What's the next weapon for Ukraine after the fighter jets?

We all knew back in January after tanks were announced that aircraft would be the next obvious weapon given to Ukrainians. Though now I am a bit puzzled about what the next weapon in line would be that would be considered an "upgrade" from the 4th gen fighter jets.

What are they in your opinion? Long range missiles? Naval vessels? Bunker busters? Discuss.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    SSBN

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not gonna happe. As long as the war goes on NATO isn't allowed to pass warships true the Turkish Straits under the Montreaux convention.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        moron.
        Turkey is a part of Nato. Nato is not fighting. Turkey gets final say over warships that pass through. And Turkey is obviously not favorable to Russia in this.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >And Turkey is obviously not favorable to Russia in this.
          Im not sure about this

          https://edition.cnn.com/2023/05/19/middleeast/turkey-president-recep-tayyip-erdogan-interview-mime-intl/index.html

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            >posturing from erdogan to counter the russia critical stance of his opponent
            Yeah it's nothing.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah. Turkey is pro-Russia clearly. Which is why they're supplying Ukraine with weapons and are building Ukraine's new flagship.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Turkey stays neutral or the rest of NATO will see to it that Ukraine gets even more surprisingly effective anti-ship weapons.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        I was in Istanbul only a couple of weeks ago for the first time and I was shocked at how narrow the Bosporus is, it's surprising the turks would allow any warships through there, it's inviting them directly into the heart of their capital city.

        Anyway an SSBN doesn't need to be anywhere near the black sea, not that the USA is actually going to give Ukraine one anyway.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Ankara is the capital moron not Istanbul

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Oh woops, well frick Istanbul then, I guess it's not important.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Istanbul isn't the capital of Turkey. But it should be: death to anatolian Black folk.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        >De-militarize ships by removing weapons and unbolting sensors, put those aside
        >Stack old weapons cells and silos with potatoes
        >Sail through strait to Ukraine
        >Offload potatoes
        >Prepare ship for watermelon storage so it can make return trip
        >Say, those are some pretty big trucks and planes offloading by the port...

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly can’t they just build a nuke and place it in a Storm Shadow and Nuke Sevastopol?

      That would be Kino

  2. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I vote for sarin gas.

  3. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    I'm gonna hijack this thread a little
    IIRC, for the longest time, much of the procurement plan was to simply transfer as much soviet equipment from former soviet states to Ukraine which Western governments would reimburse them or replace them with western equipment. Is there any real information on this?
    1. How much of that stuff is left and how much are the repsective states willing to give up/sell?
    2. How pissed are the former soviet MIC companies that this is happening? This will demolish long term future sales?

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >How pissed are the former soviet MIC companies that this is happening? This will demolish long term future sales?
      You mean the ones managed by Putin's lackeys? They'll deal with it or get windowed.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        No, I mean companies that exist in places like the Baltics or Poland or wherever.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Those places have been out of business for 30 years

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous
        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          They don't exist. Soviets were very stingy about their puppet states having significant arms manufacture of their own so in most cases the best they could do was small arms and maybe light vehicles. Usually they had one or two factories producing very specific gear at best (Polish Mi-2s, Czechoslovak OT-64, Hungarian FUGGGG :-DDDD, etc.) but not ones that could produce standard Soviet equipment such as tanks or artillery.
          Ukraine was an exception because it was part of Soviet Union proper so they kept a significant chunk of Soviet MIC.

  4. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Total ZIGGER death

  5. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is honestly not much more they could get at this point.
    I think it is unlikely they will get ATACM because the US has limited supply and because the Russian air defence will be able to shoot many of them down, if it is true that they can shoot down GMLRS.
    It is much easier and more economical to saturate Russian AD with GMLRS than ATACM.
    The US are also likely loathe to give up any JASSM, since they are so important in the Pacific theatre and the US arguably does not have enough air launched strike/anti ship capability already.

    It's possible that Meteor could be integrated onto their F-16s in some capability.
    Another interesting option is the Norwegian JSM or NSM missiles, technically the JSM is only integrated on the F-35, but it was actually developed on the F-16 and should be trivial to integrate.
    This would be a real problem for the black sea fleet and would further restrict their operations.
    Could also see some old SDBs provided to strike targets near the line.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Russian air defence will be able to shoot many of them down
      lolwhut

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Russian AD is able to shoot down GMLRS now, when Ukraine attacks with them, they either choose undefended targets, or they fire a barrage to overwhelm Russian defenders.
        It's harder to do this with ATACM (you can fire 6 GMLRS for every ATACM) and they are most likely easier to shoot down, with larger RCS.

        So nothing but what they already have. Storm shadows are the top of the line cruise missiles. They already had Harpoons and amraams for months.

        NSM and Meteor are much scarier missiles than Harpoon or AMRAAM, even having a few would provide a strong deterrent effect.

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Russian AD is able to shoot down GMLRS now
          russia has never provided any proof of them being able to stop a HIMARS strike.

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ukrainian officers themselves have admitted it through RUSI

        • 10 months ago
          Anonymous

          Given the extended range of the ATACM compared to a typical GMLRS, wouldn't that also give and AD crew a longer theoretical reactionary gap to attempt to intercept it too?

          • 10 months ago
            Anonymous

            Range of the weapon is not the question; range of when Russian radar picks it up, is

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      So nothing but what they already have. Storm shadows are the top of the line cruise missiles. They already had Harpoons and amraams for months.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      Meteor should have little to no issue being integrated on F16. That's one of the perks of NATO standardization, and one of the reasons ukr has been wanting a western jet. The hacked together system on the Migs they have is impressive but does gimp the weapons.

      • 10 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, but depending on the F-16 radar it might be a little gimped, still potentially able to hit very far away but without good midcourse guidance a lower Pk.
        There is quite a lot of difference between say an MLU with APG-66, F-16C with APG-68 or a modernized F-16 with APG-83 AESA.

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Meteor

      Meteor should have little to no issue being integrated on F16. That's one of the perks of NATO standardization, and one of the reasons ukr has been wanting a western jet. The hacked together system on the Migs they have is impressive but does gimp the weapons.

      >Meteor

      Yes, but depending on the F-16 radar it might be a little gimped, still potentially able to hit very far away but without good midcourse guidance a lower Pk.
      There is quite a lot of difference between say an MLU with APG-66, F-16C with APG-68 or a modernized F-16 with APG-83 AESA.

      F16s don't need Meteor they have AMRAAMs

  6. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not many people know this but Britain has created an army of Boris Johnson clones, soon to be unleashed

  7. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Predator drones

  8. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Aint no one giving these beggars anything.

    Nice shill thread tho

  9. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Probably the Naval vessels the UK and Turkey are building for Ukraine. Though maybe just Turkey if they want to be dicks to the UK.

  10. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Tomahawk cruise missiles

  11. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    a carrier conveniently docked outside of the black sea

  12. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Frankly, that's an enormous compliment.
    The US' close relations with Israel has cemented them as the world superpower during the late 20th century.
    You have no idea how much worse your life would be without the US/Israel controlling the world.

  13. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    resettlement camps

  14. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    A big, heavily militarized, ethnostate for european people?
    This can't be allowed to happen!

  15. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Airdrop krokodil and fleshlights. Whole Russian mil will be incapacitated. Not joking.

  16. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    Probably either LRM's or bunker busters.
    Don't really see any reason for naval ships since neither side is doing much with them, except getting them sunk.

  17. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >Ukrainian colonies reducing Russian territories to single coastline in far east
    Sounds great!

  18. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >I'll have to help pay for it
    Bob, from Oklahoma oblast here. I am furious and angry about this too.

  19. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Bad take. War is and was historically the #1 money maker for every noteworthy state, especially the USA

    • 10 months ago
      Anonymous

      shit take by econslets spread by enemies to convince voters to disarm
      worked extremely well on Europeans

  20. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >it should have been done by now
    Says you, Major-General Armchair
    >dumping there old gear in Ukraine
    if you can't understand the difference between "there" and "they're" it's no surprise you don't understand the concept of escalation; go back to school
    >military budgets everywhere will balloon
    as they should have decades ago
    >War makes money
    wrong
    peace makes far more money for all
    but war is sometimes the only guarantor of peace

  21. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >If the Allies were going to win it should have been done by now.
    t. Adolf Hitler January 1945

  22. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    F-15s AWACs versions?

    Honestly not sure what else we can give them besides more ammo and tanks.

  23. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    They don't need any new systems they need just frick tons more of howitzers, even simple ones, and way more shells than they are getting. That and more armored vehicles would win the war so long as they can keep the Russian air force out of most action.

    Modern helicopters would be useful, but not game changing.

    Those US stealth bomber drones would be incredibly useful but given how under wraps they are they obviously aren't going to anyone else, even close allies.

  24. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    nukes hopefully, russia wouldn't have enough time to respond if they were launched from ukraine

  25. 10 months ago
    Anonymous

    minuteman lll

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *