this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
135 points (98.6% liked)

Ukraine

8159 readers
544 users here now

News and discussion related to Ukraine

*Sympathy for enemy combatants in any form is prohibited.

*No content depicting extreme violence or gore.


Donate to support Ukraine's Defense

Donate to support Humanitarian Aid


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

As much as I like the sentiment, is launchers the bottleneck, though? Wouldn't the missiles be a better purchase?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

These could replace those that need maintenance or have been damaged.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I thought the US wanted to replace damaged US gear? Also, don't they have lots of M270 launchers too? They're more protected for more dangerous launch areas.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

There was only ammo for them in the last aid package.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

More launchers with less ammunition could be a good deterrent. You can cover more area and launch less missiles becuase the enemy would just avoid more area. Also they can be useful spares in case of massive attacks.

That, or maybe the purchase also covers ammunition. I expect they come with technical support and maintenance service, so why not supply service?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

phonk drops