Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Parliament said:

How much decommissioned stuff do we have, and how good a shape is it in?

A shit ton. And we run PM on it. We have shit hidden in caves across Norway. 

Adding. Most is USMC gear. But yeah it is there. 

Edited by InkaUtexas
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
12 minutes ago, Parliament said:

How much decommissioned stuff do we have, and how good a shape is it in?

We have almost a thousand F-16s sitting in the high desert, as an example, and it's very dry.  They will never be used again, except for occasional parts or to replace the occasional Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve F-16s that are lost or retired for one reason or another.  They are in far better shape than aircraft going through the shitshow of Russian aircraft storage where they go well below freezing in winter and bake in the summer, and are stripped for blackmarket parts. Most still have plenty of life in them, they were simply replaced by newer aircraft or retired as the military shrank.

We also have 3,600 Abrams tanks that are sitting in storage, many of which were retired, again, due to a shrinking or changing military, or newer models.

 We purchased over 160,000 Humvees, and I'm sure there's a few tens of thousands in storage (although they may not be in the best of shape, *ahem* a lot of us treated them like shit). We probably have a few thousand Bradleys in storage, probably some Strykers in storage.  A whole lot of M113s (although those are very old).  

Probably have a few hundred Black Hawks in storage as well.

We actually take care of our stuff, unlike the Russians.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Parliament said:

How much decommissioned stuff do we have, and how good a shape is it in?

 

I don't think the US has been prepared for the trench warfare type stuff that Russia and Ukraine are embroiled in. We have a lot of sophisticated stuff in storage, but I bet our basic artillery shells are pretty limited and may not fit eastern european weapons.

As for advanced stuff, we only have 410 HIMARS but production is ramping up. I think we gave Ukraine 20. Another 20 HIMARS would be great but the ATACMS cost $1.5 mil so we will never be able to give Ukraine what it needs.  

Posted
1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

We have almost a thousand F-16s sitting in the high desert, as an example, and it's very dry.  They will never be used again, except for occasional parts or to replace the occasional Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve F-16s that are lost or retired for one reason or another.  They are in far better shape than aircraft going through the shitshow of Russian aircraft storage where they go well below freezing in winter and bake in the summer, and are stripped for blackmarket parts. Most still have plenty of life in them, they were simply replaced by newer aircraft or retired as the military shrank.

We also have 3,600 Abrams tanks that are sitting in storage, many of which were retired, again, due to a shrinking or changing military, or newer models.

 We purchased over 160,000 Humvees, and I'm sure there's a few tens of thousands in storage (although they may not be in the best of shape, *ahem* a lot of us treated them like shit). We probably have a few thousand Bradleys in storage, probably some Strykers in storage.  A whole lot of M113s (although those are very old).  

Probably have a few hundred Black Hawks in storage as well.

We actually take care of our stuff, unlike the Russians.

We have a fleet sitting at sea. The APS program. All goes through PM. Name it, it is on those boats. Then add in BEAR CAT and other shit. We can field 200K tomorrow. Rations to tanks to GenSets. If President Trump gives the order we are ready. As a Nation. 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Parliament said:

How much of that stuff could be realistically be brought up to near-current specs and sold?

 

A better question related to @atomheartbevo's post is how many Ukrainian pilots have we trained at this point? Did the training stop when we stopped supplying weapons or did it continue?

Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

A better question related to @atomheartbevo's post is how many Ukrainian pilots have we trained at this point? Did the training stop when we stopped supplying weapons or did it continue?

Below is a link from the NYP. I found it on a site propped by Republican money and it's dated so apply appropriate amounts of salt.

LINK On Ukrainian Pilot Training

Where I found the Article for reference

Edit - Found an interesting regional and more recent article sorry if this is a retreat. But as @atomheartbevo noted. Its an issue. Leaning to fly a new single prop takes a goodly amount of practice. The F16 is a tad more complex.

Kyiv Independent on Pilot Training

Spoiler

The Czech government has approved a plan to train up to eight Ukrainian pilots on the operation of F-16 fighter jets this year, the Czech Defense Ministry announced on July 9.

 

The approval comes two months after Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala said the country was prepared to provide fighter jet training to Ukrainian pilots in a joint press conference with President Volodymyr Zelensky on May 5.

