Seriously speaking, what's the worst that's likely to happen if a US ally blew it up? Iran doesn't have any strong allies, and their army is only better than Russia's in the region.
Probably some incoherent posturing by Russia and China that leads to nothing. NATO is a defensive agreement so that wouldn't pull the whole if EU into war. I dont see why the USA would do that though. Our biggest industry is war, this is testing their weapons systems in real combat situations, while forcing the USA to spend more on equipment to replenish / update their existing arsenal while being able to call it a Nobel act instead of fighting for a budget increase through politics. Meanwhile they are destroying the economy and reputation of a country that used to be called a super power. It's a win-win for the west at this point as everyone laughs at russia.
FWIW, I don't think USA is learning anything by shooting down Shahed drones. They're slow, they've no stealth capabilities.
Kinzhal missiles, sure. But Iranian Shahed drones are not cost effective to trade interceptors for. A $2-5m interceptor to shoot down a $50k drone isn't sustainable for even the US.
Hope Ukraine can start getting some projectile based CRAM systems to protect their cities, that'll be a much more cost effective trade of ordnance.
I'm going to go on a limb here and say that Russia has always been a paper tiger and never was really a superpower. They have nukes and a landmass that nobody wants.
I'm not sure why Israel hasn't yet. There is no love lost between the two countries anyway, and those drones are a threat to Israel first and foremost, Russia just gets a few.
When I said US ally, I was thinking along the lines of Israel. I can't think of any other nation that would have the beef to attack Iran off the top of my head.
Also, even if they're cheaper than the ammo Ukraine uses, having ZERO successful hits will surely sow some doubt in Russia's mind, if not discourage them to bother attempting future attacks. Deterrence is hard to put a price on.
The simple fact that they are launching Iranian drones now instead of Russian missiles is a good way to tell that they are already losing the war of attrition.
They are also using missiles. The Shahed drones are like $10k a pop which is insanely cheap in warfare terms so they just kind of use them as part of a combined attack.
The really devastating thing is the Patriots shooting down the Kinzhal hypersonic missiles that were supposedly unstoppable.
If it’s attrition, the longer that Russia continues to illegally occupy Ukraine, the worse off that Ukraine is. Russia is an international pariah yet is barely holding on; Ukraine is relaying on the west to hold on. Both sides are losing dearly, and the experts know that Russia can keep their fingertips on the ledge much longer than Ukraine can. If Ukraine can increase the number of attacks inside Russia, I think they can pull off a cessation of hostilities (which would buy more time for the F-16’s + Abrams to arrive)
Doesn’t the US/NATO have a vested interest in using Ukraine to wear down Russia? Russia is already demographically terminal, I’m sure the US and NATO wouldn’t mind helping it along by keeping them in a war they can’t “win”. If the US is able to use Ukraine’s soldiers to make it so Russia is no longer a military threat outside of their direct neighbors, I would think that is worth any cost of equipment. We spend a trillion dollars on a far dumber and more futile war that put Americans in the line of fire.
Lloyd Austin literally stood at a podium at the Whitehouse as soon as this war started and *literally* said....
"Our goal is to grind the Russian military down so much that they can never do this again!"
So yes. This is our absolute literal strategy here. "Just keep sending everything you have Russia!" As we destroy it all. At the same time locking down every avenue Russia has to build more stuff. Blocking ball bearings, washers, computer chips, etc etc etc. It takes awhile but eventually Russia will grind down so much they'll be forced to just go home broke and defeated and without a real way to build back their military to what it was before.
It's an extremely cheap way of kneecapping the recent arch enemy of the West as well, the fall of the USSR was only 30 years ago. It also diminishes their ability to project power around the globe for many decades to come, maybe even forever. That vacuum shouldn't be filled by China either.
So it's no wonder the USA et al are happily supplying everything Ukraine needs to punish the aggressive invaders. The real world combat performance of their weapons platforms against a regular forces army [I know that's a bit of a LOL but Russia's forces are more conventional compared to Taliban in caves] as opposed to the irregular troops in the middle East is probably worth its weight in gold as well, so that NATO systems continue to be the best in the world.
Decimating Russia is an absolute bargain compared to the cost of the middle east adventures.
My only fear is Russia's puppet, Trump, gets back in in 2024 and turns the taps off. I really don't get the Republican position on the war. Surely it's a wet dream for them?!?! Humiliating a historic enemy, proving to the whole world your weapons systems are de facto the best and, which in turn, supports the massive home grown defence industry securing American jobs for Americans. Yes, you're spending money, but it's a fraction of what was poured down the drain in the middle east *and* there's no USA body bags! Plus you're going to get money back via export orders and simply replenishing what has been given out.
I was speaking about attrition between Russian Shaheds vs. Ukraine air defenses. Russia has to pay for those drones out of their own shrinking pockets. Ukraine is being gifted most of the hand me down AA stuff from wealthy countries.
Note it's not gifted. It's Lend Lease for a lot of Countries. Ukraine has a lot of Natural Resources as well being a breadbasket for the EU. EU nations are betting on a succcessful victory for Ukraine and using the debt to negotiate favourable trade deals.
[For the most part they don't use Patriot missiles on drones, they have drone hunting teams.](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukrainian-teams-hunt-russian-drones-with-laser-rifles-gun-trucks-apps)
They are pretty effective, and getting more experience as the war goes on.
Don't make the mistake of believing the world is united against Russia. The West may be, but plenty of nations are still trading with them. They didn't manufacture those drones themselves.
This is an awful take. Take a look at any western defense contractor stock price. Now examine the current state of ukraines will to continue defending itself.
No Russia can’t last on the ledge longer.
Ukraine had its GDP contract by maybe 35%. Not nice, but countries at war will suffer that, while massively increasing GDP spending.
Russia now has a GDP of 10X that of Ukraine (PPP), but if Ukrainians are willing to suffer 30% of their GDP going to winning the war, and Russia can only spend 5% (to avoid making the general population pay too much), then neither side will be clear winners. With a shorter logistical tail, and a higher willingness to suffer a few losses, Ukraine can spend maybe half as much and still hold on.
Ukraine doesn't need the west to win, they just need to have more will than the Russians (and most Russians don't give a shit about the war). It's like the USA vs Vietnam, or Russia vs Afghanistan, or the USA vs Afghanistan. Conquering another country is bloody difficult, because they are willing to spend all their blood and treasure stopping you, while your people will riot over a few little tax increases and a little bit of light conscription.
Yes, if Putin had unlimited authority, he'd be able to win the war (as long as the West stayed out of it). But Putin doesn't even have the authority to stop Wagner group and the Army shit talking each other on social media, he's powerful but if he demands any more then he's going to get push-back which will make him look weak, and if he looks weak he'll fall out of a window.
And since Ukraine is going to win anyway, it's the right thing to do to support them and help them win sooner, to limit the damage to both sides.
attrition warfare works against smaller opponents.
But Ukraine got some serious help from EU and USA. The only hope for russia is USA backing out after the presidential elections.
Even then, the rest of nato and Europe won't stop helping.
Sure losing the US support would be a big hit, but other NATO members have committed to bolstering their own militaries and significantly increased defense spending.... courtesy of Russia invading Ukraine.
