Connect with us

Published

on

Artillery strikes are playing a crucial role in Russia’s war in Ukraine in what top American commanders have called a “battle of fires”.

Russia’s military initially had a significant advantage over the Ukrainian armed forces because of a much larger arsenal of artillery systems.

It meant they were able to devastate Ukrainian positions in the east, while staying out of the range of Ukrainian weapons.

The United Kingdom, United States and belatedly Germany have worked to tip the balance of firepower on the battlefield in favour of Ukraine by giving their allies artillery systems that not only have a longer range than the Russians but fire with greater accuracy.

This includes arming Ukrainian troops with multiple-launch rocket systems or MLRS.

Putin loses 4,000 sq km in single week – Ukraine war latest updates

What is an MLRS and what version does the UK use?

More on Ukraine

MLRS stands for “Multiple-Launch Rocket System”, a mobile rocket artillery system that fires multiple surface-to-surface missiles.

The British Army’s Royal Artillery uses the M270 rocket system.

Operated by a crew of three (driver, gunner and section chief), the weapon is a highly-mobile, automatic system that can fire 12 surface-to-surface precision-guided missiles in less than a minute. They can be fired individually or in pairs of two up to 12.

The M31 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) munitions, with a 200lb high explosive warhead, can hit a target more than 50 miles away – twice the range of other artillery systems used by the army.

A programme is underway to extend the reach even further.

A fire control computer ensures accuracy is maintained by re-aiming the launcher between rounds.

The M270 MLRS was developed under a US-led programme that saw the first systems come into service in the 1980s.

The UK first used its MLRS during the First Gulf War

Sky News is the first to be granted permission to film a multiple-launch rocket system given to Ukraine by the UK in action during the war and to meet with the soldiers operating it.
Image:
Sky News is the first to be granted permission to film a multiple-launch rocket system given to Ukraine by the UK

What has the UK given to Ukraine to bolster its firepower?

The UK has given a total of six MLRS to Ukraine, as well as precision guided M31A1 missiles.

The first tranche of three was announced in June 2022, with Defence Secretary Ben Wallace saying the system would “help the country defend itself against Russian aggression”.

A new commitment to double the UK’s contribution was made two months later.

Rockets being launched at Russian forces
Image:
Rockets being launched at Russian forces

Read more:
Czechs donate £1.1m to buy Soviet-era tank
Ukraine forces Russian troops out of key city

Why does Ukraine want MLRS?

The UK MLRS and a similar artillery system provided to Ukraine by the US, called the High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS), have a longer range, much better precision and a faster rate of fire compared with Soviet-designed Smerch, Uragan and Tornado multiple rocket launchers used by both Russia and Ukraine.

Germany has given the Ukrainians its version – MARS II rocket launchers as well as hundreds of rockets.

It means that Ukrainian troops are able to hit Russian positions – including armoured vehicles, military bases, command posts and ammunition stores – with accuracy and with a reduced risk of being struck in Russian return fire.

The Russian military is forced to use large numbers of rounds against a target to compensate for a lack of precision with their weapons.

The UK M31A1 missiles have been designed to defend against Russian heavy artillery and the MLRS’s range of more than 50 miles allows Ukraine to strike beyond Russian lines, while also putting it out of reach of most Russian artillery systems.

Western leaders have so far have refrained from providing Ukraine with even longer-range missiles for launchers that can reach targets up to 186 miles, allowing the military to hit areas deep inside Russian territory.

Does Russia have MLRS?

Russia has its own multiple launch rocket system: the 9K58 Smerch 300mm MLRS. It fires the 300mm 9M55K rocket and has a range of between 12 and 43 miles.

Smerch was developed in the early 1980s and entered service with the Russian Army in 1988.

It is also used by the militaries of India, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus and Ukraine, and was exported to Kuwait and Algeria.

Sky News is the first to be granted permission to film a multiple-launch rocket system given to Ukraine by the UK in action during the war and to meet with the soldiers operating it.

What is the difference between MLRS and HIMARS?

HIMARS can fire the same family of munitions as MLRS launchers but with one key difference: a wheeled chassis instead of tracks.

The tracks on the MLRS make the system highly mobile, with a max speed of 40mph.

This means the launchers are hard for the enemy to spot and can quickly change position after firing to escape airstrikes, in what has become known as a “shoot and scoot” strategy.

What are the disadvantages of MLRS?

Ukraine says the number of rocket launcher systems being provided by Western leaders is still far too small.

In June, Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Ukraine’s president, said the country needs at least 300 MLRS, 1,000 heavy howitzers, 500 tanks and 2,000 armoured vehicles – much more than the West has provided.

As well as giving the Ukrainian military rocket-launchers, the UK has also trained a number of Ukrainian troops on how to operate the system.

Continue Reading

World

Trump warns Hamas – and claims Israel has agreed to 60-day ceasefire in Gaza

Published

on

By

Trump warns Hamas - and claims Israel has agreed to 60-day ceasefire in Gaza

Analysis: Many unanswered questions remain

In the long Gaza war, this is a significant moment.

For the people of Gaza, for the hostages and their families – this could be the moment it ends. But we have been here before, so many times.

The key question – will Hamas accept what Israel has agreed to: a 60-day ceasefire?

At the weekend, a source at the heart of the negotiations told me: “Both Hamas and Israel are refusing to budge from their position – Hamas wants the ceasefire to last until a permanent agreement is reached. Israel is opposed to this. At this point only President Trump can break this deadlock.”

The source added: “Unless Trump pushes, we are in a stalemate.”

The problem is that the announcement made now by Donald Trump – which is his social-media-summarised version of whatever Israel has actually agreed to – may just amount to Israel’s already-established position.

We don’t know the details and conditions attached to Israel’s proposals.

Would Israeli troops withdraw from Gaza? Totally? Or partially? How many Palestinian prisoners would they agree to release from Israel’s jails? And why only 60 days? Why not a total ceasefire? What are they asking of Hamas in return? We just don’t know the answers to any of these questions, except one.

We do know why Israel wants a 60-day ceasefire, not a permanent one. It’s all about domestic politics.

If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to agree now to a permanent ceasefire, the extreme right-wingers in his coalition would collapse his government.

Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have both been clear about their desire for the war to continue. They hold the balance of power in Mr Netanyahu’s coalition.

If Mr Netanyahu instead agrees to just 60 days – which domestically he can sell as just a pause – then that may placate the extreme right-wingers for a few weeks until the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, is adjourned for the summer.

It is also no coincidence that the US president has called for Mr Netanyahu’s corruption trial to be scrapped.

Without the prospect of jail, Mr Netanyahu might be more willing to quit the war safe in the knowledge that focus will not shift immediately to his own political and legal vulnerability.

Continue Reading

World

Women’s Euros: Extreme heat warnings in place as tournament kicks off

Published

on

By

Women's Euros: Extreme heat warnings in place as tournament kicks off

The Women’s Euros begin in Switzerland today – with extreme heat warnings in place.

Security measures have had to be relaxed by UEFA for the opening matches so fans can bring in water bottles.

Temperatures could be about 30C (86F) when the Swiss hosts open their campaign against Norway in Basel this evening.

Players have already seen the impact of heatwaves this summer at the men’s Club World Cup in the US.

Players take a drink during a training session of Spain soccer team at the Euro 2025, in Lausanne, Switzerland Tuesday, July 1, 2025 Pic: AP
Image:
The Spain squad pauses for refreshments during a training session. Pic: AP

It is raising new concerns in the global players’ union about whether the stars of the sport are being protected in hot and humid conditions.

FIFPRO has asked FIFA to allow cooling breaks every 15 minutes rather than just in the 30th minute of each half.

There’s also a request for half-time to be extended from 15 to 20 minutes to help lower the core temperature of players.

More on Football

FIFPRO’s medical director, Dr Vincent Gouttebarge, said: “There are some very challenging weather conditions that we anticipated a couple of weeks ago already, that was already communicated to FIFA.

“And I think the past few weeks were confirmation of all worries that the heat conditions will play a negative role for the performance and the health of the players.”

Football has seemed focused on players and fans baking in the Middle East – but scorching summers in Europe and the US are becoming increasingly problematic for sport.

