Key Points:

• F-16s with JASSMs could deter Russian actions by expanding Ukraine’s operational range.
• The potential of these weapons might be more impactful as a deterrent than their actual use.
• The situation is still unfolding, with challenges in U.S. approval and timely delivery.
• While the defense sector is capturing attention in 2025, the smart money is already looking to “the next Nvidia” for 2025’s biggest winners. Access the report for free now.

Austin and Michael wrap up their discussion by delving into the importance of JASSMs (Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles) for Ukraine, especially when compared to the shorter-range ATACMS. They explore how JASSMs could significantly enhance Ukraine’s strategic position by expanding the range of targets and forcing Russia to defend more areas. Michael emphasizes that the threat of JASSMs could be more impactful than their actual use, as it denies Russia freedom of movement and helps Ukraine seize the initiative. They also discuss the ongoing challenges in securing and deploying these capabilities, noting that while the potential impact of JASSMs and F-16s is significant, the situation remains fluid and uncertain.

Watch the Video

Edited Video Transcript:

I wanted to, could we just end a little bit?

You had touched on something and why the F-Thirty-Five is so important.

I’m sorry, the F-Sixteen is so important for Ukraine.

And one of them is the ability to carry JASSMs, and that is J-A-S-S-M, Joint Air Surface to Standoff Missile, I believe, compared to ATACMS.

Now, ATACMS, A-T-A-C-M-S, I believe, are shorter-range missiles that were very, very important when Ukraine first received them to keeping Russia at bay.

But Ukraine does not, they do not have the range of JASSMs, and Ukraine has been limited in their ability to use them over Russian lines.

So can you please talk about the, I know we’re a little off script here, but the capabilities and the differences between a JASSM and an ATACMS and what that does for Ukraine, assuming full capability, which is a huge asterisk.

And as we’ve seen, every donation or every gift to Ukraine militarily has come from Western nations with strings attached.

So we’re not being naive here.

We’re not saying that Ukraine will be able to do whatever they want with JASSMs, but we are looking at a clearly more capable armament.

Can we please compare them to ATACMS, which have played such an important role for Ukraine?

Yeah, well, again, it’s not just what they can do, it’s the threat of what they can do that’s really important.

So if you just take a map and you draw like a circle of kind of the operational range of an F-Sixteen equipped with such long-range munitions, then Russia is going to have to preemptively move against that threat.

So they can’t just have it all their own way.

So we talked about the importance of seizing the initiative.

So a lot of things are going to be vulnerable.

And even if they aren’t directly under threat, that is going to reduce the operational efficiency of what Russian forces can do in the east and then further in line.

That also brings a lot of infrastructure at risk, you know.

So that’s sort of the…

And again, this…

Again, a huge, huge asterisk here, because directly attacking, you know, a nation’s economy and its infrastructure is not exactly…

It’s frowned upon in the international court, but again, desperate times, desperate measures.

But they can really slow down the Russian war machine, the Russian economy.

Again, if you’re fighting for your very survival, you’ve got to do whatever you can to survive.

But it just really opens up a range of targets.

And then Russia is going to have to expend a lot of resources just to simply defend those things or just move them back.

And again, some things cannot be moved.

So it just really opens up a lot of possibilities that just weren’t there before.

So the other munitions, which have much shorter range, obviously, they can be countered a lot easier.

But when you have much longer range, and with the JASSMs, they’re really difficult to detect as well once they’re fired.

They have a great deal of precision.

So that is just a real headache for Moscow to deal with.

So I just think the main takeaway, just to conclude, is just the range of possibilities is greatly expanded by a JASSM versus the other type of munitions.

And we don’t need to go far to see that strategy being effective for Ukraine in the past.

You know, I forget the exact region, but there’s, you know, I think it was a, there’s a town a couple of miles from Bakhmut that Russia recently retreated simply because they were now in range of some greater Ukrainian capability.

So it doesn’t mean that Ukraine had to use them to gain control of that city.

Simply having the capability to do it can create an environment where you can gain control more easily.

So, again, this is all nuanced and, you know, we’re armchair quarterbacking an extremely complicated situation here.

But the point is that the JASSMs, you know, your point is well received, that the capability they represent may actually be more important than their actual application.

It’s about denying freedom of movement and seizing the initiative, I think.

You know, if we’re going to have a tagline that’s just…

If nothing else, Russia is not going to have it all their own way.

And that’s really key to Ukraine’s strategy going forward.

We’re really speculating here.

They don’t have them yet is another thing I really want to point out.

Negotiations are underway.

We’re talking about a developing situation.

I think the agreements are all in place.

But as we talked about at the top of our discussion, know it’s a pretty difficult thing to get a lot of these bills through Congress right now, so it really remains to be seen.

But if they do get it, that really does open up things, but they are going to have to get the…

The fear could be that is it too little too late with regard to the F-sixteen because they’re just…

Right now, it’s just a handful.

So there are a lot of hurdles they have to overcome.

We’re kind of looking a lot further down the line.

And we’re just assuming, of course, Ukraine is still going to be in this conflict.

But it’s not a silver bullet, but it is going to be a key part of any favorable outcome for Ukraine in this conflict.

Michael, thank you very much for that context.

I appreciate it.

We always appreciate your perspective.

And the disclaimer for our listeners that we are discussing a developing situation and potential outcomes.

None of these are certain.

We don’t mean to project them as such, but we really appreciate your time and your expertise.

Thank you for helping us understand this.

And of course, everything that we just talked about with F-sixteens and JASSMs and the new capabilities potentially coming to the Ukraine-Russian conflict.

Will also be affected by things we spoke about earlier and bipartisanship in the US Senate and the House and all the way up to the presidency.

And what happens there will flow through which restrictions are placed on Ukraine and how many funds and resources they get and which sort of NATO capabilities they are granted.

Although NATO is a multinational organization, it is still largely, let’s say, influenced and funded by the United States in many ways.

So it is an extremely complicated and developing topic, but we do appreciate you helping us unpack and consider the different angles here.

Thank you so much for your time.

Anytime.

Thank you for reading! Have some feedback for us?
Contact the 24/7 Wall St. editorial team.