During this war, there's been calls for the US to give UKR more _____________ (fill in the blank with M1 Abrams tanks, Patriot Missile Systems, F16s, A10s, etc).
Those calls often come from politicians, reporters, or those with little knowledge of weapons.
A 🧵 to discuss. 1/23
I'm all for giving UKR the systems they need (and want), if those help the war effort.
But there are many factors that go into the decision to provide arms beyond "this would be a game changer!"
When giving or selling arms to other nations, there are considerations: 2/
1. Can the Army operate the system now (level of competence of the operator) and if not how much training would be needed? 2. Can the Army support the system (an assessment of logistics requirement, e.g., parts and fuel), and is there the ability to repair/sustain? 3/
3. Will the new weapon system contribute to either short-term or long-term success on the battlefield? 4. Can the receiving nation afford the system, or will this come as part of a defense aid program? 4/
These 4 criteria (& a few others such as future threat analysis & the country's neighbors, that I won't get into) are used when providing arms or aid to every allied or partner country.
When a nation needs arms in the middle of a war, even more criteria are applied. 5/
So...first let me say this: Ukraine's military could apply any of equipment they are requesting. They are great soldiers & airman.
But even the best need training on new equipment.
Training takes a few hours (like the Javelin), or months or years (like others) 6/
Let me start with the M1Abrams tank (since I'm a tanker).
It's a great piece of kit. In my view the best in the world.
And UKR tankers could spin up within a few days on that system. 7/
But here are some details:
-It has a 1500HP turbine engine, so it needs fuel similar to jet fuel.
-It gets 3 gallons/mile (not 3 mpg)...& it uses same amount of fuel even when idling
-the fire control systems is advanced technology, which needs a separate turret mechanic 8/
-A US tanker goes through weeks of training; a turret mechanic needs months
-The M1 has a "track" (or hull) mechanic who repairs the automotive system...he/she also needs months of training
-All tanks "break" in combat, & tankers try to "fix" their tanks...that's not good 9/
-Depending on the variant (M1, M1A1, M1A1Sep), the cost is between $2.5-8.9M
-If not treated right, the engines & transmissions "blow" easily (& that's expensive).
-It requires a lot of spare parts (what the army calls PLL or Prescribed Load List), & many fuel trucks 10/
While UKR tankers could certainly "man" the M1A1, they would have difficulty supporting it with mechanics, fuel, parts. And the costs would be astronomical.
So, what about the T72? 11/
The T72 is an old chevy; the M1 is a Ferrari.
You get what you pay for (it's $.5-1.5M per copy).
The most technical thing in the turret is the autoloader, which the crew hates (it has a 3-man crew instead of 4-man like the Abrams).
It's a diesel instead of a jet engine. 12/
Several NATO countries (Czech Rep, Slovakia, etc) have "upgunned" the T72 with some technological modifications, and it's a better tank.
I actually shot one in the Czech Rep (and hit the target!). /13
The UKR tankers know the T72 well...as they've even used to build this tank in Ukraine for the Soviet Army in the old days.
So the potential of a tank "swap" with other nations providing T72s is a good idea...my only concern is how to get them onto the battlefield. 14/
But what about the call for "PATRIOTS"?
After all, Poland & Bahrain just concluded a deal for them!?
The Bahrain deal included 60 Patriot missiles, nine launchers, two radar sets, control stations & other associated equipment.For $10B dollars.
Here's what it looks like 15/
The Patriot, like the Abrams, is a great system. But...
It requires an extensive amount of training for trigger pullers, more for those who run the C2 & radars, and even more for mechanics who keep the system running.
Nothing like the RU S300/400 or Buk, which UKR knows. 16/
These are all the relatively "simple" Army systems.
Now, I'm not a pilot. And I'm sure that with a few days training a UKR pilot could fly an F16/F15/or A10. But likely, not very well.
That's not the limiting factor (or "limfac", as the Air Force says). 17/
The limits, again, are the type technology in the aircraft (The MiG-29 has hydraulic controls & a SAU-451 three-axis autopilot, no fly-by-wire controls like the F16).
That requires extensive training for mechanics, crew chiefs, & part suppliers on a system UKR doesn't have. 18/
Also, likely different ordnance, ordnance pods, & communication w/ ground forces.
Let's not talk about the A10...because it's easy to say "let's pull them out of mothballs." But it's now clear the log support, trained mechanics, pilot training would be an issue. 19/
Should Poland have provided MIGs to UKR?
I won't get into that, other than to say 1) that's Poland's issue, and 2) there's a lot more that goes into close air support than flying close air support. (that is, suppression of enemy, down pilot pickup, targeting, etc).
and...20/
Airplanes can't shoot down incoming missiles or artillery, and that's what's causing most of the civilian casualties.
But Stingers can shoot down enemy airplanes that are dropping dumb bombs. 21/
It's pretty obvious everyone wants to help UKR as much as possible, but shouting out "good ideas" of giving them different things just because they say they want them isn't the best solution.
I'm prepared for negative feedback on this 🧵...22/
I'll only finish by saying the US Government has given $2.5 B worth of equipment to UKR, and NATO has given much, too.
And there's even more than most know about.
And lots of smart people have determined what's best to get to them...and it has helped tremendously. 23/23
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Woke up to several texts from journalists asking my thoughts on "West Point dropping duty, honor, country from their motto?" and one wrote "does this mean the Academy has gone 'woke'?"
My first thought: "let me get a cup of coffee before addressing this craziness."
A 🧵 1/9
This week, graduates received a letter from LTG Steve Gilland -the Superintendent (the USMA college president)- of @WestPoint_USMA informing of changes in the MISSION STATEMENT (NOT the motto).
The letter specifically said the MOTTO "Duty, Honor, Country" has NOT changed. 2/
Now, I know LTG Gilland well. He's a great soldier, terrific leader, and a common-sense guy.
As any leader - general or business CEO - knows, you have to continuously assess and analyze your mission statement.
In fact, I teach this to MBA students in leadership classes. 3/
Many of you have heard me say this multiple times with respect to the war in Ukraine.
Now we'll start seeing the same in Gaza with JLTOTS pronounced "Jay-Lots" for the media).
A 🧵 1/9
"Logistics determine the art of the possible."
Many of you have heard me say this multiple times with respect to the war in Ukraine.
Now we'll start seeing the same in Gaza with JLTOTS pronounced "Jay-Lots" for the media).
A 🧵 1/9
Airdropped humanitarian aid is precise and speedy, but it's limited in it's capability and capacity for certain kinds and large amounts of supplies. It's also relatively expensive.After you deploy expensive parachutes and GPS devices into the area, it's hard to get them back! 3/
On 24 Feb 2022, I scribbled some thoughts about what I believed were Putin's strategic objectives in invading Ukraine (see chart).
In the 1st 18 months of the conflict, Ukraines' action, NATO collaboration & US support caused him to fail.
We're at an inflection point. A 🧵1/
Addressing each: 1. Zelenskyy is still strong 2. Ukraine's army is still fighting 3. Ukraine's population is resilient 4. Ru does not control the Black sea ports 5. The west - especially the US - has returned to being divided, and NATO may now take fewer risks. 2/
Putin now knows that Ukraine's continued capability will - for the short term - continue to require support from the west.
So he is pulling out all stops, w/ mobilizations (over 400k new (untrained) soldiers as "meat" for attacks), a ramped up industrial base, & oppression. 3/
GEN Zaluzhnyi is 51 y.o., extremely young for a Commander of any nation's Armed Forces. Most 4-star generals are in their 60's with much more experience.
Since Feb '22 he's been the tactical, opn'l & strategic leader of the toughest fight we've seen in the 21st century. 2/
Here's what I mean by "tactical, opn'l, strategic" commander:
1. He commands the 2000+ mile tactical front 2. He coordinates each battles into an operational campaign plan 3. He "plays" in the strategic arena with his nation's leaders & over 50 supporting nations. 3/
Deterrence defined: The action or actions used to discourage an event by means of instilling doubt or fear of the consequences over time.
Many say deterrence against Iran & its proxies is failing.
It's too early to tell. 1/8
DETERRENCE is one technique that MAY contribute to national security strategy.
Some define strategy as the use of different MEANS in specific WAYS to reach on END STATE or OBJECTIVE.
I agree with that definition...and it's sorta like deterrence. 2/
In National Security Strategy, MEANS equates to difference tools at the nation's disposal (diplomancy, information, economics, military). WAYS is the approach you use to make those tools effective (think maneuver with military, economic sanctions, condemning actions, etc). 3/