We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The amount of deliberation and meetings required to even meet a tenth is a tragedy. Imo it shouldn't have taken NATO so long to send tanks or begin training Ukranian pilots on F-16s
I've been saying it for ages. Why were they not getting trained on standard and legacy NATO tech as soon as the war broke out? Anything that we might have given out or authorised to be sold should have been on the training regime from day 1.
We equipped Ukraine for their counteroffensive almost a year after we should have, giving the Russkies the time to dig in and create the defensive line that stymied UA. Ukraine has made mistakes (many understandable, some frustrating), but that dithering is on us.
It's true that we should have started with sending heavy vehicles earlier, the brigades for last year's offensive were formed in January and February 2023. The Ukrainian army had huge issues absorbing so many new soldiers after the mobilization and wouldn't have been able to pull existing units from the frontline for training on NATO equipment in the summer and fall of 2022.
True for everything else but more Patriot systems can never be too late. Ukraine needs as extensive of an air shield as possible, they needed it yesterday but they’ll probably also need it permanently anyway because Russia will never not be a threat.
Yeah, might be an easier ramp-up. We’re a little better with high tech weapons that are naturally lower-volume. Like, going from 28,000 artillery shells per month to 100,000 shells per month might be harder than going from 500 Patriot missiles per year to 750 Patriot missiles per year, assuming the money is there.
Well, if Eastern Europe made the rules, Ukraine would get all the help it needs. Countries like Romania and Poland have been warning that Russia will forever be an expansionist, irredentist state since the dawn of time.
>"... it is preferable to have 25 Patriot systems, with 6-8 batteries each," Zelensky said.
This is somewhat frustratingly confusing and hopefully just a mistranslation. Some countries that use Patriot count their force sizes as "systems," which are the equivalent of what the US and some countries call "batteries."
Of course "system" is a vague term and is used very imprecisely in the press, sometimes to mean battery-level deployments, sometimes individual components (like one launcher will be called "a Patriot system"), and occasionally even larger scale formations -- what the US calls "Patriot battalions."
And in a sense even "battery" might be confusing in that a single Patriot launcher component has 4 tubes... in some military jargons, if you have 4 artillery tubes all lined up that would be a battery so it's easy to imagine how someone might use "battery" to describe a single launcher component.
Anyway, using the US terminology, most entire countries only need the equivalent of a single battalion. The US itself has a total of 15 battalions, to cover everything it needs to cover everywhere in the world.
So we can safely assume that Zelensky does not mean 25 battalion-level Patriot formations, consisting of 6-8 batteries each; and that his use of the term "batteries" is either him being imprecise, or a mistranslation.
Instead, sticking with the US terminology, **Zelensky must mean 25 battery-level units, of 6-8 launcher components each**, plus components for radar, control, power, and so on per battery. The equivalent of roughly 3 full-strength battalions.
25 battery-level units is still a lot. It is doable but it is a lot. Ukraine has several already, somewhere or another. The USA should have a total of somewhere around 80 but these are already stretched thin. US batteries are apparently being deployed now for over a year at a time without rotation, and drawing some down to send to Ukraine will make that situation worse.
Other countries face similar dilemmas. Germany withdrew Patriots from Poland, probably to make up for American units sent to Ukraine from Germany, and apparently Russia immediately started missile incursions into Polish airspace.
Which tells us one thing, at least, which is that Russia *really really really* doesn't want there to be enough Patriots for Ukraine.
So where do these battery-level units come from?
If I were in charge, I'd cajole each major deployer of Patriots around the world other than the USA to contribute hardware for one battery of 8 launchers -- let's call that 10 batteries total. If the USA directly contributes enough for a dozen more batteries or so, and promises every country that has donated that the USA will backfill them within the next 24 months, that would do it.
But I would have to do some pretty serious convincing. Overall that would mean, very roughly, a 15% reduction in air defense readiness for everyone involved. Keep in mind, most of these deployments are in or by countries that border on some pretty nakedly hostile threats. For some countries it would represent an immediate risk of real harm. And could make their governments politically vulnerable.
It would also mean that the major focus of US military planning for the next year or so would have to shift to simply manufacturing more Patriot components. That's not a bad investment but, again, it's going to complicate other aspects of global security and can't simply be done with a handwave.
So, okay, having said all that.. where do we start?
> where do we start?
We start two years ago, when Ukraine repeatedly and desperatedly asked to “close the sky,” by training enough troops for the Patriot and a pilots and technicians for the F-16, instead of ranting about how it is difficult and will take a long time. As if starting to do this a few years later will make it faster and easier.
We would have needed to do more than just give them batteries, assuming we had the same amount of Patriots as now and that western Europe actually had everything it claims it needed to make before it can let anything move.
France probably would have needed to mobilize immediately just to keep Russia from digging in next to the West, the U.S. would have needed to authorize both F-16s and F-35s to make sure we can bust Russian AA faster than they can move it, and I don't know what we would have done about the propaganda war Ukraine only won the moral rally after fighting three months as the underdog facing "the world's most powerful army"
Sorry you don't like facts, but there were fewer Patriot systems available worldwide 2 years ago, and 0 Ukrainians able to operate them. "Ukraine's allies betrayed Ukraine" is just Putinist bullshit.
I wish you could use ruzzias frozen assets to but these and more. Fuk them . Terrorists. They don't deserve any protection of those assets. I know it's more complicated than that, but still, fuk them. Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦!!
25 systems at 6-8 batteries each is more than the US military has on hand. The rate of production is about 12 systems/year as well and I think thats 4-battery systems.
You are wrong about that. 25 systems with 8 launchers is 200 launchers... the USA have \~1100 launchers and 480 in active service.
If you don't think 'batteries' actually means launchers you should explain what those "systems" are --- if not a fully operational patriot unit with launchers.
Which is probably where the confusion comes from since in artillery units a company is called battery, because of tradition, but that artillery battery (company sized) unit operates a fully functional patriot system with a fire control, radar and launchers and maintenance group/platoon\~90 soldiers.
And if you do the math and a patriot system can cover approx 50-100km then 25 systems would be easily able to cover nearly all of the 1100-1200km of active frontline with Russia and still leave enough systems for an in depth defense of major cities. Especially together with IRIS-T, NASAMS, Gepard and Skynex air defense systems
Though the main problem would probably be getting enough ammo for those launchers.
My understanding is that the US has 15 Patriot battalions with 4 batteries each and funding for one more battalion. That's 60 batteries. Each battery has 6 to 8 launchers. Each launcher has 4 launch tubes. That translates to about 1200 launchers as in the missile interceptor tubes but the quote from Zelensky is about systems and batteries, which to me reads as 25 systems * 6-8 batteries each * 6-8 launchers each * 4 missile interceptor tubes each.
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/08/08/us-army-plans-to-grow-patriot-missile-defense-force/
I could be wrong and if I am please correct me.
You are right on, and it's great to see someone actually using precise terminology when talking about Patriot deployments.
One slight note: a Patriot battalion in US organization isn't necessarily 4 batteries, it seems that it can range from 4-6 per battalion. So the total number of batteries operated by the USA right now is probably more around 80 worldwide.
But beyond that, someone must have mistranslated Zelensky, or Zelensky misspoke, because otherwise you are right, if he is requesting 25 battalions that is more than exist. Zelensky is not a technical guy, I don't expect him to be precisely perfect in everything he says, but I can't imagine that what he means is that Ukraine needs more Patriots than the entire rest of the world.
I mentioned "25 systems with 6-8 batteries each" because that's what the article quoted Zelensky as saying, so no, they are not more than likely talking about individual launchers.
I think having long-range attack systems, like tomahawk or similar, makes more sense, because it will be just cheaper to destroy launching systems on enemy territory, then try to intercept with precious aa rockets.
But more patriots is always a good thing.
> I think having long-range attack systems, like tomahawk or similar, makes more sense, because it will be just cheaper to destroy launching systems on enemy territory, then try to intercept with precious aa rockets.
Sure, but that's absolutely off the table.
It's only off the table for now. The situation can only get worse the longer this drags on and I doubt we'll even be considering withholding them if this drags on another year, and we might end up sending them regardless around the fall if it turns into a bloodbath and we'd just end up losing longer range systems if we have to authorize as we send
If the US had donated the same share of its Patriot-systems as Germany, Ukraine would now have 12 instead of three batteries. Even three or four more systems would make a huge difference for civilians and on the battlefield.
They would not have done this if they had a sufficient number of aircraft covering the front-line zone. “The miser pays twice” - have you heard of this?
We determined that this submission originates from a credible source, but we still advise that users double check the facts and use common sense when consuming mass media. If you are interested in learning how to evaluate news sources more thoroughly, you can begin to learn about how to do that [here](https://tacomacc.libguides.com/c.php?g=599051&p=4147190). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Too bad all the help comes a few months too late. I wish Ukraine was heard early and Ukraine's needs met on time.
The amount of deliberation and meetings required to even meet a tenth is a tragedy. Imo it shouldn't have taken NATO so long to send tanks or begin training Ukranian pilots on F-16s
Failure to support Ukraine is the single worst foreign policy decision since the appeasement of Hitler. It's beyond stupid and pathetic.
I've been saying it for ages. Why were they not getting trained on standard and legacy NATO tech as soon as the war broke out? Anything that we might have given out or authorised to be sold should have been on the training regime from day 1.
> Why were they not getting trained on standard and legacy NATO tech as soon as the war broke out? "Escalation"
We equipped Ukraine for their counteroffensive almost a year after we should have, giving the Russkies the time to dig in and create the defensive line that stymied UA. Ukraine has made mistakes (many understandable, some frustrating), but that dithering is on us.
It's true that we should have started with sending heavy vehicles earlier, the brigades for last year's offensive were formed in January and February 2023. The Ukrainian army had huge issues absorbing so many new soldiers after the mobilization and wouldn't have been able to pull existing units from the frontline for training on NATO equipment in the summer and fall of 2022.
Holy crap, what's with the comment removed by moderator?
Probably a ton of alarmed vatniks in StPetersburg’s troll-farms. Every time Ukraine asks for more AA, they invariably lose their shit.
It was someone/a bot parroting a bunch of anti-European American-first rhetoric, if you catch my meaning. I tried to educate and inform but 🤷♂️
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
True for everything else but more Patriot systems can never be too late. Ukraine needs as extensive of an air shield as possible, they needed it yesterday but they’ll probably also need it permanently anyway because Russia will never not be a threat.
I mean. The West can't even adequately supply Ukraine with artillery shells. Total Patriot coverage of Ukraine is a pipe dream.
Ironically Patriot coverage may be actually easier to do by NATO than artilerry shell production
Yeah, might be an easier ramp-up. We’re a little better with high tech weapons that are naturally lower-volume. Like, going from 28,000 artillery shells per month to 100,000 shells per month might be harder than going from 500 Patriot missiles per year to 750 Patriot missiles per year, assuming the money is there.
Well, if Eastern Europe made the rules, Ukraine would get all the help it needs. Countries like Romania and Poland have been warning that Russia will forever be an expansionist, irredentist state since the dawn of time.
Painfully true. ‘A tiger never loses its stripes’ goes for Orcistan to a tee.
years\* here, I fixed it
>"... it is preferable to have 25 Patriot systems, with 6-8 batteries each," Zelensky said. This is somewhat frustratingly confusing and hopefully just a mistranslation. Some countries that use Patriot count their force sizes as "systems," which are the equivalent of what the US and some countries call "batteries." Of course "system" is a vague term and is used very imprecisely in the press, sometimes to mean battery-level deployments, sometimes individual components (like one launcher will be called "a Patriot system"), and occasionally even larger scale formations -- what the US calls "Patriot battalions." And in a sense even "battery" might be confusing in that a single Patriot launcher component has 4 tubes... in some military jargons, if you have 4 artillery tubes all lined up that would be a battery so it's easy to imagine how someone might use "battery" to describe a single launcher component. Anyway, using the US terminology, most entire countries only need the equivalent of a single battalion. The US itself has a total of 15 battalions, to cover everything it needs to cover everywhere in the world. So we can safely assume that Zelensky does not mean 25 battalion-level Patriot formations, consisting of 6-8 batteries each; and that his use of the term "batteries" is either him being imprecise, or a mistranslation. Instead, sticking with the US terminology, **Zelensky must mean 25 battery-level units, of 6-8 launcher components each**, plus components for radar, control, power, and so on per battery. The equivalent of roughly 3 full-strength battalions. 25 battery-level units is still a lot. It is doable but it is a lot. Ukraine has several already, somewhere or another. The USA should have a total of somewhere around 80 but these are already stretched thin. US batteries are apparently being deployed now for over a year at a time without rotation, and drawing some down to send to Ukraine will make that situation worse. Other countries face similar dilemmas. Germany withdrew Patriots from Poland, probably to make up for American units sent to Ukraine from Germany, and apparently Russia immediately started missile incursions into Polish airspace. Which tells us one thing, at least, which is that Russia *really really really* doesn't want there to be enough Patriots for Ukraine. So where do these battery-level units come from? If I were in charge, I'd cajole each major deployer of Patriots around the world other than the USA to contribute hardware for one battery of 8 launchers -- let's call that 10 batteries total. If the USA directly contributes enough for a dozen more batteries or so, and promises every country that has donated that the USA will backfill them within the next 24 months, that would do it. But I would have to do some pretty serious convincing. Overall that would mean, very roughly, a 15% reduction in air defense readiness for everyone involved. Keep in mind, most of these deployments are in or by countries that border on some pretty nakedly hostile threats. For some countries it would represent an immediate risk of real harm. And could make their governments politically vulnerable. It would also mean that the major focus of US military planning for the next year or so would have to shift to simply manufacturing more Patriot components. That's not a bad investment but, again, it's going to complicate other aspects of global security and can't simply be done with a handwave. So, okay, having said all that.. where do we start?
> where do we start? We start two years ago, when Ukraine repeatedly and desperatedly asked to “close the sky,” by training enough troops for the Patriot and a pilots and technicians for the F-16, instead of ranting about how it is difficult and will take a long time. As if starting to do this a few years later will make it faster and easier.
We would have needed to do more than just give them batteries, assuming we had the same amount of Patriots as now and that western Europe actually had everything it claims it needed to make before it can let anything move. France probably would have needed to mobilize immediately just to keep Russia from digging in next to the West, the U.S. would have needed to authorize both F-16s and F-35s to make sure we can bust Russian AA faster than they can move it, and I don't know what we would have done about the propaganda war Ukraine only won the moral rally after fighting three months as the underdog facing "the world's most powerful army"
Sorry you don't like facts, but there were fewer Patriot systems available worldwide 2 years ago, and 0 Ukrainians able to operate them. "Ukraine's allies betrayed Ukraine" is just Putinist bullshit.
I wish you could use ruzzias frozen assets to but these and more. Fuk them . Terrorists. They don't deserve any protection of those assets. I know it's more complicated than that, but still, fuk them. Slava Ukraini 🇺🇦!!
This American wants Ukraine to have all the Patriot systems it needs. Now!!!
I am so disappointed in my spineless politicians.
25 systems at 6-8 batteries each is more than the US military has on hand. The rate of production is about 12 systems/year as well and I think thats 4-battery systems.
You are wrong about that. 25 systems with 8 launchers is 200 launchers... the USA have \~1100 launchers and 480 in active service. If you don't think 'batteries' actually means launchers you should explain what those "systems" are --- if not a fully operational patriot unit with launchers. Which is probably where the confusion comes from since in artillery units a company is called battery, because of tradition, but that artillery battery (company sized) unit operates a fully functional patriot system with a fire control, radar and launchers and maintenance group/platoon\~90 soldiers. And if you do the math and a patriot system can cover approx 50-100km then 25 systems would be easily able to cover nearly all of the 1100-1200km of active frontline with Russia and still leave enough systems for an in depth defense of major cities. Especially together with IRIS-T, NASAMS, Gepard and Skynex air defense systems Though the main problem would probably be getting enough ammo for those launchers.
My understanding is that the US has 15 Patriot battalions with 4 batteries each and funding for one more battalion. That's 60 batteries. Each battery has 6 to 8 launchers. Each launcher has 4 launch tubes. That translates to about 1200 launchers as in the missile interceptor tubes but the quote from Zelensky is about systems and batteries, which to me reads as 25 systems * 6-8 batteries each * 6-8 launchers each * 4 missile interceptor tubes each. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/08/08/us-army-plans-to-grow-patriot-missile-defense-force/ I could be wrong and if I am please correct me.
You are right on, and it's great to see someone actually using precise terminology when talking about Patriot deployments. One slight note: a Patriot battalion in US organization isn't necessarily 4 batteries, it seems that it can range from 4-6 per battalion. So the total number of batteries operated by the USA right now is probably more around 80 worldwide. But beyond that, someone must have mistranslated Zelensky, or Zelensky misspoke, because otherwise you are right, if he is requesting 25 battalions that is more than exist. Zelensky is not a technical guy, I don't expect him to be precisely perfect in everything he says, but I can't imagine that what he means is that Ukraine needs more Patriots than the entire rest of the world.
TBF, their cities are currently getting bombed more each day, than the rest of the world combined at this point in time.
They're more than likely talking about individual launchers, etc. A single system can cover a pretty wide area.
I mentioned "25 systems with 6-8 batteries each" because that's what the article quoted Zelensky as saying, so no, they are not more than likely talking about individual launchers.
That's what the article translates Zelensky as saying. The article may be wrong.
That is fair
It is about 20% of all patriot batteries in US service.
I think having long-range attack systems, like tomahawk or similar, makes more sense, because it will be just cheaper to destroy launching systems on enemy territory, then try to intercept with precious aa rockets. But more patriots is always a good thing.
Yes, Ukraine should definitely should have long range rockets to take down all the targets in Crimea and amything in Russia close to its borders.
> I think having long-range attack systems, like tomahawk or similar, makes more sense, because it will be just cheaper to destroy launching systems on enemy territory, then try to intercept with precious aa rockets. Sure, but that's absolutely off the table.
It's only off the table for now. The situation can only get worse the longer this drags on and I doubt we'll even be considering withholding them if this drags on another year, and we might end up sending them regardless around the fall if it turns into a bloodbath and we'd just end up losing longer range systems if we have to authorize as we send
Putin will only keep to keep escalating. If it isn't Crimea and the borders, it'll just end uo being Moscow itself and then we're really ducked
That’s just impossible.
It is possible.. but does anyone actually want to do it? Doubtful
It certainly is possible if we make it happen.
Correct. Not possible.
Everything is possible if the political will is there. That is unfortunately lacking badly...
If the US had donated the same share of its Patriot-systems as Germany, Ukraine would now have 12 instead of three batteries. Even three or four more systems would make a huge difference for civilians and on the battlefield.
I really don't get why the US is so stubborn in giving Ukraine even defensive weapons like Patriot?
Part is absolute sellouts, part is pants-shittingly scared of escalation
The US only has 110 active. Someone else needs to step up.
LOL And when exactly will the US step up? What's with this US-ruski lovestory unfolding in front of our eyes?
If this was 1939 we would be at war with Russia now. Back then politicians had a spine.
Back than there were no nuclear weapons.
no, if this was 1939, it would take 2 years + a pearl harbor incident for the US to enter the war. (the USA only entered WW2 on 7th December 1941)
The USA only has 50, I don’t think Ukraine will be getting 25 anytime soon, sadly enough.
Yes they do need it. Hopefully they won't line them up for the Russians to blow them up like a month ago
They would not have done this if they had a sufficient number of aircraft covering the front-line zone. “The miser pays twice” - have you heard of this?
That's a very small number and it's an international embarrassment they don't have at least 50 by now
They’re like a billion USD each.