4 ms·
FWIW, the US has been sending obsolete or intentionally degraded systems. There is a re-fit process if it comes from US stocks to remove sensitive tech or capab
by jandrewrogers 2y ago
FWIW, the US has been sending obsolete or intentionally degraded systems. There is a re-fit process if it comes from US stocks to remove sensitive tech or capabilities. It would be an error to assume that what happens in Ukraine represents the capabilities of US systems despite having the same name.
This isn't unique to Ukraine, most US weapon exports are selectively degraded or have capabilities removed. Despite this, most export versions of US weapon systems are still very competent.
- epolanski 2y ago> It would be an error to assume that what happens in Ukraine represents the capabilities of US systems despite having the same name. It's speculation, at best, to assume the opposite. Of course we know that there are export versions, but those are given in general different labels, and we don't have any intel on the specific system version used in Ukraine. Assuming that even non-export versions could not be jammed is thus just speculation.
- jandrewrogers 2y agoThe US encourages the speculation as a matter of doctrine. That said, anyone familiar with the tech knows that it doesn’t work the way it would have to work for it to be jammable in the way assumed, as a matter of public record. A classic example is the amount of people and media that asserts the US has GPS-guided weapons. The US has never had GPS-guided anything, it was defeatable by design.
- hajile 2y agoIn the case of HIMARS, we've seen what the Ukrainian version can do when there isn't jamming, so I don't see nerfing being a valid excuse.