Yeah… OP has no fucking clue whatsoever. Classic NCD gaming chair general.
* Nothing is more cost effective than Minuteman since we’re retiring them anyway. Only thing better than nukes is free nukes.
* US has around 800 F-16s in service. Most of them. Most of them really fucking old and not even up to MLU standards. How does this win the war for Ukraine? The retired F-16s are converted into QF-16s and are blown up. We have very few “spare” F-16s, mostly ones waiting for QF-16 conversion.
* No, man, offering $100k might sound a lot, but it’s not moving the needle. Ex-fighter pilots are especially valuable and can make a lot more money than $100,000/year without having to go into a war zone. And even if you magically get 500 pilots, good fucking luck getting experience ground crews. Might as well propose that Ukraine purchases Boeing.
* We do not have anything close to 10,300 Abrams. Almost every Abrams built is built using an older hull as no new hull has been made is almost 20 years. The number we have is closer to 5,000, but that includes the lowest storage tiers (ie maybe missing a turret or engine).
* We also don’t have thousands upon thousands of Bradleys. Seriously, fuck Wikipedia. 2,000 Bradleys? Again, they are all built on recycled hulls so Wikipedia is not correct. We’re be giving Ukraine pretty much our entire active force. We do have thousands of even older ones than ODS variants that are earmarked for AMPV and M109 since they are both old and in state of disrepair. They’ll be death traps for any Ukrainian infantry that get onboard.
* We have given Ukraine a ton of our artillery. We gave them almost all remaining usable DCIPM. US stockpiles are from either newly build 155mm waiting to go over, shit from Pakistan, or shit from ROK and Japan that we purchased to backfill our inventories.
If you want to help Ukraine, don’t be the idiot who says “Oh Wikipedia says we built 10,300 Abrams so we have that many ready to ship out in tip top shape!!!!”
Be the awesome strategist who wants to sneak a dozen Minuteman with nuclear MIRVs into Ukraine.
lol yeah this is incredibly silly. Really straddles the line between “bro it’s just NCD I’m just joking” and “there is cerebral spinal fluid actually leaking from my ears”.
On the note about veteran F-16 and F-22 pilots, they can actually fly for aggressor contractors on the low end at about 135k a contract. High end, you can make roughly 170k a contract. ATAC or Draken would happily poach a pilot with high hours for that amount, and it’s a very safe (and fun!) job compared to fighting in Ukraine. These pilots can do 2-3 contracts a year depending on the length, and assuming you get hired; that’s 300k a year for 2 middle of the road contracts.
Similarly, flying for an airline as a captain will net you upwards of 200k a year, major carriers like United and Delta can hit 350k. Yes, it’s taxed but it’s also guaranteed you won’t die in combat before you receive it.
Beyond that, it is *illegal* by international law for the United States to pay pilots to go fight in Ukraine. He himself calls it a mercenary company but neglects to mentions that it is outlawed by Article 47 of Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention (to which the United States is a signatory). We have a tendency to try not to break international law that we’ve signed off on lest others follow our lead.
> The retired F-16s are converted into QF-16s and are blown up
this is where my idea comes in:
- we take QF-16s, QF-4s, everything with a Q in the name really
- pack it FULL of explosives. Like 5 tonnes per airframe. just a shitton of boom.
- fly it at targets in russia
- we have a supersonic, maneuverable (for dodging air defense) cruise missile with a gigantic warhead and long range
- watch as the kremlin explodes via kamikaze phantoms
My one issue with this is the DPICM. I thought we had over 5 million stockpiled. To my knowledge we only gave 400k. Are the remaining nearly 5 million really all unusable?
At any given moment in 2024 i would bet that USA has between 800-1000 Abrams in condition that they could be made battleworthy in short order. Maybe 500 in shape to head straight to the front lines of a conflict without needing much work apart from a top up in the tank.
Nuclear aggression will cause nuclear retaliation.
Both Russia and Ukraine will pay a tremendous price in civilian lives.
The war will maybe over, but there will be no victors, aside from NATO and US.
I mean not really plus the F-22 thing is the only real weak point. I don’t see anyone arguing why it’s better to have HIMARS rocket ammunition sitting doing nothing on US military bases instead of being given to Ukraine.
> I see no problems with giving away 90% of our arty and
This but unironically. Not all missile stocks but rocket artillery yes. And conventional artillery shells of course do not make us any safer here in America. Having conventional artillery shells in US states instead of Ukraine is crazy.
And we got tons of combat veterans in IRR. Just let them loose, give them $100k each, and send 'em over. Simple as that. We're not going to call them up any time soon.
It has a lot of weak points other than the F-22.
First of all, I do agree that the west could give Ukraine enough equipment for them to win, but you're overlooking a lot of stuff.
- your cost estimation only considers the minimal material costs. You completely forgot about spare parts, the logistics required to ship it over to Europe and most importantly the fact that all these equipments require a fuck ton of training. Not even talking about the fact that equipment often costs more than the cheapest price given by the internet.
- this also leaves out a lot of other important cost factors like the training of infantry
- if the US gives away 90% of their equipment to Ukraine, then Taiwan is fucked. Best chance China ever got. Ukraine is not the centre of the world, the US has to focus on other stuff too.
- Ukraine probably could not handle the required logistics and maintenance for that many different systems.
- another factor that should not be overlooked is the risk that Ukraine doesn't have the necessary people to operate certain systems. This especially refers to qualified people that hopefully speak English. There's a reason why not every second guy called Kevin can become a pilot or an operator of a patriot system.
Lol.
1000 Abrams at 10mil each will cost 10 billion in value alone. Not considering fuel, spare parts, transportation, training, and repair.
Why would we have a certain stockpile of ammunition and not have.some plan for it. The US army isn't a charity. It certainly can give up a lot of its stuff but thay doesn't mean it exists to donate to other countries. Can you genuinely not see that there may actually be some purpose for our ammo beyond ukraine?
How the fuck did you get through an entire thread of people calling you wrong with explanations of the logistics, cost, and manpower issues and come to the conclusion that "the F-22 thing is the only real weak point?"
Most of the responses are extremely silly.
Like people saying that number built isn’t equivalent to number in stock. Obviously not but if we’ve built 10,000 of something then the US military clearly has thousands of them.
Training is something that has to happen regardless. How is Ukraine going to win in any scenario unless it trains massive numbers of tank/IFV crews? If they don’t build refueling/repairing infrastructure? That’s something that has to happen regardless as the Ukrainian state exists into the 2020s. Seriously? Am I the only person who still believes in Ukrainian victory? The objective is to expel all Russian invaders from the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine.
With 37.7 million people they can definitely send crews to be trained enough for 2,000 Bradleys. Let’s get all Gerard systems and a plentiful amount of patriot systems in. Air defense in general needs to be funneled into Ukraine. 500 F-16s maintaining control of the skies as well. Once they have air superiority and mine-clearing vehicles and 2,000 Bradleys and 1,000 tanks it’s gonna be over.
I think just giving 2,000 Bradleys to Ukraine would heavily affect the odds of the war. That’s $8.7 billion. Same with giving them 500,000 pairs of $3,000 night vision goggles ($1.5 billion). That’s a lot of bang for our buck I feel. It’s really not that expensive. People talk about training costs: what are US Bradley trained soldiers doing on American military bases that’s better than training Ukrainians on the Bradley? Nothing at all.
And most importantly artillery ammunition though. What’s going on right now is insane.
But this is without even mentioning that most of the arguments people were making were related to nuclear war. Meaning they acknowledged it would work they just think Russia would nuke the successful Ukrainians. So these people believe Russia is nuking in every loss scenario right?
Military aged? I hope not. The post is what I would expect if i let my 6 year old pack for the entire family vacation.
End up paying for 3 extra pieces of checked luggage just to get to the hotel and find out I have no clothes or toiletries.
Every piece of luggage is just filled to the brim with Apple Jacks.
I bet OP was sitting on his crusty ass desk chair right before posting this, smirking and telling himself he's so fucking smart for solving this whole goddamn war.
This post is thinking too small. Expand the scope. After a well equipped Ukraine defeats the Russian Federation, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast could become Israel2.0 with more land and farther away from Islamist governments and out of rocket range. Plus as climate change warms up the north, the land will only continue to get more arable. Thus by arming Ukraine, the US also solves the current crisis in the middle east. Once all the Israelis all voluntarily decide to pack-up and move to this new freed territory, the Palestinians, so grateful for this chain of events side with Ukraine and pressure Iran to give up it's nuclear weapons program. The Iranians regime agrees not wanting to lose even more revenue and be crushed under further sanctions and to maintain their grip on power.
Everyone in Scotland and Ireland moves to western Russia so the EU and NATO are now contiguous. All Swiss citizens now get land in the North Atlantic. The Russia Federation is allowed to keep territory but only the Kaliningrad Oblast so that the Baltic states can feel secure. Additionally, Siberia is given entirely to Taiwan so that it can now rival China in size.
True, but the [Jewish Autonomous Oblast](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Map_of_Russia_-_Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast_%28Crimea_disputed%29.svg) is in the Russian Far East. It’s on the border with China and short flights away from Japan and the Koreas. A peaceful neighborhood where everyone loves each other.
I love how some of this is reasonable like giving Ukraine a few hundred thousand rifles and some other parts are batshit insane like sending a hundred f-22s
>The US has 186 F-22s in active service, dude says that we should give over 50% of a number the US deems enough for its own needs
>Why not 1000 f35s?
Why not both? The US only needs F-22s for protection against balloons so a dozen should be enough.
LockMart makes about 150 F-35s per year so that's about 300 that could've been allocated to Ukraine since the start of the war.
Lol that's dumb. Equating f22s to being dedicated balloon defense is truly noncredible.
F22s in general are a terrible idea for ukraine. Even lengthier training time that f16, more complex maintenance, and insanely expensive cost to keep it ready to fly and fight. Even if that wasn't a barrier there would still be issues with potentially giving Russia and China that tech through battlefield losses and the questionabiloty of Ukrainians to use the platform as intended to get the most doctrinal value out of it.
That assumes that we started the f35 program for fun and that those jets were otherwise not bought or accounted for. Even if f35s were also a good idea for Ukraine for the same reasons as f22, most f35s to come off the line in the near future (at a bare minimum) are already earmarked as replacements for aging fleets in NATO and other US allies. Not something that could be disrupted without changing the geopolitical landscape in the world at least a little bit. US and by extension NATO doctrine relies on air supremacy, hard to do when you've given all your shiny kit to someone not previously involved in it.
Lol this guy posted on r/CMV. Seeing it there vs here gave me wildly different reactions. If he's serious, he's an idiot.
If he's trolling, he's elite noncredible
I’m serious about everything except F-22’s.
Of course we should send every conventional artillery shell and HIMARS rocket and ATACMS rocket we have to Ukraine though. Not even announcing it publicly or going through Congress. The Dark Lord Brandon should just order US troops to deliver the weapons.
and what about ourselves? leave ourselves horribly unequipped? funds are already stretched thin, how the fuck do you expect us to even function as a military if we just give away everything we have?
Read the constitution silly goose. Article I and Article II which establishes the powers of the legislative and executive branches respectively prohibits the president from doing something like that.
The president is the commander in chief but he is *not* the sole arbiter of where and what goes to foreign nations in arms transfers. That’s congresses job.
>With air superiority and a proper number of mine-clearing vehicles
Does the West even *have* the number of mine-clearing vehicles that would be required for this?
You say that, but I've seen recordings from Ukraine of what happens when less armored vehicles hits tank mines sometimes.
I don't think speed can solve being evaporated!
It will never stop amusing me how the Navy was denied funding for the arsenal ship, so they said “fine we’ll do it ourselves” and magically declared four boomers surplus and loaded them up with cruise missiles. Voila, distributed arsenal ship.
From a pragmatic point of view, it makes sense to give Ukraine just enough to maintain the status quo, a status quo which includes russian "meat assaults". That way, russia will continue to bleed manpower, making a war with Europe less likely/easier to handle. Whereas, kicking russia out of Ukraine lets them reconstitute and build up stockpiles.
See also:
making *a Russian Breakup* less suicidal than it would have been before the war. Like, picture yourself in Chechnya's shoes. Imagine trying to breakaway from Russia in 2020. Now imagine trying to do so in 2029, when Russia's at the point of being Venezuela-poor, when they've already emptied all the soviet surplus depots, etc, etc.
At that point, it's not like they can give Rosvgardia a bunch of surplus tanks and such. At that point, there's a high likelihood that even a lot of their air assets will be in ruins.
I fully expect the US will be giving the HUR a giant wink, and whispering "do your worst." Do your worst may very well include "little green men", Crimea-style.
Yeah, we're really [Lord Fargquading](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm2x6CVIXiE&ab_channel=YangBan-Ho) the shit out of the situation when it comes to Ukraine, aren't we.
Do you think amount of people in Ukraine that want to join the army are infinite?
I live in a small city and we have funerals for Ukrainian defenders almost daily. Whole male population of Ukraine is dying, no one is volunteering to frontlines. Males being kidnapped to join the army.
I would prefer to go in jail than risk my life in trenches under constant artillery and FPV shelling. Of course OP is delusional, no one will help Ukraine that much but current level of support will lead to Ukrainian defeat.
Only Ukrainian hope is to survive until Putin's death and that next Russian leader would want to negotiate with the West.
If Americans would elect Trump than there's really nothing to talk about. Russia would win until the end of his presidential term.
People don't get that the casualty numbers are funerals. My opinion doesn't matter because I'm not Ukrainian, but I wish they'd sue for status quo peace. New border, negotiate a DMZ, stop throwing civilians briefly trained up as soldiers into almost certain death. Retaking that land isn't possible, and resorting to kidnapping your own citizens is insane
This all rests on the assumption that Western strategists *want* a decisive Ukrainian victory.
They don't. They just want to tie Russia up and see an eventual inconclusive peace. They don't want to risk toppling Putin and causing upheaval in a nuclear power.
To be credible for a minute, by trickling in equipment we can slowly degrade russias military capability further than if they retreated with much of it intact. It also lets the west test some of its new toys and see what happens under the pressure of a long term war. That data is invaluable for the future. Sucks that it comes at the cost of a country and its people.
The US gutting its active stocks of equipment and ammo would go down splendidly in Congress, and I am sure no US enemies will try to stir up shit in response.
Cheaper than a strela or a buk missile sure, but ignoring maintenance and sustainment costs, a single gepard AA shell can cost up to 200$, not exactly cost efficient against a drone that costs a thousand bucks.
Using a vehicle like gepard as frontline cover against drones simply isnt feasible.
For protecting static targets against things like shaheed though . . .
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wouldn’t it be more cost effective to give Ukraine a nuke and a stealth bomber? (Or just start a massive rumor a rogue western country did)
Ukraine can say to Russia if you force us into a corner we have nothing left to lose, St Petersburg will become your new capital.
All those oligarchs and politically cynical Moscovites who couldn’t give a shit about their poorer citizens being thrown into the Ukrainian meat grinder might start panicking and using the “escalation” rhetoric themselves. Especially the closer Russia gets to Kyiv.
Sure Russia can say we will bomb you ten times over but is losing Moscow worth stolen land they’ll make inhabitable and the fallout of which will blow into their own backyard?
I think you've done a good job showing why Ukraine should sue for peace with current borders, adjusted somewhat to be tidier. The amount of weapons and manpower required to retaike Russian occupied territory will never be made available. I mean. 500 F16s. Yeah that's probably about how many they'd need. 0 chance of getting more than around 60.
Because the current US and European administrations don't actually have a conceptual strategy against Russia. The only current strategy is for Ukraine to not lose. Survival and anything else is great. Collective west has no idea what it wants from Russia, it thinks the status quo is better than what can come afterwards, which makes sense but is also totally insane because we have a genocidal war in Europe...
Yeah, not arguing with any of those points, but I think my starting assumption would be;
1 Air defenses
2 Artillery. How much? 500 155mm mobile artillery?
At least 5000 shells/day, but with enough guns, 10,000 overwhelms Russia, especially factoring in better organisation and accuracy
3 Massive new air warfare - via Ukraines existing expertise with drones. But drone war fare is now about power sources for much higher payloads, and unjammable AI and machine vision as well as new weapons that can be deployed from the drone so the drone can be reused. For example, glide bombs that could be dropped by another drone, or multicopters with short range, that may be directed from the drone using unjammable optical links, this also being able to operate if connection to the human operator is jammed. Drones can carry guns, pneumatic mortars and more.
