And something not made yet cannot be quickly delivered.
That is NOT an acceptable excuse when the topic is something used in war. If NATO gets into a world war will will need to go from 150 per year to 150 per day in just a few months (and of course have the ability to train enough people to operate them at similar rates). Your excuse allows the enemy (who ever they are) time to win the war while the rest of us are scaling production instead of fighting.
Correct. It’s a perfectly logic reason, not an excuse.
I’m all in for Ukraine, but giving what you don’t yet have instead of what you actually have is just nonsensical.
You know USA has a defense budget about as big as the next 10 biggest military budgets by country combined.
F-35 is made in USA, and even they can’t do what you are asking. Having unused production capacity cost money, and yields nothing.
This situation with Russia is completely unheard of since WW2, which ended 79 years ago!
You claim we should have prepared better for a situation everybody tried to avoid except Putin, and almost everybody frankly thought was unthinkable today.
Instead of the insanity you promote, we for instance created EU in Europe, with a specific purpose to help prevent war in Europe.
We have managed to keep the peace on our side, it’s only the former Warsaw pact side that has created problems, because they did not have similar goals ingrained in the cooperation between them.
What you propose is one sided heavy military build up and preparedness, and that has historically always ended in war. Warmongering is not a way to keep the peace.
But now we DO have a war by Russia at our doorstep, and we commonly agree Russia needs to be stopped now, or else they will continue.
But that doesn’t mean that what you claim we should have done about weapons production was ever justified previous to this situation. Not even when viewed in hindsight. Europe is a force for peace, but not under oppression from Russia, which is a major reason why we help Ukraine.
It’s not an excuse it’s reality. We are ALSO ramping up production in Europe to be able to help Ukraine more.
AND we are helping Ukraine with development and produktion in their own weapons industry.
while the rest of us are scaling production instead of fighting.
What is that even supposed to mean? You are rambling and not making any sense.
Are you saying supplying Ukraine with weapons is helping the enemy win? Who is “the rest of us”?
Are you Russian trying to sow discourse?
I’m say that if NATO goes to war we will want 150 f35s per month there fore the debate should be how many f35s to send ukrane up to 150 per month with the ability to supply that many already existing.
similar for most everything else we are sending - we would want a lot more if there was war so we should be able to make them.
That’s unrealistic, it would be nice, but it’s impossible.
Do you think it’s because the Russians are lazy they can only make a handful of their gen 5 planes per year?
It’s estimated they can make about 5 SU-30 and 10 SU-34 per year. Their new jets combined they can make about 2 per month.
You are speculating about supplying 150 F-35 to Ukraine per month! But they neither have the pilots or the ground teams for that. And training them from scratch would take many years. There are not enough trainers on the planet to train that many F-35 pilots. There have only been 1000 F-35 built since initial production in 2006! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
With the F-16 we had trainers available to train both pilots and ground teams, and the planes were available too. But even then we had to draw back trainers that were transfered to F-35, which means our own defense is delayed to help Ukraine. It would be best if more countries donated more F-16 and training and maintenance, because it’s better regarding logistics, armament, pilots, ground crews and maintenance wise to maintain similar planes instead of different types. And we had an arrangement with Norway and Netherlands to supply enough F-16 to make a difference. Unfortunately it hasn’t been followed up by more countries AFAIK.
Go look at wwii aircraft production. If another world war breaks out we will need that much again.
now it may be that ukrain doesn’t need that many airplanes. that is a different argument, but it is one we should be having. We can also have the arguement of if we should give them any. How ever that we cannot is not this we can’t if we want to is not an argument we should have since there is a chance we will need them.
russia has a different battle plan and doesn’t need that many airplanes. Though their inability to produce the artilery they need says they are not able to run their battle plans.
Oh my god, you are doubling down!?
Well we are NOT in WW3 are we?
If we were in WW3, we would transform to a war economy, but newsflash we are NOT.
Russia has transformed to a war economy, and still they can only make 2 advanced planes per month.
Apart from that you cannot compare the complexity of making a modern Jet fighter and a WW2 propeller plane.
We are not today, but you never know when we will be. We need to be prepared or we will lose because we cannot gear up in time - just ask france about that.
France spend a lot of effort an resources to prepare, but they did it the wrong way.
What you are proposing is also the wrong way, because we have learned from Ukraine that we need to prioritize differently.
It doesn’t help to have a shitload of the wrong weapons. Also you complain that last gen weapons are obsolete, so what you propose would be an insane level of production to constantly keep everything at the newest standard.
Do you understand what I’m saying? What you are proposing is insane!!!
Just because you can produce doesn’t mean you have to. I agree building more than you need this year is wrong. However you need the ability to build it
That is NOT an acceptable excuse when the topic is something used in war. If NATO gets into a world war will will need to go from 150 per year to 150 per day in just a few months (and of course have the ability to train enough people to operate them at similar rates). Your excuse allows the enemy (who ever they are) time to win the war while the rest of us are scaling production instead of fighting.
Correct. It’s a perfectly logic reason, not an excuse. I’m all in for Ukraine, but giving what you don’t yet have instead of what you actually have is just nonsensical.
But we should have all that - or at least t ability to make it fast
You know USA has a defense budget about as big as the next 10 biggest military budgets by country combined.
F-35 is made in USA, and even they can’t do what you are asking. Having unused production capacity cost money, and yields nothing.
This situation with Russia is completely unheard of since WW2, which ended 79 years ago!
You claim we should have prepared better for a situation everybody tried to avoid except Putin, and almost everybody frankly thought was unthinkable today.
Instead of the insanity you promote, we for instance created EU in Europe, with a specific purpose to help prevent war in Europe.
We have managed to keep the peace on our side, it’s only the former Warsaw pact side that has created problems, because they did not have similar goals ingrained in the cooperation between them.
What you propose is one sided heavy military build up and preparedness, and that has historically always ended in war. Warmongering is not a way to keep the peace.
But now we DO have a war by Russia at our doorstep, and we commonly agree Russia needs to be stopped now, or else they will continue.
But that doesn’t mean that what you claim we should have done about weapons production was ever justified previous to this situation. Not even when viewed in hindsight. Europe is a force for peace, but not under oppression from Russia, which is a major reason why we help Ukraine.
You don’t get to choose when you are attacked. I agree you should work for peace but when that isn’t possible you need to be ready for war.
I guess it’s your time to create a warfare focused state. With blackjack, and hookers
It’s not an excuse it’s reality. We are ALSO ramping up production in Europe to be able to help Ukraine more.
AND we are helping Ukraine with development and produktion in their own weapons industry.
What is that even supposed to mean? You are rambling and not making any sense.
Are you saying supplying Ukraine with weapons is helping the enemy win? Who is “the rest of us”?
Are you Russian trying to sow discourse?
WTF!! obviously the enemy is Russia.
I’m say that if NATO goes to war we will want 150 f35s per month there fore the debate should be how many f35s to send ukrane up to 150 per month with the ability to supply that many already existing.
similar for most everything else we are sending - we would want a lot more if there was war so we should be able to make them.
That’s unrealistic, it would be nice, but it’s impossible.
Do you think it’s because the Russians are lazy they can only make a handful of their gen 5 planes per year?
https://simpleflying.com/russian-combat-aircraft-production-rates/
It’s estimated they can make about 5 SU-30 and 10 SU-34 per year. Their new jets combined they can make about 2 per month. You are speculating about supplying 150 F-35 to Ukraine per month! But they neither have the pilots or the ground teams for that. And training them from scratch would take many years. There are not enough trainers on the planet to train that many F-35 pilots. There have only been 1000 F-35 built since initial production in 2006!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
With the F-16 we had trainers available to train both pilots and ground teams, and the planes were available too. But even then we had to draw back trainers that were transfered to F-35, which means our own defense is delayed to help Ukraine. It would be best if more countries donated more F-16 and training and maintenance, because it’s better regarding logistics, armament, pilots, ground crews and maintenance wise to maintain similar planes instead of different types. And we had an arrangement with Norway and Netherlands to supply enough F-16 to make a difference. Unfortunately it hasn’t been followed up by more countries AFAIK.
Go look at wwii aircraft production. If another world war breaks out we will need that much again.
now it may be that ukrain doesn’t need that many airplanes. that is a different argument, but it is one we should be having. We can also have the arguement of if we should give them any. How ever that we cannot is not this we can’t if we want to is not an argument we should have since there is a chance we will need them.
russia has a different battle plan and doesn’t need that many airplanes. Though their inability to produce the artilery they need says they are not able to run their battle plans.
Oh my god, you are doubling down!?
Well we are NOT in WW3 are we?
If we were in WW3, we would transform to a war economy, but newsflash we are NOT.
Russia has transformed to a war economy, and still they can only make 2 advanced planes per month.
Apart from that you cannot compare the complexity of making a modern Jet fighter and a WW2 propeller plane.
We are not today, but you never know when we will be. We need to be prepared or we will lose because we cannot gear up in time - just ask france about that.
France spend a lot of effort an resources to prepare, but they did it the wrong way.
What you are proposing is also the wrong way, because we have learned from Ukraine that we need to prioritize differently.
It doesn’t help to have a shitload of the wrong weapons. Also you complain that last gen weapons are obsolete, so what you propose would be an insane level of production to constantly keep everything at the newest standard.
Do you understand what I’m saying? What you are proposing is insane!!!
Just because you can produce doesn’t mean you have to. I agree building more than you need this year is wrong. However you need the ability to build it