I don't believe a glownagger program in almost wartime conditions would suffer time overruns. DOD would just throw more money at the problem until they got it to work.
I'm not saying the program was a low priority item—we have strong indication it was quite serious—but at the same time there is no evidence suggesting it was immune to the usual .gov oversights. Serious programs sometimes have serious issues.
Could be they took the time to make it capable of using more than just RIM-7s. If it can fire Sparrows, Sidewinders, ESSMs, other Euro Missiles, it could be a lot more useful.
They'd need modifications to do so, at bare minimum they'd need to get the seeker signal interpreted into the same format as the R-73 outputs for them to be able to fire it from boresight only.
In the latest aid package one of the listed weapons was aim 9Ms
They have NASAMs that also launch AIM-9s so it wasn't a particular teller for FrakenBuk
FrankenSAM was multiple western missiles that BUKs could use. There's a version that's been out for at least a month or two that uses old SAM's that the RN doesn't want anymore.
The announced military aid package from the United States in May 2023 included RIM-7 Sea Sparrow naval missiles that the country was to transfer to Ukraine. Until recently, it was unclear why Ukraine needed these missiles. But after the Pentagon documents were leaked online, new details became known. The Sea Sparrow naval missiles were designed for modernized Buk anti-aircraft missile systems. Modernization for these missiles was supposed to provide new missile reserves due to the shortage of original weapons.
Thanks to the use of compact transport and launch containers for Sea Sparrow and ESSM missiles, modernization of the mounts on the Buk and Kub systems is not difficult. In addition, the TEC itself is connected to the electrical system of the launcher for launching.
For the sake of cheap modernization, the radar targeting stations simply replaced some elements, although it is also possible to use self-propelled radar targeting stations for these missiles from some Western companies, which have better detection and targeting characteristics due to a more modern electronic base.
One of the main problems with the integration of Western missiles with a semi-active homing head into Soviet air defense systems was the targeting radar, which, due to different frequencies and signal processing computer, could not guide RIM-7 missiles. To solve this problem, the developers upgraded the radar by updating the software and changing the frequencies, which helped with targeting and guidance. On the other hand, the most frequent problem was the obsolescence of the electronics and related systems, which became increasingly problematic and less cost-effective to upgrade.
In October 2023, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin first announced the development of an air defense system that would use AIM-9M missiles produced in the 80s and 90s. According to him, the first samples of the anti-aircraft system will be transferred to Ukraine soon to strengthen its air defense in the run-up to winter.
According to Western media reports, in addition to the launcher with AIM-9M missiles, the anti-aircraft system will be equipped with a radar station to detect targets beyond line of sight, which will ensure timely target detection and missile guidance.
One of the main problems with the integration of Western missiles with a semi-active homing head into Soviet air defense systems was the targeting radar, which, due to different frequencies and signal processing computer, could not guide RIM-7 missiles. To solve this problem, the developers upgraded the radar by updating the software and changing the frequencies, which helped with targeting and guidance. On the other hand, the most frequent problem was the obsolescence of the electronics and related systems, which became increasingly problematic and less cost-effective to upgrade.
In October 2023, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin first announced the development of an air defense system that would use AIM-9M missiles produced in the 80s and 90s. According to him, the first samples of the anti-aircraft system will be transferred to Ukraine soon to strengthen its air defense in the run-up to winter.
According to Western media reports, in addition to the launcher with AIM-9M missiles, the anti-aircraft system will be equipped with a radar station to detect targets beyond line of sight, which will ensure timely target detection and missile guidance.
>upgrade of Theseus
The problem is most likely getting the missile system to make the best use of the NATO missile's capability while communicating with the Ukrainians' Soviet centralised air defence net
>be Uke air defence control software >receive new input from TEL #21: "this is a missile" >what on earth is this >"it's a Buk, look at it" >you're having me on >"no really, look" >it's the wrong weight >"ignore that" >look, it says it's got 150% more range, that's impossible >"it's an upgraded Buk" >well I don't recognise that >"trust me okay" >it's chasing sensor ghosts >"no really, that's a real enemy aircraft" >there's no way on earth a Buk missile should be able to track anything that far out >"this one can" >bollocks >"look will you just launch the damn thing you son of a glitch" >bugger off, you're the glitch here >ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR
NATO programmer: sigh... back to the drawing board, sir
RIM-7s are pretty dumb. SARH-only. As long as you can ignite the rocket motor and shine a radar with the right characteristics (frequency, etc.) on a target, it'll go there.
