Pffftft get bent. Providing military gear to Ukraine that was destined to be disposed of for reaching its end of life by sitting on a shelf doesn’t really cost the US much, other than on an accounting ledger. It’s either on the balance sheet as “N number of ATACMS valued at $X were disposed of for $Z (cost of disposal)” or “N number of ATACMS valued at $X were provided to Ukraine at a cost of $W (cost of shipping)”. Which end up being roughly the same.
Regardless the munitions are gone and off the books. Both outcomes mean US arms producers get to make more missiles — which is money spent within the US on US jobs.
So, who gives a shit? Let Ukraine defend themselves while Russia expends money and soldiers. Ya Muppet.
Disposed? They were going to be refurbished as ATACMS isn’t being produced anymore since 2007. For now, current stockpile are needed for refurbishments until its successor, PrSM can actually get out in actual numbers which takes time and is unlikely to outpace Russian Iskander production which has already at least 7 months ago, almost reached peak ATACMS production and probably has by now if not surpassed.
But because of the US sending them into Ukraine, they don’t have these ATACMS that would be very useful to equip NATO or US forces in Europe with at least until PrSM becomes available in large numbers and knowing US production tendencies, will be quite some years away.
(Doubt the ATACMS problem is as bad as the Stinger problem, they had to get retired employees whom are in their 70s to teach new employees because some smart person decided to cancel stinger production, retire the Stinger and give them to the national guard til Ukraine).
Pffftft get bent. Providing military gear to Ukraine that was destined to be disposed of for reaching its end of life by sitting on a shelf doesn’t really cost the US much, other than on an accounting ledger. It’s either on the balance sheet as “N number of ATACMS valued at $X were disposed of for $Z (cost of disposal)” or “N number of ATACMS valued at $X were provided to Ukraine at a cost of $W (cost of shipping)”. Which end up being roughly the same.
Regardless the munitions are gone and off the books. Both outcomes mean US arms producers get to make more missiles — which is money spent within the US on US jobs.
So, who gives a shit? Let Ukraine defend themselves while Russia expends money and soldiers. Ya Muppet.
Disposed? They were going to be refurbished as ATACMS isn’t being produced anymore since 2007. For now, current stockpile are needed for refurbishments until its successor, PrSM can actually get out in actual numbers which takes time and is unlikely to outpace Russian Iskander production which has already at least 7 months ago, almost reached peak ATACMS production and probably has by now if not surpassed.
But because of the US sending them into Ukraine, they don’t have these ATACMS that would be very useful to equip NATO or US forces in Europe with at least until PrSM becomes available in large numbers and knowing US production tendencies, will be quite some years away.
(Doubt the ATACMS problem is as bad as the Stinger problem, they had to get retired employees whom are in their 70s to teach new employees because some smart person decided to cancel stinger production, retire the Stinger and give them to the national guard til Ukraine).
It’s going to be the modern day missile gap.