What weapons would you supply Ukraine if you were President?

[maxparrish]

Here is my list:

SS-300, purchased from existing inventories in former Warsaw pact countries and elsewhere.

French 10 SAMP/T systems which is a mobile, ground-based, air transportable, medium range air defense system designed to replace the Hawk air defense systems as well as an unknown number of Vertical Launch Mica systems It is intended against simultaneously multiple attacks of aircraft and missiles adding the advantage of employing and fire and forget missile.

MQ-9 Reaper Hunter/Killer UAV​

​

M142 HIMARS​

The M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) is a light multiple rocket launcher developed in the late 1990s for the United States Army, mounted on a standard Army M1140 truck frame.

The HIMARS carries six rockets or one MGM-140 ATACMS missile on the U.S. Army's new Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) five-ton truck, and can launch the entire Multiple Launch Rocket System Family of Munitions (MFOM). HIMARS ammunition is interchangeable with the MLRS M270A1; however, it is only able to carry one pod rather than the standard two for the M270 and A1 variants.

 

[RetiredUSN]

Anything short of nukes that could reach the Kremlin.

Let Russia live in fear for a change.

 

[jonny5]

I would not supply any, as that is an act of war. Unless congress authorizes war, in which case, give them everything not secret, and then give all the rest of our weapons to russia dangerous end first.

 

[code1211]

Here is my list:

SS-300, purchased from existing inventories in former Warsaw pact countries and elsewhere.

French 10 SAMP/T systems which is a mobile, ground-based, air transportable, medium range air defense system designed to replace the Hawk air defense systems as well as an unknown number of Vertical Launch Mica systems It is intended against simultaneously multiple attacks of aircraft and missiles adding the advantage of employing and fire and forget missile.

View attachment 67379968

MQ-9 Reaper Hunter/Killer UAV​

View attachment 67379969​

M142 HIMARS​

The M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) is a light multiple rocket launcher developed in the late 1990s for the United States Army, mounted on a standard Army M1140 truck frame.

The HIMARS carries six rockets or one MGM-140 ATACMS missile on the U.S. Army's new Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) five-ton truck, and can launch the entire Multiple Launch Rocket System Family of Munitions (MFOM). HIMARS ammunition is interchangeable with the MLRS M270A1; however, it is only able to carry one pod rather than the standard two for the M270 and A1 variants.
View attachment 67379973

Would have been nice to be providing the needed weapons starting in June, 2021.

We could have given them all of the arms that we just left in Afghanistan.

 

[jonny5]

Would have been nice to be providing the needed weapons starting in June, 2021.

We could have given them all of the arms that we just left in Afghanistan.

Thats a better idea, actually having helped them to defend themselves BEFORE they were attacked. But it may have had similar problems in provoking Russia into a world war. Now that they are at war, and we are not at war with Russia, we should not be helping Ukraine to kill Russians. Pick a side or stay out of it.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Harpoon cruise missiles, Javelin's, Stingers, NLAW's, drones/Hellfires, 81mm/120mm mortars, M20A1/A1B1, anti-tank mines, belt-fed Mk-19 AGL, RPG's, NVG's, Ma Deuce, sniper rifles, shotguns, C-4/Semtex,

 

[Doug64]

All the weapons the Ukrainians are either trained to use or can be easily trained to use.

I would not supply any, as that is an act of war.

That is arguable. US legal code 18 USC § 2331(4) states "the term 'act of war' means any act occurring in the course of— (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;" The problem is, it doesn't define what "any act" means. I doubt anyone thinks providing medical supplies and food to those resisting an invading tyrant counts. Does providing weapons for the civilians to use in their defense count? How about permitting private volunteers to join the fighting? That line is really blurry, and probably comes down to providing whatever aid we choose and allowing anyone that wants to join the fight, and daring Putin to make something of it. Considering the c*****r f**k his "glorious conquest" has turned into, I doubt he really wants to make things even worse by getting us militarily involved.

 

[maxparrish]

Harpoon cruise missiles, Javelin's, Stingers, NLAW's, drones/Hellfires, 81mm/120mm mortars, M20A1/A1B1, anti-tank mines, belt-fed Mk-19 AGL, RPG's, NVG's, Ma Deuce, sniper rifles, shotguns, C-4/Semtex,

Good list. The question is, what on this list are they not supplying? We know they did not supply Harpoons, or Hellfires. And I've heard no reports of mortars, grenade launchers, heavy machine guns, of C-4. I think you were referring to the old 3.5" bazooka, but another M20A looked very promising.

The new Serbian M20A looks like a very capable vehicle (using a Merc. Benz licensed suspension) with good protection.

 

[maxparrish]

And I've always been intrigued by:

The Centauro 2 fire support vehicle is a next-generation version of the original Centauro. It has a revised 8x8 chassis, and is armed with a more powerful 120 mm gun. Also it is better protected and has got a number of other improvements. The Centauro 2 was jointly developed by IVECO and OTO Melara to meet an Italian Army requirement. Development commenced in 2010. The first prototype was ready in 2015. It was first publicly revealed in 2016. Italian Army plans to obtain 74 of these new fire support vehicles. Currently Italian Army reportedly operates a total of 300 original Centrauro B1 fire support vehicles, armed with a 105 mm gun.

It is, to my knowledge, the only fire support vehicle that has a 120mm gun. It fires NATO ammunition as is capable of destroying most Russian tanks (although it has comparative little protection beyond 30mm gun fire).

It looks to be extremely mobile with eight wheels and would easily navigate Ukraine's roads and off road after the end of the mud season.

Centauro 2 Fire Support Vehicle | Military-Today.com

The Centauro 2 fire support vehicle is a next-generation version of the original Centauro. It uses the same 8x8 chassis, but has a more powerful 120-mm gun, is better protected and has many improvements.

www.military-today.com

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/centuro_2_l1.jpg

 

[jonny5]

All the weapons the Ukrainians are either trained to use or can be easily trained to use.


That is arguable. US legal code 18 USC § 2331(4) states "the term 'act of war' means any act occurring in the course of— (A) declared war; (B) armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C) armed conflict between military forces of any origin;" The problem is, it doesn't define what "any act" means. I doubt anyone thinks providing medical supplies and food to those resisting an invading tyrant counts. Does providing weapons for the civilians to use in their defense count? How about permitting private volunteers to join the fighting? That line is really blurry, and probably comes down to providing whatever aid we choose and allowing anyone that wants to join the fight, and daring Putin to make something of it. Considering the c*****r f**k his "glorious conquest" has turned into, I doubt he really wants to make things even worse by getting us militarily involved.

Its not that blurry, its just that everyone has their intentional blinders on pretending this isnt war by other means. Giving weapons to Ukraine to kill Russians, who are at war with Ukraine, is clearly aiding the enemy of Russia. What would we think if Russia were giving Iraq weapons to kill us in 2003?

Proxy war is still war.

 

[Rogue Valley]

I think you were referring to the old 3.5" bazooka, but another M20A looked very promising.

The new Serbian M20A looks like a very capable vehicle (using a Merc. Benz licensed suspension) with good protection.

View attachment 67380181

Yes, 90mm. The "super bazooka". At least 30 countries still use this weapon

I'd also include the 9K32 Strela-2 (SA-7 Grail) anti-air MANPAD.

 

[PoS]

I'd start by giving them the MIG 29s they wanted.

 

[Doug64]

Its not that blurry, its just that everyone has their intentional blinders on pretending this isnt war by other means. Giving weapons to Ukraine to kill Russians, who are at war with Ukraine, is clearly aiding the enemy of Russia. What would we think if Russia were giving Iraq weapons to kill us in 2003?

Proxy war is still war.

Yes, we are clearly aiding the Ukrainians. But not all aid reaches the level of an act of war. Again, a great deal of how it's interpreted depends on what the belligerents are willing to put up with.

 

[jonny5]

Yes, we are clearly aiding the Ukrainians. But not all aid reaches the level of an act of war. Again, a great deal of how it's interpreted depends on what the belligerents are willing to put up with.

But we are talking about weapons, not food. Arming a country engaged in war with another country is clearly war. WHich makes the US a legit target. Hopefully Russia isnt that stupid, but from their perspective, we are aiding their enemy.

 

[Rogue Valley]

But we are talking about weapons, not food. Arming a country engaged in war with another country is clearly war. WHich makes the US a legit target. Hopefully Russia isnt that stupid, but from their perspective, we are aiding their enemy.

