Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Inevitable_Sherbet42 t1_j9v9a2o wrote

Reply to comment by Syphon6645 in weren't we just about a year ago talking about needing to fund alternate programs to help our youth instead of just pumping money into the police force? the new governor is increasing a police force? by Syphon6645

>Let's not talk about our military supplies and funds being sent over to Ukrane to pay for everything in their country.

You mean all that old equipment from 40-30 years ago that we just kept in warehouses collecting dust?

2

Syphon6645 OP t1_j9vbclv wrote

Please let me know your source.

−1

Inevitable_Sherbet42 t1_j9via5i wrote

The source is the equipment they're being given.

The Abrams they're getting? They're not the modern variant, they're the OG variant that is still being tooled down before its sent overseas.

HIMARS? Cold War tech.

M117 APCs? 90s.

Javilens and Stingers? Cold War.

RAAM systems? Cold War.

Switchblade Drones? They're modern tech, but they're single use, and they only got 700.

TOW missiles? Cold War.

Bradley's? Cold War.

HARM missiles? Cold War.

HMMWVs? Cold War.

M113 APCs? EARLY Cold War.

https://www.state.gov/u-s-security-cooperation-with-ukraine/

I could go on, but it's pretty clear the vast majority of the weapons systems we've sent to Ukraine are very outdated to anyone with even a passing knowledge of them.

What source do you have that they've been getting primarily cutting-edge edge tech? Cause if we're dragging our feet to give them F-16s I find the idea that they're getting the best of our newer equipment a tad silly.

2

6flightsup t1_j9vjmts wrote

FiM 92 Stinger: entered service in 1981 HIMARS: entered service 20+ years ago BGM71 TOW: entered service in the 1970s Just three bigger ticket examples. Old.

2