[Goose]

Goose, question for you on the Patriot AD news and the Lend-Lease act. Cut the US theoretically lend Ukraine multiple batteries of Patriot Missiles systems, and only count the missiles used towards the allocation, with the expectation that the batteries of systems would be returned at the end of the war?  I ask because there is a finite amount of money the US allocates to actual military draw downs for Ukraine, I think in the most recent 40 billion dollar allocation, less than 10 billion went to actual military equipment for Ukraine.  Given a Patriot Missile system battery is about a billion dollars, and each missile is 3 million, that would take a significant portion of the budget.

I am pretty sure that the administration intends (on paper) to do exactly that. Don't count the battery as a "gift" but rather a "lend". Of course, Congress could raise a fuss about that if they wanted to, no matter what the literal interpretation of the law is. Doubt they will. 

While some equipment is much more prone to being destroyed in battle, I'd guess the destruction of an actual Patriot Missile battery would be far less likely.

Certainly the total destruction of the battery is improbable. The destruction of the radar is the most probable loss if anything. Ukraine will of course need to move the components of the battery around, as they do their S-300s. I would expect the only AN/MPQ-65A in all of Ukraine would become a missile magnet. The Patriot may spend lots of time defending itself. Of course, that would require Russia to mount a bit of a SEAD effort, which we really haven't seen.

[Goose]

Goose, question for you on the Patriot AD news and the Lend-Lease act. Cut the US theoretically lend Ukraine multiple batteries of Patriot Missiles systems, and only count the missiles used towards the allocation, with the expectation that the batteries of systems would be returned at the end of the war?  I ask because there is a finite amount of money the US allocates to actual military draw downs for Ukraine, I think in the most recent 40 billion dollar allocation, less than 10 billion went to actual military equipment for Ukraine.  Given a Patriot Missile system battery is about a billion dollars, and each missile is 3 million, that would take a significant portion of the budget.

I am pretty sure that the administration intends (on paper) to do exactly that. Don't count the battery as a "gift" but rather a "lend". Of course, Congress could raise a fuss about that if they wanted to, no matter what the literal interpretation of the law is. Doubt they will. 

While some equipment is much more prone to being destroyed in battle, I'd guess the destruction of an actual Patriot Missile battery would be far less likely.

Certainly the total destruction of the battery is improbable. The destruction of the radar is the most probable loss if anything. Ukraine will of course need to move the components of the battery around, as they do their S-300s. I would expect the only AN/MPQ-65A in all of Ukraine would become a missile magnet. The Patriot may spend lots of time defending itself. Of course, that would require Russia to mount a bit of a SEAD effort, which we really haven't seen.