Currently Online 
EpicRandy said:
Yes I know and it's frustrating, have said many times in the past how Canada isn't doing its fair share for instance, being able to unlock $300B on a whim to fight covid yet when it comes to helping Ukraine they can't even manage to contribute the amount that would even just fulfill the gap for NATO required 2% annual GDP spending. Yet the reasons being advanced as to why they don't send more now are just so bogus that I feel the need to play devil’s advocate to have better actually logical ones. Like for ATACMS I fully agree, the ability of Ukrainians to strike Russian territory is bogus reasons, Ukraine can already strike Russia with storm shadows, and even Himars, but has shown no appetite to use those to strike Russia directly even so only for military targets. So is it the real reason or are there other more fitting undisclosed ones,
Let's say Ukraine has 10 Stormshadows and has the capacity to use 10 Stormshadows daily, would NATO sending 10 additional only to see every system only be used every other day actually help would it actually improve Ukraine's capacity in any way? In such a scenario, it sure would create a great PR package announcing $b additional equipment but they'll only create new targets for Russia without them actually being new threats to Russia. But of course every time I see a new package I also wish it was way more substantial. |
Responding to the questions.
1. ATACMS is a missile for the M270 MLRS and the M142 HIMARS. Ukraine employs both of these in the battlefield already in significant numbers.
2. Yes, I would assume so, there are a lot of HIMARS and MLRS in the battlefield and they wouldn't cannibalize Storm Shadow as ATACMS is a ground launched only missile from the HIMARS/MLRS systems whilst Storm Shadow is a air launched missile only from a fighter jet. They're both long range missiles but completely different in how they're deployed (and work, Storm Shadow should be harder to intercept).
3. I would say yes, considering all the strikes Ukraine has been doing on key targets but with such a limited number they likely have to be extremely careful on picking their targets. In addition, they may be scenarios where using ATACMS may be preferable to using Storm Shadow and vice versa, such as taking into account the ability to intercept, Storm Shadow is harder so it may be saved for the most valuable targets.
Using Storm Shadow on places such as Crimea is also more dangerous as well as it has to be lobbed from a jet, which means a very valuable asset has to fly close to the frontlines for certain parts of Crimea, putting them at risk of Russia's anti-air defences. HIMARS hasn't really had this issue, they've been employed near the frontlines a lot because it's easy to "shoot and run" with them.
At current frontlines, Storm Shadow can't reach all of Crimea, ATACMS can.
4. Has France not sent SCALP? I don't know if that's true or not, as I've seen speculation in past strikes on Russia whether it was Storm Shadow or SCALP, it's hard to tell as they are exactly the same missile, the only difference is how they fit onto a jet. So honestly some of these Storm Shadow strikes could be SCALP.
-
Now I understand with other equipment the issue of training but it ain't even that, often these countries are spending months of debate over whether to send something and then they begin the training, instead of beginning the training from the very start, if we didn't spend months of stupid debating over sending Ukraine things like tanks and instead started the training ASAP then they would have had them far sooner.
I'm not saying that the west hasn't done a lot, because we have, there are things that pre-war I would have doubted the west would have cared enough about Ukraine to send but we could still be doing a lot better than we are and moving a lot quicker than we currently are, the west is often reacting to Russia instead of taking the lead.
Last edited by Ryuu96 - on 21 September 2023