Belarus is aiding Russia.

What goes around comes around.

 

[code1211]

Thats a better idea, actually having helped them to defend themselves BEFORE they were attacked. But it may have had similar problems in provoking Russia into a world war. Now that they are at war, and we are not at war with Russia, we should not be helping Ukraine to kill Russians. Pick a side or stay out of it.

Provoking Russia?

Is that like provoking a rapist?

Ukraine had it coming. She had all those pretty parks and buildings and those all too desirable children's hospitals. What was she thinking?

Poor Russia! What was Russia to do. He was just standing there minding his own business when that slut Ukraine was so pretty right in front of him. Tempting him!

Russia really had no choice in this. Ukraine provoked him.

C'mon, man!

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ Sarcasm Alert Blaring in the Background }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

 

[jonny5]

Provoking Russia?

Is that like provoking a rapist?

Ukraine had it coming. She had all those pretty parks and buildings and those all too desirable children's hospitals. What was she thinking?

Poor Russia! What was Russia to do. He was just standing there minding his own business when that slut Ukraine was so pretty right in front of him. Tempting him!

Russia really had no choice in this. Ukraine provoked him.

C'mon, man!

{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ Sarcasm Alert Blaring in the Background }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

The lowest form of wit.

 

[Luce]

Everything except NBC weapons.

Everything else.

 

[Luce]

Thats a better idea, actually having helped them to defend themselves BEFORE they were attacked. But it may have had similar problems in provoking Russia into a world war. Now that they are at war, and we are not at war with Russia, we should not be helping Ukraine to kill Russians. Pick a side or stay out of it.

Remember lend/lease?

This is perfectly legal and isn't an act of war by anyone's standards.

 

[Doug64]

But we are talking about weapons, not food. Arming a country engaged in war with another country is clearly war. WHich makes the US a legit target. Hopefully Russia isnt that stupid, but from their perspective, we are aiding their enemy.

And during the American Civil War, blockade runners with holds full of war materiel (along with any number of luxuries), owned and manned by British citizens, were launching from British ports to resupply the Confederacy. The Lincoln administration chose to let it slide, so apparently that wasn’t an act of war. OTOH, the Lincoln administration drew the line at British builders constructing Confederate warships in British ports, making it clear that if they were allowed to launch that would be an act of war. The British government chose to avoid that war by buying the ships themselves or allowing their sale to other European powers rather than the Confederacy, and IIRC paid substantial reparations for the damage inflicted by the ships that managed to make it out of port and into Confederate hands.

Then there was the Trent affair, when a US warship overhauled a British steamer and removed two traitors on diplomatic missions to Britain and France—that almost resulted in Britain declaring war on the US, before Prince Albert softened Britain‘s response and Seward (discovering that he wasn’t so eager for a war with Britain after all) came up with an excuse that allowed us to hand the traitors back.

So yes, it’s a sliding scale based on what the parties to the war and their neighbors are willing to put up with and able to enforce.

 

[LouC]

Here is my list:

SS-300, purchased from existing inventories in former Warsaw pact countries and elsewhere.

French 10 SAMP/T systems which is a mobile, ground-based, air transportable, medium range air defense system designed to replace the Hawk air defense systems as well as an unknown number of Vertical Launch Mica systems It is intended against simultaneously multiple attacks of aircraft and missiles adding the advantage of employing and fire and forget missile.

View attachment 67379968

MQ-9 Reaper Hunter/Killer UAV​

View attachment 67379969​

M142 HIMARS​

The M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) is a light multiple rocket launcher developed in the late 1990s for the United States Army, mounted on a standard Army M1140 truck frame.

The HIMARS carries six rockets or one MGM-140 ATACMS missile on the U.S. Army's new Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) five-ton truck, and can launch the entire Multiple Launch Rocket System Family of Munitions (MFOM). HIMARS ammunition is interchangeable with the MLRS M270A1; however, it is only able to carry one pod rather than the standard two for the M270 and A1 variants.
View attachment 67379973

What weapons do we have that Russia has no fit counter measure to?

That is what I would send them.

Hypothetically speaking.

 

[jonny5]

And during the American Civil War, blockade runners with holds full of war materiel (along with any number of luxuries), owned and manned by British citizens, were launching from British ports to resupply the Confederacy. The Lincoln administration chose to let it slide, so apparently that wasn’t an act of war. OTOH, the Lincoln administration drew the line at British builders constructing Confederate warships in British ports, making it clear that if they were allowed to launch that would be an act of war. The British government chose to avoid that war by buying the ships themselves or allowing their sale to other European powers rather than the Confederacy, and IIRC paid substantial reparations for the damage inflicted by the ships that managed to make it out of port and into Confederate hands.

Then there was the Trent affair, when a US warship overhauled a British steamer and removed two traitors on diplomatic missions to Britain and France—that almost resulted in Britain declaring war on the US, before Prince Albert softened Britain‘s response and Seward (discovering that he wasn’t so eager for a war with Britain after all) came up with an excuse that allowed us to hand the traitors back.

So yes, it’s a sliding scale based on what the parties to the war and their neighbors are willing to put up with and able to enforce.

It WAS an act of war though. Pretending doesnt make it not so. Thats exactly the problem, we sit here for decades while hostile countries have attacked us. We do it to others. This is not a good thing. If we want to defend Ukraine against Russia lets be honest about it. Its war against Russia.

 

[LouC]

It WAS an act of war though. Pretending doesnt make it not so. Thats exactly the problem, we sit here for decades while hostile countries have attacked us. We do it to others. This is not a good thing. If we want to defend Ukraine against Russia lets be honest about it. Its war against Russia.

I agree.

Let Congress Declare it then let us get it done!

 

[StillBallin75]

And I've always been intrigued by:

The Centauro 2 fire support vehicle is a next-generation version of the original Centauro. It has a revised 8x8 chassis, and is armed with a more powerful 120 mm gun. Also it is better protected and has got a number of other improvements. The Centauro 2 was jointly developed by IVECO and OTO Melara to meet an Italian Army requirement. Development commenced in 2010. The first prototype was ready in 2015. It was first publicly revealed in 2016. Italian Army plans to obtain 74 of these new fire support vehicles. Currently Italian Army reportedly operates a total of 300 original Centrauro B1 fire support vehicles, armed with a 105 mm gun.

It is, to my knowledge, the only fire support vehicle that has a 120mm gun. It fires NATO ammunition as is capable of destroying most Russian tanks (although it has comparative little protection beyond 30mm gun fire).

It looks to be extremely mobile with eight wheels and would easily navigate Ukraine's roads and off road after the end of the mud season.

Centauro 2 Fire Support Vehicle | Military-Today.com

The Centauro 2 fire support vehicle is a next-generation version of the original Centauro. It uses the same 8x8 chassis, but has a more powerful 120-mm gun, is better protected and has many improvements.

www.military-today.com

http://www.military-today.com/artillery/centuro_2_l1.jpg

View attachment 67380182

This is comparable to the U.S. Army's Stryker MGS. Which is a maintenance nightmare, not to mention you've gotta train people to use it properly which is a doctrinal and training thing for which there's no time right now. There's also no way that 120mm gun can fully traverse.

I'd say for the most part just keep handing them Javelins and NLAWs. Highly effective and easy to use.

 

[maxparrish]

This is comparable to the U.S. Army's Stryker MGS. Which is a maintenance nightmare, not to mention you've gotta train people to use it properly which is a doctrinal and training thing for which there's no time right now. There's also no way that 120mm gun can fully traverse.

I'd say for the most part just keep handing them Javelins and NLAWs. Highly effective and easy to use.

One shouldn't assume that because a particular brand and model of one military vehicle is "a nightmare" that every vehicle in its class is a lemon. Not all SUVs are the same, nor all fire support vehicles or recon vehicles are the same.

If there is a role for the Bradly, I would think there is a role for a Centauro II B. It's cheap compared to a tank, it has a 120mm gun capable of penetrating a typical Russian tank. Fires all the nato ammo. It can withstand upto 4Omm fire, and would trash any BMP it encountered. And a semi automatic gun reloads a lot faster than a TOW on a Bradley.

The only downside, other than not having tank armor, might be that it is wheeled, so its off road ability in mud may be a question.

And the Centauro family has been around since the cold war, and one must assume that this latest version has most of the mechanical issues worked out.

If we won't supply Ukraine with tanks, this may be the only option should they run short.