PRSMs

16:16

or prisms in a High

16:18

Mars or four in an M270 so

16:21

your volume of fire that you can put down

16:24

very quickly you know

16:26

is doubled

16:27

from what it is with attack em so that's an improvement

16:30

and there's a lot of there's they're

16:33

already working on multiple different

16:36

developmental increments in terms of the technology

16:38

that's going to be in these missiles so whereas

16:41

the first increment in terms of its its

16:44

targeting

16:45

might be similar to the current attack and this feature

16:47

increments are going to have a lot of new capabilities

16:49

like hitting moving targets and things

16:52

of that nature

16:53

so it you know eventually over the course

16:55

of the program will introduce a lot of

16:58

capabilities attack ems doesn't

17:00

have you

17:01

know we don't have I would

17:03

say we don't have a hundred percent visibility into

17:05

what pull that's gonna look like and of course programs

17:07

do are subject to change according

17:10

to priorities and funding

17:12

available from Congress but it has

17:14

entered serial production although albeit

17:16

at the very low rate as I note and they

17:19

are still doing you know some

17:21

testing as well so it's not it's

17:24

not approved for sort of

17:26

combat deployment yet they're

17:28

still going to be doing tests I think with the

17:32

somebody was just telling me the other day I think the first 35 missiles

17:35

I believe are slated to be assigned

17:38

for further testing so it you

17:40

know it is being produced at a low rate

17:42

so it's not gonna you know have

17:45

a huge impact sort of on what America's available

17:48

inventory of long-range precision

17:51

missiles for the the US Army specifically will

17:53

be but hopefully we'll get

17:55

some information in next next

17:58

spring early next spring related in the winter about

18:01

potential

18:02

ramp ups in production and that would be a

18:04

positive development. Of course, the caveat

18:07

to this is that if there is a continuing resolution

18:10

passed or a government shutdown with what's going on in Congress,

18:12

that's going to impact the delivery

18:15

of all procurement programs, including

18:17

PRSM. So that wouldn't be a good thing

18:19

if that happened, because it would have adverse impacts

18:22

on the delivery of those missiles.

18:24

Now, so far we've been talking about US

18:26

inventories. But as we mentioned,

18:29

there have been foreign military sales of attack

18:31

homes. So countries like Australia,

18:34

Poland, and some others have

18:37

procured them. And there

18:39

could be potential just like we've seen

18:41

with 155 millimeter artillery shells

18:44

for the US to go to these countries and ask

18:46

them to relinquish some of those

18:48

stockpiles and be reimbursed

18:50

potentially later on. Have you looked

18:52

at the potential for some of those countries? Obviously,

18:54

they would need approval from the US to do so, but could

18:57

they provide some of their inventories

18:59

to Ukraine perhaps even sooner than the US?

19:02

Yeah, it's a good question. So I mean,

19:04

in Australia's case specifically, their order

19:07

for attack homes is still pending. It was

19:10

actually just placed this year.

19:12

So they wouldn't be a candidate. But

19:15

countries like Poland and

19:17

Romania do operate

19:20

attack homes. They received their orders just

19:23

last summer, last June, I believe it was,

19:25

those orders concluded. So Poland

19:28

and Romania are two countries, obviously,

19:30

that have been supporting Ukraine. So I would

19:32

say

19:32

that there is potential there. If

19:35

the US is willing to sign off on those

19:37

transfers that they could as well provide

19:40

attack homes to Ukraine, in addition

19:42

to what the

19:42

United States is willing to provide themselves,

19:45

they don't have a huge

19:48

number.

19:49

Poland currently just has 30 missiles,

19:52

Romania bought 54. So not

19:54

big numbers compared to what the American inventory

19:56

is, but everything adds up.

19:59

and help. So actually, that's something

20:02

that I'm sure the Ukrainians are thinking about

20:04

and probably discussing with those countries and

20:06

the Biden administration is whether those

20:08

transfers could be signed off on if those

20:10

countries are agreeable. And do

20:12

any of those countries have the cluster

20:15

munition variant?

20:16

Poland and Romania do not, they

20:19

purchased the newer unitary variants.

20:22

Countries with the cluster munition

20:24

variants are those that purchased a

20:26

long time ago at the beginning of the program.

20:29

So the issue there would be whether

20:31

those countries, their inventories, or even

20:34

still operational, because they they're

20:36

officially their shelf

20:39

life state. And one thing that

20:41

I did not see any information about

20:43

in the course of my research is whether any

20:45

of these foreign customers of attack,

20:48

particularly the ones that procured it early in the

20:50

program back in the 1990s, whether

20:53

any of them had entered into contracts

20:55

with with hockey to refurbish

20:58

those missiles. And as far as I'm

21:00

aware that that hasn't happened. So it may

21:02

be the case that these missiles sitting

21:04

in a warehouse somewhere are not

21:06

in active service because the propellant is

21:08

just way too aged and they wouldn't

21:11

be safe to use potentially.

21:13

So one of the reasons why I think

21:15

attack comes could actually have

21:17

a significant impact on the Ukrainian

21:19

counteroffensive is that one

21:21

of the biggest challenges that they faced in the last

21:24

three or four months here has been

21:26

the Ka 52 alligator

21:28

helicopters that the Russians have used very

21:31

effectively to neutralize

21:34

Ukrainian armor because they're using

21:36

these vicar laser guided anti

21:38

tank missiles that have a much longer

21:41

range that the Ukrainians can reach with

21:43

their stinger and other men

21:45

pads. And they're basically able to

21:47

hang out at the edge of the envelope

21:50

for the range of those missiles and destroy

21:53

any armor they see in sight. And that was one

21:55

of the key reasons I've been told that the Ukrainians

21:57

have been abandoning their vehicles

21:59

by large and having to advance on front.

22:02

Yes, the minefields have played a role too, but the

22:04

alligators really have been the major problem. And

22:07

there's a lot of them. If you look at satellite pictures

22:09

of, let's say, the Berdansk Airport down

22:12

in the south of Zappourezia,

22:14

you will see literally dozens upon dozens

22:17

of these helicopters just hanging out on runways.

22:20

And if only you could have

22:22

a cluster of munitions-like attack homes that would

22:24

be able to reach it and not be intercepted

22:27

by air defenses, which presumably are

22:29

very extensive in that area,

22:32

you could potentially have an outsized effect.

22:34

Do you agree with that? Yeah, absolutely.

22:37

I noted in the thread that I think Russian

22:39

rotary-ring aviation bases

22:41

where these helicopters are located

22:44

would be an ideal target for

22:46

attack homes. That said,

22:48

unfortunately, because Washington

22:50

is very leaky, and now there's

22:53

all this reporting that attack homes are on the way, I would

22:56

anticipate there may be a

22:58

change in Russian behavior. And they might be

23:00

a little bit more cautious about concentrating

23:03

those helicopters as they have

23:05

been for most of the war because they've

23:07

known that

23:08

at a certain distance Ukraine

23:10

doesn't have the ability to strike

23:12

them

23:13

with any regularity. So

23:15

the Russians may

23:17

not be having those targets

23:20

be so opportune now, I think, and

23:23

as we get some

23:25

of the guys that are purchasing the

23:27

open source satellite data to take a look at these air bases,

23:30

I would imagine we're going to see in the future that they're not

23:32

going to be so concentrated as the Russians

23:34

try and avoid that exact thing from happening.

23:37

But certainly, based

23:38

on their behavior up to this point, this

23:40

would be a really

23:42

ideal target. And if the

23:44

United States was able to deliver

23:46

those attack homes without tipping

23:48

the Russians off, I think they would have been having

23:50

a lot of rude surprises when those

23:53

missiles started coming down on their bases.

23:55

So a couple of other questions I have one

23:57

is around tourists. People haven't been talking

24:00

about it as much, but Taurus, of course, is

24:02

the German missile that the Ukrainians

24:04

have also been asking for. If

24:07

the Ukrainians receive attackings, the

24:09

cluster versions or unitary warhead versions,

24:12

would Taurus still have any other advantages beyond

24:14

simply just numbers? What do you think? Yeah,

24:18

Taurus definitely would have an advantage.

24:20

Taurus, it's an

24:22

air launch cruise missile like Storm Shadow and Scalp-E-G,

24:26

quite similar in a lot of ways, but the

24:28

key difference is that Taurus has

24:31

extremely advanced fusing

24:34

in its warhead. Storm Shadow,

24:36

it has, its warhead is called Broach, I

24:38

believe it is, and Taurus,

24:41

it's Mephisto, and the

24:43

fusing in that warhead is very

24:46

sophisticated, particularly as

24:48

it relates to targeting hardened

24:51

targets like bunkers or bridges, because

24:53

the missile, it can pass through multiple

24:56

layers of concrete and detect as

24:59

it's passing through these multiple layers and sense

25:01

the voids as it passes through,

25:03

so it could go multiple stories

25:05

of a building or a bunker underground

25:08

and detonate at a specific point.

25:11

So if you wanted to go penetrate a bunker

25:13

and detonate three levels

25:15

below on your third basement level, it can

25:18

do that and detonate exactly at the point

25:20

you want, or if you want to target a bridge, it

25:22

can pass through the road

25:25

surface, the deck of the bridge, and then impact

25:27

the columns that are holding the bridge up. So

25:30

that very sophisticated fusing is a very

25:32

important advantage that it offers, and

25:35

if Ukraine would want to destroy bridges

25:38

or, you know, the Kerch bridge specifically, I've

25:40

argued, and my friend

25:42

Fabian, whose own thread on Taurus

25:45

I linked in mine, explains in great

25:48

depth why, you know, the fusing allows,

25:51

you know, makes it the best possible ammunition to

25:54

target something like the Kerch bridge or other

25:56

bridges, so it does have a very key advantage

25:59

that attack them.

25:59

and Storm Shadow doomed,

26:02

it's a munition that Ukraine definitely

26:04

wants for that reason, in

26:06

my view, because they could achieve

26:09

much greater impacts with a handful of

26:11

toruses where it would take a lot

26:14

of Storm Shadow missiles

26:16

or a lot of attack them to achieve the same

26:18

result if you're prosecuting

26:20

a hardened target. So

26:23

the Ukrainians are launching the Storm Shadows

26:25

from their SU-34 jets

26:27

and they had to be modified for that task.

26:30

Do you think that it would be fairly easy to

26:32

also modify them to carry torus? I

26:34

think that now that they got the integration

26:37

done for Storm Shadow, it would

26:39

be less challenging with

26:41

that knowledge that they now have,

26:44

because they are similar, they're not the

26:46

same missile, they're not derivatives of

26:49

each other, but there's similarities there.

26:51

So I think that it's very much

26:53

a surmountable challenge for

26:55

them and there's been some reporting

26:58

in German media about

27:01

the German government saying that, oh, it's

27:03

far too complicated, we need to have our

27:06

own technicians on the ground there to help

27:08

the Ukrainians operate

27:11

these missiles. And I

27:13

view that as very, very, very suspect,

27:16

given, again, that they were able

27:18

to achieve the integration with Storm Shadow. I

27:20

don't think it's nearly as complicated

27:22

as the German government is trying to make this

27:25

seem to be. I think it's just more excuses

27:28

coming from the Chancellor's Office, who's very resistant

27:30

to this idea, even though all of his coalition

27:33

partners are very much in favor of providing

27:36

those missiles to Ukraine. And do we know the

27:38

numbers in German inventory and

27:40

how much they could potentially give? Yeah,

27:43

going from memory, I think they have 600

27:45

missiles and 300 of them are serviceable and 300

27:49

are not. I

27:51

think that's what the inventory figures are.

27:54

Great. So last question really

27:56

is around Taiwan. So

27:59

obviously... attack hands

28:01

in the u s inventory would not

28:03

be of much use in a hypothetical

28:06

matchup against china over taiwan

28:08

because presumably would not

28:10

have bases on time wanted south and and

28:12

will be too far from even open our

28:15

or guam to to be able to reach china

28:18

however they could be a great used

28:20

to taiwan at south so what about this idea

28:23

that we may want to keep a

28:25

large inventory of attack and it's

28:27

so that in the event of potential

28:30

war we could easily ship them to taiwan

28:33

in order to hop taiwan defend itself

28:36

sure so on as

28:38

i noted in my in my graphs

28:40

taiwan does have it happens currently on

28:42

what are they ordered the sixty

28:44

four to begin with and they added

28:47

another twenty two that ah

28:49

order this past year and

28:52

my understanding is that order is

28:54

supposed to start being fulfilled over

28:56

the next year so

28:58

tie wonderfully does want attack and

29:01

as for whether the united states needs dead

29:03

maintain some number in the event that

29:06

they needed to deliver some to taiwan

29:09

i would say that the best time to do that is now

29:11

if they're concerned about that because if you're waiting

29:13

for things to get a little bit more

29:15

heated and you might not have the opportunity

29:18

to to conduct that sort of resupply mission

29:21

if if china is know where to initiate

29:23

military operations ah you

29:25

wouldn't wanna leave it that way to try and get them

29:28

lose missile south the dagens would have

29:30

the most impact in both

29:33

deterrence and and his wealth of the

29:35

time when he's having the ability to fall

29:37

launch since strikes against the too many that

29:39

they they saw and an invasion

29:41

force marshaling so

29:44

if that's if that's a top concern

29:46

congress yeah as given

29:48

that present the authority to execute drawdowns

29:51

to taiwan as well and he recently

29:53

i did as good a drawdown to taiwan of over

29:56

three hundred million dollars and we

29:58

don't know what within that drawdown it wasn't pub released

30:01

which is

30:02

legally fine he just has

30:04

to provide that information

30:06

to Congress and it can be completely classified

30:09

so Congress knows what Taiwan got

30:12

did Taiwan get any

30:14

attack ends through a drawdown I don't know if they

30:16

haven't that's an option that's available to the president

30:19

he could decide that he's gonna fulfill fulfill

30:22

Taiwan's for military sales order

30:25

with the with a drawdown he could do that if he'd

30:27

give them 84 attack them out of the US inventory

30:30

and then the attack ends that are currently being built for

30:32

Taiwan could just be used to backfill the US

30:34

inventory so that's an option available to

30:37

the president if he feels that Taiwan

30:39

needs those missiles immediately and if he

30:41

took that course of option I think that

30:44

there's still enough missiles to go around you can give

30:46

some to Taiwan and he can get some to Ukraine as well

30:48

especially since they

30:51

seem to be considering giving Ukraine these

30:53

cluster munitions attack

30:55

ends which are officially expired anyway so

30:57

wouldn't be part of some Americans

30:59

any of their old plans

31:01

and

31:03

presumably there would be perhaps an

31:05

enhanced deterrent effect as well if

31:07

those missiles are actually used very successfully

31:09

by Ukraine to target certain

31:12

strategic assets in occupying

31:14

Ukraine right that you can actually demonstrate

31:17

the efficacy of this weapon to the Chinese in

31:19

a very prominent fashion

31:21

yeah absolutely I've personally made that case

31:23

about a lot of different weapons systems and I

31:27

shared an article yesterday on my

31:29

feed from the Wall Street Journal of it

31:31

was who noted at the recent

31:34

arms convention in London that all these

31:36

companies were being asked how

31:38

are your weapons performing in Ukraine it's

31:40

a top question that potential

31:42

buyers want to know if these systems

31:44

have actually been combat proven so I

31:46

think it's tremendously beneficial

31:49

both in terms of R&D

31:51

and just learning you know how

31:54

efficacious these

31:56

weapon systems are for your own future

31:58

development programs

31:59

learning what's working, what's not working, but

32:02

just for weapons that you're currently trying

32:04

to sell, proving the efficacy is really

32:07

good for getting potential

32:09

buyers to want to acquire

32:11

those systems. I think. But

32:13

particularly how they function against Russian

32:16

design air defenses, which Chinese have a lot of,

32:18

right? Yes, absolutely.

32:21

I think that the fact that we

32:23

have confirmation that Pac-3

32:26

MSE interceptors

32:28

from the American Patriot system were

32:30

able to successfully intercept Russia's

32:33

Kinzhal missiles, which have been very

32:35

much hyped by the Russians as these sort of

32:37

wonder weapons that can do everything.

32:41

I think the Americans had a pretty good idea that

32:43

it would be able to successfully do that, but it's been

32:46

conclusively proven now that it can. So

32:49

I think Patriot had pretty

32:51

good demand before the war

32:53

and now after the war, there's a lot

32:55

of people that want to buy more Patriot.

32:58

NASAM is another system that's acquitted itself

33:00

very well, Iris T. So

33:03

it's very good for companies

33:06

that are making air defenses, the ones that have acquitted

33:08

themselves well in Ukraine. Those companies are going to have

33:10

a lot of demand for those systems

33:12

in the future, given that they've proven themselves so

33:15

effective against Russian systems. This

33:17

is actually one of the points that the Ukrainian

33:19

Ministry of Defense made to me when I was in

33:21

Kiev earlier this summer,

33:23

is that a lot of these

33:25

weapons provisions are great marketing

33:28

for their manufacturers and for the countries

33:30

where they're built. That

33:32

was one of the points they made to me about the Gripen's, that

33:35

if the Swede wanted to increase sales of Gripen

33:37

aircraft, which they haven't been able to do

33:40

in terms of foreign military sales at all over

33:42

the last decade, showing how they

33:44

can be used against the Russian Air Force and Russian air

33:46

defenses in Ukraine can be a great opportunity

33:48

for them to showcase why the Gripen

33:51

is still a great aircraft. variant,

34:00

which seems like it's a particularly useful

34:03

one.

34:04

Sure. So on the cluster

34:06

munitions during the Bush

34:09

administration, they

34:10

decided against making

34:13

further cluster munitions. And they

34:15

decided that they wanted to actually phase cluster munitions

34:17

out of American inventory because they were

34:20

unhappy with the dead rates of

34:23

those munitions. So

34:25

that was a decision that was made back then. And

34:27

the decision to not procure new

34:31

cluster munitions, cluster

34:34

munitions weapons has persisted

34:36

since then, even though they

34:38

do still remain in American inventory. But by

34:41

policy, the United States won't even use

34:43

any of these weapons if their dead rate exceeds

34:47

a 1% failure rate, which most

34:49

of them likely do because a lot of these are

34:52

old now. And that

34:54

affects that.

34:56

United States has them, but they're not

34:58

using them themselves pursuant to their policy

35:00

and they're not procuring new ones. So I

35:03

think a lot of people have argued that that has not

35:05

been a wise decision to stop procuring

35:08

cluster munitions because they can be very

35:10

effective in certain circumstances, especially

35:13

now as technology improves, I think it's

35:15

possible to achieve lower dead

35:18

rates. So I think that's not

35:20

been a great decision. Just for what

35:22

the production is. So the United

35:24

States is

35:27

delivering over 500

35:30

attack guns still they have on

35:32

order. So those are going to be produced

35:35

over the next year of it. And

35:38

they are finishing their SLUP,

35:42

the Surface Life Extension Program by

35:44

the end of this year. They're

35:46

taking the receipt of

35:48

another 50 missiles by the end of the

35:50

year. And then that program will conclude.

35:52

And they're still very robust foreign

35:55

military sales demand, as I noted, Australia,

35:58

Taiwan,

35:59

Poland wants to buy more, Morocco

36:02

is looking at placing an order and Estonia,

36:05

Lithuania, they also have missiles on

36:08

order so attack comes is going to be Continue

36:10

to get produced for the foreseeable future

36:12

as a lot of countries that have showed renewed

36:15

interest in it So even as PRSM

36:18

comes online Attack comes is still

36:20

going to be produced for the foreseeable future as well

36:23

Great. Well, thank you so much Colby for

36:25

coming on and this really really informative

36:27

discussion We'll link to your threads in

36:29

the show notes and hopefully

36:32

Ukraine can get some of these

36:37

Thank you