 

The Czech Defense Ministry will provide 150 hours of training, worth approximately 32 million koruna (around $1.5 million), through the state-owned enterprise LOM Praha, the ministry reported. The program expects to train up to eight Ukrainian pilots this year at no charge to Kyiv.

 

While the Czech Republic does not have F-16 fighter jets in its own arsenal, the pilots will train for using simulators and L-39 training aircraft.

 

"If Ukraine is to continue to effectively defend itself against Russian aggression, it needs not only military equipment, but also well-trained armed forces, including air forces," Defense Minister Jana Cernochova said.

 

"As an active member of the so-called coalition of the willing, the Czech Republic is aware of its responsibility, and continued support for wartime Ukraine is also in its strategic interest."

 

In 2023, Ukraine and its allies created an aviation coalition to provide Ukraine with F-16 combat aircraft. European nations have agreed to supply aircraft to help modernize the Ukrainian Air Force as they themselves transition to more advanced F-35 fighter jets.

 

The first shipments of F-16s were delivered to Ukraine in 2024 by the Netherlands and Denmark. Ukraine has also been promised F-16s by Belgium and Norway.

 

Other members of the coalition, including the U.S. and the U.K., have provided training for Ukrainian pilots and maintenance personnel.

 

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

A better question related to @atomheartbevo's post is how many Ukrainian pilots have we trained at this point? Did the training stop when we stopped supplying weapons or did it continue?

If I were Ukraine, I would have an open offer to any former F-16 pilot. We will pay you $1,000,000 per mission to fight on our behalf. We will make sure your family receives the money, if you are killed. I mean, at least your family is guaranteed a million dollars. Brave men have died for a lot less.

CHIEF

Edited by CHIEF
drunk and high
Posted
2 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

If I were Ukraine, I would have an open offer to any former F-16 pilot. We will pay you $1,000,000 per mission to fight on our behalf. We will make sure your family receives the money, if you are killed. I mean, at least your family is guaranteed a million dollars. Brave men have died for a lot less.

CHIEF

$1m per flight could add up really quickly. Drones arent cheap.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, CHIEF said:

If I were Ukraine, I would have an open offer to any former F-16 pilot. We will pay you $1,000,000 per mission to fight on our behalf. If you get killed, we will make sure your family receives the money, if you are killed. I mean, at least your family is guaranteed a million dollars. Brave men have died for a lot less.

CHIEF

The pilots are not the issue. It is the E-5 who maintains. 

Ukraine's AF is USSR focused. We don't use the same tools. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

The pilots are not the issue. It is the E-5 who maintains. 

Ukraine's AF is USSR focused. We don't use the same tools. 

 

Gotcha. Not people to fly them, but people to maintain them. Wow. I just assumed it was a Harbor Freight ratchet with metric sockets, who new. And that isn't said with sarcasm, just good knowledge  

CHIEF

Edited by CHIEF
Drunk and high
Posted
34 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

$1m per flight could add up really quickly. Drones arent cheap.

Drones are very cheap, comparatively. I would expect a decent chunk of money to go into drone development and production. @CHIEF If I'm the Europeans, I would put my money on indigenous production first. Only what I couldn't produce, or couldn't produce fast enough, would I order from the Americans.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
Drones are very cheap, comparatively. I would expect a decent chunk of money to go into drone development and production. [mention=1385]CHIEF[/mention] If I'm the Europeans, I would put my money on indigenous production first. Only what I couldn't produce, or couldn't produce fast enough, would I order from the Americans.

Those Americans were pretty good partners for a long while. About 80 years. Then they went crazy and became…unreliable.
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 3
Posted
21 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Drones are very cheap, comparatively. I would expect a decent chunk of money to go into drone development and production. @CHIEF If I'm the Europeans, I would put my money on indigenous production first. Only what I couldn't produce, or couldn't produce fast enough, would I order from the Americans.

Eventually the Europeans will be able to produce in the numbers Ukraine needs, but it will take years. And since 2022, those numbers have not increased much. 

Posted
26 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Drones are very cheap, comparatively. I would expect a decent chunk of money to go into drone development and production. @CHIEF If I'm the Europeans, I would put my money on indigenous production first. Only what I couldn't produce, or couldn't produce fast enough, would I order from the Americans.

