The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Production rate of hundreds of launchers per year based on what? Proven history of delivering how many actual operational X-MAV units per year? Or is that from the same PowerPoint slide deck?
To my knowledge the X-Mav was just shown this year and even in service yet so it’s highly unlikely the US sends a brand new launcher they don’t even have in service yet. Now it’s possible they might get some but not in the near term
In which decade?. You are being way too optimistic with regards the western MIC where even legacy already-paid-for-r&d aren't built "by the hundreds" either.
Each carries 4 Tomahawk missiles I think. The US cannot build hundreds of Tomahawk missiles a year let alone thousands. Not when they typically build like 50 of them a year. You can bet engine production is a bottleneck.
Or are just in the books waiting to happen... years after they are supposed to be fielded.
Only thing possible is selling a recently decomissioned ship with some missiles or to bring a fielded typhoon batteries from elsewhere. Both options could be done soon, maybe next year if they want it to happen.
Any of these options will be followed and probably destroyed soon after arrival. Better to launch when receiving them.
Last edited:
I said the production rate could reach hundreds of units per year. Of course, that's not yet possible because it's still a demonstration prototype.
As for actual annual production, it could reach hundreds per year because the launcher is built on the standard Oshkosh HEMTT chassis, which is also the basis for the company's other products: LVSR (Logistics Vehicle System Replacement) and Palletized Load System (PLS).
The Tomahawk production rate is 50 per year. This means that the number of missiles sent to Ukraine will always be tied to the US's ability to fill its stockpile. Some sources already report that the US has a lower stockpile than necessary.
Hi,
I can’t get in thing in my kind what will happen after tomahawk missiles start landing well inside
Russian territory, will Russia not thinking of supplying something better to countries around USA
like Venezuela or may be already been supplied much better to,Iran or about to supply that’s why
USA is now trying to arm Ukrainian with something better but then again why not to arm them with
long range Amraam missiles with some better version of F16 or may be some used FA18 super hornets
so Ukrainian can to some extent stop the Russian airforce or keep them far away from their territory
can be just a threat to Russians from Donald Trump administration to come to the table for negotiations
thank you
I can’t get in thing in my kind what will happen after tomahawk missiles start landing well inside
Russian territory, will Russia not thinking of supplying something better to countries around USA
like Venezuela or may be already been supplied much better to,Iran or about to supply that’s why
USA is now trying to arm Ukrainian with something better but then again why not to arm them with
long range Amraam missiles with some better version of F16 or may be some used FA18 super hornets
so Ukrainian can to some extent stop the Russian airforce or keep them far away from their territory
can be just a threat to Russians from Donald Trump administration to come to the table for negotiations
thank you
Tomahawk story need to be examined on strategic level instead of weapon level.
There has been many proxy wars between camps in the past that can be compared. The Korean war and Vietnam war, both were fought by US on the one side and China/USSR on the other. They all limited within Korea and Vietnam when US had a upper hand in economy and industrial capacity, especially in the 1950s, more than any other countries combined. Yet US did not drop weapons deep beyond the border into China. Neither did US "give" such weapons to SK or SV and "let" them do it. Especially considerring today's Russia is still much stronger in arms than 1950s China. Where does US get the guts to do it to Russia now? Just because Trump is the president?
Trump is playing "I am too crazy to be held responsible", the same game that is played by pretending drunkard. But the fact is that, if one is really strong, just cold stare would work, if one is weak playing "crazy" won't get away from the consequences. Also, the pretence of "Ukraine did it" won't prevent Russia hitting US bases in Europe or someone hitting Israel with Kalibr because Putin can play drunk card too.
There has been many proxy wars between camps in the past that can be compared. The Korean war and Vietnam war, both were fought by US on the one side and China/USSR on the other. They all limited within Korea and Vietnam when US had a upper hand in economy and industrial capacity, especially in the 1950s, more than any other countries combined. Yet US did not drop weapons deep beyond the border into China. Neither did US "give" such weapons to SK or SV and "let" them do it. Especially considerring today's Russia is still much stronger in arms than 1950s China. Where does US get the guts to do it to Russia now? Just because Trump is the president?
Trump is playing "I am too crazy to be held responsible", the same game that is played by pretending drunkard. But the fact is that, if one is really strong, just cold stare would work, if one is weak playing "crazy" won't get away from the consequences. Also, the pretence of "Ukraine did it" won't prevent Russia hitting US bases in Europe or someone hitting Israel with Kalibr because Putin can play drunk card too.
Last edited: