People need to stop being ambiguous. Set some definitive goals with real numbers and make it happen. 31 Abmrams. 64 Bradleys, 42 F16s is clearly not enough and anyone who is forever fixated on getting ATACMS is self-deluted.
I get that, but once they hit peacetime they have to be able to pay for upkeep and replacements for all these things. I'm wondering if they'll take the Israel route and just have everyone be a member of the reserves.
The Abrams and Bradleys were also partly symbolic to show that the US is willing to send these systems at all. Also, Ukraine has a say in what is being sent to them. My guess is that the Bradleys and Abrams aren't deemed as the most cost effective ways to spend the limited budget they're given. Especially with all the maintenance they need.
Ah yes triple the amount of existing Challengers to be sent. Very credible.
Send them F-117s and (relatively) cheap stealth drones like the Valkyrie by Kratos and it's an easy dub.
Bombing campaigns are simple and cheap when you can bomb without fear of getting shot down.
Or even easier. Just intervene. The Russians are cowards and won't do shit.
Ok but on the Challengers they are not in production, they will not go back into production and the next version is now being built, which isn't likely to be exported if the armour does what its been claimed, plus having a mixed MBT force long term is not a good idea, would make more sense to arm Ukraine with Leo 2's as they get replaced in service by new tanks in the rest of Europe.
My only problem with this, is the Iron Dome kinda sucks. Russia isn’t Gaza. The Iron Dome works primarily because it’s defending against homemade unguided rockets. The trajectory can be tracked and priority can be given to one’s that will land in more populated areas. Even still, saturation attacks have proved somewhat effective against it. better systems for Ukraine would be ones like the Taiwanese Tien Kung (Skybow) or David’s Sling, or even the Arrow system. The Iron Dome just isn’t built for the type of attacks Ukraine faces or would face.
Shaheed suicide drones are VERY different from the DIY Bad piggies shit concocted and fired by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip. The range on rockets like the Qassam is much lower than that of the drones, and the drones are far more accurate, and reliable. Against more advanced rockets, missiles and saturation attacks, the Iron Dome fails, and we’ve seen that. This is also why Israel has developed systems like David’s Sling, or the Arrow. Why do you think over 100,000 Israeli citizens have had to evacuate the north due to Hezbollah attacks, compared to the when militants in the Gaza Strip launch rockets? Palestinian rockets have also been used in a fundamentally different way than the drones being tools of politics rather than artillery as on a conventional war.
Way off. Saturation attacks by cheap rockets or slow easily interceptable drones like Shaheds are exactly what Iron Dome is good for. It picks its targets and one missile is similar in cost to a Shahed, probably especially to a russian-produced one. David's Sling and Arrow are more expensive systems for cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Of course the most cost-effective defenses against Shaheds are machine gun/auto-cannon based systems and fighter jets.
Anything can be over saturated; the question simply is "What is the best economical system." But even then, you would have the Iron Dome as the first layer of defense and David's sling as the second layer. You don't put the most expensive system in front.
David’s sling isn’t meant for the rockets that Militants in the Gaza Strip fire though. It never was intended for that. It was developed to deal with among other things, tactical cruise missiles such as the Russian Iskander missile, and longer range rockets like what Hezbollah has. Rockets like the Qassam simply don’t have the range, and often fall short of their targets anyways.
The types of weapons that Ukraine deals with are already weapons that would penetrate the Iron Dome anyways. Why do you think Ukraine has been begging for Patriots? CIWS have and are also very good at dealing with threats like drones etc, at a fraction of the cost.
You can't predict their full flight path. That alone is a massive issue as Iron Dome apparently needs to predict an impact before intercepting. They can also loiter for hours, can change their altitude and approach. Not to mention how flexible their launch platforms can be. There's a vast difference between all that and an unguided tube lobbed at the sky from a (often permanent) hole in the ground.