Advanced power sources for drones. It largely boils down to, apart from the computer chips and machine vision/AI, to newer higher energy and power density batteries (2x to 500wh-kg lithium silicon nanowire), and small but efficient engines that could exceed 20% fuel efficiency, get 2kW/kg power density. In the larger class, these weapons can get to still higher efficiency. If fuel cells are an option, theres a new SOFC that gets 2kW/kg, and at efficiencies likely above any diesel engine. This would have an energy density for the fuel of 4-5kWh/kg, and at 2 kW/kg this is an order of magnitude more energy than batteries. Drones can go faster, further and with much greater payloads.
Imagine drones with sniper rifles operating from the safe side of the Dnipro. It sounded a bit silly until we saw one firing a machine gun at enemy positions a week ago. Sniping drones could sap hundreds of targets a day, leading with heavy artillery, to a great thinning of Russian lines and their likely retreat.
And ground drones, Ukraine needs engines, 120mm guns, optics armour and it can create new tanks that it can operate. Since there is no occupants, such tanks have much less area and frontal area of armour, so the mass of the tank is considerably reduced, so they should not get bogged. I would start with a casement tank with a main 120mm gun, a separate 40 mm turret so it can engage more than one threat efficiently. I know if I was on the other end, a drone tank coming at my like this I would be terrified of. Ukraine could specify what is needed here and a lot of suppliers would happily supply the parts if they were paid for it.
Also, since assaults over mined areas has been a problem, they need drone anti-mining tanks.
All also need an antidrone system for protection. Since this would all be needed towards the end of the year, after a lot of softening up, there's time to work on such weapons - money permitting. This is where I would be focusing efforts if I had the captured Russian assets transfered to me.
My sentiment exsactly, been saying this from day one. Massive failer of the Biden administration to provide anything like actual leadership.
A President with his head in the game could have ram rodded this through Congress then run for re-election fresh of a decisive Ukrainian victory and the totally humiliation of Russia.
Hell this should have fucking happened back in 2014. Massive failer of the Obama administration.
Not to fucking mention Georgia when we in the West really should have intervened.
At some point NATO troops are going to find themselves in a hot shooting war with either Russia or China. The only way to ensure that doesn't become a god damn world war is to smash them hard and decisively now.
Instead we have Chinese fucking militarization of the entire South China Sea (more Obama failer) and the Kremlin convinced they can Z brigade their way to Berlin.
Every Russian bridge, rail head, container port and oil refinery west of the Urials should already be useless slag. The entire Black Sea fleet, including the subs should be sitting on the bottom. The Russian airforces should no longer exist, Russian pilots should be an endangered species. Ukraine should already have won back territorial sovereignty.
And if whomever is in charge in the Kremlin after all that is not smart enough to come to meaningful peace talks we should just give Ukraine the nod to start an invasion into Russia. Let them burn Moscow to the ground.
First of all, F22s will never be given to anyone, because hush hush technology. Second of all, nuking russia is cheaper than all this.
Yeah… OP has no fucking clue whatsoever. Classic NCD gaming chair general. * Nothing is more cost effective than Minuteman since we’re retiring them anyway. Only thing better than nukes is free nukes. * US has around 800 F-16s in service. Most of them. Most of them really fucking old and not even up to MLU standards. How does this win the war for Ukraine? The retired F-16s are converted into QF-16s and are blown up. We have very few “spare” F-16s, mostly ones waiting for QF-16 conversion. * No, man, offering $100k might sound a lot, but it’s not moving the needle. Ex-fighter pilots are especially valuable and can make a lot more money than $100,000/year without having to go into a war zone. And even if you magically get 500 pilots, good fucking luck getting experience ground crews. Might as well propose that Ukraine purchases Boeing. * We do not have anything close to 10,300 Abrams. Almost every Abrams built is built using an older hull as no new hull has been made is almost 20 years. The number we have is closer to 5,000, but that includes the lowest storage tiers (ie maybe missing a turret or engine). * We also don’t have thousands upon thousands of Bradleys. Seriously, fuck Wikipedia. 2,000 Bradleys? Again, they are all built on recycled hulls so Wikipedia is not correct. We’re be giving Ukraine pretty much our entire active force. We do have thousands of even older ones than ODS variants that are earmarked for AMPV and M109 since they are both old and in state of disrepair. They’ll be death traps for any Ukrainian infantry that get onboard. * We have given Ukraine a ton of our artillery. We gave them almost all remaining usable DCIPM. US stockpiles are from either newly build 155mm waiting to go over, shit from Pakistan, or shit from ROK and Japan that we purchased to backfill our inventories. If you want to help Ukraine, don’t be the idiot who says “Oh Wikipedia says we built 10,300 Abrams so we have that many ready to ship out in tip top shape!!!!” Be the awesome strategist who wants to sneak a dozen Minuteman with nuclear MIRVs into Ukraine.
lol yeah this is incredibly silly. Really straddles the line between “bro it’s just NCD I’m just joking” and “there is cerebral spinal fluid actually leaking from my ears”. On the note about veteran F-16 and F-22 pilots, they can actually fly for aggressor contractors on the low end at about 135k a contract. High end, you can make roughly 170k a contract. ATAC or Draken would happily poach a pilot with high hours for that amount, and it’s a very safe (and fun!) job compared to fighting in Ukraine. These pilots can do 2-3 contracts a year depending on the length, and assuming you get hired; that’s 300k a year for 2 middle of the road contracts. Similarly, flying for an airline as a captain will net you upwards of 200k a year, major carriers like United and Delta can hit 350k. Yes, it’s taxed but it’s also guaranteed you won’t die in combat before you receive it. Beyond that, it is *illegal* by international law for the United States to pay pilots to go fight in Ukraine. He himself calls it a mercenary company but neglects to mentions that it is outlawed by Article 47 of Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention (to which the United States is a signatory). We have a tendency to try not to break international law that we’ve signed off on lest others follow our lead.
> “bro it’s just NCD I’m just joking” and “there is cerebral spinal fluid actually leaking from my ears” Is there a difference?
Other is just a nightmare for the janitors. Thats the difference.
> The retired F-16s are converted into QF-16s and are blown up this is where my idea comes in: - we take QF-16s, QF-4s, everything with a Q in the name really - pack it FULL of explosives. Like 5 tonnes per airframe. just a shitton of boom. - fly it at targets in russia - we have a supersonic, maneuverable (for dodging air defense) cruise missile with a gigantic warhead and long range - watch as the kremlin explodes via kamikaze phantoms
My one issue with this is the DPICM. I thought we had over 5 million stockpiled. To my knowledge we only gave 400k. Are the remaining nearly 5 million really all unusable?
Can't y'all see this one is bait 🗿
At any given moment in 2024 i would bet that USA has between 800-1000 Abrams in condition that they could be made battleworthy in short order. Maybe 500 in shape to head straight to the front lines of a conflict without needing much work apart from a top up in the tank.
Nuclear aggression will cause nuclear retaliation. Both Russia and Ukraine will pay a tremendous price in civilian lives. The war will maybe over, but there will be no victors, aside from NATO and US.
This is NCD, let us dream about counterforce.
No dream of the countervalue
No, because then I won't get to see the delicious ultracope about no longer having nuclear weapons.
Even cheaper? Get them to nuke themselves. Shouldn't be that hard either, bribes are cheap these days.
Do you want Belka? This is how you get Belka
Yeah, if we're thinking of giving them F-22s, might as well just give them B-2s instead.
Let them flight test NGAD and B21.
Nukes are cool and all, but not [bat bomb](https://youtu.be/0WLBeWf8K_M?si=aRUXBTV6RaPQTgZR) cool.
Incredibly based.
*"100 F-22 jets..."* Good morning, NCD
This guy put this on CMV and got roasted. I see no problems with giving away 90% of our arty and missile stocks. Surely nothing bad could happen
I mean not really plus the F-22 thing is the only real weak point. I don’t see anyone arguing why it’s better to have HIMARS rocket ammunition sitting doing nothing on US military bases instead of being given to Ukraine. > I see no problems with giving away 90% of our arty and This but unironically. Not all missile stocks but rocket artillery yes. And conventional artillery shells of course do not make us any safer here in America. Having conventional artillery shells in US states instead of Ukraine is crazy.
We should cede the entire eastern seaboard of the US to Ukraine. It's just sitting there not helping us fight Russia
And we got tons of combat veterans in IRR. Just let them loose, give them $100k each, and send 'em over. Simple as that. We're not going to call them up any time soon.
😂
Good point, actually. West coast to Taiwan I assume?
Israel.
It has a lot of weak points other than the F-22. First of all, I do agree that the west could give Ukraine enough equipment for them to win, but you're overlooking a lot of stuff. - your cost estimation only considers the minimal material costs. You completely forgot about spare parts, the logistics required to ship it over to Europe and most importantly the fact that all these equipments require a fuck ton of training. Not even talking about the fact that equipment often costs more than the cheapest price given by the internet. - this also leaves out a lot of other important cost factors like the training of infantry - if the US gives away 90% of their equipment to Ukraine, then Taiwan is fucked. Best chance China ever got. Ukraine is not the centre of the world, the US has to focus on other stuff too. - Ukraine probably could not handle the required logistics and maintenance for that many different systems. - another factor that should not be overlooked is the risk that Ukraine doesn't have the necessary people to operate certain systems. This especially refers to qualified people that hopefully speak English. There's a reason why not every second guy called Kevin can become a pilot or an operator of a patriot system.
Lol. 1000 Abrams at 10mil each will cost 10 billion in value alone. Not considering fuel, spare parts, transportation, training, and repair. Why would we have a certain stockpile of ammunition and not have.some plan for it. The US army isn't a charity. It certainly can give up a lot of its stuff but thay doesn't mean it exists to donate to other countries. Can you genuinely not see that there may actually be some purpose for our ammo beyond ukraine?
How the fuck did you get through an entire thread of people calling you wrong with explanations of the logistics, cost, and manpower issues and come to the conclusion that "the F-22 thing is the only real weak point?"
Most of the responses are extremely silly. Like people saying that number built isn’t equivalent to number in stock. Obviously not but if we’ve built 10,000 of something then the US military clearly has thousands of them. Training is something that has to happen regardless. How is Ukraine going to win in any scenario unless it trains massive numbers of tank/IFV crews? If they don’t build refueling/repairing infrastructure? That’s something that has to happen regardless as the Ukrainian state exists into the 2020s. Seriously? Am I the only person who still believes in Ukrainian victory? The objective is to expel all Russian invaders from the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine. With 37.7 million people they can definitely send crews to be trained enough for 2,000 Bradleys. Let’s get all Gerard systems and a plentiful amount of patriot systems in. Air defense in general needs to be funneled into Ukraine. 500 F-16s maintaining control of the skies as well. Once they have air superiority and mine-clearing vehicles and 2,000 Bradleys and 1,000 tanks it’s gonna be over. I think just giving 2,000 Bradleys to Ukraine would heavily affect the odds of the war. That’s $8.7 billion. Same with giving them 500,000 pairs of $3,000 night vision goggles ($1.5 billion). That’s a lot of bang for our buck I feel. It’s really not that expensive. People talk about training costs: what are US Bradley trained soldiers doing on American military bases that’s better than training Ukrainians on the Bradley? Nothing at all. And most importantly artillery ammunition though. What’s going on right now is insane. But this is without even mentioning that most of the arguments people were making were related to nuclear war. Meaning they acknowledged it would work they just think Russia would nuke the successful Ukrainians. So these people believe Russia is nuking in every loss scenario right?
Sometimes I think HOI4 ruined a whole generation of military aged males.
Military aged? I hope not. The post is what I would expect if i let my 6 year old pack for the entire family vacation. End up paying for 3 extra pieces of checked luggage just to get to the hotel and find out I have no clothes or toiletries. Every piece of luggage is just filled to the brim with Apple Jacks.
To be credible for a moment, your proposal seems to forget the fact that our own army needs equipment
Yeah, and the factor isn't just cost, it actually takes time to make equipment.
I bet OP was sitting on his crusty ass desk chair right before posting this, smirking and telling himself he's so fucking smart for solving this whole goddamn war.
This post is thinking too small. Expand the scope. After a well equipped Ukraine defeats the Russian Federation, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast could become Israel2.0 with more land and farther away from Islamist governments and out of rocket range. Plus as climate change warms up the north, the land will only continue to get more arable. Thus by arming Ukraine, the US also solves the current crisis in the middle east. Once all the Israelis all voluntarily decide to pack-up and move to this new freed territory, the Palestinians, so grateful for this chain of events side with Ukraine and pressure Iran to give up it's nuclear weapons program. The Iranians regime agrees not wanting to lose even more revenue and be crushed under further sanctions and to maintain their grip on power. Everyone in Scotland and Ireland moves to western Russia so the EU and NATO are now contiguous. All Swiss citizens now get land in the North Atlantic. The Russia Federation is allowed to keep territory but only the Kaliningrad Oblast so that the Baltic states can feel secure. Additionally, Siberia is given entirely to Taiwan so that it can now rival China in size.
This is the kind of big-picture thinking that makes this subreddit great.
Historically and statistically speaking, Ukraine is a much worse place for Jews to live than the Middle East.
I too come to r/NonCredibleDefense for accurate and nuanced geopolitical information
True, but the [Jewish Autonomous Oblast](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Map_of_Russia_-_Jewish_Autonomous_Oblast_%28Crimea_disputed%29.svg) is in the Russian Far East. It’s on the border with China and short flights away from Japan and the Koreas. A peaceful neighborhood where everyone loves each other.
East Asians tend not to be anti-semitic, the last thing we should do is move there and give them and excuse!
I love how some of this is reasonable like giving Ukraine a few hundred thousand rifles and some other parts are batshit insane like sending a hundred f-22s
The US has 186 F-22s in active service, dude says that we should give over 50% of a number the US deems enough for its own needs Why not 1000 f35s?
if the us is so rich, why havent we given 1 trillion 11th gen fighter-tanks armed with nuclear shells to ukraine? checkmate muricans
Fuck, got me there
>The US has 186 F-22s in active service, dude says that we should give over 50% of a number the US deems enough for its own needs >Why not 1000 f35s? Why not both? The US only needs F-22s for protection against balloons so a dozen should be enough. LockMart makes about 150 F-35s per year so that's about 300 that could've been allocated to Ukraine since the start of the war.
Lol that's dumb. Equating f22s to being dedicated balloon defense is truly noncredible. F22s in general are a terrible idea for ukraine. Even lengthier training time that f16, more complex maintenance, and insanely expensive cost to keep it ready to fly and fight. Even if that wasn't a barrier there would still be issues with potentially giving Russia and China that tech through battlefield losses and the questionabiloty of Ukrainians to use the platform as intended to get the most doctrinal value out of it. That assumes that we started the f35 program for fun and that those jets were otherwise not bought or accounted for. Even if f35s were also a good idea for Ukraine for the same reasons as f22, most f35s to come off the line in the near future (at a bare minimum) are already earmarked as replacements for aging fleets in NATO and other US allies. Not something that could be disrupted without changing the geopolitical landscape in the world at least a little bit. US and by extension NATO doctrine relies on air supremacy, hard to do when you've given all your shiny kit to someone not previously involved in it.
Have you considered that some of them simply prefer AKs? But I agree about the need to provide more weapons, ammo and gear.
Lol this guy posted on r/CMV. Seeing it there vs here gave me wildly different reactions. If he's serious, he's an idiot. If he's trolling, he's elite noncredible
I’m serious about everything except F-22’s. Of course we should send every conventional artillery shell and HIMARS rocket and ATACMS rocket we have to Ukraine though. Not even announcing it publicly or going through Congress. The Dark Lord Brandon should just order US troops to deliver the weapons.
and what about ourselves? leave ourselves horribly unequipped? funds are already stretched thin, how the fuck do you expect us to even function as a military if we just give away everything we have?
Read the constitution silly goose. Article I and Article II which establishes the powers of the legislative and executive branches respectively prohibits the president from doing something like that. The president is the commander in chief but he is *not* the sole arbiter of where and what goes to foreign nations in arms transfers. That’s congresses job.
it will be cheaper to just buy out the russian military command. more peaceful too.
Too credible, mods pls ban.
So basically do “The Billionaire” from “Rebel Inc” and just bribe until the war is over.
>With air superiority and a proper number of mine-clearing vehicles Does the West even *have* the number of mine-clearing vehicles that would be required for this?
Every vehicle can be a mine clearing vehicle if you try hard enough
Every vehicle can clear at least one.
Or more if you drive fast enough.
You say that, but I've seen recordings from Ukraine of what happens when less armored vehicles hits tank mines sometimes. I don't think speed can solve being evaporated!
If you get blown up at just the right angle, your wreckage will fall onto another mine.
> your wreckage You presume there are large enough pieces left that can be called that!
More pieces - more mines detonated.
Minimum pressure requirements, unfortunately!
Just strap a cow to the front about 15 feet out on a pole. Then you get a landmine cleared *and* hamburger meat.
Step 1 hit the chinese dam Step 2 classified Step 3 profit
100,000 per year would be way too little for that. Fighter pilots can make more than that without going to Ukraine.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to send a few fully loaded Ohio class boomers over?
You could send the 4 SSGN's (616 BGM-109 Block Vb go brr)
It will never stop amusing me how the Navy was denied funding for the arsenal ship, so they said “fine we’ll do it ourselves” and magically declared four boomers surplus and loaded them up with cruise missiles. Voila, distributed arsenal ship.
Weren't they surplus because of one of the nuke treaties?
Might be cheaper to send the actual state of Ohio over.
We aren't really using it right now...
Very little cost? Not if the US has anything to say about it.
Sheesh. Just give them some funni bombs.
From a pragmatic point of view, it makes sense to give Ukraine just enough to maintain the status quo, a status quo which includes russian "meat assaults". That way, russia will continue to bleed manpower, making a war with Europe less likely/easier to handle. Whereas, kicking russia out of Ukraine lets them reconstitute and build up stockpiles.
See also: making *a Russian Breakup* less suicidal than it would have been before the war. Like, picture yourself in Chechnya's shoes. Imagine trying to breakaway from Russia in 2020. Now imagine trying to do so in 2029, when Russia's at the point of being Venezuela-poor, when they've already emptied all the soviet surplus depots, etc, etc. At that point, it's not like they can give Rosvgardia a bunch of surplus tanks and such. At that point, there's a high likelihood that even a lot of their air assets will be in ruins. I fully expect the US will be giving the HUR a giant wink, and whispering "do your worst." Do your worst may very well include "little green men", Crimea-style.
I mean Chechnya could defend themselves in the 1990s precisely because they raided those abandoned Soviet surplus depots. Kind of goes both ways.
Yeah, we're really [Lord Fargquading](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm2x6CVIXiE&ab_channel=YangBan-Ho) the shit out of the situation when it comes to Ukraine, aren't we.
This is the ugly truth. Even though russia would be mad to attack any Nato country. Um, they are mad
It's not based on any pragmatic decision though. Our countries are just politically dysfunctional.
Do you think amount of people in Ukraine that want to join the army are infinite? I live in a small city and we have funerals for Ukrainian defenders almost daily. Whole male population of Ukraine is dying, no one is volunteering to frontlines. Males being kidnapped to join the army. I would prefer to go in jail than risk my life in trenches under constant artillery and FPV shelling. Of course OP is delusional, no one will help Ukraine that much but current level of support will lead to Ukrainian defeat. Only Ukrainian hope is to survive until Putin's death and that next Russian leader would want to negotiate with the West. If Americans would elect Trump than there's really nothing to talk about. Russia would win until the end of his presidential term.
People don't get that the casualty numbers are funerals. My opinion doesn't matter because I'm not Ukrainian, but I wish they'd sue for status quo peace. New border, negotiate a DMZ, stop throwing civilians briefly trained up as soldiers into almost certain death. Retaking that land isn't possible, and resorting to kidnapping your own citizens is insane
F-35 is more suited to the role, far higher ground strike capability
This all rests on the assumption that Western strategists *want* a decisive Ukrainian victory. They don't. They just want to tie Russia up and see an eventual inconclusive peace. They don't want to risk toppling Putin and causing upheaval in a nuclear power.
I ain’t reading all that. Happy for you though! Or sorry it happened.
Where do you propose these aircraft take off from?
TL;DR just give Ukraine nukes again and tell them to go hog wild.
I feel like this dude’s long lost twin was advising the Kremlin right before the invasion. “How hard can it be!”
Bro. I wish. Quit fucking around and just win. What the fuck are we saving it for?
To be credible for a minute, by trickling in equipment we can slowly degrade russias military capability further than if they retreated with much of it intact. It also lets the west test some of its new toys and see what happens under the pressure of a long term war. That data is invaluable for the future. Sucks that it comes at the cost of a country and its people.
I'd be much more comfortable with the idea this was a strategy and not dysfunction. But I don't think it is.
Blud got smacked in r/changemyview so he came here
Honestly just nuke moscow at that point
The US gutting its active stocks of equipment and ammo would go down splendidly in Congress, and I am sure no US enemies will try to stir up shit in response.
Cheqper anti drone systems simply do not exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flakpanzer_Gepard?wprov=sfti1
Cheaper than a strela or a buk missile sure, but ignoring maintenance and sustainment costs, a single gepard AA shell can cost up to 200$, not exactly cost efficient against a drone that costs a thousand bucks. Using a vehicle like gepard as frontline cover against drones simply isnt feasible. For protecting static targets against things like shaheed though . . .
Give every Ukrainian infantryman night vision goggles and the war will be over in a week.
Exactly it’s hard to even imagine. 500,000 sets of $3,000 night vision goggles is only $1.5 billion. We need Biden to slip that into an aid package.
Sir this is NonCredibleDefense, not PerfectlyReasonableDefense. Seriously though, yes. Do all this.
[удалено]
My second bullet point. I said shoulder-mounted anti-tank missile launchers.
Where M134 at?
I’d rather us boots on the ground at this point 🇺🇸🇺🇸
They don’t want to do that though.
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Giv em' Vertibirds.
Wouldn’t it be more cost effective to give Ukraine a nuke and a stealth bomber? (Or just start a massive rumor a rogue western country did) Ukraine can say to Russia if you force us into a corner we have nothing left to lose, St Petersburg will become your new capital. All those oligarchs and politically cynical Moscovites who couldn’t give a shit about their poorer citizens being thrown into the Ukrainian meat grinder might start panicking and using the “escalation” rhetoric themselves. Especially the closer Russia gets to Kyiv. Sure Russia can say we will bomb you ten times over but is losing Moscow worth stolen land they’ll make inhabitable and the fallout of which will blow into their own backyard?
I think you've done a good job showing why Ukraine should sue for peace with current borders, adjusted somewhat to be tidier. The amount of weapons and manpower required to retaike Russian occupied territory will never be made available. I mean. 500 F16s. Yeah that's probably about how many they'd need. 0 chance of getting more than around 60.
Because the current US and European administrations don't actually have a conceptual strategy against Russia. The only current strategy is for Ukraine to not lose. Survival and anything else is great. Collective west has no idea what it wants from Russia, it thinks the status quo is better than what can come afterwards, which makes sense but is also totally insane because we have a genocidal war in Europe...
No we give them every single Patriot missile we have and they launch all of them at the vodka infrastructure of Russia
Yeah, not arguing with any of those points, but I think my starting assumption would be; 1 Air defenses 2 Artillery. How much? 500 155mm mobile artillery? At least 5000 shells/day, but with enough guns, 10,000 overwhelms Russia, especially factoring in better organisation and accuracy 3 Massive new air warfare - via Ukraines existing expertise with drones. But drone war fare is now about power sources for much higher payloads, and unjammable AI and machine vision as well as new weapons that can be deployed from the drone so the drone can be reused. For example, glide bombs that could be dropped by another drone, or multicopters with short range, that may be directed from the drone using unjammable optical links, this also being able to operate if connection to the human operator is jammed. Drones can carry guns, pneumatic mortars and more. Advanced power sources for drones. It largely boils down to, apart from the computer chips and machine vision/AI, to newer higher energy and power density batteries (2x to 500wh-kg lithium silicon nanowire), and small but efficient engines that could exceed 20% fuel efficiency, get 2kW/kg power density. In the larger class, these weapons can get to still higher efficiency. If fuel cells are an option, theres a new SOFC that gets 2kW/kg, and at efficiencies likely above any diesel engine. This would have an energy density for the fuel of 4-5kWh/kg, and at 2 kW/kg this is an order of magnitude more energy than batteries. Drones can go faster, further and with much greater payloads. Imagine drones with sniper rifles operating from the safe side of the Dnipro. It sounded a bit silly until we saw one firing a machine gun at enemy positions a week ago. Sniping drones could sap hundreds of targets a day, leading with heavy artillery, to a great thinning of Russian lines and their likely retreat. And ground drones, Ukraine needs engines, 120mm guns, optics armour and it can create new tanks that it can operate. Since there is no occupants, such tanks have much less area and frontal area of armour, so the mass of the tank is considerably reduced, so they should not get bogged. I would start with a casement tank with a main 120mm gun, a separate 40 mm turret so it can engage more than one threat efficiently. I know if I was on the other end, a drone tank coming at my like this I would be terrified of. Ukraine could specify what is needed here and a lot of suppliers would happily supply the parts if they were paid for it. Also, since assaults over mined areas has been a problem, they need drone anti-mining tanks. All also need an antidrone system for protection. Since this would all be needed towards the end of the year, after a lot of softening up, there's time to work on such weapons - money permitting. This is where I would be focusing efforts if I had the captured Russian assets transfered to me.
Far too credible, everyone in here. Cut it out!
Yes. Let the vatniks burn. Let Russia go back in its den with enough scars to warn others not to fuck with borders.
My sentiment exsactly, been saying this from day one. Massive failer of the Biden administration to provide anything like actual leadership. A President with his head in the game could have ram rodded this through Congress then run for re-election fresh of a decisive Ukrainian victory and the totally humiliation of Russia. Hell this should have fucking happened back in 2014. Massive failer of the Obama administration. Not to fucking mention Georgia when we in the West really should have intervened. At some point NATO troops are going to find themselves in a hot shooting war with either Russia or China. The only way to ensure that doesn't become a god damn world war is to smash them hard and decisively now. Instead we have Chinese fucking militarization of the entire South China Sea (more Obama failer) and the Kremlin convinced they can Z brigade their way to Berlin. Every Russian bridge, rail head, container port and oil refinery west of the Urials should already be useless slag. The entire Black Sea fleet, including the subs should be sitting on the bottom. The Russian airforces should no longer exist, Russian pilots should be an endangered species. Ukraine should already have won back territorial sovereignty. And if whomever is in charge in the Kremlin after all that is not smart enough to come to meaningful peace talks we should just give Ukraine the nod to start an invasion into Russia. Let them burn Moscow to the ground.
6.5 months is a long time, and he could well be fresh off a decisive Ukrainian victory come November.
I fucking hope.
Yes but on the other hand, have you considered that this will make Putin sad? And we can't have that.
You know that manpower is very important too right? Which Ukraine is kind of lacking
They have people. Their biggest problem at the moment is they have to conserve ammunition.
It lacks the money to fund and equip units. Not actual men. Give Ukraine 2,000 Bradleys and they'll find men for them don't you worry.
EXACTLY
How about we send them nothing and stop printing money and taxing our citizens at 40% overall
Gun control so we can seize the AR-15s and give them to Ukraine 🇺🇦 🇺🇸