To be fair those are tracked launchers with their support vehicles. The chassis is still there and so is the logistics tail inclusive of training. Swapping out the electronics and missiles lets the existing AD crews work with the base hardware they're familiar with.
Igla isn't particularly useful to them on a vehicle. They have the Avenger system already for that to begin with. The problem for the Ukrainians is that such systems are too short ranged for frontline use against attack helis due to their short range, the Avengers are all used as mobile defense against cruise missiles and it'd be more cost effective for the Ukrainians to just use crews on pickups with MANPADS like they have been. A tracked system would be slower to respond too.
>The first few renovated Buk launchers and rockets arrived in Ukraine recently. >Ukraine was ready to send another 17 Buk installations to the United States for re-equipment, but American engineers were able to hand over only five in a month.
Sounds about right. Ukraine's Buk fleet has been suHispaniciously missing after the early days of the war. The refurbishing process was apparently decided on sometime in 2022, given the leaks, so that makes sense too. 5 a month is a bit slow, but compared to the timelines for other AA units (IRIS-T, NASAM) it is breakneck.
Hope we get to see a video of it nailing an alligator.
> Buk fleet has been suHispaniciously missing
But it hasn't, they're constantly being used and there is footage as recent as this week. Anyway, this project only exists because ukies have dwindling stocks for their AA systems, buks included.
>But it hasn't, they're constantly being used and there is footage as recent as this week.
Seriously? Post it then. Actually curious.
The only UKR Buk footage I've seen in a month is a decoy.
Thanks. Hadn't seen those. The last video I saw was a presumed decoy being hit by a Lancet. (The lancet missed)
>Ukraine's Buk fleet has been suHispaniciously missing after the early days of the war
Ukraine had 72 BUK's, 21 is being upgraded. Do you think they pulled back ALL 72 BUKs from duty for 2 years for this upgrade, are you insane?
>Do you think they pulled back ALL 72 BUKs
No? My point is I don't believe they still have their entire pre-war Buks in active operation, and moreover significant number are outright not in use. How could that not be the case? They can't feed that many. Which is the point of the program to resolve.
you're paying too much attention to videos. None is going to film BUK firing it's missiles, it's better to not film any air defense at all. Leak about air defense showed that a year into the war there was still BUK missiles and used constantly, not expended in first few months
1 month ago
Anonymous
True, but at the same time the 17 being offered for upgrade are guaranteed to be part of a larger cohort of Buks, let's assume 20-25, of which 3-8 of those already completed upgrades in the USA. This wouldn't be news if the numbers were inferior to that. They'd never pull any from active service, so those must have been in disuse. That's around a third of their pre-war stock not doing anything. Assuming everything worked to begin with, pus there have been no (public) disclosures of donated Buks to increase numbers beyond that.
The run to Zaporizhzhia clearly showed a lack of mobile middling-range AA support ie what Buks are built for. Ka-52s wouldn't have ever been reported as a consistent blocker otherwise. So, yeah, I'm still contending they probably don't have many Buks in use and haven't since early in the war.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>pus there have been no (public) disclosures of donated Buks to increase numbers beyond that.
Maybe because there's only ONE country in the West who has any of them and still needs?
1 month ago
Anonymous
non-western countries also "donate" (bribed into sending) things to Ukraine, anon.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>bribed into sending
some sort of exchange of currency for goods and services? absolutely scandalous
1 month ago
Anonymous
anon, you forgot the "voluntary and consentual" part of that
1 month ago
Anonymous
If you're doing things involuntarily and without consent then what the fuck is the bribe for?
Bribes are a way of getting consent because the other party agrees to the mutual benefit, otherwise you'd just use beatings and threats.
1 month ago
Anonymous
check'd
also I'm just messing with your 'tism. This reached its practical conclusion several replies ago.
>Ukraine's Buk fleet has been suHispaniciously missing after the early days of the war
Ukraine had 72 BUK's, 21 is being upgraded. Do you think they pulled back ALL 72 BUKs from duty for 2 years for this upgrade, are you insane?
dumb question, but given the proliferation of the sea sparrow and its development, why haven't we seen an adaptation of it as a ground based sam prior to this?
the aspide saw some use as a ground launched sam and it's pretty similar
NATO never really had a need for medium range SAMs. The air force is supposed to provide that kind of coverage, so all that was really needed is PAC-2/3 for long/extended medium range and anti-TBM duty and short ranged systems like Avenger and C-RAM. Avenger ought to be augmented by a longer ranged mobile system though.
We have: >https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsnorwegian-air-force-essm/
Your question is really "why didn't the USA adopt it" and the answer is that their budget was spent on fighting terrorists, the Pacific Pivot, fifth gen aircraft, and laser weapons. Ground-launched ESSM is a big step backward from an F-35 fleet.
you must love the push to put Mk 41 VLS cells on land then >jeep launched ESSM >jeep launched Tomahawk >jeep launched Nulka aerial decoys
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Mk 41 VLS cells on land >jeep launched ESSM >jeep launched Tomahawk >jeep launched Nulka aerial decoys
muh dikkkkkk
1 month ago
Anonymous
I'm gonna make you cum >jeep launched ASROC antisubmarine torpedo rockets
1 month ago
Anonymous
imagine just loading up a bunch of these on a ferry and floating around
1 month ago
Anonymous
>you're a Chinese SSN hanging out at the sandbar when THIS guy slaps you on the ASROC, what do
1 month ago
Anonymous
the chinese stole my image, can't have shit in the first island chain
1 month ago
Anonymous
This can't happen fast enough for the unified AEGIS Ashore on Distributed Crack Cocaine experience. >Every cargo container a networked ABM shooter
SM-6s everywhere.
These aren't ESSMs. They're old-school RIM-7s that were replaced by the ESSM. And RIM-7s are generally inferior to Hawks.
After the Cold War ended, the Army mostly got out of the anti-aircraft business; the only SAMs it continued development on were the PAC and THAAD, which could also be used against SRBMs and potentially MRBMs. They considered NASAMS/SLAMRAAM, but it just wasn't an important enough priority.
RIM-7 is practically ancient at this point, and very out of date. However, as with many old weapons, it's still somewhat useful against Russia's anemic SEAD capabilities. And, it's readily available, since there are plenty of missiles left in storage waiting to be decommissioned (which is expensive whenever you deal with solid-rocket motors). So, it's a dirt-cheap option that provides *some* benefit to Ukraine, which needs all the SAM coverage that it can get.
If there is a huge quantity of old western missiles, I wonder if it would be worthwhile to rapidly convert all their remaining BUKs or would it be better to focus on fixing the gaping hole in longer range systems?
Ukraine only had 72 BUK systems to begin with and Russia has destroyed at least 16 or so (Obviously I'm ignoring the 14 BUK Ukraine has captured). I'm not overly familiar with SAM systems, but it seems like all the donations like, IRIS-T, Spada, Crotale, HAWK, and NASAMS fill a similar role of short-medium range as the BUK. Avenger, Stormer, Vampire, Marder, Strela etc.. seem like much shorter range systems or replacements for Ukraine modest short range losses. If we include all the expected donations it amounts to hundreds of launchers/systems more than Ukraine has lost. Once all the short and medium range systems arrive + upgrades to the first set of BUKs it definitely looks like they will have significantly more short and medium range capability than they started with. I tried adding it up but it looked like 300+ launchers once it is all built/upgraded.
The next challenge will clearly be the S300's, they've lost nearly 50/250 launchers based on Oryx's list. They must be getting short on reloads at this point and the donation page doesn't seem to list a lot of replacements for 50+km systems. Obviously Patriot is the big replacement but those systems are expensive, challenging to get donated, and take a while to build more of. Seems like they should have around 6 batteries of Patriots by winter though, which looks like a big upgrade from last year unless the S300 situation is much worse than expected. I know Ukraine has an indigenous replacement system(SD-300) but I doubt they can produce replacement missiles and systems at any scale in any reasonable timeframe before the S-300's start failing.
>it seems like all the donations like, IRIS-T, Spada, Crotale, HAWK, and NASAMS fill a similar role of short-medium range
Correct; NATO typically left the long-range air defence role to combat jets
>Seems like they should have around 6 batteries of Patriots by winter though, which looks like a big upgrade from last year
They also have an Aster SAMP/T battery
The bright side is that Russia will also find it difficult to replenish its cruise missile inventory, and it will be easier to replace power infrastructure this go round - we've had all year to prepare for it.
I agree, I'm not sure we'll see the big launches of missiles in coordinated strike packages like from earlier in the war, but I think we've also seen Russia adapt by moving around launchers, combining launces with drones, and using complicated flight paths to make their launches more challenging for Ukraine to intercept. We should know fairly early how effective it will be. The longer this war goes on it does seem like it will benefit Ukraine as long as there is western support. Every month it seems like Russia gets weaker and Ukraine gets stronger.
>rapidly convert
Yes, also giving Ukrainians hundreds of F-35 and thousands of Abrams would be worthwhile. Will it be done? Obviously not, americans are doing it at their own pace as they aren't under pressure.
FrankenSAM?
by all accounts frankenSAM should have been brought online several months ago. It must be something else
>there is no way a government program had massive time and cost overruns
anon, I
I don't believe a glownagger program in almost wartime conditions would suffer time overruns. DOD would just throw more money at the problem until they got it to work.
I'm not saying the program was a low priority item—we have strong indication it was quite serious—but at the same time there is no evidence suggesting it was immune to the usual .gov oversights. Serious programs sometimes have serious issues.
Could be they took the time to make it capable of using more than just RIM-7s. If it can fire Sparrows, Sidewinders, ESSMs, other Euro Missiles, it could be a lot more useful.
In the latest aid package one of the listed weapons was aim 9Ms
>aim 9Ms
theoretically the AFU can launch them from their Migs right?
They'd need modifications to do so, at bare minimum they'd need to get the seeker signal interpreted into the same format as the R-73 outputs for them to be able to fire it from boresight only.
They have NASAMs that also launch AIM-9s so it wasn't a particular teller for FrakenBuk
FrankenSAM was multiple western missiles that BUKs could use. There's a version that's been out for at least a month or two that uses old SAM's that the RN doesn't want anymore.
What? Sea Dart? Source?
>it's Sea Slug
Based if true, but source?
It was revealed to me in a dream
>wikis
>got damn
hope they do
>Feb 2023
>solicit contributions
>mid term (3-6 months)
Should have been ready by August but it's coming online in November. Seems par for the course.
>FrankenSAM
Whoever named that was having a giggle, thats cute
The announced military aid package from the United States in May 2023 included RIM-7 Sea Sparrow naval missiles that the country was to transfer to Ukraine. Until recently, it was unclear why Ukraine needed these missiles. But after the Pentagon documents were leaked online, new details became known. The Sea Sparrow naval missiles were designed for modernized Buk anti-aircraft missile systems. Modernization for these missiles was supposed to provide new missile reserves due to the shortage of original weapons.
Thanks to the use of compact transport and launch containers for Sea Sparrow and ESSM missiles, modernization of the mounts on the Buk and Kub systems is not difficult. In addition, the TEC itself is connected to the electrical system of the launcher for launching.
