"Sending Patriot to Ukraine Is an Expensive Blunder" Topic

With Ukrainian troops en route to the United States for training on the Patriot missile system, Washington is now sending some of its most sophisticated weapons to bolster Ukraine's already extensive air defense network. Sending Patriot missile systems to Ukraine might seem useful, given repeated Russian drone and missile attacks on civilian areas, but the solution doesn't fit the problem…

Military: link

Yes, heard the same on Military.com. Would not be the first time there was a blunder like this. However this war ends, the Ukraine will need to have weapons systems to defend their territory.

Does anyone else find that Challenger 2, Leopard 2 and possibly Abrams Tanks too offensive? Is the threat of nukes very real?

Let's see … how many times have the Russians threatened nukes?

Oops, I'll need to drop my pants if I want to keep counting.

So it's a blunder? Nobody in the Pentagon has brought up that this is the wrong tool? I doubt this is making anyone "warm and fuzzy" either. This is a tightrope our military and civilian leadership walk everyday. If this guy thinks this does not make people in charge nervous, I think he is wrong. I get that "Defense Priorities", the org that the writer works for, wants us to pull back military commitments.

So, how do we assist in defending against Russian missiles and drones in Ukraine?

Seems the author is trying to play polatician without expertise or understanding. High value targets need a point defence (like patriot).

His last paragraph seems more like a polatician "Washington absolutists may say that principle trumps pragmatism. But how many thousands will have to die before the inevitable negotiations bring about the war's end? Tactically questionable weapon shipments won't change the outcome. They may delay it. And ordinary Ukrainians and Russians, oftentimes conscripted into a war not of their choosing, will continue to bleed until that reality is acknowledged." and does not really reflect the real situation on the ground whaich will not change quickly unless Ukrain loses and that will lead to WW3 as Russia will only be emboldened to do the same thing again.
the

I don't think Patriot is meant for drones or missiles. However it will force Russian planes higher and further back. As for it being one of our 'most sophisticated' systems, well it's close to 40 years old so I'm thinking there's better systems out there.

@UshaCha
That last paragraph seems to be paraphrasing the Russian line that "it will be better for everyone if Ukraine rolls over and accepts that its people have no right to self-determination and can be brutally oppressed at Putin's whim". I'd also suggest that not stopping Russian in Ukraine would have been far more likely to embolden Putin to do something truly stupid IMO.

I'd also note that Ukraine has been pretty precise about what its after in terms of military aid and I would assume it that its staff are professionals who know their business.

Does anyone else find that Challenger 2, Leopard 2 and possibly Abrams Tanks too offensive?

Ah … the Ukraine was invaded. They need tanks, i.e. combined arms, a to support Infantry, etc. to go on the offensive to get the invaders out of their territory. What am I missing ?

Putin has been saber rattling about using tac nukes often. He thinks that is his ace in the hole. He must know that is a dead end. Putin and his cronies are not islamic jihidis. They want to die killing infidels. Putin and the Russians don't adhere to that dogma.

Let's see … how many times have the Russians threatened nukes?

Oops, I'll need to drop my pants if I want to keep counting.

Bingo !

Seems the author is trying to play polatician without expertise or understanding. High value targets need a point defence (like patriot).

Bingo !

I don't think Patriot is meant for drones or missiles.

Well the Patriot has been upgraded to intercept missiles. Like Saddam's SCUDs during the 1st Gulf war. It seems to me, Russian missiles are doing a lot of damage to civilians and infrastructure. That is their tactic to break the Ukraine's will etc. The Pats could limit that …

As far as drones, unless Russia is using large drones, e.g. something like our Predator & Reaper(?). They can be serviced by Pats too. As well as they can destroy whatever aircraft the Russians have left.

Smaller drones can be intercepted with heavy MGs, the Gepard, etc. or even other drones. And as we saw recently in Syria, our Coyote anti-drone system works. Maybe we should send some of those too ? TMP link

I'd also note that Ukraine has been pretty precise about what its after in terms of military aid and I would assume it that its staff are professionals who know their business.

That seems to be accurate, AFAIK …

If one does not go one the offense one will eventually lose.

"One method would be to saturate the Patriot with more targets than it can defend against, using mass drone or missile attacks."

The author doesn't know that this is also a benefit. It makes it more expensive for the Russians to hit the target by using up more of their precious missiles. If the target isn't defended at the time they have wasted missiles by overkill.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

If one does not go one the offense one will eventually lose.

Of course, and ADA covers those forces on the Offensive. E.g. the Egyptian SAM Umbrella in the Sinai during the '73 Arab-Israeli War.

"One method would be to saturate the Patriot with more targets than it can defend against, using mass drone or missile attacks."

That is a standard tactic. But can the Russians do that ?

The author doesn't know that this is also a benefit. It makes it more expensive for the Russians to hit the target by using up more of their precious missiles. If the target isn't defended at the time they have wasted missiles by overkill.

That is certainly is a consideration. So as almost always it come down to Logistics.

So when does Ukraine start paying for stuff? Just asking, you know after a couple billion has been thrown on.

Ukraine may currently have an "already extensive air defense network.", but this system is based on soviet material, and they will at one point use all the missiles. What are they going to do when they have a lot of launchers and radar but no missiles? That's why moving to western systems that can be resupplied is essential.

So when does Ukraine start paying for stuff?

If you are looking for monetary payments from Ukraine, don't expect to see much coming in near future – the present war has affected the economy rather badly, and the Ukrainian government is quite reliant on foreign (non-military) support to keep the country running (European countries are contributing rather heavily on this side of things). And once the hostilities are over, it will take many years to rebuild Ukraine and its economy (European Union has already been making plans for this for a while, and it intend on providing major financial support).

Other than that, ordinary Ukrainians (soldiers and civilians alike) keep paying their share in blood every day and night.

Even without combat losses, weapons wear out… and OF COURSE… they NEED to be fed with ammo. We are tending to forget the PEOPLE… with all the News being about tanks.

Any d*mn thing that can get to Ukraine WILL be needed. Not just Weaponry, Food, Clothing… even Pet food! They might not be able to pay for it for a long while… if ever. UK was bankrupt after WW2.. And the World changed. But some Countries that UK was able to TRY to support HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN. And UK has not forgot USA.

Even when Ukraine has broken Russian attack, weapons systems will need to be replaced… and they won't be able to PAY for quite a long while. So be it.

LOL! Have seen article involving Ukraine Tank crew. OMG… I am OLD, but some 'looked' older than ME… and tank was not much younger! BUT… they are there… and THEY WILL do the job! Just need stuff! I would back these guys againt some Russian kids!… you can 'see'!

So when does Ukraine start paying for stuff?

The Ukraine has done a great job keeping Russia from taking more of their territory. Plus heavily attriting the Russian Force. They must get MBTS, IFVS, FA, etc. to go on the offensive to finish the job. Reports are they planning a major offensive once they get all the assets they need.

Note it took how many months to get all the Coalition's assets into position before they could launch the ground offensive. I.e. Desert Storm. And destroy Saddam's forces.

Frankly from what I have seen the Russian Forces are not much better than Saddam's.

Rumor is the Russians are going to go on the offensive before the Ukraine. My question is with what ? Intel says they have 150,000 + troops in the Ukraine and calling up another 300,000. I doubt many are actually well trained or want to be there. Not to mention their very poor leadership at all levels.

How many AFVs, etc. do the Russians have to support this what looks to be a dismounted Infantry heavy offensive ? A much better trained, skilled, motivated Light Infantry Force supported by a lot of FA & CAS could[maybe?] pull this off. But not the Russians, they couldn't do much when they had all their heavier assets at the start. Much of which are burned out hulks. And a lot of dead Infantry.

Have seen article involving Ukraine Tank crew. OMG… I am OLD, but some 'looked' older than ME… and tank was not much younger! BUT… they are there… and THEY WILL do the job! Just need stuff! I would back these guys againt some Russian kids!… you can 'see'!

Bingo ! We can't let Putin get away with his imperialism and war crimes. This is a de facto version WWIII in Europe. We have to help defeat the Russians. Unlike Vietnam and A'stan, the Ukrainians will fight to free their lands. All we have to do is arm them.

So when does Ukraine start paying for stuff? Just asking, you know after a couple billion has been thrown on.

A lot of it isn't in cash, but things that were in storage or about to go to storage.

Yes, many forget that, e.g. M113s, MRAPs, M2s, Strykers from a deactivated Stryker BCT, even M1s in mothball IIRC, etc., etc. However, the ammo, supply and maintenance is what is going to cost. However, an AFV that can't shoot, move, or communicate, may as well be sitting on a concrete slab in front of a YFW …

Britain to make its final payment on World War II loan from U.S., NYTimes, 2006.

"The U.S. extended $4.34 USD billion in credit in 1945, allowing Britain to stave off bankruptcy after devoting almost all its resources to the war for half a decade. Since 1950 Britain has made payments on the debt, the final payment of which is worth $84 USD million, at the end of every year except six."

This is not for lend-lease, but for what the UK spent itself.
I don't think the USSR payed back anything for lend-lease, so why should Ukraine? The USSR was paid in kind to defeat the Nazis, Ukraine is being paid in kind to defeat fascist Russia.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

The US has thousands of M1 variants in storage, more than on active duty, it seems. I am sure some of these are early models.

I have heard different numbers of how many M1s are mothballed. 1000-2000, etc., the real number is probably classified.

So everything is free stuff and not going to be replaced (even with the recent "we don't have enough weapons" post), got it. And no, I don't consider Ukraine = WW2 no matter how many are still on that line. The money pissed away in A'stan is going to replay in Ukraine when the news stops hyping. None of this is without financial cost and considering most US taxpayers will get nothing from this, whether Russia gets taken over in some Ukrainian-NATO mash up, it's time for a hard look at what is going to who and how much. The "oh, we didn't know these weapons were going to those guys and we have no idea when" game gets old.

Striker, yes, some old stuff will have to be replaced with modern stuff, which was going to happen eventually. Just because there is a post tilted "we don't have enough weapons" doesn't make it true. Post in that thread if you wish.

Regarding comparisons to Afghanistan and Iraq. The situation of the USA is completely different in these as it was the invader of these countries. The USA is supporting Ukraine, a country illegally invaded.

most US taxpayers will get nothing from this

I don't know why you chose to us "taxpayers" rather than "citizens". What citizens may get is a world where the rule-of-law applies.

"oh, we didn't know these weapons were going to those guys and we have no idea when

What do you mean by "those guys"? Who is supposed to be saying this?

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

FWIW – Just saw a RET 4 Star on FOX saying we have many vehicles in prepositioned in a number of places in the World. In 7 locations. That is probably the unclassified number.

Regarding comparisons to Afghanistan and Iraq. The situation of the USA is completely different in these as it was the invader of these countries. The USA is supporting Ukraine, a country illegally invaded.

That should be obvious, but in both cases, Iraq and A'stan, their "national" forces were generally of poor quality. For a number of reasons we have discussed before.

Where U.S. Military Aid Is Going by Katharina Buchholz, Jan 20, 2022

U.S. Military Assistance to Egypt: Separating Fact from Fiction, by POMED, July 30, 2020.
"The US has provided the Egyptian military with $51 USD billion in military aid since 1979 [to 2020].
Since 1985, all U.S. military aid to Egypt has been provided as grants (which do not have to be repaid).
And in 1990, the George H.W. Bush administration forgave all of Egypt's military debt – $7.1 USD billion – in the lead up to the First Gulf War."
Israel has received much more than Egypt.
Should all this be repaid?

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers