218 views
3h • 23 tweets • 6 min read
During this war, there's been calls for the US to give UKR more _____________ (fill in the blank with M1 Abrams tanks, Patriot Missile Systems, F16s, A10s, etc).
Those calls often come from politicians, reporters, or those with little knowledge of weapons.
A
to discuss. 1/23
I'm all for giving UKR the systems they need (and want), if those help the war effort.
But there are many factors that go into the decision to provide arms beyond "this would be a game changer!"
When giving or selling arms to other nations, there are considerations: 2/
1. Can the Army operate the system now (level of competence of the operator) and if not how much training would be needed?
2. Can the Army support the system (an assessment of logistics requirement, e.g., parts and fuel), and is there the ability to repair/sustain? 3/
3. Will the new weapon system contribute to either short-term or long-term success on the battlefield?
4. Can the receiving nation afford the system, or will this come as part of a defense aid program? 4/
These 4 criteria (& a few others such as future threat analysis & the country's neighbors, that I won't get into) are used when providing arms or aid to every allied or partner country.
When a nation needs arms in the middle of a war, even more criteria are applied. 5/
So...first let me say this: Ukraine's military could apply any of equipment they are requesting. They are great soldiers & airman.
But even the best need training on new equipment.
Training takes a few hours (like the Javelin), or months or years (like others) 6/
Let me start with the M1Abrams tank (since I'm a tanker).
It's a great piece of kit. In my view the best in the world.
And UKR tankers could spin up within a few days on that system. 7/
But here are some details:
-It has a 1500HP turbine engine, so it needs fuel similar to jet fuel.
-It gets 3 gallons/mile (not 3 mpg)...& it uses same amount of fuel even when idling
-the fire control systems is advanced technology, which needs a separate turret mechanic 8/
-A US tanker goes through weeks of training; a turret mechanic needs months
-The M1 has a "track" (or hull) mechanic who repairs the automotive system...he/she also needs months of training
-All tanks "break" in combat, & tankers try to "fix" their tanks...that's not good 9/
-Depending on the variant (M1, M1A1, M1A1Sep), the cost is between $2.5-8.9M
-If not treated right, the engines & transmissions "blow" easily (& that's expensive).
-It requires a lot of spare parts (what the army calls PLL or Prescribed Load List), & many fuel trucks 10/
While UKR tankers could certainly "man" the M1A1, they would have difficulty supporting it with mechanics, fuel, parts. And the costs would be astronomical.
So, what about the T72? 11/
The T72 is an old chevy; the M1 is a Ferrari.
You get what you pay for (it's $.5-1.5M per copy).
The most technical thing in the turret is the autoloader, which the crew hates (it has a 3-man crew instead of 4-man like the Abrams).
It's a diesel instead of a jet engine. 12/
Several NATO countries (Czech Rep, Slovakia, etc) have "upgunned" the T72 with some technological modifications, and it's a better tank.
I actually shot one in the Czech Rep (and hit the target!). /13
The UKR tankers know the T72 well...as they've even used to build this tank in Ukraine for the Soviet Army in the old days.
So the potential of a tank "swap" with other nations providing T72s is a good idea...my only concern is how to get them onto the battlefield. 14/
But what about the call for "PATRIOTS"?
After all, Poland & Bahrain just concluded a deal for them!?
The Bahrain deal included 60 Patriot missiles, nine launchers, two radar sets, control stations & other associated equipment.For $10B dollars.
Here's what it looks like 15/
The Patriot, like the Abrams, is a great system. But...
It requires an extensive amount of training for trigger pullers, more for those who run the C2 & radars, and even more for mechanics who keep the system running.
Nothing like the RU S300/400 or Buk, which UKR knows. 16/
These are all the relatively "simple" Army systems.
Now, I'm not a pilot. And I'm sure that with a few days training a UKR pilot could fly an F16/F15/or A10. But likely, not very well.
That's not the limiting factor (or "limfac", as the Air Force says). 17/
The limits, again, are the type technology in the aircraft (The MiG-29 has hydraulic controls & a SAU-451 three-axis autopilot, no fly-by-wire controls like the F16).
That requires extensive training for mechanics, crew chiefs, & part suppliers on a system UKR doesn't have. 18/
Also, likely different ordnance, ordnance pods, & communication w/ ground forces.
Let's not talk about the A10...because it's easy to say "let's pull them out of mothballs." But it's now clear the log support, trained mechanics, pilot training would be an issue. 19/
Should Poland have provided MIGs to UKR?
I won't get into that, other than to say 1) that's Poland's issue, and 2) there's a lot more that goes into close air support than flying close air support. (that is, suppression of enemy, down pilot pickup, targeting, etc).
and...20/
Airplanes can't shoot down incoming missiles or artillery, and that's what's causing most of the civilian casualties.
But Stingers can shoot down enemy airplanes that are dropping dumb bombs. 21/
It's pretty obvious everyone wants to help UKR as much as possible, but shouting out "good ideas" of giving them different things just because they say they want them isn't the best solution.
I'm prepared for negative feedback on this
...22/
I'll only finish by saying the US Government has given $2.5 B worth of equipment to UKR, and NATO has given much, too.
And there's even more than most know about.
And lots of smart people have determined what's best to get to them...and it has helped tremendously. 23/23
------
jos/kun kehittyneempien länsijärjestelmien opetteluun menee viikkoja tai kuukausia, niin nyt olisi varmaan syytä aloittaa! Lähettäisi hyvän viestin putlerille, että kohta on Abrams, Patriot, A10 ja F16 valmiina lähettämään lämpimiä terveisiä ryssäjoukoille. Miksiköhän muuten Tomahawk, JASSM etc ole ollut listalla?
putlerin haaveiden pysäyttäminen nyt on halvempaa kuin myöhemmin.
Moskovaan ei voi hyökätä jos ei ihan välttämättä halua aloittaa ydinsotaa. Länsimaat ja Nato eivät ole sodan osapuolia eivätkä sellaiseksi halua tulla.
www.is.fi
www.npr.org
www.bbc.com
