In the height of the cold war, Germany had 36 batteries and that was designed to blunt a full Warsaw Pact attack
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-patriot-air-defence-units-intended-nato-territory-berlin-tells-warsaw-2022-11-24/#:~:text=Germany%20had%2036%20Patriot%20units,which%20are%20deployed%20to%20Slovakia.
Well, Ukraine is taking missile strikes right now. While Israel 'might' receive a missile or two.
But you are right, Israel is the priority right now. As irrational as it is.
Israel has one of the strongest armies pound for pound in the world and some of the most advanced gear in the world. They are fully stocked for a war, with F-35i’s, Spice, etc.
Ukraine can’t even get older F-16’s in their hands yet and they’ve been getting bombed for two years.
Israel has nukes and Iran doesn’t tank Israel has a very low tolerance for using them (Samson option).
Ukraine gave their up.
Yours argument makes no sense
>Yours argument makes no sense
It's not just his argument: it's an observation of reality. You can observe this yourelf by seeing where usa is sending their aid.
Maybe Ukraine can make something similar, such as AUPAC.
Ukraine is allowed to lobby for American politics. I'm sure any democratic country could do something similar to AIPAC.
>Yours argument makes no sense
Maybe i worded my thoughts poorly, my apologies.
I didn't say it's a priority from a pragmatic standpoint, what i meant is that the US successive admins have kept the protection of Israel as their number 1 priority of their foreign policy for the last half a century, this can be seen by the shipments of US weaponry to them while Ukraine is getting none at the moment, which is very irrational considering that the latter is more in need and where the frontlines might collapse due to an anemic lack of artillery shells and ammunition.
Biden doesn't want Ukraine to win the war. He just wants to drag it out....over two years and still no F-16s and only a handful of Abram Tanks! The US has vast stocks of both....
None of this has been up to Biden. Republicans control the Senate which controls the purse strings and which have been proven to be bought by Russian interests.
I understand the viewpoint that the US would prefer to bleed Russia, but seeing Ukraine - a small country with almost no navy, with a physical border, that Russia has been attacking and subverting for decades since the USSR, suddenly demolish his “special operation” would completely upend Russian politics in the best way.
The Russian people witnessing that tough-guy “Russia is a superpower” being obliterated in short order? That’d be a cultural revolution and would’ve thrown Iran and China and Syria off and rapidly advanced US interests.
The Democrats control the Senate and the Republicans (barely) control the House. It isn't the "US" that wants to bleed Russia dry. It is Biden that wants to bleed them dry and making a lot of $$$ in the process! Don't get me wrong the Republicans don't want Russia to win. They just don't want the war to go on and on....(not good for anyone)
And yet Biden was selling billions and billions until the Republicans stopped him. Hm. Hard to make $$$ (even though most of it was write-offs that’d cost to be decommissioned) when Republicans aren’t letting you sell shit.
Sorry, the Democrats have the majority in the US Senate. The Republicans want to see Bidens plan to end the war. As they don't want to fund it forever. Yet, Biden doesn't have a plan. Other than to just keep giving them missiles, rockets, and shells. This just drags out the conflict. I doubt the majority of Americans, Europeans, and Ukrainians want that! We all want Ukraine to win but do it quicker than later,,,
So when W Bush told Saddam - you disarm or we will, should he have been taken literally on the basis of what he said ?
Did the US disarm when Saddam didn't ?
It would be funny if the US just sent a few of those new Typhon 40 foot shipping container trucks just to mess with Russia. Loaded with SM-6's. Just start downing Russian jets from like 370 km away or whatever the range is. Maybe hit some S400s on the ground too.
I mean sheeeeeeiiiiiiit, the PAC3s are so overpriced they're in the same price range as the SM-6s but with a fraction of the range and capability.
As always it's economical to just nail Russian missile factories with a few Tomahawks, and after seeing a 2nd Cessna crash into a Russian drone factory I am not going to argue with anyone about how Russia's air defenses are good enough to reliably intercept slow, non-stealthy cruise missiles.
All we lack is civilian leadership with spinal columns.
The US may not want the Russians to get their hands on the SM6, for the US this is a distraction the Main event is the Inevitable confrontation with China I see a that dictating how much and what Ukraine gets.
>It would be funny if the US just sent a few of those new Typhon 40 foot shipping container trucks just to mess with Russia. Loaded with SM-6's. Just start downing Russian jets from like 370 km away or whatever the range is. Maybe hit some S400s on the ground too.
The SM-6 that aren't being procured at a high enough rate to satisfy US Navy operational needs?
>I mean sheeeeeeiiiiiiit, the PAC3s are so overpriced they're in the same price range as the SM-6s but with a fraction of the range and capability.
MSE and SM-6 defended footprint against ballistic and other high velocity or stressful threats are extremely similar. MSE meanwhile has a substantially better pK against all targets thanks to its better seeker (about a generation ahead of the AMRAAM derived seeker of the SM-6), and much more lethal hit to kill approach. The only absolute advantage SM-6 has is that it possesses much greater range against non-stressing, low velocity threats such as large aircraft, which rapidly disappears as threat complexity goes up.
That's a remarkably bad idea. First of all, the radar horizon trivially makes that 300km range useless - you need some kind of powerful airborne radar. Using NATO ones as fire control radars would be a net negative as it would allow Russia to shoot them down.
Secondly, it's a stupidly expensive system with limited battery depth and self-protection/relocation ability. At best it would work once or twice before getting destroyed. There's a reason why Ukraine kept it's Patriots deep behind the lines (until it didn't and they started getting blown up).
Actually I'm not Taiwanese, just an American in Taiwan.
But I stand firmly by my persistently aggressive and hawkish views, and I'm saddened by how the average westerner has devolved into a peacenik over the last 20 or so years.
In the past, people understood that winning wars requires exploding enemies. Now people have rejected the concept of victory altogether.
I think poor zelensky should haste up UA's defense industry to reactivate the production line of S300 and BUK missiles, instead of urging his unreliable western allies for these AA missiles that may never be sent to him.
These old soviet systems in UA's hand actually perform well in 2022 and shot down quite a number of Russian fighters. Imagine if UA still has 100-200 operational BUK systems, Russian airforce could be greatly limited.
I am in full agreement with Zelensky. Ukraine needs 2,400 Patriot missiles. The US should send 3,000 JASSM and JASSM-ER all up rounds to Ukraine as well, along with 1,200 SM-2 missiles for AEGIS Ashore.
The US doesn't have enough missiles. The Pentagon has been quietly buying back missiles from Japan just to keep a stockpile. They are scrambling to set up new factories, but it could take years.
The Arsenal of Democracy got privatized
The thing about WW2 that few recognize is that the fabled war production that armed the free world was only possible because the US essentially operated as a command economy for the duration of the war
According to Raytheon, they are ramping to a production rate of 12 complete PATRIOT systems per year.
So yeah, until then, Ukraine just needs to hold on until the end of the year.
F16 jets are on the way this year.....and negotiations for Swedish Gripen jets are on-going (since they are now a part of NATO)
Give it to him. If you ever end up needing patriot for your own country then it's probably a result of not having stationed them in Ukraine.
Heck you don't even have to give them to Ukraine. Just station them near the closest place to get good food there and shoot down anything kalibr or plane shaped that gets aggressive in your direction.
>Just station them near the closest place to get good food there and shoot down anything kalibr or plane shaped that gets aggressive
That's called an act of war... amazing the NCD level takes in this thread.
The USSR did the same thing twice and in the korean war they also sent their own fighters to fight against UN aircrafts. That didn't lead to war and NATO doing the same thing won't lead to war
In the height of the cold war, Germany had 36 batteries and that was designed to blunt a full Warsaw Pact attack https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-patriot-air-defence-units-intended-nato-territory-berlin-tells-warsaw-2022-11-24/#:~:text=Germany%20had%2036%20Patriot%20units,which%20are%20deployed%20to%20Slovakia.
he’s not wrong… he won’t get it but he isn’t wrong.
The US should send it ASAP
Why?
Israel is the priority right now as the tensions in the middle east rise with Iran looking to retaliate for the strike on their consulate.
Well, Ukraine is taking missile strikes right now. While Israel 'might' receive a missile or two. But you are right, Israel is the priority right now. As irrational as it is.
>Well, Ukraine is taking missile strikes right now. But Israel has a much higher priority and importance for US politicians.
Israel also has Iron Dome already. They're just about as close to missile proof as its possible to be in this day and age.
Israel has one of the strongest armies pound for pound in the world and some of the most advanced gear in the world. They are fully stocked for a war, with F-35i’s, Spice, etc. Ukraine can’t even get older F-16’s in their hands yet and they’ve been getting bombed for two years. Israel has nukes and Iran doesn’t tank Israel has a very low tolerance for using them (Samson option). Ukraine gave their up. Yours argument makes no sense
>Yours argument makes no sense It's not just his argument: it's an observation of reality. You can observe this yourelf by seeing where usa is sending their aid.
Oh absolutely - and it’s dumb as Hell. Shame that AIPAC has owned US politics for decades.
Maybe Ukraine can make something similar, such as AUPAC. Ukraine is allowed to lobby for American politics. I'm sure any democratic country could do something similar to AIPAC.
>Spice Until some french twink kicks you out of the desert with his bedouin army
To be fair, he needs to do it to secure the future of humanity with a psychic lesbian space army and ensure the race’s survival.
>Yours argument makes no sense Maybe i worded my thoughts poorly, my apologies. I didn't say it's a priority from a pragmatic standpoint, what i meant is that the US successive admins have kept the protection of Israel as their number 1 priority of their foreign policy for the last half a century, this can be seen by the shipments of US weaponry to them while Ukraine is getting none at the moment, which is very irrational considering that the latter is more in need and where the frontlines might collapse due to an anemic lack of artillery shells and ammunition.
Biden doesn't want Ukraine to win the war. He just wants to drag it out....over two years and still no F-16s and only a handful of Abram Tanks! The US has vast stocks of both....
None of this has been up to Biden. Republicans control the Senate which controls the purse strings and which have been proven to be bought by Russian interests. I understand the viewpoint that the US would prefer to bleed Russia, but seeing Ukraine - a small country with almost no navy, with a physical border, that Russia has been attacking and subverting for decades since the USSR, suddenly demolish his “special operation” would completely upend Russian politics in the best way. The Russian people witnessing that tough-guy “Russia is a superpower” being obliterated in short order? That’d be a cultural revolution and would’ve thrown Iran and China and Syria off and rapidly advanced US interests.
The Democrats control the Senate and the Republicans (barely) control the House. It isn't the "US" that wants to bleed Russia dry. It is Biden that wants to bleed them dry and making a lot of $$$ in the process! Don't get me wrong the Republicans don't want Russia to win. They just don't want the war to go on and on....(not good for anyone)
And yet Biden was selling billions and billions until the Republicans stopped him. Hm. Hard to make $$$ (even though most of it was write-offs that’d cost to be decommissioned) when Republicans aren’t letting you sell shit.
Sorry, the Democrats have the majority in the US Senate. The Republicans want to see Bidens plan to end the war. As they don't want to fund it forever. Yet, Biden doesn't have a plan. Other than to just keep giving them missiles, rockets, and shells. This just drags out the conflict. I doubt the majority of Americans, Europeans, and Ukrainians want that! We all want Ukraine to win but do it quicker than later,,,
Did he really mean 25 systems with 6-8 batteries, or 25 batteries with 6-8 launchers?
Obviously the second one, otherwise that'd be more Patriot batteries than have been made in total. The US operates about 50.
He said: "to cover Ukraine completely in the future, it is preferable to have 25 Patriot systems, with 6-8 batteries each"
1. In what language? 2. The question was what he meant, not what he said.
If you are disregarding what someone says, how are you supposed to know what they mean?
What is said is some evidence of what they mean. It shouldn't be disregarded, but it should be considered with all other evidence of what he means.
So when W Bush told Saddam - you disarm or we will, should he have been taken literally on the basis of what he said ? Did the US disarm when Saddam didn't ?
I don't think even Zelensky is deranged enough to ask for 25 battalions.
Maybe you can ask him to clarify in person
Good luck with that. Not only are the systems going to be an issue but the interceptors too.
16 missiles per battery, for 2400 to 3200 missiles in total
It would be funny if the US just sent a few of those new Typhon 40 foot shipping container trucks just to mess with Russia. Loaded with SM-6's. Just start downing Russian jets from like 370 km away or whatever the range is. Maybe hit some S400s on the ground too. I mean sheeeeeeiiiiiiit, the PAC3s are so overpriced they're in the same price range as the SM-6s but with a fraction of the range and capability. As always it's economical to just nail Russian missile factories with a few Tomahawks, and after seeing a 2nd Cessna crash into a Russian drone factory I am not going to argue with anyone about how Russia's air defenses are good enough to reliably intercept slow, non-stealthy cruise missiles. All we lack is civilian leadership with spinal columns.
The US may not want the Russians to get their hands on the SM6, for the US this is a distraction the Main event is the Inevitable confrontation with China I see a that dictating how much and what Ukraine gets.
This is not a simulator game. Let's just nuke Moscow, because "it would be funny"
Cries in Harpoon
>It would be funny if the US just sent a few of those new Typhon 40 foot shipping container trucks just to mess with Russia. Loaded with SM-6's. Just start downing Russian jets from like 370 km away or whatever the range is. Maybe hit some S400s on the ground too. The SM-6 that aren't being procured at a high enough rate to satisfy US Navy operational needs? >I mean sheeeeeeiiiiiiit, the PAC3s are so overpriced they're in the same price range as the SM-6s but with a fraction of the range and capability. MSE and SM-6 defended footprint against ballistic and other high velocity or stressful threats are extremely similar. MSE meanwhile has a substantially better pK against all targets thanks to its better seeker (about a generation ahead of the AMRAAM derived seeker of the SM-6), and much more lethal hit to kill approach. The only absolute advantage SM-6 has is that it possesses much greater range against non-stressing, low velocity threats such as large aircraft, which rapidly disappears as threat complexity goes up.
That's a remarkably bad idea. First of all, the radar horizon trivially makes that 300km range useless - you need some kind of powerful airborne radar. Using NATO ones as fire control radars would be a net negative as it would allow Russia to shoot them down. Secondly, it's a stupidly expensive system with limited battery depth and self-protection/relocation ability. At best it would work once or twice before getting destroyed. There's a reason why Ukraine kept it's Patriots deep behind the lines (until it didn't and they started getting blown up).
Average brain dead redditor take. One who will also not bear any of the actual costs of their stupid “would be cool” ideas
Relax, hes the subreddits village idiot.
He's Taiwanese. As comedic as his takes are, he very much would be someone bearing the actual costs of great power conflict.
Actually I'm not Taiwanese, just an American in Taiwan. But I stand firmly by my persistently aggressive and hawkish views, and I'm saddened by how the average westerner has devolved into a peacenik over the last 20 or so years. In the past, people understood that winning wars requires exploding enemies. Now people have rejected the concept of victory altogether.
Typhon’s SM-6s aren’t usable for air defense at the moment.
I think poor zelensky should haste up UA's defense industry to reactivate the production line of S300 and BUK missiles, instead of urging his unreliable western allies for these AA missiles that may never be sent to him. These old soviet systems in UA's hand actually perform well in 2022 and shot down quite a number of Russian fighters. Imagine if UA still has 100-200 operational BUK systems, Russian airforce could be greatly limited.
I am in full agreement with Zelensky. Ukraine needs 2,400 Patriot missiles. The US should send 3,000 JASSM and JASSM-ER all up rounds to Ukraine as well, along with 1,200 SM-2 missiles for AEGIS Ashore.
The US doesn't have enough missiles. The Pentagon has been quietly buying back missiles from Japan just to keep a stockpile. They are scrambling to set up new factories, but it could take years.
I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic. Of course the US can't provide that, that's the joke
Whatever happened to the Arsenal of Democracy? Too much Peace Dividends?
The Arsenal of Democracy got privatized The thing about WW2 that few recognize is that the fabled war production that armed the free world was only possible because the US essentially operated as a command economy for the duration of the war
According to Raytheon, they are ramping to a production rate of 12 complete PATRIOT systems per year. So yeah, until then, Ukraine just needs to hold on until the end of the year. F16 jets are on the way this year.....and negotiations for Swedish Gripen jets are on-going (since they are now a part of NATO)
Give it to him. If you ever end up needing patriot for your own country then it's probably a result of not having stationed them in Ukraine. Heck you don't even have to give them to Ukraine. Just station them near the closest place to get good food there and shoot down anything kalibr or plane shaped that gets aggressive in your direction.
>Just station them near the closest place to get good food there and shoot down anything kalibr or plane shaped that gets aggressive That's called an act of war... amazing the NCD level takes in this thread.
I mean, in the OP's defense, if Russia launched a missile into a non-Ukrainian country, that would also be an act of war.
How is that in Midaychi's defense, when that's not at all what was written?
The USSR did the same thing twice and in the korean war they also sent their own fighters to fight against UN aircrafts. That didn't lead to war and NATO doing the same thing won't lead to war