Arming Ukraine

Is the S-300 even a fixed system? (I mean, Ukraine was sitting on something like 100 SAMs of that type)

Ukraine had around 100 active batteries of S-300 long-range air-defense systems with as many as 300 launchers when Russ widened its war in the country starting the night of Feb. 23.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=3b8303463ba8

So, that Slovakian help is basically just a trickle. A slow drip, you know? Like, drop by drop...

Right now, the Brits have been sending over their top-tier gear—which is great, don't get me wrong—but again, it’s just bits and pieces. Nobody is actually sending any tactical, offensive weaponry yet. At least, not as of right now.

Look, what we’re seeing here is basically just the replacement for everything that got wiped out.

And honestly, they probably kept them out in the open because they weren't even bracing for an actual invasion.

Wait, I think I missed something—was there supposed to be a post here? It looks like you just dropped my name! Anyway, I'm around. Just hanging out, thinking about things, probably overthinking them too much—you know how I get—but yeah, I'm here! kaže:
And honestly, they probably just left them out in the open—if you want to call it that—basically because they weren't even expecting an invasion in the first place.

Wait, I think that's actually right—hold on. Honestly, when we talk about what’s "state of the art" these days—and I mean really cutting-edge stuff—it feels like everything is moving at a million miles an hour. It's wild! You look at the tech coming out of places like Silicon Valley or the breakthroughs in aerospace, and it's just... wow. One minute you're reading about a standard upgrade, and the next, it's something that feels like pure science fiction. I was actually thinking about this the other day while watching some news coverage—you know, how quickly military tech evolves? Like, one day everyone is talking about basic defense systems, and the next, they're discussing advanced SAMs or high-end Sukhoi jets that make everything else look like relics from the Stone Age. It’s constant. And it's kind of terrifying, if I'm being totally honest—but also incredibly fascinating. Anyway, I digress! My brain just goes there sometimes. But yeah, whether it's consumer gadgets or heavy-duty defense hardware, "state of the art" isn't just a buzzword anymore—it's a moving target that nobody seems to be able to hit for long before it's obsolete. Just a thought! What's actually left of that old Soviet junk they’re just leaving out in the open like that? I mean, only Americans would be bold enough to pull something like that—though even then, we aren't exactly winning any intelligence awards lately. Most of those Russian aviation losses probably happened because they were busy trying to hammer away at SAM sites. And let's be real, a SAM isn't just there to swat planes out of the sky; it can take down an Iskander just as easily.

It would be such a dream if the Turks just handed over some S-400s—imagine that! And in exchange, they get a fleet of 100 F-35s... man, talk about a trade-off. Meanwhile, the Greeks can just sit back and knit black wool. Just a thought! 😬

Look, I’m definitely no military expert.
But an S-300 system relies on radar—and once you flip that switch,
the Russians see exactly where you are. From there, they can probably
figure out if they're looking at an S-300 specifically.
That’s a pretty sweet setup for them to call in a strike using two or three
short-to-medium range missiles. Those few missiles alone could run
a couple million dollars. Meanwhile, an S-300 costs somewhere between 120 and 150 million.

For that kind of cash, you could buy roughly 100 Iskander missiles and just
level a Russian port in Sevastopol. No hard feelings—the Russians are combatants,
and the S-300 is a legitimate target...

I don't know, I was under the impression that the S-300 would be capable of intercepting cruise missiles like the Kalibr, whereas an Iskander might be a different story since it's an older system. 😁

When it comes to heavy hardware, there isn't much of a selection for us to send over to Ukraine:
- maybe trading some older Mi-8 helicopters in exchange for a few more Black Hawks, or perhaps negotiating a discount when buying them new
- offering up our M-84 tanks—which are actually a step up from those T-72s being sent by the Czechs—instead of asking for a donation of a couple of Abrams
- our M-80 IFVs aren't exactly a logistical dream for the Ukrainians, since they’re based on old American designs that mix Soviet and French engineering elements,
- using the D-30 howitzer, which is essentially a classic piece of USSR-era weaponry
- and honestly, I doubt the Ukrainians are desperate enough for more VBRs to take these in exchange for an American M270

Fine, let's just call the Iskander a "short-range missile" instead.
The math on this whole operation doesn't seem to add up if
you haven't even secured S-300 coverage first.

Actually, thinking about it—the S-300 itself probably isn't even getting much protection
from those Sukhoi strikes that have been getting too close for comfort...

Quick question about the SAM 300. There’s actually a version out there that’s basically halfway to being a 400—if you can even call it that. Now, if we're talking about a missile following a ballistic trajectory, maybe a SAM stands a fighting chance—even against an Iskander—though, in theory, it's a slower system. As for the Slovak one? It's probably some relic from the 80s. Could be an S-300V.

hollowranger122 said:When it comes to heavy hardware, there isn't much of a selection for us to send over to Ukraine:
- maybe trading some older Mi-8 helicopters in exchange for a few more Black Hawks, or perhaps negotiating a discount when buying them new
- offering up our M-84 tanks—which are actually a step up from those T-72s being sent by the Czechs—instead of asking for a donation of a couple of Abrams
- our M-80 IFVs aren't exactly a logistical dream for the Ukrainians, since they’re based on old American designs that mix Soviet and French engineering elements,
- using the D-30 howitzer, which is essentially a classic piece of USSR-era weaponry
- and honestly, I doubt the Ukrainians are desperate enough for more VBRs to take these in exchange for an American M270

Gvozdika. They've got plenty of those lying around, I suppose, but whatever. Honestly, I think the Metis and Konkurs systems—whatever we actually have left of them—would probably fit the situation best. And obviously, the Stingers.

hollowranger122 said:When it comes to heavy hardware, there isn't much of a selection for us to send over to Ukraine:
- maybe trading some older Mi-8 helicopters in exchange for a few more Black Hawks, or perhaps negotiating a discount when buying them new
- offering up our M-84 tanks—which are actually a step up from those T-72s being sent by the Czechs—instead of asking for a donation of a couple of Abrams
- our M-80 IFVs aren't exactly a logistical dream for the Ukrainians, since they’re based on old American designs that mix Soviet and French engineering elements,
- using the D-30 howitzer, which is essentially a classic piece of USSR-era weaponry
- and honestly, I doubt the Ukrainians are desperate enough for more VBRs to take these in exchange for an American M270

Look, if the Americans offer a trade, we'd probably ship it all out. We'd even give up two Mig fighters if they asked! I mean, our neighbors keep an eye on the skies while we sleep anyway. 😬

By the way, it feels like we're constantly sending stuff over there. Let's just hope we haven't handed over everything we own to those jerks.

---
Man, if we hadn't given them that S-300 for "research" purposes, they'd probably have a full Patriot battalion by now! 😵

placidrider48 said:Gvozdika. They've got plenty of those lying around, I suppose, but whatever. Honestly, I think the Metis and Konkurs systems—whatever we actually have left of them—would probably fit the situation best. And obviously, the Stingers.

The reality is, we can't really send any of that over, because if we did, we'd be left with absolutely nothing ourselves.

Morgan Wright5 said:The reality is, we can't really send any of that over, because if we did, we'd be left with absolutely nothing ourselves.

I mean, if we were actually sending stuff, there’d probably be some sort of deal to swap in Western or Far East alternatives—like from Korea or Japan. For instance, I think we've already quietly started swapping out our Gvozdika units for some PzH 2000s.

placidrider48 said:I mean, if we were actually sending stuff, there’d probably be some sort of deal to swap in Western or Far East alternatives—like from Korea or Japan. For instance, I think we've already quietly started swapping out our Gvozdika units for some PzH 2000s.

I suppose the PHZ isn't really a direct substitute for the Gvozdika, especially since we only have exactly eight of those on hand. As for these grand arrangements where gear is sent off in exchange for Western tech, it feels a bit like counting chickens before they've even hatched.

Morgan Wright5 said:I suppose the PHZ isn't really a direct substitute for the Gvozdika, especially since we only have exactly eight of those on hand. As for these grand arrangements where gear is sent off in exchange for Western tech, it feels a bit like counting chickens before they've even hatched.

Maybe if they were looking for cheap hardware, sure. But this? This is basically an IOU from the US. Once Congress signs off on it, the money is officially in the bag.
The Slovaks supposedly scored a Patriot system—though who knows which version exactly. Our leadership doesn't stand a chance of pulling that off. Not to mention, even if they did hand over a system, they’d be handing over something they won't even be ready to operate for another two years. Being "ready" isn't just having the machine; you have to actually train, and training costs real money.

The war in Ukraine has definitely kept the factories running, though.

---

Now that we're heading into full-on frontal warfare, a lot of this Western "tech" is finally going to see its real-world testing. It would be something if the Jewish community stepped up to help out here, too.

Larry Wilson25 said:Maybe if they were looking for cheap hardware, sure. But this? This is basically an IOU from the US. Once Congress signs off on it, the money is officially in the bag.
The Slovaks supposedly scored a Patriot system—though who knows which version exactly. Our leadership doesn't stand a chance of pulling that off. Not to mention, even if they did hand over a system, they’d be handing over something they won't even be ready to operate for another two years. Being "ready" isn't just having the machine; you have to actually train, and training costs real money.

The war in Ukraine has definitely kept the factories running, though.

---

Now that we're heading into full-on frontal warfare, a lot of this Western "tech" is finally going to see its real-world testing. It would be something if the Jewish community stepped up to help out here, too.

It isn't so much that the Slovaks were given a Patriot, but rather that the Americans have deployed the Patriot in Slovakia.

The S-300PMU.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status...-foto-20220408

darkrider55 said:The S-300PMU.

https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status...-foto-20220408

That’s strictly for defense. 56 miles And we're talking nineties tech here—old school! If they set their sights on New York City, it's game over...

Morgan Wright5 said:It isn't so much that the Slovaks were given a Patriot, but rather that the Americans have deployed the Patriot in Slovakia.

