Evaluation of the DoD’s Sustainment Plan for Bradley, Stryker, and Abrams Armored Weapon Systems Transferred to the Ukrainian Armed Forces

Department of Defense ^ | 2/20/24 | Department of Defense Inspector General

[hardspunned]

As of January 2024, the DoD had not developed or implemented a plan for sustaining the Bradleys, Strykers, and Abrams provided to the UAF. The DoD provided supply packages containing consumables and spare parts, as well as personnel and facilities to conduct field‑level of maintenance through the end of FY 2024, consistent with the challenges of fiscal February 15, 2024 (U) authorities. However, DoD officials acknowledged that the existing efforts did not constitute a sustainment plan and had not yet identified the following sustainment efforts to facilitate Ukraine’s sustainment beyond the end of FY 2024:

[hardspunned]

The White House and apparently the Pentagon never considered the scenario that this war might be a longer term war of attrition. We are seeing the cataclysmic results for the Ukrainian military. The Ukes made the fatal mistake of assuming the incompetents in DC knew what they were doing. We are about to send F-16s! Maintaining them will be impossible for the Ukrainians.

[hardspunned]

Here’s the DoD IG report on the Patriot systems sent to Ukraine. It’s the same bad news.

https://media.defense.gov/2024/Feb/20/2003396836/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2024-056_REDACTED%20SECURE.PDF

[AndyJackson]

the DoD had not developed or implemented a plan for sustaining the Bradleys, Strykers, and Abrams provided to the UAF.

Hadn't anticipated that they would be come the targets of Russian artillery and anti-tank missiles. Putin was supposed to have run out of them three weeks after the war started. Oh, and he is dead from cancer, Parkinsons and poisoned by Russian democtratic proglobohomo patriots.

[RetiredTexasVet]

Definitely need a no bid single source contract to take care of this. I’m sure one of the former generals now working for defense contractors can come up with a plan.

[BrexitBen]

Print another bogus $60. billion.

It’s only worthless paper.

[hardspunned]

It’s a pretty damning report.

(U) The DoD and the UAF faced additional risks as a result of the lack of guidance
identifying the extent or limits of U.S. support and roles and responsibilities
for planning and executing sustainment for the Bradleys, Strykers, and Abrams
provided to the UAF. Without a plan to provide sufficient training and support
equipment, the UAF is at an increased risk of being unable to sustain these
weapon systems adequately to deter or defend against future Russian aggression.
Furthermore, the DoD faced increased risks because it lacked the ability to
accurately predict enduring sustainment costs for U.S.‑provided equipment

[Right_Wing_Madman]

Bradley, Stryker, and Abrams Armored Weapon Systems Transferred to the Ukrainian Armed Forces

And then transferred to Russia's Tank Museum.

[CapandBall]

… as well as personnel and facilities to conduct field‑level of maintenance

These are not contractors. This is US boots on the ground in a war-zone. (it says field-level, not depot-level)

[Right_Wing_Madman]

These are not contractors. This is US boots on the ground in a war-zone. (it says field-level, not depot-level)

There's a lot to unpack in this 44-page Inspector General report. I think this is the key finding:

current fiscal authorities used to provide Bradleys, Strykers, and Abrams to the UAF did not include a sustainment requirement

In other words, the Pentagon transferred 186 Bradleys, 189 Strykers, and 31 Abrams to Ukraine with no supply, maintenance, training, and facilities support, which is ridiculous. This is most likely the reason the Abrams tanks have not seen action, despite being transferred to the UAF a year ago.

I believe civilian contractors could provide field-level maintenance support to these armored vehicles, but they would have to be placed close to the line of contact (10-50 miles away?).

[CapandBall]

Well if not active duty, the only people with that level of expertise would be ex-military, and that close to the line makes them mercenaries, paid for by the DoD.

[Right_Wing_Madman]

Well if not active duty, the only people with that level of expertise would be ex-military, and that close to the line makes them mercenaries, paid for by the DoD.

Most would be ex-military, but not necessarily all. There are some tank experts who have not been in the military. And if they were in Ukraine on DoD orders, they WOULD NOT BE MERCENARIES, like the French guys who got blown up.

[SauronOfMordor]

“We are about to send F-16s! Maintaining them will be impossible for the Ukrainians.”

That’s right. They know that.

F-16s would have to be accompanied by USAF maintenance crews.