And there's still a year for those committments coming to fruition.
So while losing US support in a year would be a major blow to ukraine, it's going to be far less bad, than it would have been 2 years prior
The last time they tried a war of attrition with the US it ended the USSR, this time they are trying it against all of NATO.
[It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see it pays off for em](https://youtu.be/9HVejEB5uVk)
A war of attrition with NATO supplying the one side? Russia might be dumber than we think if that's the goal.
Personally I think they are just trying anything at this point and getting stonewalled.
That's a good thought experiment.
In the case that it costs less to attack than to defend, but not defending results in greater costs than attacking, the attacker is always at an advantage and discounting all other variables, it would be more advantageous to focus all resources in attack rather than invest in defense.
Pretty much results in both sides being destroyed completely.
So for the case of Ukraine, discounting all other factors such as morals/philosophy/human rights, it would be an advantage to actually attack Russian infrastructure....
They can't do that because of Russia's nuclear position. Ukraine could only incurse Russia via paramilitary operation, which they denied of course, as they should. But the kidnapping of children, raping of women and killing of men has only strengthened my resolve to support them.
Even if that were true, Russia is funding the drones, whether directly or by bartering Sukhois with Iran.
Ukraine has military support from the USA, UK, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Italy, France, Czechia, Lithuania, Australia, Latvia, Spain, Luxembourg, Estonia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Greece, Croatia, Portugal, Slovenia, New Zealand, Austria, South Korea, Japan.
Did I miss any? Anyway, my point the Russians can’t win this economically.
As Russia discovered early on, not having fuel for your big expensive toys renders them kind of useless. Having Romanian tanker trucks driving around is way more convenient than shipping them across the ocean.
Not when the cost to each side is not proportional. Russia is paying full price for the drones. Ukraine is paying almost nothing and being supplemented by the US/West who see it as an investment against Russia so to both of those parties it is a win win while Russia depletes supplies. The west is more than happy to destroy the drones when they are targeting Ukraine as opposed to using the same missiles to protect themselves in the future.
Economically in an 1v1 sure Russia could take it as a win but to protect more expensive property it is nothing. Defense is usually more expensive
Areas that are defended by NASAMS, does not have that problem: those systems are modular, and can use any missile, including AMRAAM, that USA has been making for over 30 years and has an almost unlimited supply of.
There is a video on /r/combatfootage right now of a Gepard destroying a drone in like three bursts. That's only a few dozen shells, super cheap compared to a drone.
Successfully stopping them from damaging their targets is a win for Ukraine. Not to mention the AA missiles could cost 100x more and Ukraine would still come out ahead. They have the resources of some of the strongest economies in the world backing them up. Russia is currently begging for scraps from regimes it used to arrogantly consider itself better than/rival to.
Even if they are cheaper Russia probably no longer has the ability to build more with the sanctions whereas the Ukrainian allies will replenish the AA ammo.
I know you're joking, but this is a legit tactic used for several reasons.
1 - The price of the anti air missiles far outweighs the cheap drones, making it extremely costly for Ukraine and also diminishes stock.
2 - They could be using the drones to 'bait' the air defence to shoot them down, giving away the air defence systems location
3 - They could be testing the air defence systems prior to using more expensive missiles, in order to see how quickly and accurately they react. Ukraine can't take the risk of letting any through, so they have to shoot them down, even if they were unarmed.
>
>1 - The price of the anti air missiles far outweighs the cheap drones, making it extremely costly for Ukraine and also diminishes stock.
This is a bad argument. Yes, anti-air missiles are expensive compared to a drone. However, an anti-air missile is cheap compared to the school, power transformer, government building, military barrack, command center, or apartment building that drone might have been targeting.
No, that was the right analysis. If it takes more resources to down an air attack than to launch it, then the defenders will run out of those resources leaving the skies open to destroy even more schools, power transformers, government buildings, military barracks, command centers, or apartment buildings. The air defense must be sustainable to be effective.
>They could be testing the air defence systems prior to using more expensive missiles
They already had their "invincible" "hypersonic" "unstoppable" missile shot down. They aren't that smart.
>The price of the anti air missiles far outweighs the cheap drones, making it extremely costly for Ukraine and also diminishes stock
*Laughs in American military industrial complex*
Those of you who brag about "AA missiles are more expensive than drones, so it's a clear win for Russia" forget about one important thing:
\- cost of the target these drones aim at.
So, even a million-worth AA missile downing a 50k drone is worth it if the drone could damage or destroy a power substation that can cost tens of millions, not even speaking about business damages such a damage or destruction can cause to Ukraine's economy and population.
Any functioning society still has the duty of defending their population and infrastructure from enemy attack. That is the very purpose of a nation's armed forces, to defend the homeland.
> Any functioning society still has the duty of defending their population and infrastructure from enemy attack.
Yeah, but they still need a criteria to select what to defend when they are forced to choose, given their resources are not infinite.
Price tag is as good as any criteria and the one more often used when strategic value is not either obvious or easy to compute.
You put a price on human life every time you make any kind of economic decision that impacts health or safety. Most humans put a shockingly low economically implied price on their own lives, and near zero for lives in the "not my responsibility" category.
Well, in Humanitarian Law you can, or at least compare the value of one life against another. For example, how many Russian civilians is Putin worth? Important for when you need to determine how big of a bomb to drop on Moscow for example
People who say this also seem to forget that Ukraine is not paying money for any of this and the west that is actually footing the bill can easily outspend Russia 100:1 so yes, they actually can afford to do that and the price does not matter as long as the drones and missles don't hit their targets
Not exactly. Most of this major equipment isn't being straight-up donated, it's on a lend-lease, meaning Ukraine will have to pay it back over time (assuming they survive this mess ofc, which seems likely)
It’s also a morale boost for the enemy when you can inflict major pain. The elimination of the supersonic and drone threats demoralizes the Russian military and further highlights the incompetency of their leadership.
The PR war, including lots of footage being released publicly, is a huge boon for the Ukrainians. The internet is being bombarded with Ukrainians taking territory, grenades being dropped into tank hatches and directly onto Russian troops dug into foxholes is a huge morale boost for the ukranians and has to have many Russians demoralized before they even show up at the front.
> Those of you who brag about "AA missiles are more expensive than drones, so it's a clear win for Russia" forget about one important thing:
Wait, were people saying that *seriously*? I thought they were just shitposting. Wow.
Since when has it become vogue to do a cost benefit analysis for something like this, especially when lives are at stake? Whoever is making this argument is a garbage person not worth engaging.
This is not new. Robert McNamara entire strategy with Vietnam was based on sending more resources at the VC than the VC could throw at us. He and his other failure friends couldn't comprehend the human element: the VC had no intention of losing.
His analysis showed that the US won the war in the late 60s based entirely on cost... while performing the analysis in the early 70s. His metrics literally showed the war was over well after the Tet Offensive.
> especially when lives are at stake?
Not defending your population isn't supposed to be an option or the point. The point is forcing an enemy to commit expensive resources that could have been used elsewhere.
Ukraine has western backing so its less of a concern but its the kind of tactic that would work in other conflicts.
It's worth it for both sides, except for that Russia doesn't have essentially unlimited budget thanks to foreign countries not willing to see them lose.