It’s a total swap—they've got an active NATO system in place and they’re using it to train the crew.
Man, let's just trade our T80s for Merkavas instead! 😬

----

I'm kidding, obviously, but they've clearly realized that David's Sling goes to the Arabs, while Ukrainians are a "no-go" when it comes to certain weapons near the Jewish state. That's why there's no heavy shelling on New York City. Because they don't want Israeli tech. They're currently crunching the numbers on where they went wrong with the Javelins and the drones. Look, this is a nation that can put people on the moon—don't you dare underestimate them.

Timothy Kim9 said:How much sense does it actually make to send S-300s to Ukraine? We’re talking about hardware so expensive that
Russ will gladly throw two or three Iskanders at it just to take it out. And you can't even
complain—it's just a standard wartime objective. How much are we burning through here? $200 million?
Russ will spend maybe $2-3 million.
In my view, we should be focusing on organizing air defense using smaller, mobile
units to pick off Sukhoi and MiG jets first. Then, an S-300 (or 400, or whatever similar system) could be
brought in as the "crown jewel" of the air defense network—where everything else is positioned specifically to protect the S-300.

It’s absolutely critical. Or, well, I suppose you could say it's vital. It really is.
That’s exactly why they're sending him.

That thing is so ridiculously expensive that the Russians would probably be more than happy to dump two or three Iskanders on it just to take it out. And honestly, you can't even really complain about that—it’s just a standard military objective in a war like this. I mean, how much did you burn through on this one? $200 million? Maybe more? I guess it's hard to say.
The Russians are likely going to burn through maybe 2 or 3 million on this... I guess.

They’d love nothing more than to take a shot at the Russians, and honestly, they have been whenever they’ve managed to get a clear line of sight.

I guess that’s why the Ukrainians are always masking them, keeping them under wraps, and constantly shuffling them around. It's all about staying out of sight, I suppose.

And let's be honest, even the Russians don't have an endless supply of those Iskanders and Kalibrs. I guess they can only pull so much from the well before things start running dry. Maybe.

I suppose... if we're being realistic here, maybe the first step should be organizing the PZ defense using smaller, more mobile units. Just a thought.
Units are taking down those Sukhois and MiGs... and then you've got the S-300—or maybe it's an S-400, or some other similar system, I guess—and then things get complicated.
Maybe we should look into acquiring some sort of "crown jewel" for air defense—something that can actually hold its own while all those other systems are busy trying to counter the S-300. I guess it’s worth considering.

Maybe someone should probably sit down and explain how air defense systems actually work in the first place—not to be rude, but just to get everyone on the same page—and maybe touch upon the specific tactics being used over in Ukraine right now.

Timothy Kim9 said:Look, I’m definitely no military expert.
But an S-300 system relies on radar—and once you flip that switch,
the Russians see exactly where you are. From there, they can probably
figure out if they're looking at an S-300 specifically.
That’s a pretty sweet setup for them to call in a strike using two or three
short-to-medium range missiles. Those few missiles alone could run
a couple million dollars. Meanwhile, an S-300 costs somewhere between 120 and 150 million.

For that kind of cash, you could buy roughly 100 Iskander missiles and just
level a Russian port in Sevastopol. No hard feelings—the Russians are combatants,
and the S-300 is a legitimate target...

We’ve already touched on how Ukrainians rarely turn on their own surveillance radars to monitor the airspace.
Instead, they rely on NATO AWACS flying over Poland and Romania, which almost certainly have a real-time data link to S-300 and Buk units. All that movement probably gets relayed straight to MANPADS teams too...

It leaves Russian aircraft in a pretty tough spot, I guess.
If they fly high, the AWACS spots them while they're still way out in the distance. Then the Ukrainians launch a missile at the perfect moment and only flick on the targeting radar for a split second. An attacked plane barely has enough time to react, let alone try to dodge anything.
That forces the Russians to fly low, which just puts them right in the crosshairs of MANPADS.

Plus, it seems like Russian planes are just as poorly maintained as their tanks... They’re short on spare parts, maybe even fuel at certain airfields.
Even worse, they've burned through way more "smart" missiles than they ever anticipated. Between this and the war in Syria, word is they've likely exhausted over 50% of their entire stock of those gadgets.

The average training level for Russian pilots isn't anywhere near NATO standards. For a lot of operations—take Wild Weasel missions, for instance—it's questionable how many sorties they can even handle, much less the quality of those flights.

The sheer number of aircraft on the Russian side doesn't mean they can all be deployed against Ukraine. Maybe a third of them, at best.

Timothy Kim9 said:Look, I’m definitely no military expert.
But an S-300 system relies on radar—and once you flip that switch,
the Russians see exactly where you are. From there, they can probably
figure out if they're looking at an S-300 specifically.
That’s a pretty sweet setup for them to call in a strike using two or three
short-to-medium range missiles. Those few missiles alone could run
a couple million dollars. Meanwhile, an S-300 costs somewhere between 120 and 150 million.

For that kind of cash, you could buy roughly 100 Iskander missiles and just
level a Russian port in Sevastopol. No hard feelings—the Russians are combatants,
and the S-300 is a legitimate target...

Units aren't all bunched up in one spot; they're spread out with enough comms and control to cover, what, 40 kilometers or so, depending on how they're set up.