Russia initially invaded Ukraine in 2014 and caused a near collapse of its military from the destabilisation in Crimea and the Donbas region.
Learning lessons from the decades of corruption, pro-Russian collaborators, and Western indecision, Kyiv prepared its homegrown defence industry.
Ukraine has remained active while receiving large quantities of logistics from the West. Preparing their country to become Europe’s next military superpower, Ukraine has developed military capabilities that have successfully targeted essential Russian supply and command centres. One such weapon in Ukraine’s arsenal is their new 700km weapon.
This article is the opinion of the authors and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
On August 31st, in a public broadcast, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that Kyiv successfully struck a military target 700km away with a new long-range weapon. Though not specifying where the attack occurred, Ukraine has frequently hit targets inside Russia throughout the summer.
According to Zelensky’s telegram, this new weapon is produced by Ukraine’s Ministry of Strategic Industries. Recent attacks against strategic targets located deep within Russia, such as the Pskov airbase and factories in Saint Petersburg and Moscow, suggest the missile could’ve been involved in one of those targets.
From the backdrop of Russia’s initial success in annexing Crimea and stocking the flames in the Donbas region, Ukraine restructured their defensive posture and prepared for the inevitable full-fledged invasion. Focusing on tackling corruption and returning to the roots of innovations that Ukrainians are known for, Kyiv concentrates on a state arms industry while lobbying for support.
Ukroboronprom, the current state arms producer, has led innovations during the ongoing war. Aside from the new undisclosed 700km weapon, Ukroboronprom introduced armed aerial drones with a range of 1000 km and seaborne drones up to 1200km, respectively.
Russian weapons depots, logistical centers, cargo ships, military barracks, and vital airfields such as Engels have all been successfully targeted thanks to Ukrainian adaptation and innovation.
Ukraine’s introduction of long-range missiles will have a vital impact on the war going forward. During Russia’s ongoing invasion, Ukraine is currently supplied with the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) with a range of 82 km. Kyiv will also be provided with the Ground Launched Small Diameter Bomb (GLSDB) later this year with a range of 150 km.
Alongside the current Storm-Shadow and SCALP missiles from the UK and France, the 700 homegrown KM bombs will strengthen deep target strikes.
Russian logistics for their invasion are located on their western border and occupied Crimea. Rostov, where the Russian Ministry of Defense commands the war and allocated wartime supplies, is currently within range of this new weapon.
Mass production of the new long-range arsenal would mean further degradation of Russian logistics and command and control sites, as most of their war effort is now within the scope of the overall battlefield. Already prioritizing air defence systems against Ukrainian drone attacks in Moscow, introducing the new drone or missile gives Kyiv a vital opportunity to put the Russian-occupied territories within firing range, including the Kerch Bridge and headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea.
Supplementing Western military aid with its homegrown defence industry, Ukraine has successfully bypassed geopolitical indecision from its partners and allies. Putin has used threats of nuclear war and energy blackmail to hope for concessions from world leaders as the Kremlin looks to prolong the invasion, hoping Western aid will wane.
Whereas NATO countries restrict their weapons from being used inside Russian territory, Ukrainian homemade weaponry has no such clause. Kyiv now has an option of bypassing geopolitical bureaucracy as there are no Western blueprints of components on state-owned weaponry. Therefore, allied nations can disavow any Ukrainian operations on Russian territory as the Kremlin knows it can no longer hide Ukrainian adaptation and resilience.
With the new long-range missile alongside their aerial and seaborne drones, Ukraine has a failsafe option of continuous deep strikes on key Russian targets if Western aid were to slow in lieu of political pressure, such as the all-important 2024 US presidential elections and the potentially harmful political consequences of it.
Overall, introducing a homegrown 700km weapon is a potential game changer in the war in Ukraine. Still, it also shows the innovations and engineering of Ukrainians, who, even under heavy pressure, continue to adapt and overcome one of the most formidable militaries today.
Nothing like the invasion of your country to stimulate military innovation
And they need to do it themselves as the Germans continue to say ‘no’ to Taurus, The UK does not have a limitless supply of Storm Shadow and the Americans continue to prevaricate about longer ranged ATCMS.
Optimistically the Russians will cave at some point, but at present it is not obvious. This could be a long war which the Russians are readying for, is the rest of the world?
Content to be told I am wrong.’
I’m hoping that sending them cluster 155s and ATACMs will open the door to sending M26 variant unguided rockets for M270s and HIMARs. each of these carry 518-644 cluster munitions up to a range of 45kms and the US has well over 100,000- some counts say up to 400,000- Obama had ordered their destruction but luckily the next administration ordered that halted, and the US army always seems to have trouble finding money to dispose of such weapons so drags their feet, which is why they still have about 3.5 million 155mm DPICMs sitting in depots and a few hundred M39 ATACMs that have been ‘retired’ for well over a decade. but being able to do massed volleys of these would be a game-changer- i hate that word but it really would make life hell for any more offensives russia has planned and can clear entire gridsquares when pushing the ukr count-offensive. similar to how russia used their inferior grad rocket barrages at the very beginning of the invasion.
I think the west is playing a lot of headgames with the Russians. There is no way in my mind that an ‘expired’ (thats how its counted in US army inventory) M39 which hasn’t had maintenance in probably 2 decades was able to get pulled out of a depot and doing its job on a russian airfield within a few weeks- with a ukrainian crew fully trained on using it. I think the whole time they were telling the Russians they weren’t sending the missiles they were refurbing them with the intention all along to send them. These type of missiles require regular overhaul and checks- replacing batteries, electrical nodes, testing INS, rocket fuel issues etc… thats a lot of work. Unfortunately the newer ATACMs, which there are only a little over a thousand are too important for the Pacific. There was interesting testing years back about adding an active seeker allowing it to target moving targets including ships- I would not be surprised if this was done as the US was found themselves in a complete mess in the anti-ship business considering how fast china was expanding, but to their credit they’ve got a lot of systems now in service or coming on line. Unfortunately the replacement for the ATACMs is just now coming on line with the PrSM but it’ll be at least a year before it enters full scale production.
There was some talk that the cluster 155’s may have shown poor performance against dismounted personnel. Great against static equipment – especially AD units. Not sure what doctrine directs main usage against. To be honest arty isn’t my strong point.
It will really depend on the explosive contents of the bomblets and what the kill/injured radius is. I think anyone in the open is going to suffer badly when the bomblets come in.
The cluster is another tool in the box to work along side normal artillery.
Artillery is killing and injuring the most by quite a lead.
Hi M.S. The main factor is the nature of the ground around the dispersal area. If it’s soft, the bomblets may or may not detonate and if they do the effects are mitigated by the dampening effect of the mud/soil. When the submunitions land on a hard surface then it’s a different kettle of fish. Depending on specific type, the submunitions can have a lethal radius of c. 25m and often fall much closer together in real life, so kiss yer arse goodnight.
Do they not air burst? I don’t know enough about the cluster sub munitions. I think single warhead munitions have different options for when to explode
Hi MS,
Submunitions are released/dispensed at height, usually by an explosive charge splitting the skin of the carrier. A unitary or single warhead like the M31 has a range of options;
Airburst – High (c. 10m), Airburst Low (c. 5m). Point detonate. Delay Shallow (c. 1m) and delay deep (c. 3m) all programmed via the fire control system. The delay options are particularly useful for use on buildings.
Cheers
Excellent news. Too bad it took so long. The U.S. could have helped out here last year and it might have made a significant impact.
We will fight them on the beaches …
We will never surrender…
We will go on to the end..
©1941 Winston Spenser Churchill
Slava Ukraine! Slava Heroyam!
#StandWithUkraine 🇺🇦
We forget how brilliant the Ukrainian engineers are. They designed and built the Antinov aircraft during the Cold War, plus many other leading bits of military hardware
It has taken a long time to develop this capability by Ukraine. They need to do more in the domestic industry to accelerate the end of this war.
Given strife with Russia has been going on so long, I wonder why it took so long for the Ukraine to take the Eastern threat seriously? They seemed truly surprised by Russia’s invasion despite the military build up.
Similarly, where was the investment in anti-air defences, long range missiles and artillery beforehand? I understand that no nation except China, sitting on Russia’s door step could hope to match Russia but we can turn our eyes to Finland and Sweden and see nations which did take the threat seriously and did prepare – why not Ukraine?
Poland started ramping up their defences a decade ago and they are members of NATO, why not Ukraine?
I hope Ukraine can battle the Russians to a halt and drive them out of their lands and that the coalition of the willing remains true but I think there are serious questions about politics and government in Ukraine that need to be asked after this war has been won.
Good for Ukraine, they are diversifying, learning the lessons from the war and are developing ingenious indigenous solutions to their war material requirements.
I think the lessons for the UK are that you fight wars with the equipment, personnel and resources to hand and ready. It’s a huge lesson the UK government are ignoring at their own peril, choosing to rely on allies to support us when we should have sovereign capability and adequate numbers to hand.
With the Tories crashing the economy and having zero plan for investment, building up critical national infrastructure or growing the economy to fund the armed forces we really are in a perilous state.
It would seem that Ukraine didn’t think Russia would go for a full scale invasion. I don’t think many actually thought it would happen even when forces were building up.
Even Russia was saying it was just training right up to the last minute
They had relied on Soviet weapons, even those produced in Ukraine would have been sorely affected by Russian refusal to supply parts for many years. So they would have needed to replace with Western items both in redesigns and new weapons. I suspect few were willing to do much visibly to re supply them with alternatives fearing implications with Russian which must have made developing their own autonomous defence industry vital yes but slow and difficult to achieve and finances were hardly overflowing. Even in the war Western arms have been often difficult to obtain due to the escalation trope. Equally just think upon the fact Ukraine may have built the Soviet aircraft carriers but that doesn’t mean it’s able to build its own warships now or any time soon. A whole industrial complex is outdated and outmoded and needs massive investment while the most heavily military industrialised parts of Ukraine were in what’s now the war zone in the East and other parts are and have been heavily bombed. It’s amazing what they are achieving considering the troubled birth pangs of a free Ukraine over the past ten to fifteen years, hell we have delays that long.
You have spot remember Ukraine is a very poor nation with a gdp of 200 billion dollars that’s about what the UK spends on the NHS.
Killing Russian soldiers and destroying military hardware may win the war, but however the war ends Ukraine will still have to deal with 140 million brainwashed Russians determined to eradicate Ukraine.
Efforts to inform and persuade through propaganda may yield bigger victories.
That assumes that Russia will mobilise it whole population and that they are all willing to fight. Which they are not.
So far Russia has mostly taken people that live a rather 19th century life. Most don’t have internet so are quite uninformed to the actual situation. As the graves are mounting up even these folks will be less keen.
Taking people from the European cities will be much more difficult
A good succinct piece, with a clear argument.
Thank you.