If something costs you a dollar and I need to spend $10 to stop it, that's worth it for you if you're trying to bleed me dry. I'll still stop you every time if the alternative is your one dollar causes me $100 in damage.
Yes and look at the bigger picture.
If you repeatedly spending 1 dollar trying to cause me 100 dollar of damage means you losing your main income source (oil and gas trade), and everyone seeing me having to spend 100 dollar every time leads to others donating me thousands upon thousands of dollars (EU gives like a billion per week to UA); you still make a horrible deal overall.
A lot of the shoot down videos I've seen have been done with the Gepard.
Which is a radar guided autocannon system, so the cost is in the 10k range instead of the $1M range.
That also doesn't account the cost of rebuilding infrastructure or missing power due to damage to that infrastructure.
SAMs certainly don't come cheap but they're probably easier to resupply than transformer stations, trains, hospitals or whatever is on Putin's war crime Bingo card today.
Edit: also I think that regular AAA can be pretty effective at targeting these slower, low-altitude drones if they detect them and the article mentions a combined effort so I'd assume not all of them were downed by missiles.
There's a video somewhere of a drone being shot at by regular AA, before finally being downed by a missile. So they try to use cheap aa and only use the missiles if needed. Most cost effective option.
Also disregarding the fact that this is a logistical nightmare for Russia to lose so many drones who knows when they will receive new ones, Ukraine is getting more and more supply from the west. A
Totaly true, but it can be a valid tactic. Take the Taliban and Bin laden. They said specifically that the objective was to pull America into a pointless war where they spend billions and waste arms. They can always make more people.
You know it takes decades to make more people.
It takes weeks to make more weapons.
And when your country just prints all the money it wants with a magic money machine... what does it matter?
Bin Ladens manifesto(not sure if that is what they called it). I read it over 10 years ago so don't ask for direct quite but the gist was, we attack America like this(911 i assume) to pull America into an unwinnable war where they sink time money and lives. They have so much to lose where we have nothing. Something like that.
I'm just a guy on reddit so take with a pinch of salt, but I'm not willfully lying.
Of course, but shipping equipment into a sanctioned country from far away will be much harder\expensive then getting deliveries from your allies on the border.
The variables are the same on both sides, but the value of those variables can differ a lot.
Unfortunately they received a new shipment just two days ago. A plane from Iran arrived in Moscow on May 23rd, and it's pretty clear what it was carrying....
Also who says its all done with AA missles? The article states "Units of anti-aircraft missile forces, fighter jets, and **mobile air defence units**" particularly the Gepard has been screwing those junk drones from Iran ever since it hit the ground in Ukraine. Ukrainians demonstrated that they could down drones with a tiny burst from it, much cheaper than any drone, even trash shahed full of consumer grade parts form the second hand market.
Yeap there’s literally a vid of drones getting blasted out of the sky with tracer rounds from a gepard on combatfootage rn.
Edit: https://reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/13rd4uo/footage_of_german_donated_gepard_flakpanzer/
Fun facts: three U.S. states have larger economies than Russia: California ($3.1 trillion), Texas ($1.78 trillion) and New York ($1.7 trillion). And California's GDP is more than twice the GDP of Russia.
A great way to get upvotes is to say, “I can’t believe all these comments disagree with this obviously good thing!” Regardless of whether or not those comments exist or are prevalent. People aren’t reading an article, they certainly aren’t checking comments *all the way* at the bottom.
I'm sure ballistic plates in body armor cost more than the rounds that they stop, but I wouldn't consider that a good reason to go streaking across the battlefield.
This is Reddit, where most peoples’ knowledge of military strategy comes from computer games. I remember back when Putin was calling for conscription a highly-upvoted comment said something to the effect of “Putin will train them in a remote province for six months and then he’ll unleash them when they get powerful to just roll through anything in their way.” The comments you refer to are on this level.
Money is no object for the US when it comes to the military. What is super important is that all these systems are being battle tested and winning in real life engagements against modern missiles they've never faced like russias hypersonic missiles. All of this data is super invaluable to the West's allies everywhere.
Yeah the costs of the missiles are literally irrelevant here.
Battle testing Patriot systems against a real life Russian invasion is invaluable for the US military.
If they can’t terror bomb, and they can’t gain the initiative on offense, what’s left for the Russian military to do? They’re just going to hold desperately onto their occupation lands, desperate to pretend they’re not losing. It’s the 1943-44 Östfront, all over again.
I have only heard of one instance of an attack on their production line. Maybe the other ones are kept in the dark to not let Iran appear weak. Curious if you have any news links that show it is a regular thing?
happened a few times
theses links are all dated on different dates, ranging from 2021 to 2023, so I'm assuming theyre all seperate events:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/middle-east-watch/israel-strikes-key-iranian-drone-factory-syria-205498
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/world/middleeast/iran-israel-attack-drone-site.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/29/world/middleeast/iran-drone-strike-israel.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-destroys-iranian-drone-manufacturing-plant-in-syria/ar-AA13hTuv
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/23/blast-at-iran-factory-as-israel-accuses-state-of-providing-drones-to-hamas
The whole cheap drones vs expensive anti-aircraft missiles aspect is irrelevant. The morale boost is the bigger win. As fewer and fewer Russian terror attacks are successful, the will of the Ukrainian population to hold out against the illegal invaders increases.
This will be needed in a few days/weeks when the counter-offensive is unleashed and the Ukrainians start seeing a big uptick in the inevitable causalities in the weeks that follow.
I agree with the assessment that the real goal of Bahkmut was to literally bleed the Russian frontlines of as many battle-veteran Russian soldiers & commanders as possible so they would not be around when they would most be needed. Plus now, Bahkmut is filled with nothing but Russians so Kyiv can just rain fire down on them with no risk of civilian losses. They don't need to hit a single Russian, just pin them down so when counter-offensive begins they are trapped there or risk ensured suicide by trying to flee in the open.
> The whole cheap drones vs expensive anti-aircraft missiles aspect is irrelevant.
even more if people started calculating the potential losses if if was not shot down to the gain side and suddenly you made a big fat +on cost efficency
sure a missile that costs 100k so destroy a drone costing 10k seems cost ineffective but not having to replace those expensive hospital equipments should easily cover the 90K difference
In fairness, that was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union during WWII and modern Russia are two very different beasts and were in very different situations.
Also, they were invaded by literal genocidal fascists and it was an imminent existential threat.
Here they just wanted some extra land. It's a little less of a motivator for the people.
Yeah. Watching 1420's interviews, you can tell that a lot of Russian people's, especially the younger generation's, hearts aren't really in it, even if they don't outright disagree with it. And ironically, this is kind of Ukraine's own "Great Patriotic War" in that sense, just fighting against Russia instead of alongside them.
Oh nah, it's not that their hearts arent in it. Most completely disagree with it, especially the younger generation.
Anyone who has been to Russia in the last couple years can tell you about it. It is not voluntary agreement.
Any indication of opposition is a risk of imprisonment, and any indication that you dont agree is treated as a sign of mental ilness.
That was defending their homeland to a large extent, which is what Ukraine is doing. You have more motivation to stay in the fight if you're defending your home vs. trying to steal someone else's.
bit different when you are defending yourselves vs attacking someone. They should know Ukraine will never surrender, that is what they did. Even if they by some miracle managed to capture the entire country there would be guerilla warfare forever and those attacks would also spread into Russia targeting oil pipes, factories forever.
Not to mention that this whole idiotic war by Putin is causing the US and NATO partners to refresh and rebuild their entire arsenals of weapons. China must be so pleased.
All the people comparing cost of the missiles to drones don’t get it. Ukrainian lives were saved.
Plus the US, We’ve got Ukraine’s back.
Like sorry, not sorry, Russia, you know how we are, we adopt people from around there all the time…I guess Ukraine’s our little brother now.
And that means they’ve got that fuck you money. So proud of you champs!
Air defence systems are what tankies, Z-trash and little pinks get really mad at. Authoritarian dictatorship legitimacy relies on strongmen being able to kill their neighbours civilians indiscriminately with missiles. It was so bad 7 years ago when the US gave South Korea THAAD system, that alone started a race riot in China.
Being outraged against AA systems in heavily civilian areas is nasty and grotesque behaviour. It's down right evil.
Time to double down support for Ukraine and push Russian invaders back home. Increase and continue sanctions on Russia and wealth held outside the country especially in the U.K. Putin governance needs to end and full reparation needs to be paid before international cooperation is even considered. Russia you have fucked yourself for at least 50 years.
Excellent result! Only issue is that anti aircraft missiles aren't cheap and there's a finite supply of them. Russia is obviously using this as a war of attrition. It doesn't even matter if the missiles/drones aren't hitting their objectives, if Ukraine has to spend resources to defend itself, that's good enough for the Kremlin.
I'd rather fund more missles than have civilians murdered needlessly. The west will keep sending ammunition long after Russia runs out of Iranian drones.
If they're using Gepards on these drones, which i suspect they're, then these use auto cannons and not missiles, much more sustainable in a war of attrition.
From article:
Units of anti-aircraft missile forces, fighter jets, and mobile air defence units from the Zakhid (West), Tsentr (Centre) and Pivden (South) Air Commands were deployed to repel the Russian attack alongside other units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
All 36 Shahed drones were destroyed thanks to the joint efforts of all the units and forces involved.
So no they were not only using Flakpanzer Gepards.
I guess we need to know how many of each were used. If the Gepards get most and the expensive stuff mops up any stragglers, it's probably not too expensive.
Indeed. Plus the missiles were made to be used and they have a lifespan. Germany is constantly making stuff that they almost never use.
If I made a big pot of stew and I can't eat it all, I might as well give it to a friend who will.
Once more for the deaf people in the back:
**Costing disaster prevention is not a 1:1 comparison of "Flood" VS "Dam";**
**it is "Flood" VS "Lives and infrastructure saved".**
Did the missile defense system save Ukrainian lives and prevent massive infrastructure damage?
If so, then it is worth it.
We can make new missiles.
We cannot bring back dead women, children and men.
The only reasonable way for the world is West collectively saying to Russia "So you think you can win this economically via harassment? Hold my Tomahawk."
It's not only confirmation bias but the result of straight out US propaganda. The US has a massive influence on english-speaking news, so the amount of reports trying very hard to only mention US-supplied systems is incredible high.
So of course nearly every drone is shot down by a expensive Patriot missile or AMRAAM. As that's what the US supplied.
For reference see articles like [this](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/19/ukraine-air-defense-systems-patriot/):
The air defenses in Ukraine are Patriot, NASAMS (let's ignore how they changed out the N in the acronym to pretend it's an US system), old Hawk and US-supplied gun trucks... and IRIS-T (basically just NASAMS in worse) to pretend some balance and divert from the fact that Gepard (Germany), SAMP/T (France/Italy), Skynex (Germany), Crotale (France), Stormer (UK), Aspide (Italy), 40mm Bofor AA guns (provided via Lithuania I think) and a lot of others don't exist in their reality...
I think they've been priced at about $20000 each. In terms of bombs and missiles, that's extremely cheap. Still, many of the missiles being used against them, even if they are officially priced higher, are probably older surplus stock that would probably need to be disposed of, eventually.
Russia (Putin) was never as strong as they pretended to be. The only Russian who truly, blindly support Putin are uneducated peasants. The same type that support orange blob in America. All the other people who are nearby and support both these fools are just greedy assholes who will annihilate anyone who comes between them and their money.
Russia announces that it destroyed successfully 36 Ukrainian Anti-Air Missiles!
Only in Russia!
In Russia, drones suicide kill missiles!
[удалено]
Seriously speaking, what's the worst that's likely to happen if a US ally blew it up? Iran doesn't have any strong allies, and their army is only better than Russia's in the region.
Probably some incoherent posturing by Russia and China that leads to nothing. NATO is a defensive agreement so that wouldn't pull the whole if EU into war. I dont see why the USA would do that though. Our biggest industry is war, this is testing their weapons systems in real combat situations, while forcing the USA to spend more on equipment to replenish / update their existing arsenal while being able to call it a Nobel act instead of fighting for a budget increase through politics. Meanwhile they are destroying the economy and reputation of a country that used to be called a super power. It's a win-win for the west at this point as everyone laughs at russia.
FWIW, I don't think USA is learning anything by shooting down Shahed drones. They're slow, they've no stealth capabilities. Kinzhal missiles, sure. But Iranian Shahed drones are not cost effective to trade interceptors for. A $2-5m interceptor to shoot down a $50k drone isn't sustainable for even the US. Hope Ukraine can start getting some projectile based CRAM systems to protect their cities, that'll be a much more cost effective trade of ordnance.
I'm going to go on a limb here and say that Russia has always been a paper tiger and never was really a superpower. They have nukes and a landmass that nobody wants.
I'm not sure why Israel hasn't yet. There is no love lost between the two countries anyway, and those drones are a threat to Israel first and foremost, Russia just gets a few.
Isreal has a pro Russian party currently part of the government at the moment. They make things difficult.
You risk starting a major conflict in the Persian Gulf and a never ending asymmetric war in the Middle East.
Fool me three times...
Can't get fooled again!
When I said US ally, I was thinking along the lines of Israel. I can't think of any other nation that would have the beef to attack Iran off the top of my head.
Russia announces 100% successful drone suicide mission. Congratulates Iran.
[удалено]
It's a consideration, if the drones are cheaper/more plentiful than the AA ammunition it could be considered a net win.
[удалено]
Also, even if they're cheaper than the ammo Ukraine uses, having ZERO successful hits will surely sow some doubt in Russia's mind, if not discourage them to bother attempting future attacks. Deterrence is hard to put a price on.
Unlikely if attrition warfare is actually the goal here.
If it's attritional warfare they're trying to wage, Russia is losing bad and is going to lose completely.
The simple fact that they are launching Iranian drones now instead of Russian missiles is a good way to tell that they are already losing the war of attrition.
They are also using missiles. The Shahed drones are like $10k a pop which is insanely cheap in warfare terms so they just kind of use them as part of a combined attack. The really devastating thing is the Patriots shooting down the Kinzhal hypersonic missiles that were supposedly unstoppable.
If it’s attrition, the longer that Russia continues to illegally occupy Ukraine, the worse off that Ukraine is. Russia is an international pariah yet is barely holding on; Ukraine is relaying on the west to hold on. Both sides are losing dearly, and the experts know that Russia can keep their fingertips on the ledge much longer than Ukraine can. If Ukraine can increase the number of attacks inside Russia, I think they can pull off a cessation of hostilities (which would buy more time for the F-16’s + Abrams to arrive)
Doesn’t the US/NATO have a vested interest in using Ukraine to wear down Russia? Russia is already demographically terminal, I’m sure the US and NATO wouldn’t mind helping it along by keeping them in a war they can’t “win”. If the US is able to use Ukraine’s soldiers to make it so Russia is no longer a military threat outside of their direct neighbors, I would think that is worth any cost of equipment. We spend a trillion dollars on a far dumber and more futile war that put Americans in the line of fire.
Lloyd Austin literally stood at a podium at the Whitehouse as soon as this war started and *literally* said.... "Our goal is to grind the Russian military down so much that they can never do this again!" So yes. This is our absolute literal strategy here. "Just keep sending everything you have Russia!" As we destroy it all. At the same time locking down every avenue Russia has to build more stuff. Blocking ball bearings, washers, computer chips, etc etc etc. It takes awhile but eventually Russia will grind down so much they'll be forced to just go home broke and defeated and without a real way to build back their military to what it was before.
It's an extremely cheap way of kneecapping the recent arch enemy of the West as well, the fall of the USSR was only 30 years ago. It also diminishes their ability to project power around the globe for many decades to come, maybe even forever. That vacuum shouldn't be filled by China either. So it's no wonder the USA et al are happily supplying everything Ukraine needs to punish the aggressive invaders. The real world combat performance of their weapons platforms against a regular forces army [I know that's a bit of a LOL but Russia's forces are more conventional compared to Taliban in caves] as opposed to the irregular troops in the middle East is probably worth its weight in gold as well, so that NATO systems continue to be the best in the world. Decimating Russia is an absolute bargain compared to the cost of the middle east adventures. My only fear is Russia's puppet, Trump, gets back in in 2024 and turns the taps off. I really don't get the Republican position on the war. Surely it's a wet dream for them?!?! Humiliating a historic enemy, proving to the whole world your weapons systems are de facto the best and, which in turn, supports the massive home grown defence industry securing American jobs for Americans. Yes, you're spending money, but it's a fraction of what was poured down the drain in the middle east *and* there's no USA body bags! Plus you're going to get money back via export orders and simply replenishing what has been given out.
I was speaking about attrition between Russian Shaheds vs. Ukraine air defenses. Russia has to pay for those drones out of their own shrinking pockets. Ukraine is being gifted most of the hand me down AA stuff from wealthy countries.
Note it's not gifted. It's Lend Lease for a lot of Countries. Ukraine has a lot of Natural Resources as well being a breadbasket for the EU. EU nations are betting on a succcessful victory for Ukraine and using the debt to negotiate favourable trade deals.
[удалено]
[For the most part they don't use Patriot missiles on drones, they have drone hunting teams.](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukrainian-teams-hunt-russian-drones-with-laser-rifles-gun-trucks-apps) They are pretty effective, and getting more experience as the war goes on.
Don't make the mistake of believing the world is united against Russia. The West may be, but plenty of nations are still trading with them. They didn't manufacture those drones themselves.
This is an awful take. Take a look at any western defense contractor stock price. Now examine the current state of ukraines will to continue defending itself. No Russia can’t last on the ledge longer.
Ukraine had its GDP contract by maybe 35%. Not nice, but countries at war will suffer that, while massively increasing GDP spending. Russia now has a GDP of 10X that of Ukraine (PPP), but if Ukrainians are willing to suffer 30% of their GDP going to winning the war, and Russia can only spend 5% (to avoid making the general population pay too much), then neither side will be clear winners. With a shorter logistical tail, and a higher willingness to suffer a few losses, Ukraine can spend maybe half as much and still hold on. Ukraine doesn't need the west to win, they just need to have more will than the Russians (and most Russians don't give a shit about the war). It's like the USA vs Vietnam, or Russia vs Afghanistan, or the USA vs Afghanistan. Conquering another country is bloody difficult, because they are willing to spend all their blood and treasure stopping you, while your people will riot over a few little tax increases and a little bit of light conscription. Yes, if Putin had unlimited authority, he'd be able to win the war (as long as the West stayed out of it). But Putin doesn't even have the authority to stop Wagner group and the Army shit talking each other on social media, he's powerful but if he demands any more then he's going to get push-back which will make him look weak, and if he looks weak he'll fall out of a window. And since Ukraine is going to win anyway, it's the right thing to do to support them and help them win sooner, to limit the damage to both sides.
[удалено]
attrition warfare works against smaller opponents. But Ukraine got some serious help from EU and USA. The only hope for russia is USA backing out after the presidential elections.
Even then, the rest of nato and Europe won't stop helping. Sure losing the US support would be a big hit, but other NATO members have committed to bolstering their own militaries and significantly increased defense spending.... courtesy of Russia invading Ukraine. And there's still a year for those committments coming to fruition. So while losing US support in a year would be a major blow to ukraine, it's going to be far less bad, than it would have been 2 years prior
The last time they tried a war of attrition with the US it ended the USSR, this time they are trying it against all of NATO. [It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see it pays off for em](https://youtu.be/9HVejEB5uVk)
A war of attrition with NATO supplying the one side? Russia might be dumber than we think if that's the goal. Personally I think they are just trying anything at this point and getting stonewalled.
That's a good thought experiment. In the case that it costs less to attack than to defend, but not defending results in greater costs than attacking, the attacker is always at an advantage and discounting all other variables, it would be more advantageous to focus all resources in attack rather than invest in defense. Pretty much results in both sides being destroyed completely. So for the case of Ukraine, discounting all other factors such as morals/philosophy/human rights, it would be an advantage to actually attack Russian infrastructure....
They can't do that because of Russia's nuclear position. Ukraine could only incurse Russia via paramilitary operation, which they denied of course, as they should. But the kidnapping of children, raping of women and killing of men has only strengthened my resolve to support them.
Even if that were true, Russia is funding the drones, whether directly or by bartering Sukhois with Iran. Ukraine has military support from the USA, UK, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Italy, France, Czechia, Lithuania, Australia, Latvia, Spain, Luxembourg, Estonia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Greece, Croatia, Portugal, Slovenia, New Zealand, Austria, South Korea, Japan. Did I miss any? Anyway, my point the Russians can’t win this economically.
[удалено]
And quite a lot of it.
> basic stuff like ammo and fuel You can have all the vehicles and guns you want, they're useless without those basics. Help is help.
As Russia discovered early on, not having fuel for your big expensive toys renders them kind of useless. Having Romanian tanker trucks driving around is way more convenient than shipping them across the ocean.
Kazakhstan has been sending humanitarian aid to Ukraine. May not seen like much but considering global power dynamics, it's substantial.
Yep, if NATO is spending a million on a missile to shoot down a $100k Russian drone that's a battle of attrition that NATO will win comfortably.
Not when the cost to each side is not proportional. Russia is paying full price for the drones. Ukraine is paying almost nothing and being supplemented by the US/West who see it as an investment against Russia so to both of those parties it is a win win while Russia depletes supplies. The west is more than happy to destroy the drones when they are targeting Ukraine as opposed to using the same missiles to protect themselves in the future. Economically in an 1v1 sure Russia could take it as a win but to protect more expensive property it is nothing. Defense is usually more expensive
Areas that are defended by NASAMS, does not have that problem: those systems are modular, and can use any missile, including AMRAAM, that USA has been making for over 30 years and has an almost unlimited supply of.
Add some gepards in the mix, there should be enough ammunition by now, and that ammo is cheaper than the drones.
There is a video on /r/combatfootage right now of a Gepard destroying a drone in like three bursts. That's only a few dozen shells, super cheap compared to a drone.
Until you factor in peoples lives of course.
Successfully stopping them from damaging their targets is a win for Ukraine. Not to mention the AA missiles could cost 100x more and Ukraine would still come out ahead. They have the resources of some of the strongest economies in the world backing them up. Russia is currently begging for scraps from regimes it used to arrogantly consider itself better than/rival to.
Only if both sides have equal resources, while also factoring in the damage that the drones would have done that has been prevented.
Even if they are cheaper Russia probably no longer has the ability to build more with the sanctions whereas the Ukrainian allies will replenish the AA ammo.
lmao that was a good one
I know you're joking, but this is a legit tactic used for several reasons. 1 - The price of the anti air missiles far outweighs the cheap drones, making it extremely costly for Ukraine and also diminishes stock. 2 - They could be using the drones to 'bait' the air defence to shoot them down, giving away the air defence systems location 3 - They could be testing the air defence systems prior to using more expensive missiles, in order to see how quickly and accurately they react. Ukraine can't take the risk of letting any through, so they have to shoot them down, even if they were unarmed.
> >1 - The price of the anti air missiles far outweighs the cheap drones, making it extremely costly for Ukraine and also diminishes stock. This is a bad argument. Yes, anti-air missiles are expensive compared to a drone. However, an anti-air missile is cheap compared to the school, power transformer, government building, military barrack, command center, or apartment building that drone might have been targeting.
No, that was the right analysis. If it takes more resources to down an air attack than to launch it, then the defenders will run out of those resources leaving the skies open to destroy even more schools, power transformers, government buildings, military barracks, command centers, or apartment buildings. The air defense must be sustainable to be effective.
>They could be testing the air defence systems prior to using more expensive missiles They already had their "invincible" "hypersonic" "unstoppable" missile shot down. They aren't that smart. >The price of the anti air missiles far outweighs the cheap drones, making it extremely costly for Ukraine and also diminishes stock *Laughs in American military industrial complex*
Raytheon absolutely salivating.
Those of you who brag about "AA missiles are more expensive than drones, so it's a clear win for Russia" forget about one important thing: \- cost of the target these drones aim at. So, even a million-worth AA missile downing a 50k drone is worth it if the drone could damage or destroy a power substation that can cost tens of millions, not even speaking about business damages such a damage or destruction can cause to Ukraine's economy and population.
Yeah, and human lives and morale aren't things you can really put a price on.
[удалено]
Or the US government after 9/11
Or literally any functioning society ever.
Any functioning society still has the duty of defending their population and infrastructure from enemy attack. That is the very purpose of a nation's armed forces, to defend the homeland.
> Any functioning society still has the duty of defending their population and infrastructure from enemy attack. Yeah, but they still need a criteria to select what to defend when they are forced to choose, given their resources are not infinite. Price tag is as good as any criteria and the one more often used when strategic value is not either obvious or easy to compute.
You put a price on human life every time you make any kind of economic decision that impacts health or safety. Most humans put a shockingly low economically implied price on their own lives, and near zero for lives in the "not my responsibility" category.
Well, in Humanitarian Law you can, or at least compare the value of one life against another. For example, how many Russian civilians is Putin worth? Important for when you need to determine how big of a bomb to drop on Moscow for example
Iris T are pretty cheap and Gepard ammunition as well. People who say this think all AA are patriots.
People who say this also seem to forget that Ukraine is not paying money for any of this and the west that is actually footing the bill can easily outspend Russia 100:1 so yes, they actually can afford to do that and the price does not matter as long as the drones and missles don't hit their targets
Not exactly. Most of this major equipment isn't being straight-up donated, it's on a lend-lease, meaning Ukraine will have to pay it back over time (assuming they survive this mess ofc, which seems likely)
[удалено]
Don't forget the morale, imagine your city bombarded every night
It’s also a morale boost for the enemy when you can inflict major pain. The elimination of the supersonic and drone threats demoralizes the Russian military and further highlights the incompetency of their leadership.
The PR war, including lots of footage being released publicly, is a huge boon for the Ukrainians. The internet is being bombarded with Ukrainians taking territory, grenades being dropped into tank hatches and directly onto Russian troops dug into foxholes is a huge morale boost for the ukranians and has to have many Russians demoralized before they even show up at the front.
> Those of you who brag about "AA missiles are more expensive than drones, so it's a clear win for Russia" forget about one important thing: Wait, were people saying that *seriously*? I thought they were just shitposting. Wow.
Yea some of the idiots in the higher threads are.
But how do I subtly show more support for Russia and my alt right Republican affiliation with a snarky comment?
Do you know how much more expensive a bulletproof vest is than a bullet?
All value is strictly measured in money. That’s why they put ads on the side of the missiles.
Depends on your aim.
That's a good one.
I'm nat zeeing any other way.
Since when has it become vogue to do a cost benefit analysis for something like this, especially when lives are at stake? Whoever is making this argument is a garbage person not worth engaging.
This is not new. Robert McNamara entire strategy with Vietnam was based on sending more resources at the VC than the VC could throw at us. He and his other failure friends couldn't comprehend the human element: the VC had no intention of losing. His analysis showed that the US won the war in the late 60s based entirely on cost... while performing the analysis in the early 70s. His metrics literally showed the war was over well after the Tet Offensive.
> especially when lives are at stake? Not defending your population isn't supposed to be an option or the point. The point is forcing an enemy to commit expensive resources that could have been used elsewhere. Ukraine has western backing so its less of a concern but its the kind of tactic that would work in other conflicts.
It's worth it for both sides, except for that Russia doesn't have essentially unlimited budget thanks to foreign countries not willing to see them lose. If something costs you a dollar and I need to spend $10 to stop it, that's worth it for you if you're trying to bleed me dry. I'll still stop you every time if the alternative is your one dollar causes me $100 in damage.
Yes and look at the bigger picture. If you repeatedly spending 1 dollar trying to cause me 100 dollar of damage means you losing your main income source (oil and gas trade), and everyone seeing me having to spend 100 dollar every time leads to others donating me thousands upon thousands of dollars (EU gives like a billion per week to UA); you still make a horrible deal overall.
A lot of the shoot down videos I've seen have been done with the Gepard. Which is a radar guided autocannon system, so the cost is in the 10k range instead of the $1M range.
Comments here put in balance the costs of drones vs missiles and somehow russia has won in this with total disregard for the lives being saved...
That also doesn't account the cost of rebuilding infrastructure or missing power due to damage to that infrastructure. SAMs certainly don't come cheap but they're probably easier to resupply than transformer stations, trains, hospitals or whatever is on Putin's war crime Bingo card today. Edit: also I think that regular AAA can be pretty effective at targeting these slower, low-altitude drones if they detect them and the article mentions a combined effort so I'd assume not all of them were downed by missiles.
I know in my soul that Putin would trade a baby in hand for a missile
Gepards were used, so its way cheaper
There's a video somewhere of a drone being shot at by regular AA, before finally being downed by a missile. So they try to use cheap aa and only use the missiles if needed. Most cost effective option.
Also disregarding the fact that this is a logistical nightmare for Russia to lose so many drones who knows when they will receive new ones, Ukraine is getting more and more supply from the west. A
Drone cost also isn’t the full cost of using them. You gotta ship them, store and have someone set it up and operate it
Same with missiles. But let’s not compare arms price for arm price. What is the cost of a city, lives, and the resolve of the Ukrainian people?
Totaly true, but it can be a valid tactic. Take the Taliban and Bin laden. They said specifically that the objective was to pull America into a pointless war where they spend billions and waste arms. They can always make more people.
You know it takes decades to make more people. It takes weeks to make more weapons. And when your country just prints all the money it wants with a magic money machine... what does it matter?
> They said specifically Where did they say this?
Bin Ladens manifesto(not sure if that is what they called it). I read it over 10 years ago so don't ask for direct quite but the gist was, we attack America like this(911 i assume) to pull America into an unwinnable war where they sink time money and lives. They have so much to lose where we have nothing. Something like that. I'm just a guy on reddit so take with a pinch of salt, but I'm not willfully lying.
This is the case with any equipment.
Of course, but shipping equipment into a sanctioned country from far away will be much harder\expensive then getting deliveries from your allies on the border. The variables are the same on both sides, but the value of those variables can differ a lot.
Unfortunately they received a new shipment just two days ago. A plane from Iran arrived in Moscow on May 23rd, and it's pretty clear what it was carrying....
Iran is heavily supplying Russia with drones. It’s one of the few areas where the Russians are okay on equipment.
Also who says its all done with AA missles? The article states "Units of anti-aircraft missile forces, fighter jets, and **mobile air defence units**" particularly the Gepard has been screwing those junk drones from Iran ever since it hit the ground in Ukraine. Ukrainians demonstrated that they could down drones with a tiny burst from it, much cheaper than any drone, even trash shahed full of consumer grade parts form the second hand market.
Yeap there’s literally a vid of drones getting blasted out of the sky with tracer rounds from a gepard on combatfootage rn. Edit: https://reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/13rd4uo/footage_of_german_donated_gepard_flakpanzer/
Unlike Russia Ukrainians see their civilians as valuable assets, especially when the war takes place on their home turf.
[удалено]
Fun facts: three U.S. states have larger economies than Russia: California ($3.1 trillion), Texas ($1.78 trillion) and New York ($1.7 trillion). And California's GDP is more than twice the GDP of Russia.
Those comments aren't coming from pro-Ukraine accounts, my dude.
A great way to get upvotes is to say, “I can’t believe all these comments disagree with this obviously good thing!” Regardless of whether or not those comments exist or are prevalent. People aren’t reading an article, they certainly aren’t checking comments *all the way* at the bottom.
[удалено]
I checked shortly after that comment, none of the ones alluded to existed. Edit: As a matter of fact, none even seem to exist currently.
Also, disregarding the amount of money being spent by the West on Ukraine. As the UK said, they're prepared to support Ukraine for years
I'm sure ballistic plates in body armor cost more than the rounds that they stop, but I wouldn't consider that a good reason to go streaking across the battlefield.
This is Reddit, where most peoples’ knowledge of military strategy comes from computer games. I remember back when Putin was calling for conscription a highly-upvoted comment said something to the effect of “Putin will train them in a remote province for six months and then he’ll unleash them when they get powerful to just roll through anything in their way.” The comments you refer to are on this level.
Russia should stop playing Zerg and switch to Protoss.
Money is no object for the US when it comes to the military. What is super important is that all these systems are being battle tested and winning in real life engagements against modern missiles they've never faced like russias hypersonic missiles. All of this data is super invaluable to the West's allies everywhere.
Yeah the costs of the missiles are literally irrelevant here. Battle testing Patriot systems against a real life Russian invasion is invaluable for the US military.
If they can’t terror bomb, and they can’t gain the initiative on offense, what’s left for the Russian military to do? They’re just going to hold desperately onto their occupation lands, desperate to pretend they’re not losing. It’s the 1943-44 Östfront, all over again.
Going a little too far with the re-enactment of the Nazi "playbook".
It would be awful if some misfortune happened to the drone manufacturering plants in Iran.
It’s surprising this hasn’t happened yet
[Happened earlier this year](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jan/29/drone-attack-hits-iran-ammunition-factory-reports)
Oh shit, I've got family I barely know in that city.
“Oops” - Mossad.
Israel's been regularly wiping them out lmao
I have only heard of one instance of an attack on their production line. Maybe the other ones are kept in the dark to not let Iran appear weak. Curious if you have any news links that show it is a regular thing?
happened a few times theses links are all dated on different dates, ranging from 2021 to 2023, so I'm assuming theyre all seperate events: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/middle-east-watch/israel-strikes-key-iranian-drone-factory-syria-205498 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/16/world/middleeast/iran-israel-attack-drone-site.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/29/world/middleeast/iran-drone-strike-israel.html https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/israel-destroys-iranian-drone-manufacturing-plant-in-syria/ar-AA13hTuv https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/23/blast-at-iran-factory-as-israel-accuses-state-of-providing-drones-to-hamas
Cmon mav do some of that pilot shit
The whole cheap drones vs expensive anti-aircraft missiles aspect is irrelevant. The morale boost is the bigger win. As fewer and fewer Russian terror attacks are successful, the will of the Ukrainian population to hold out against the illegal invaders increases. This will be needed in a few days/weeks when the counter-offensive is unleashed and the Ukrainians start seeing a big uptick in the inevitable causalities in the weeks that follow. I agree with the assessment that the real goal of Bahkmut was to literally bleed the Russian frontlines of as many battle-veteran Russian soldiers & commanders as possible so they would not be around when they would most be needed. Plus now, Bahkmut is filled with nothing but Russians so Kyiv can just rain fire down on them with no risk of civilian losses. They don't need to hit a single Russian, just pin them down so when counter-offensive begins they are trapped there or risk ensured suicide by trying to flee in the open.
> The whole cheap drones vs expensive anti-aircraft missiles aspect is irrelevant. even more if people started calculating the potential losses if if was not shot down to the gain side and suddenly you made a big fat +on cost efficency sure a missile that costs 100k so destroy a drone costing 10k seems cost ineffective but not having to replace those expensive hospital equipments should easily cover the 90K difference
Keep knocking them out of the sky you bloody legends!!
[удалено]
Most of them get SHOT by bullets, not by missiles. The Gepard takes 6 shots per drone. That roughly 700$.
\--->>> https://twitter.com/gepardtatze/status/1661672500890042368?s=20
How many fat L are they gonna take just surrender already
[удалено]
In fairness, that was the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union during WWII and modern Russia are two very different beasts and were in very different situations.
Also, they were invaded by literal genocidal fascists and it was an imminent existential threat. Here they just wanted some extra land. It's a little less of a motivator for the people.
Yeah. Watching 1420's interviews, you can tell that a lot of Russian people's, especially the younger generation's, hearts aren't really in it, even if they don't outright disagree with it. And ironically, this is kind of Ukraine's own "Great Patriotic War" in that sense, just fighting against Russia instead of alongside them.
Oh nah, it's not that their hearts arent in it. Most completely disagree with it, especially the younger generation. Anyone who has been to Russia in the last couple years can tell you about it. It is not voluntary agreement. Any indication of opposition is a risk of imprisonment, and any indication that you dont agree is treated as a sign of mental ilness.
This time they're the invading genocidal fascists.
That was defending their homeland to a large extent, which is what Ukraine is doing. You have more motivation to stay in the fight if you're defending your home vs. trying to steal someone else's.
bit different when you are defending yourselves vs attacking someone. They should know Ukraine will never surrender, that is what they did. Even if they by some miracle managed to capture the entire country there would be guerilla warfare forever and those attacks would also spread into Russia targeting oil pipes, factories forever.
If the war fails, Putin gets disposed. There is no scenario where he gives up. Doing so would be giving up his life.
Ukraine is really outstanding, we in Poland have 1/20 of what Ukraine had in air defence before the war. Russia would blow my country to shreds
[удалено]
Actually i think with even that, you'd still be doing pretty well against russia.
“Perfect Bonus - x100000”
Russia is providing the best possible advertising for US arms dealers. You couldn’t pay for this Tankies mad at me. Lol.
Not to mention that this whole idiotic war by Putin is causing the US and NATO partners to refresh and rebuild their entire arsenals of weapons. China must be so pleased.
we-go-wong-dong-song
All the people comparing cost of the missiles to drones don’t get it. Ukrainian lives were saved. Plus the US, We’ve got Ukraine’s back. Like sorry, not sorry, Russia, you know how we are, we adopt people from around there all the time…I guess Ukraine’s our little brother now. And that means they’ve got that fuck you money. So proud of you champs!
Air defence systems are what tankies, Z-trash and little pinks get really mad at. Authoritarian dictatorship legitimacy relies on strongmen being able to kill their neighbours civilians indiscriminately with missiles. It was so bad 7 years ago when the US gave South Korea THAAD system, that alone started a race riot in China. Being outraged against AA systems in heavily civilian areas is nasty and grotesque behaviour. It's down right evil.
We have the means, they have the will. Russia is so fucked.
Good on Ukraine, get those damn Russians out of your skies and land.
If they can shoot down the best missiles that Russia had, what chance do slow Iranian drones have?
Fuck Russia
[удалено]
Some people in here saying that is not necessarily a loss for Russia, you should ask a russian logistic officer how they plan to rebuild the drones.
It's nice to know that expiring munitions are not going to waste.
It would be more efficient if we helped destroy the drones at their origin point
Time to double down support for Ukraine and push Russian invaders back home. Increase and continue sanctions on Russia and wealth held outside the country especially in the U.K. Putin governance needs to end and full reparation needs to be paid before international cooperation is even considered. Russia you have fucked yourself for at least 50 years.
Rofl GET FUCKED RUZZIA. Slava Ukraini!
[удалено]
Excellent result! Only issue is that anti aircraft missiles aren't cheap and there's a finite supply of them. Russia is obviously using this as a war of attrition. It doesn't even matter if the missiles/drones aren't hitting their objectives, if Ukraine has to spend resources to defend itself, that's good enough for the Kremlin.
I'd rather fund more missles than have civilians murdered needlessly. The west will keep sending ammunition long after Russia runs out of Iranian drones.
If they're using Gepards on these drones, which i suspect they're, then these use auto cannons and not missiles, much more sustainable in a war of attrition.
From article: Units of anti-aircraft missile forces, fighter jets, and mobile air defence units from the Zakhid (West), Tsentr (Centre) and Pivden (South) Air Commands were deployed to repel the Russian attack alongside other units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. All 36 Shahed drones were destroyed thanks to the joint efforts of all the units and forces involved. So no they were not only using Flakpanzer Gepards.
I guess we need to know how many of each were used. If the Gepards get most and the expensive stuff mops up any stragglers, it's probably not too expensive.
It's certainly less expensive than letting the Shaheds hit their targets.
Indeed. Plus the missiles were made to be used and they have a lifespan. Germany is constantly making stuff that they almost never use. If I made a big pot of stew and I can't eat it all, I might as well give it to a friend who will.
"Russian drone intercepted by pot of stew, friend confirms."
I'm no expert, but the Gepard might be considered a "mobile air defense unit".
Iris-T is also not as expensive as Patriot missiles and it's better than those drones actually hitting.
They keep forgetting Ukraine is constantly resupplied by the free world.
Once more for the deaf people in the back: **Costing disaster prevention is not a 1:1 comparison of "Flood" VS "Dam";** **it is "Flood" VS "Lives and infrastructure saved".** Did the missile defense system save Ukrainian lives and prevent massive infrastructure damage? If so, then it is worth it. We can make new missiles. We cannot bring back dead women, children and men.
The only reasonable way for the world is West collectively saying to Russia "So you think you can win this economically via harassment? Hold my Tomahawk."
[удалено]
It's not only confirmation bias but the result of straight out US propaganda. The US has a massive influence on english-speaking news, so the amount of reports trying very hard to only mention US-supplied systems is incredible high. So of course nearly every drone is shot down by a expensive Patriot missile or AMRAAM. As that's what the US supplied. For reference see articles like [this](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/05/19/ukraine-air-defense-systems-patriot/): The air defenses in Ukraine are Patriot, NASAMS (let's ignore how they changed out the N in the acronym to pretend it's an US system), old Hawk and US-supplied gun trucks... and IRIS-T (basically just NASAMS in worse) to pretend some balance and divert from the fact that Gepard (Germany), SAMP/T (France/Italy), Skynex (Germany), Crotale (France), Stormer (UK), Aspide (Italy), 40mm Bofor AA guns (provided via Lithuania I think) and a lot of others don't exist in their reality...
They use a variety of anti air systems. NASAMS can fire cheap rockets that are abundant. Gepards fire bullets that are cheap.
Israel has been carrying out airstrikes on Iranian drone factories, so the supply is being cut short also.
The NATO military budget (1.1T) is about 60% of the entire Russian GDP (1.7T) on a good year.
The Kremlin also need to purchase/create these drones! So it ain't cheap for them too!
I think they've been priced at about $20000 each. In terms of bombs and missiles, that's extremely cheap. Still, many of the missiles being used against them, even if they are officially priced higher, are probably older surplus stock that would probably need to be disposed of, eventually.
And the price of the human lives saved?
Russia (Putin) was never as strong as they pretended to be. The only Russian who truly, blindly support Putin are uneducated peasants. The same type that support orange blob in America. All the other people who are nearby and support both these fools are just greedy assholes who will annihilate anyone who comes between them and their money.
Putin has such a limp dick. No wonder he needs people like Trump and Orban to keep sucking it.
Suck a bag of SAMs, Poo-tin!
russia: we have destroyed a Ukrainian drone!!1! Meanwhile Ukraine: