The U.S. answered Kyiv’s desperate calls for more air defenses as it battles an intense Russian assault on the northeastern Kharkiv region.

The United States will send Ukraine another Patriot missile system, two U.S. officials said Tuesday, answering Kyiv’s desperate calls for more air defenses as it battles an intense Russian assault on the northeastern Kharkiv region.

The officials said President Joe Biden has approved the move. It would be the second Patriot system that the U.S. has given to Ukraine, although the Pentagon has routinely provided an undisclosed number of missiles for the system. Other allies, including Germany, also have provided air defense systems as well as munitions for them.

The two U.S. officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision has not been publicly announced. The decision was first reported by The New York Times.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy late last month pleaded for additional U.S.-made Patriot systems, arguing that they will help his forces fight the close to 3,000 bombs that he said Russia launches into the country every month.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    593·
    5 months ago

    For fucks sake can we just, like, given them a dozen or so? And a shitload of CRAMs? For fucks sake. Genuinely this pussy-footing around with the military aid to Ukraine is fucking infuriating and embarrassing.

    • smokinliver@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      241·
      5 months ago

      Afaik the US only has a dozen in operation itself that get shifted around gpobally where they are needed the most. So there dont seem to be too many around.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        163·
        5 months ago

        Pretty sure we have more than that in just the Metro DC area. We just don’t talk about them as loudly as Russia does about their IADS.

        Also, we absolutely should be building more.

      • bluGill@kbin.run
        16·
        5 months ago

        While having a dozen in operation might be good, we need the ability to produce 100k of them in a month (including all the supply chain for that!). If the world gets into a war between any of NATO (US), Russia, China, India you can bet that missiles will be flying anywhere that is thought to be unprotected and so we need missile defense on all cities so that nothing is unprotected. The we of course changes depending on how is involved.

        I said produce 100k in a month, not have them in stock. That is because technology changes. It is likely that when we (again not sure who the we is) needs this technology will have changed and so whatever existing systems we have are obsolete and useless. 100k systems would be enough to protect us (whoever we are) from today’s threats, but they may be scrap when war comes.

        • Ranvier@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          15·
          5 months ago

          They cost a billion each to manufacture… Only 280 have ever been made…

          100k a month would be 100 trillion dollars a year, might be a bit overkill for just one weapon type.

          And that’s not even getting to all the people needed to staff a battery.

          Anyways they did ramp up production, Ukraine is getting five more from the company of the 12 they can now build in a year. Should bring Ukraine up to ten batteries total by the end of the year including the gifted ones from the US and Germany.

          https://www.globaldefensecorp.com/2023/11/13/u-s-ramps-up-patriot-missile-production-after-ukraine-war-success/

          • bluGill@kbin.run
            29·
            5 months ago

            They do not cost a billion each to manufacture. They cost a billion each because of the costs to develop the system are also included in the cost - you take the costs of engineering, add in the costs of assembly and then divide by the couple hundred that have been made. this is a useful number to know, but doesn’t give us any clue as to what the costs are if we made in larger quantities. If we were to have the ability to make 100k in a month that implies a large amount of automation which means that when we only make 12 a year the cost goes up even more - but when (if!) we make that 100k the cost for each goes down.

            • Ranvier@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              12·
              5 months ago

              Sure there’s economies of scale, but that is an absolutely ridiculous mind boggling number of a single surface to air missile system. Even Ukraine at it’s highest ask says 25 (though they estimate all major cities would be covered by 7), and you think they should make 100,000 batteries?! Every year?! What would be the point of that? Who on earth would buy that many and why?

              Even if they were manufactured at 20% of their current cost, a massive markdown, that would be $20 trillion a year dedicated to a single kind of a single weapon type, nearly as much as the entire gdp of the United States, and you still need the entire rest of your military paid for! They going to make 100,000 f35s and train 50,000 pilots too or something?

              I’m gonna stop, this must be trolling.

              • bluGill@kbin.run
                18·
                5 months ago

                I said ability to make100k in a month. Because if Russia discovers Omaha is undefended they will send missiles there. Of course it will take less than a month to cover all cities - but if this happens we need to get them rolled out fast which means max production for a couple days and then we are all covered and the factory drops back down to making 20/year (after the war 10/year)

                That is I did not say we actually need to ever build 100k. I just want the rate of production to be that fast in case we actually need them.

                • ripcord@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  4·
                  5 months ago

                  Because if Russia discovers Omaha is undefended they will send missiles there.

                  No they won’t.

                  I mean, I guess I get that you’re saying we should be able to respond rapidly (like, WW2 levels of production) but the ridiculous way you’re framing the point completely, utterly undermines any poi t you’re trying to get across.

      • wewbull@feddit.ukEnglish
        111·
        5 months ago

        No. It’s all about politics and “non-escallaction”.

        The US doesn’t want to be seen as fighting this war.

        US Vs Russia is a war nobody wants. Unlimited fire power would be easily framed as the US being an active participant.

        Then at home Biden has an isolationist opponent framing him as a war-monger.

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      71·
      5 months ago

      Patriots probably aren’t actually an ideal counter to Russian aircraft.

      They’re the longest-range anti-aircraft SAM the US has, but they’re really primarily intended for use against ballistic missiles.

      The US really uses the Air Force to counter enemy aircraft.

      Warsaw Pact SAMs have longer range.

      My understanding is that the Franco-Italian SAMP/T – which was also intended for dual anti-ballistic-missile use, but hasn’t had luck intercepting Russian ballistic missiles – is probably a better match for picking off aircraft at range. The radar’s longer-range. It has a narrower cone, but that’s fine for picking off aircraft that you’ve identified. If you fire one of their Aster missiles, you aren’t giving up capability to stop a ballistic missile.

      If Ukraine runs out of Patriots, they aren’t gonna be able to do anything about Russian ballistic missiles, as that’s their only counter to them. Those Russian glide bombs are limited to front line targets. But ballistic missiles can do deep interdiction.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        41·
        5 months ago

        There’s a ton of different Patriot flavors. PAC-2 GEMs are great at smoking aircraft. PAC-3s are great at anti-ballistic, but they’ll also ruin your day if it doesn’t want you flying near it.

        Russia loves to brag about the extreme ranges their SAMs can supposedly reach. And sure, they can probably detect and reach as far as they say they do under ideal conditions… but actual combat is anything but ideal conditions. Given how poorly they’ve performed in Ukraine (a combination of the equipment itself, doctrine, and mediocre training), even their most cutting edge SAMs are getting smoked by gulf war vintage ATACMS.

        Meanwhile, the US and allied nations tend to keep the specs of our much closer to the chest, and in fact often understate the performance. We’re not in a dick-swinging contest. If it flies, it dies, and both the Patriot system and AEGIS/SM-2/SM-3 naval SAMs (which, by the way, we’ve apparently started strapping to Super Hornets, so that’s neat) are incredibly deadly, effective, and probably a good bit better than the public specs say they are.