For the sake of cheap modernization, the radar targeting stations simply replaced some elements, although it is also possible to use self-propelled radar targeting stations for these missiles from some Western companies, which have better detection and targeting characteristics due to a more modern electronic base.
https://mil.in.ua/uk/articles/programa-franken-sam-druge-zhyttya-zastarilyh-raket/
neat
One of the main problems with the integration of Western missiles with a semi-active homing head into Soviet air defense systems was the targeting radar, which, due to different frequencies and signal processing computer, could not guide RIM-7 missiles. To solve this problem, the developers upgraded the radar by updating the software and changing the frequencies, which helped with targeting and guidance. On the other hand, the most frequent problem was the obsolescence of the electronics and related systems, which became increasingly problematic and less cost-effective to upgrade.
In October 2023, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin first announced the development of an air defense system that would use AIM-9M missiles produced in the 80s and 90s. According to him, the first samples of the anti-aircraft system will be transferred to Ukraine soon to strengthen its air defense in the run-up to winter.
According to Western media reports, in addition to the launcher with AIM-9M missiles, the anti-aircraft system will be equipped with a radar station to detect targets beyond line of sight, which will ensure timely target detection and missile guidance.
> the developers upgraded the radar by updating the software and changing the frequencies
this is the strangest romhack ever
At what point are you basically shoehorning a whole new western vehicle into the hollowed out shell of a buk's corpse?
Why not just stick it on a boxer, lynx ASCOD or CV90 chassis and not have to deal with Soviet archeotech power systems and space requirements?
>upgrade of Theseus
The problem is most likely getting the missile system to make the best use of the NATO missile's capability while communicating with the Ukrainians' Soviet centralised air defence net
>be Uke air defence control software
>receive new input from TEL #21: "this is a missile"
>what on earth is this
>"it's a Buk, look at it"
>you're having me on
>"no really, look"
>it's the wrong weight
>"ignore that"
>look, it says it's got 150% more range, that's impossible
>"it's an upgraded Buk"
>well I don't recognise that
>"trust me okay"
>it's chasing sensor ghosts
>"no really, that's a real enemy aircraft"
>there's no way on earth a Buk missile should be able to track anything that far out
>"this one can"
>bollocks
>"look will you just launch the damn thing you son of a glitch"
>bugger off, you're the glitch here
>ERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR
NATO programmer: sigh... back to the drawing board, sir
I would watch a cells-at-work style slice of life about post soviet systems trying to work with NATO standard gear
RIM-7s are pretty dumb. SARH-only. As long as you can ignite the rocket motor and shine a radar with the right characteristics (frequency, etc.) on a target, it'll go there.
To be fair those are tracked launchers with their support vehicles. The chassis is still there and so is the logistics tail inclusive of training. Swapping out the electronics and missiles lets the existing AD crews work with the base hardware they're familiar with.
So you're telling me the rest of the KA52s are going to be dead.
Isn't someone in south Europe adapted kub for western rockets already?
Poland looked into it iirc
are those l39s in the back
looks like L-159 which makes me a little confused... Iraq, UK, USA or Czechia
It's not a Buk, but a Kub. Buk has it's own iluminating radar.
>It's not a Buk, but a Kub
because it's Polish vehicle since there are no actual photos of Buk with Sea Sparrow
Someone should look into the Igla M113s too, they're short on mobile SAMs
Igla isn't particularly useful to them on a vehicle. They have the Avenger system already for that to begin with. The problem for the Ukrainians is that such systems are too short ranged for frontline use against attack helis due to their short range, the Avengers are all used as mobile defense against cruise missiles and it'd be more cost effective for the Ukrainians to just use crews on pickups with MANPADS like they have been. A tracked system would be slower to respond too.
>The first few renovated Buk launchers and rockets arrived in Ukraine recently.
>Ukraine was ready to send another 17 Buk installations to the United States for re-equipment, but American engineers were able to hand over only five in a month.
Sounds about right. Ukraine's Buk fleet has been suHispaniciously missing after the early days of the war. The refurbishing process was apparently decided on sometime in 2022, given the leaks, so that makes sense too. 5 a month is a bit slow, but compared to the timelines for other AA units (IRIS-T, NASAM) it is breakneck.
Hope we get to see a video of it nailing an alligator.
> Buk fleet has been suHispaniciously missing
But it hasn't, they're constantly being used and there is footage as recent as this week. Anyway, this project only exists because ukies have dwindling stocks for their AA systems, buks included.
>But it hasn't, they're constantly being used and there is footage as recent as this week.
Seriously? Post it then. Actually curious.
The only UKR Buk footage I've seen in a month is a decoy.
Thanks. Hadn't seen those. The last video I saw was a presumed decoy being hit by a Lancet. (The lancet missed)
>Do you think they pulled back ALL 72 BUKs
No? My point is I don't believe they still have their entire pre-war Buks in active operation, and moreover significant number are outright not in use. How could that not be the case? They can't feed that many. Which is the point of the program to resolve.
you're paying too much attention to videos. None is going to film BUK firing it's missiles, it's better to not film any air defense at all. Leak about air defense showed that a year into the war there was still BUK missiles and used constantly, not expended in first few months
True, but at the same time the 17 being offered for upgrade are guaranteed to be part of a larger cohort of Buks, let's assume 20-25, of which 3-8 of those already completed upgrades in the USA. This wouldn't be news if the numbers were inferior to that. They'd never pull any from active service, so those must have been in disuse. That's around a third of their pre-war stock not doing anything. Assuming everything worked to begin with, pus there have been no (public) disclosures of donated Buks to increase numbers beyond that.
The run to Zaporizhzhia clearly showed a lack of mobile middling-range AA support ie what Buks are built for. Ka-52s wouldn't have ever been reported as a consistent blocker otherwise. So, yeah, I'm still contending they probably don't have many Buks in use and haven't since early in the war.
>pus there have been no (public) disclosures of donated Buks to increase numbers beyond that.
Maybe because there's only ONE country in the West who has any of them and still needs?
non-western countries also "donate" (bribed into sending) things to Ukraine, anon.
>bribed into sending
some sort of exchange of currency for goods and services? absolutely scandalous
anon, you forgot the "voluntary and consentual" part of that
If you're doing things involuntarily and without consent then what the fuck is the bribe for?
Bribes are a way of getting consent because the other party agrees to the mutual benefit, otherwise you'd just use beatings and threats.
check'd
also I'm just messing with your 'tism. This reached its practical conclusion several replies ago.
>Ukraine's Buk fleet has been suHispaniciously missing after the early days of the war
Ukraine had 72 BUK's, 21 is being upgraded. Do you think they pulled back ALL 72 BUKs from duty for 2 years for this upgrade, are you insane?
There's also talk they're integrating Patriot missiles with a domestic Ukrainian radar. No idea what though.
Probably a hack to get NATO systems to integrate fully into the Soviet air defence system
dumb question, but given the proliferation of the sea sparrow and its development, why haven't we seen an adaptation of it as a ground based sam prior to this?
the aspide saw some use as a ground launched sam and it's pretty similar
NATO never really had a need for medium range SAMs. The air force is supposed to provide that kind of coverage, so all that was really needed is PAC-2/3 for long/extended medium range and anti-TBM duty and short ranged systems like Avenger and C-RAM. Avenger ought to be augmented by a longer ranged mobile system though.
We have:
>https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/newsnorwegian-air-force-essm/
Your question is really "why didn't the USA adopt it" and the answer is that their budget was spent on fighting terrorists, the Pacific Pivot, fifth gen aircraft, and laser weapons. Ground-launched ESSM is a big step backward from an F-35 fleet.
>nasams launcher can launch essm, amraam, and sidewinders
neat
only the LOAL sidewinders though.
still neat
being to shoot a variety of ammunition makes me irrationally happy
you must love the push to put Mk 41 VLS cells on land then
>jeep launched ESSM
>jeep launched Tomahawk
>jeep launched Nulka aerial decoys
>Mk 41 VLS cells on land
>jeep launched ESSM
>jeep launched Tomahawk
>jeep launched Nulka aerial decoys
muh dikkkkkk
I'm gonna make you cum
>jeep launched ASROC antisubmarine torpedo rockets
imagine just loading up a bunch of these on a ferry and floating around
>you're a Chinese SSN hanging out at the sandbar when THIS guy slaps you on the ASROC, what do
the chinese stole my image, can't have shit in the first island chain
This can't happen fast enough for the unified AEGIS Ashore on Distributed Crack Cocaine experience.
>Every cargo container a networked ABM shooter
SM-6s everywhere.
These aren't ESSMs. They're old-school RIM-7s that were replaced by the ESSM. And RIM-7s are generally inferior to Hawks.
After the Cold War ended, the Army mostly got out of the anti-aircraft business; the only SAMs it continued development on were the PAC and THAAD, which could also be used against SRBMs and potentially MRBMs. They considered NASAMS/SLAMRAAM, but it just wasn't an important enough priority.
RIM-7 is practically ancient at this point, and very out of date. However, as with many old weapons, it's still somewhat useful against Russia's anemic SEAD capabilities. And, it's readily available, since there are plenty of missiles left in storage waiting to be decommissioned (which is expensive whenever you deal with solid-rocket motors). So, it's a dirt-cheap option that provides *some* benefit to Ukraine, which needs all the SAM coverage that it can get.
What is that radar though?
What aircraft are that?
Look what they need to mimic a fraction of our power
If there is a huge quantity of old western missiles, I wonder if it would be worthwhile to rapidly convert all their remaining BUKs or would it be better to focus on fixing the gaping hole in longer range systems?
Ukraine only had 72 BUK systems to begin with and Russia has destroyed at least 16 or so (Obviously I'm ignoring the 14 BUK Ukraine has captured). I'm not overly familiar with SAM systems, but it seems like all the donations like, IRIS-T, Spada, Crotale, HAWK, and NASAMS fill a similar role of short-medium range as the BUK. Avenger, Stormer, Vampire, Marder, Strela etc.. seem like much shorter range systems or replacements for Ukraine modest short range losses. If we include all the expected donations it amounts to hundreds of launchers/systems more than Ukraine has lost. Once all the short and medium range systems arrive + upgrades to the first set of BUKs it definitely looks like they will have significantly more short and medium range capability than they started with. I tried adding it up but it looked like 300+ launchers once it is all built/upgraded.
The next challenge will clearly be the S300's, they've lost nearly 50/250 launchers based on Oryx's list. They must be getting short on reloads at this point and the donation page doesn't seem to list a lot of replacements for 50+km systems. Obviously Patriot is the big replacement but those systems are expensive, challenging to get donated, and take a while to build more of. Seems like they should have around 6 batteries of Patriots by winter though, which looks like a big upgrade from last year unless the S300 situation is much worse than expected. I know Ukraine has an indigenous replacement system(SD-300) but I doubt they can produce replacement missiles and systems at any scale in any reasonable timeframe before the S-300's start failing.
>it seems like all the donations like, IRIS-T, Spada, Crotale, HAWK, and NASAMS fill a similar role of short-medium range
Correct; NATO typically left the long-range air defence role to combat jets
>Seems like they should have around 6 batteries of Patriots by winter though, which looks like a big upgrade from last year
They also have an Aster SAMP/T battery
The bright side is that Russia will also find it difficult to replenish its cruise missile inventory, and it will be easier to replace power infrastructure this go round - we've had all year to prepare for it.
I agree, I'm not sure we'll see the big launches of missiles in coordinated strike packages like from earlier in the war, but I think we've also seen Russia adapt by moving around launchers, combining launces with drones, and using complicated flight paths to make their launches more challenging for Ukraine to intercept. We should know fairly early how effective it will be. The longer this war goes on it does seem like it will benefit Ukraine as long as there is western support. Every month it seems like Russia gets weaker and Ukraine gets stronger.
Russia has 4% of the GDP of the Ukraine alliance of nations, in a long war they don't have a snowball's chance in hell
Ukraine just needs to conserve its manpower and not blunder
>rapidly convert
Yes, also giving Ukrainians hundreds of F-35 and thousands of Abrams would be worthwhile. Will it be done? Obviously not, americans are doing it at their own pace as they aren't under pressure.