Oh I completely agree they are relatively cheap. My point was putting $1m into paying a pilot for a single flight is just bad ROI regarding war funding efforts.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Oh I completely agree they are relatively cheap. My point was putting $1m into paying a pilot for a single flight is just bad ROI regarding war funding efforts.

Not if the pilot is Maverick.

  • Haha 3
  • Drool 3
Posted
28 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

Drones are very cheap, comparatively. I would expect a decent chunk of money to go into drone development and production. @CHIEF If I'm the Europeans, I would put my money on indigenous production first. Only what I couldn't produce, or couldn't produce fast enough, would I order from the Americans.

I agree. A country needs to be the point of origin for most of their country's "top secret" innovations, and present that on the markets. There are about to be some rich Ukrainians. 

CHIEF

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
13 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

We have almost a thousand F-16s sitting in the high desert, as an example, and it's very dry.  They will never be used again, except for occasional parts or to replace the occasional Air National Guard/Air Force Reserve F-16s that are lost or retired for one reason or another.  They are in far better shape than aircraft going through the shitshow of Russian aircraft storage where they go well below freezing in winter and bake in the summer, and are stripped for blackmarket parts. Most still have plenty of life in them, they were simply replaced by newer aircraft or retired as the military shrank.

We also have 3,600 Abrams tanks that are sitting in storage, many of which were retired, again, due to a shrinking or changing military, or newer models.

 We purchased over 160,000 Humvees, and I'm sure there's a few tens of thousands in storage (although they may not be in the best of shape, *ahem* a lot of us treated them like shit). We probably have a few thousand Bradleys in storage, probably some Strykers in storage.  A whole lot of M113s (although those are very old).  

Probably have a few hundred Black Hawks in storage as well.

We actually take care of our stuff, unlike the Russians.

https://www.amarcexperience.com/ui/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205&Itemid=274

 

More like 343.  

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

Poland decided to invest in developing their own artillery shell production rather than relying on allies and neighbors. Looks like a couple of companies jumped at the opportunity.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
14 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

Holy shit thanks for sending me down a rabbit hole looking up all the hardware I have never heard of. Which is most of it.

I just happened to be driving through this past week.  All I could really see from the road as I was passing through were C-5s, the WB-57s, then a bunch of C-130s.  Caught a glimpse of some P-3s and the museum row with one offs like the YC-14, etc.  

Man, I love Tucson though.  Ok, that's my digression for the morning.  

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
56 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Trump claims he’s going after Russian trade partners

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-trump-patriot-missiles-kellogg-ca8cda9b417737188c471390bc312a5d

He needs a huge distraction right now, even bigger than a few days ago.  

In reversal, Trump arms Ukraine and threatens sanctions on countries that buy Russian oil -

Reuters Link

Spoiler

Update 45 minutes ago

KYIV/WASHINGTON - U.S. President Donald Trump announced new weapons for Ukraine on Monday, and threatened to hit buyers of Russian exports with sanctions unless Russia agrees a peace deal in 50 days, a major shift in policy brought on by frustration with Moscow.

Sitting side-by-side with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office, Trump told reporters that he was disappointed in Russian President Vladimir Putin. Billions of dollars in weapons would be distributed to Ukraine, he said.

"We're going to make top-of-the-line weapons, and they'll be sent to NATO," Trump said, adding that Washington's NATO allies would pay for the weapons.

The weapons would include Patriot air defence missiles, which Ukraine has urgently sought to defend its cities from Russian air strikes.

"It's a full complement with the batteries," Trump said. "We're going to have some come very soon, within days... a couple of the countries that have Patriots are going to swap over and will replace the Patriots with the ones they have."

Some or all of 17 Patriot batteries ordered by other countries could be sent to Ukraine "very quickly", he said.

His threat to impose so-called secondary sanctions on Russia, if carried out, would be a major shift in Western sanctions policy. Lawmakers from both political parties in the United States are pushing for a bill that would authorise such measures, targeting other countries that buy Russian oil.

"We're going to be doing secondary tariffs," Trump said. "If we don't have a deal in 50 days, it's very simple, and they'll be at 100%."

A White House official said Trump was referring to 100% tariffs on Russian goods as well as secondary sanctions on other countries that buy its exports.

Still, Trump's announcement of a 50-day grace period was greeted with relief by investors in Russia, where the rouble recovered from earlier losses and stock markets rose.

"Trump performed below market expectations. He gave 50 days during which the Russian leadership can come up with something and extend the negotiation track. Moreover, Trump likes to postpone and extend such deadlines," said analyst Artyom Nikolayev from Invest Era, a financial information firm.

Trump, who returned to power this year promising a quick end to the war, said his shift was motivated by increasing frustration with Putin, who, he said, had talked about peace but continued to strike Ukrainian cities.

"We actually had probably four times a deal. And then the deal wouldn't happen because bombs would be thrown out that night and you'd say we're not making any deals," Trump said.

Trump vented his frustration last week, saying: "We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin."

...

But so far, Putin has yet to accept a proposal from Trump for an unconditional ceasefire, which was quickly endorsed by Kyiv. Recent days have seen Russia use hundreds of drones to attack Ukrainian cities.

...

Separately on Monday, Zelenskiy said he would replace his long-serving prime minister Denys Shmyhal with Shmyhal's first deputy, Yulia Svyrydenko, in "a transformation of the executive branch". Her appointment will require parliamentary approval.

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

Watched the press conference with Trump and Rutte. One takeaway that probably won't be reported much is that Milania seems to be pro-Ukraine. Trump had an offhanded comment about telling Milania that he had a nice phone call with Putin that day and Milania responding "Well, he just destroyed an apartment in Kiev." Interesting tidbit. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 minute ago, KYHorn said:

Watched the press conference with Trump and Rutte. One takeaway that probably won't be reported much is that Milania seems to be pro-Ukraine. Trump had an offhanded comment about telling Milania that he had a nice phone call with Putin that day and Milania responding "Well, he just destroyed an apartment in Kiev." Interesting tidbit. 

No Slovene, Bosnian, Croatian likes Russia. Serbs, yeah, well fuck them. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

What about the Hungarians? 

Alignment with Russia for various purposes ain't the same as like. People didn't actually like their weed dealers they just tolerated them ya know, for product supply.

  • Haha 4
Posted
15 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

What about the Hungarians? 

Only basically one Hungarian.  Orban.  I bet the rest of Hungary hates Putin as much as everyone.

We need to get that sanctions bill on Trump's desk before he TACO's.  Get that fucker signed.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted

If it comes to fruition, this is could be the shift we've needed for 3 years. From the article: “Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow? . . . Can you hit St Petersburg too?” Trump asked on the call, according to the people.

Donald Trump asked Volodymyr Zelenskyy if Ukraine could hit Moscow, say people briefed on call

https://www.ft.com/content/b66f03b5-e295-4f8c-92ba-516a527d588c

Spoiler


US president encouraged Ukrainian leader to step up deep strikes on Russia

Trump says he is ‘very unhappy’ with Russia and its president over the lack of progress towards a deal to end the war © Telegram/Handout/Anadolu/Getty Images
Donald Trump asked Volodymyr Zelenskyy if Ukraine could hit Moscow, say people briefed on call on x (opens in a new window)
Donald Trump asked Volodymyr Zelenskyy if Ukraine could hit Moscow, say people briefed on call on facebook (opens in a new window)
Donald Trump asked Volodymyr Zelenskyy if Ukraine could hit Moscow, say people briefed on call on linkedin (opens in a new window)

Share

Save

Pro Features Configuration
current progress 100%
Christopher Miller in Kyiv, Henry Foy in Brussels and Max Seddon in Berlin
Published2 hours ago
374
Print this page
Donald Trump has privately encouraged Ukraine to step up deep strikes on Russian territory, even asking Volodymyr Zelenskyy whether he could strike Moscow if the US provided long-range weapons, according to people briefed on the discussions.
The conversation, which took place during the July 4 call between the US and Ukrainian leaders, marks a sharp departure from Trump’s previous stance on Russia’s war and his campaign promise to end US involvement in foreign conflicts.
While it remains unclear whether Washington will deliver such weapons, the discussion underscores Trump’s deepening frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s refusal to engage in ceasefire talks proposed by the US president, who once vowed to resolve the war in a day.
The conversation with Zelenskyy on July 4 was precipitated by Trump’s call with Putin a day earlier, which the US president described as “bad”.
Two people familiar with the conversation between Trump and Zelenskyy said the US president had asked his Ukrainian counterpart whether he could hit military targets deep inside Russia if he provided weapons capable of doing so.
“Volodymyr, can you hit Moscow? . . . Can you hit St Petersburg too?” Trump asked on the call, according to the people.
They said Zelenskyy replied: “Absolutely. We can if you give us the weapons.” 
Trump signalled his backing for the idea, describing the strategy as intended to “make them [Russians] feel the pain” and force the Kremlin to the negotiating table, according to the two people briefed on the call.
A western official, who had been informed of the call, said the conversation reflected a growing desire among Ukraine’s western partners to supply long-range weapons capable of “bringing the war to Muscovites” — a sentiment echoed privately by American officials in recent weeks.
The White House and Ukraine’s presidential office did not respond to requests for comment.
The discussion between Trump and Zelenskyy led to a list of potential weapons for Kyiv being shared by the US side with the Ukrainian president in Rome last week, according to three people with knowledge of it.
During a meeting with US defence officials and intermediaries from Nato governments, Zelenskyy received a list of long-range strike systems that potentially could be made available to Ukraine via third-party transfers.
The arrangement would allow Trump to sidestep the need for Congressional approval on direct US military aid by authorising weapons sales to European allies, who would then pass the systems on to Kyiv.
The Ukrainians had asked for Tomahawk missiles, precision strike cruise missiles with a range of around 1,600km. But the Trump administration — like the Biden administration — had concerns about Ukraine’s lack of restraint, said a person familiar with the list shared with Zelenskyy.
During a meeting in the Oval Office with Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte on Monday, Trump announced a plan to provide Ukraine with Patriot air defence systems and interceptor missiles but did not disclose any shipments of other weapons systems.

Show video description
Donald Trump threatened 100% secondary tariffs on Russia on Monday © White House
The US president said he was “very unhappy” with Russia and its president over the lack of progress towards a deal to end its war. “I’m disappointed in President [Vladimir] Putin, because I thought we would have had a deal two months ago.”
Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chair of Russia’s security council and a former stand-in president for Putin, shrugged off Trump’s decision. “Trump issued a theatrical ultimatum to the Kremlin . . . Russia didn’t care,” Medvedev wrote on X.
Two of the people briefed on the call between Trump and Zelenskyy and familiar with US-Ukraine discussions on military strategy said that one weapon discussed was the Army Tactical Missile System, or Atacms.
Ukraine has used US-supplied Atacms missiles with a range of up to 300km (186 miles) to strike targets in Russian-occupied territory and, in some cases, deeper inside Russia. The Atacms can be launched from HIMARS rocket systems that the Biden administration delivered to Ukraine. But they do not fly far enough to reach Moscow or St Petersburg.
Russia has repeatedly threatened to attack western targets in response to western supplies of advanced weaponry to Ukraine, but has yet to do so.
After Ukraine first used the Atacms system to strike military targets inside Russian sovereign territory last November, Putin said the war had “taken on elements of a global nature” and responded by test-firing the Oreshnik, an experimental intermediate-range missile, on the city of Dnipro.
The Russian president said Moscow was entitled to “use our weaponry against military facilities of countries that allow their weapons to be used against our facilities, and in the case the aggressive action escalates, we will respond just as decisively and symmetrically”.
Following the Atacms strikes, Russia also published an updated version of its nuclear doctrine that lowered the threshold for potential use. The changes could envision a Russian nuclear first strike against the US, UK and France — Nato’s three nuclear powers — in response to Ukraine’s strikes on Russia with weapons such as the Atacms and Storm Shadow missiles.
Washington has at times warned Ukraine off using them to strike deep inside Russia, but those constraints appear to be loosening now.
Ukraine has mostly used its own domestically-produced long-range drones to strike military targets deep inside Russia that help fuel its war machine.
Its most audacious attack came in early June, when Ukraine’s SBU security service launched swarms of suicide drones hidden inside prefabricated homes that it smuggled into Russia and attacked the country’s fleet of strategic bombers. The planes had been used in Moscow’s bombardments of Ukrainian cities throughout the war. At least 12 aircraft were heavily damaged or destroyed in what Kyiv dubbed Operation Spiderweb.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Drool 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...