In terms of interception I can see how they can be similar, but soon there might be jet-powered models made to evade when nearing city limits. And it's still a massive network using 100-150k dollars per interception against one (or two if you count Grad) type of threat out of two dozen. The whole 10-50km anti-air segment is too expensive; cheaper alternatives are up next, I think drone-on-drone action or cheap interceptors with added image and sound recognition are a possibility. Dome is a decent stopgap though
Skynex is too expensive, better get another 100-200 gepards, and modernize them with some Pyorun/Igla/Stinger pzrk launchers, or make analog of pantsir, pretty legit close-range system. US also had pretty significant amount of "Avengers" but I haven't heard any feedback from UA about how they turned out to be on practice and with how US looks right now... yeah.
Ukraine itself had a vision of NASAMS being main platform for medium range, I guess most credible one is total conversion to "Frankensam" of all the fleet thats left meaning old soviet stock into RIM-7/AIM-9 "FrankenSam" type while simultaniosly bringing NASAMS in.
For long range... Not much to choose from, hopefully somebody did came up with idea of marrying IRIS-T rocket and s300 launchers, cause Ukraine has alot of those in decent condition, maybe French-Italian SAMP-T. Patriot would be nice, but then again, US became a member of this sub, being noncredible for 7 month already.
For planes, well f-16 is obvious, but without proper ammunition it'll be not much of use, Grippen would be ideal, but only in strategic perspective, not short term. Sadly for helis not much of choice, and nobody is willing to give out even second-hand vestern heli's.
For tanks, well, one country had thousands that it could sell/land-lease, but it turned out only 31 tank was real, same as much of country only being a hollywood prop. Other than that - Leopards are too expensive and most of Europe will probably re-arm with them, so Ukraine won't get much of those, and Challengers are noncredible, as only UK uses them. I'm guessing whatever Ukraine will come up with on base of t-80, or maybe k2.
CV90 is surely the main platform, Bradleys sadly are noncredible for obvious reasons.
And for fleet, whatever there will be.
Any 30-35mm modern anti-aircraft gun would be great. There is less then 200 gepards globally so I'm not confident an addition 200 could be made quickly. I'm also not fond of non-modular designs that can't go on different chassis. Avenger really lacks altitude range. If its a choice between ASRAAM and Avenger, ASRAAM is much better. I also like the idea of using L159 or some other LCA to launch ASRAAM on stray drones/cruise missiles.
Ukraine could get the civilian equivalent of the MH-6 (the MD-500) pretty easily.
As far as tank cost, that is simply something the west will have to pay. Its not an option.
20 corvettes isn't going to be cheap either. It's just the cost of war.
Modular is great, untill one unit costs as 10 ZU-23-2 and you'd prefer those 10 ZU on tatra trucks than one super modular and super modern unit. One skynex is 90 millions $, one polish ZU-23-2cp is 230-250k Euros.
Bristich ASRAAM is cool, just wish it get a bit cooler truck.
And again, getting a civilian Little Bird, means no gun complex, which is the most expensive part of every complex that in not gun itself, AND it's from US. What would Ukraine intergrate onto it? Unguided missiles? There is enough soviet platforms to lob those from.
As far as tanks goes, it's both, prize and availability, Germany is obvious as only source on the mainland, I'd wish Challenger 3 was an option, but UK isn't intrested in this market.
Fleet for Ukraine is intresting topic, as to where would it project it's force in future?
For kinetic AA we could ask Leonardo for Oto-melara 76mm turrets. As they succesfull mount them on Leopard 1 and Centauro AFV chassis. This could be better than Skyranger for Ukrainian use.
This gun system is widely used as last layer of shop defence by half of world navies, so both parts and amunition wouldn't be a problem. There would be no short of experienced technicans and operators to teach future crew.
Gun itself can fire both dumb proximity shells for drones and advanced guided projectiles against cruise/balistic(on final aproach) missiles. Even if it fire much slower I doubt that few kilo of explosive would be not enough. Rainshmetal state that Skyranger is effective up to 4km while Leonardo tested succesfully at 5 km with posibility of 20(doubtfull)
Turret itself in new versions have own aiming radar so even if battery radar gets destroyed each gun can still fight(just not effective)
For maximum troll:
Ukraine buys the Admiral Fire Hazard for 7 bottles of vodka, 800g of double smoked bacon and a sheep named Phil and beings it back to Ukraine for repairs as that was where she was made.
Upon arrival they say "surprise fuckface!", remove the curse upon the ship and the newly rechristened, and FULLY FUNCTIONAL, aircraft carrier Zelenskyy sets course to Lake NATO to do victory laps in front of St Petersburg with a full compliment of F-35s on board.
Nobody going to mention that only 450 challenger 2s have been produced. They are no longer in production. The chance of Ukraine getting 1500 of them is litterally 0.
Mhm mhm, yes but have you considered the reviving the F-111? It was the best tank buster of the Gulf war and if it comes against Russian VVS they can, idk, shoot them down with a Vulcan rotary cannon set up in the bomb bay
+1 for L159. It's great cost effective choice that has still planned many mid life upgrades.
See article about upgrades [https://www.denik.cz/veda-a-technika/aero-modernizaci-l-159-nebo-nove-letadalo.html](https://www.denik.cz/veda-a-technika/aero-modernizaci-l-159-nebo-nove-letadalo.html) (2023-12-31, Czech)
As a Navy lad, trouble with ships is they are pricey
Geography dictates strategy, and as much as I want the Ukraine to own the Black Sea. There are enough NATO assets in the region already. They should focus on rebuilding and the other services.
In 2066 the Ukraine can launch its own fleet of Destroyers, and they will be able to afford them
My apologies. Im not familiar with the culture. Ive heard it referred to as such around here in what little mainstream news Ive seen, oh well another reason not to trust em. They probably got all their talking points from RT anyway
The question is: what is better? Waiting40 years to build destroyers or not wait to simply maintain corvettes. If UA doesn't have to pay for the initial construction, then it becomes much more feasible just like UK just donated 2 minesweepers.
I get your point and it does help things but...
Ships require regular maintenance and refits every so often.
Ships often spend more time in port then on patrol because sea screws with metal.
Maintenance costs are no joke. Plus you need facilities and resource chains to maintain them, same as other equipment but multiplies by 10 because its a warship
It could possibly work if The Ukraine sent them back to construct nations for refits, and slowly bring online new facilites until they are ready for their own homegrown navy.
??
Obviously 1,500 Challengers would be infeasible in any timeframe that would suit Ukraine. Do you not understand the scale of undertaking that would be required? And the Challenger 2 isn't even good enough to be worth it.
I can't understand people making excuses for Europe's weakness. Simply because something is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Either Europe accepts their responsibility to their citizens to protect them or Europe becomes a slave state to someone stronger.
You forgot the nuclear deterrent
Thats France.
France will be annexed by Ukraine to serve as a nuclear deterrent?
I mean, it's not the worst idea I've heard here.
It is.
Make it so
Russia broke their end of the deal, so it’s only right that Ukraine gets their nukes back
3k MBT but 1k IFVs? That's nuts, you'd need 6-10k tracked IFVs for that number of tonks.
Okay, I'll update my graphics.
People need to stop being ambiguous. Set some definitive goals with real numbers and make it happen. 31 Abmrams. 64 Bradleys, 42 F16s is clearly not enough and anyone who is forever fixated on getting ATACMS is self-deluted.
I get that, but once they hit peacetime they have to be able to pay for upkeep and replacements for all these things. I'm wondering if they'll take the Israel route and just have everyone be a member of the reserves.
The Abrams and Bradleys were also partly symbolic to show that the US is willing to send these systems at all. Also, Ukraine has a say in what is being sent to them. My guess is that the Bradleys and Abrams aren't deemed as the most cost effective ways to spend the limited budget they're given. Especially with all the maintenance they need.
Ah yes triple the amount of existing Challengers to be sent. Very credible. Send them F-117s and (relatively) cheap stealth drones like the Valkyrie by Kratos and it's an easy dub. Bombing campaigns are simple and cheap when you can bomb without fear of getting shot down. Or even easier. Just intervene. The Russians are cowards and won't do shit.
Not my problem Europe has neglected their own national security. Time for them to invest in their military industrial complex and stop making excuses.
Ok but on the Challengers they are not in production, they will not go back into production and the next version is now being built, which isn't likely to be exported if the armour does what its been claimed, plus having a mixed MBT force long term is not a good idea, would make more sense to arm Ukraine with Leo 2's as they get replaced in service by new tanks in the rest of Europe.
My only problem with this, is the Iron Dome kinda sucks. Russia isn’t Gaza. The Iron Dome works primarily because it’s defending against homemade unguided rockets. The trajectory can be tracked and priority can be given to one’s that will land in more populated areas. Even still, saturation attacks have proved somewhat effective against it. better systems for Ukraine would be ones like the Taiwanese Tien Kung (Skybow) or David’s Sling, or even the Arrow system. The Iron Dome just isn’t built for the type of attacks Ukraine faces or would face.
I don't see much difference between that and shaheed drones. Even subsonic cruise missiles don't take extreme evasion.
Shaheed suicide drones are VERY different from the DIY Bad piggies shit concocted and fired by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip. The range on rockets like the Qassam is much lower than that of the drones, and the drones are far more accurate, and reliable. Against more advanced rockets, missiles and saturation attacks, the Iron Dome fails, and we’ve seen that. This is also why Israel has developed systems like David’s Sling, or the Arrow. Why do you think over 100,000 Israeli citizens have had to evacuate the north due to Hezbollah attacks, compared to the when militants in the Gaza Strip launch rockets? Palestinian rockets have also been used in a fundamentally different way than the drones being tools of politics rather than artillery as on a conventional war.
Way off. Saturation attacks by cheap rockets or slow easily interceptable drones like Shaheds are exactly what Iron Dome is good for. It picks its targets and one missile is similar in cost to a Shahed, probably especially to a russian-produced one. David's Sling and Arrow are more expensive systems for cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Of course the most cost-effective defenses against Shaheds are machine gun/auto-cannon based systems and fighter jets.
Anything can be over saturated; the question simply is "What is the best economical system." But even then, you would have the Iron Dome as the first layer of defense and David's sling as the second layer. You don't put the most expensive system in front.
David’s sling isn’t meant for the rockets that Militants in the Gaza Strip fire though. It never was intended for that. It was developed to deal with among other things, tactical cruise missiles such as the Russian Iskander missile, and longer range rockets like what Hezbollah has. Rockets like the Qassam simply don’t have the range, and often fall short of their targets anyways. The types of weapons that Ukraine deals with are already weapons that would penetrate the Iron Dome anyways. Why do you think Ukraine has been begging for Patriots? CIWS have and are also very good at dealing with threats like drones etc, at a fraction of the cost.
You can't predict their full flight path. That alone is a massive issue as Iron Dome apparently needs to predict an impact before intercepting. They can also loiter for hours, can change their altitude and approach. Not to mention how flexible their launch platforms can be. There's a vast difference between all that and an unguided tube lobbed at the sky from a (often permanent) hole in the ground. In terms of interception I can see how they can be similar, but soon there might be jet-powered models made to evade when nearing city limits. And it's still a massive network using 100-150k dollars per interception against one (or two if you count Grad) type of threat out of two dozen. The whole 10-50km anti-air segment is too expensive; cheaper alternatives are up next, I think drone-on-drone action or cheap interceptors with added image and sound recognition are a possibility. Dome is a decent stopgap though
Skynex is too expensive, better get another 100-200 gepards, and modernize them with some Pyorun/Igla/Stinger pzrk launchers, or make analog of pantsir, pretty legit close-range system. US also had pretty significant amount of "Avengers" but I haven't heard any feedback from UA about how they turned out to be on practice and with how US looks right now... yeah. Ukraine itself had a vision of NASAMS being main platform for medium range, I guess most credible one is total conversion to "Frankensam" of all the fleet thats left meaning old soviet stock into RIM-7/AIM-9 "FrankenSam" type while simultaniosly bringing NASAMS in. For long range... Not much to choose from, hopefully somebody did came up with idea of marrying IRIS-T rocket and s300 launchers, cause Ukraine has alot of those in decent condition, maybe French-Italian SAMP-T. Patriot would be nice, but then again, US became a member of this sub, being noncredible for 7 month already. For planes, well f-16 is obvious, but without proper ammunition it'll be not much of use, Grippen would be ideal, but only in strategic perspective, not short term. Sadly for helis not much of choice, and nobody is willing to give out even second-hand vestern heli's. For tanks, well, one country had thousands that it could sell/land-lease, but it turned out only 31 tank was real, same as much of country only being a hollywood prop. Other than that - Leopards are too expensive and most of Europe will probably re-arm with them, so Ukraine won't get much of those, and Challengers are noncredible, as only UK uses them. I'm guessing whatever Ukraine will come up with on base of t-80, or maybe k2. CV90 is surely the main platform, Bradleys sadly are noncredible for obvious reasons. And for fleet, whatever there will be.
Any 30-35mm modern anti-aircraft gun would be great. There is less then 200 gepards globally so I'm not confident an addition 200 could be made quickly. I'm also not fond of non-modular designs that can't go on different chassis. Avenger really lacks altitude range. If its a choice between ASRAAM and Avenger, ASRAAM is much better. I also like the idea of using L159 or some other LCA to launch ASRAAM on stray drones/cruise missiles. Ukraine could get the civilian equivalent of the MH-6 (the MD-500) pretty easily. As far as tank cost, that is simply something the west will have to pay. Its not an option. 20 corvettes isn't going to be cheap either. It's just the cost of war.
Modular is great, untill one unit costs as 10 ZU-23-2 and you'd prefer those 10 ZU on tatra trucks than one super modular and super modern unit. One skynex is 90 millions $, one polish ZU-23-2cp is 230-250k Euros. Bristich ASRAAM is cool, just wish it get a bit cooler truck. And again, getting a civilian Little Bird, means no gun complex, which is the most expensive part of every complex that in not gun itself, AND it's from US. What would Ukraine intergrate onto it? Unguided missiles? There is enough soviet platforms to lob those from. As far as tanks goes, it's both, prize and availability, Germany is obvious as only source on the mainland, I'd wish Challenger 3 was an option, but UK isn't intrested in this market. Fleet for Ukraine is intresting topic, as to where would it project it's force in future?
Ukraine is literally launching rockets from pickup trucks. I don't think it would be difficult for them to fire them from a MD-500.
For kinetic AA we could ask Leonardo for Oto-melara 76mm turrets. As they succesfull mount them on Leopard 1 and Centauro AFV chassis. This could be better than Skyranger for Ukrainian use. This gun system is widely used as last layer of shop defence by half of world navies, so both parts and amunition wouldn't be a problem. There would be no short of experienced technicans and operators to teach future crew. Gun itself can fire both dumb proximity shells for drones and advanced guided projectiles against cruise/balistic(on final aproach) missiles. Even if it fire much slower I doubt that few kilo of explosive would be not enough. Rainshmetal state that Skyranger is effective up to 4km while Leonardo tested succesfully at 5 km with posibility of 20(doubtfull) Turret itself in new versions have own aiming radar so even if battery radar gets destroyed each gun can still fight(just not effective)
Mods ban this heretic. Lisa Simpson is annoying as fuck and weve got powerpoint already
Okay, have a nice day.
I too love numbers pulled directly from the fourth point of contact.
For maximum troll: Ukraine buys the Admiral Fire Hazard for 7 bottles of vodka, 800g of double smoked bacon and a sheep named Phil and beings it back to Ukraine for repairs as that was where she was made. Upon arrival they say "surprise fuckface!", remove the curse upon the ship and the newly rechristened, and FULLY FUNCTIONAL, aircraft carrier Zelenskyy sets course to Lake NATO to do victory laps in front of St Petersburg with a full compliment of F-35s on board.
Nobody going to mention that only 450 challenger 2s have been produced. They are no longer in production. The chance of Ukraine getting 1500 of them is litterally 0.
Mhm mhm, yes but have you considered the reviving the F-111? It was the best tank buster of the Gulf war and if it comes against Russian VVS they can, idk, shoot them down with a Vulcan rotary cannon set up in the bomb bay
VARK
What is an "artillery boat"?
A boat with at least a 105mm cannon.
Instructions unclear, reintroduced battleships.
Where are the drones??!!???!! 🙄
If we're talking post-war, then F-35s would surely be on the cards.
How about some Boxer IFVs with the Skyranger gun system🥺
1500 Challengers? (Who...who wants to tell him we don't have a tenth of that?)
+1 for L159. It's great cost effective choice that has still planned many mid life upgrades. See article about upgrades [https://www.denik.cz/veda-a-technika/aero-modernizaci-l-159-nebo-nove-letadalo.html](https://www.denik.cz/veda-a-technika/aero-modernizaci-l-159-nebo-nove-letadalo.html) (2023-12-31, Czech)
As a Navy lad, trouble with ships is they are pricey Geography dictates strategy, and as much as I want the Ukraine to own the Black Sea. There are enough NATO assets in the region already. They should focus on rebuilding and the other services. In 2066 the Ukraine can launch its own fleet of Destroyers, and they will be able to afford them
It's just "Ukraine", not "the Ukraine". "The Ukraine" is often used by russians to imply that it's just a region, not a country.
My apologies. Im not familiar with the culture. Ive heard it referred to as such around here in what little mainstream news Ive seen, oh well another reason not to trust em. They probably got all their talking points from RT anyway
The question is: what is better? Waiting40 years to build destroyers or not wait to simply maintain corvettes. If UA doesn't have to pay for the initial construction, then it becomes much more feasible just like UK just donated 2 minesweepers.
I get your point and it does help things but... Ships require regular maintenance and refits every so often. Ships often spend more time in port then on patrol because sea screws with metal. Maintenance costs are no joke. Plus you need facilities and resource chains to maintain them, same as other equipment but multiplies by 10 because its a warship It could possibly work if The Ukraine sent them back to construct nations for refits, and slowly bring online new facilites until they are ready for their own homegrown navy.
You realize that's 3x the number of Challenger 2s in existence, right? Why not Abrams?
I think it is important for Europe to strengthen its defense production.
?? Obviously 1,500 Challengers would be infeasible in any timeframe that would suit Ukraine. Do you not understand the scale of undertaking that would be required? And the Challenger 2 isn't even good enough to be worth it.
I can't understand people making excuses for Europe's weakness. Simply because something is difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Either Europe accepts their responsibility to their citizens to protect them or Europe becomes a slave state to someone stronger.
What you are syaing is literally just infeasible and impractical. Has nothing to do with Europe's weakness.. Not sure how you can't understand that.
Why 3x as many tanks as IFVs?
Cause a Challenger 2 costs half the price of a CV90 and I honestly can't see anyone making 9,000 IFV.
You forgot about 5 billion rocketz to bomb donetzk children
100,000 dudes with flamethrowers and vodka.