Chloe Kelly celebrates with Beth Mead, right, after scoring her side's sixth goal at Wembley Stadium, in London, Friday, May 30, 2025. AP
Image:
England are the tournament’s defending champions. Pic: AP

While climate change is a factor, the issue is not new and at the 1994 World Cup, players were steaming as temperatures rose in the US.

There is now more awareness of the need for mitigation measures among players and their international union.

FIFPRO feels football officials weren’t responsive when it asked for kick-off times to be moved from the fierce afternoon heat in the US for the first 32-team Club World Cup.

FIFA has to balance the needs of fans and broadcasters with welfare, with no desire to load all the matches in the same evening time slots.

Electric storms have also seen six games stopped, including a two-hour pause during a Chelsea game at the weekend.

This is the dress rehearsal for the World Cup next summer, which is mostly in the US.

Players are also feeling the heat at the Club World Cup in the US. Pic: AP
Image:
Players are also feeling the heat at the Club World Cup. Pic: AP

The use of more indoor, air conditioned stadiums should help.

There is no prospect of moving the World Cup to winter, as Qatar had to do in 2022.

And looking further ahead to this time in 2030, there will be World Cup matches in Spain, Portugal and Morocco. The temperatures this week have been hitting 40C (104F) in some host cities.

Read more:
Ex-England boss receives knighthood
Football star mural unveiled

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Wildfires erupt in Italy and France amid heatwave

FIFA said in a statement to Sky News: “Heat conditions are a serious topic that affect football globally.

“At the FCWC some significant and progressive measures are being taken to protect the players from the heat. For instance, cooling breaks were implemented in 31 out of 54 matches so far.

“Discussions on how to deal with heat conditions need to take place collectively and FIFA stands ready to facilitate this dialogue, including through the Task Force on Player Welfare, and to receive constructive input from all stakeholders on how to further enhance heat management.

“In all of this, the protection of players must be at the centre.”

Continue Reading

World

Trump’s USAID cuts could lead to 14 million deaths, report warns

Published

on

By

Trump's USAID cuts could lead to 14 million deaths, report warns

Around 14 million people could die across the world over the next five years because of cuts to the US Agency for International Development (USAID), researchers have warned.

Children under five are expected to make up around a third (4.5 million) of the mortalities, according to a study published in The Lancet medical journal.

Estimates showed that “unless the abrupt funding cuts announced and implemented in the first half of 2025 are reversed, a staggering number of avoidable deaths could occur by 2030”.

“Beyond causing millions of avoidable deaths – particularly among the most vulnerable – these cuts risk reversing decades of progress in health and socioeconomic development in LMICs [low and middle-income countries],” the report said.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

March: ‘We are going to lose children’: Fears over USAID cuts in Kenya

USAID programmes have prevented the deaths of more than 91 million people, around a third of them among children, the study suggests.

The agency’s work has been linked to a 65% fall in deaths from HIV/AIDS, or 25.5 million people.

Eight million deaths from malaria, more than half the total, around 11 million from diarrheal diseases and nearly five million from tuberculosis (TB), have also been prevented.

USAID has been vital in improving global health, “especially in LMICs, particularly African nations,” according to the report.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Queer HIV activist on Trump and Musk’s USAID cuts

Established in 1961, the agency was tasked with providing humanitarian assistance and helping economic growth in developing countries, especially those deemed strategic to Washington.

But the Trump administration has made little secret of its antipathy towards the agency, which became an early victim of cuts carried out by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – formerly led by Elon Musk – in what the US government said was part of a broader plan to remove wasteful spending.

Read more:
USAID explained
USAID ‘a bowl of worms’ – Musk

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

What is USAID?

In March, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said more than 80% of USAID schemes had been closed following a six-week review, leaving around 1,000 active.

The US is the world’s largest humanitarian aid donor, providing around $61bn (£44bn) in foreign assistance last year, according to government data, or at least 38% of the total, and USAID is the world’s leading donor for humanitarian and development aid, the report said.

Between 2017 and 2020, the agency responded to more than 240 natural disasters and crises worldwide – and in 2016 it sent food assistance to more than 53 million people across 47 countries.

The study assessed all-age and all-cause mortality rates in 133 countries and territories, including all those classified as low and middle-income, supported by USAID from 2001 to 2021.

Continue Reading

Trending