That's not quite the gotcha you think with how badly kept they are.And do you honestly think the US does not have extra caches of ammo around the world?
And? Can you actually make an alternate proposition that's actually better?
The fact is that US arms industry is quite competitive regardless of your complaints.
The only way to have massive spare capacity is to, surprise surprise... either make a lot of unwanted stuff and pay for it, or pay for it somewhat less to exist and be maintained yet not make stuff. In either case, paying for decades before there's any use for it.
Pick your poison.
Meanwhile USA has no reason at all to try play "bigger number" game with modern weapons against backwards 50's era artillery spam based armies, no reason and no need, as it invests many billions into ability to achieve more effect with smaller number of more advanced weapons, airpower especially.
Fun fact: There is a massive slack capacity, it's called the civilian economy. It takes some time and money to tap into it, especially without going to war footing, but it is there.
Yeah. The stocks openly known to the public.That's not quite the gotcha you think with how badly kept they are.
The pre deployed caches were terribly managed and upkept before they started raiding them for equipment to see to Ukraine. Don't take my word, take the US Army's Impector General.
Equipment for Ukraine drawn from Kuwait wasn’t combat-ready, IG says
Let's see how things are going...The artillery spam is winning isnt it?
And we have no idea how your airpower based militaries are going to work against militaries with serious air denial capability.
Let's see how things are going...
Today's losses, Russia suffering roughly 7:1 disparity in losses.
The artillery spam is not 'winning.' It's letting them trade blood for soil at prohibitive rates. At the current pace, they'll push to the Dniepro in what, 20 years, after tens of millions of losses?
Also, Russian air denial capability really is not impressive. It's only been partially effective against Ukrainian Cold War-era soviet hardware. We already know that NATO Gen 4/4.5 aircraft are better than what the Ukrainians are flying against Russia, and Russian AA has been suffering attrition.
Against Gen 5 aircraft, optimistic expectations for Russians would be to inflict significant casualties in exchange for having their entire air defense network wiped out. Pessimistic expectations are they're lucky to shoot down a handful of missiles before low-visibility/stealthed munitions destroy most of their AA before they can launch a single missile.
Artillery spam means that a 140 million wannabe superpower with oil wealth is stuck in trench warfare against a poor ex-soviet 40 million country for years and its fanboys scream about victories measured in "price of a mile" scales.The artillery spam is winning isnt it?
Like what? US airpower of all the existing ones have best tools to deal with that. Even Ukrainian air force still has a lot of assets despite the supposedly best at air denial military fighting it for 2 years. USAF alone could do tens of times better, and at the same loss rate, most of the planes would fall apart from aging rather than enemy action.And we have no idea how your airpower based militaries are going to work against militaries with serious air denial capability.
Depends on the gun. If you make guns little different from 1940's, why not?This isnt 1941. You cant turn a bicycle factory into a gun factory anymore.
Which affects Russia even worse than the West.And you no longer have the near autarkic end to end logistical path you once had. many of those inputs come from countries that are now hostile to you, inputs that arent easy to replace.
[claims]
The manpower question is treated without much haste because they don't want to raise more light infantry, and without major increase in equipment shipments they can't turn the manpower to something else.Time will tell.
I think Ukraine is on the ropes. It lacks the ability to get it's self back in the war. It lacks the industry, it lacks the manpower, it lacks the political will to mobilize said manpower, it lacks the equipment to fit out new troops. It is almost entirely reliant on foreign money to operate it's government and social apparatus. Both the EU and the US refuse to even consider anything over then token increases in equipment production.
It's grinding its own army more than Ukrainian one though.I'm open to being shown up, to being wrong. But as it stands, using Ukraine's own numbers Russia is taking a Vietnam amount of casualties and a Vietnam amount of time to slowly grind Ukraine to dust.
Russia couldn't lose this many planes even if it wanted to on account of not having them in the first place, while what they have has a terrible readiness rate. Look at the sortie numbers. One supercarrier could do more sorties than their whole air force. Of course that slows attrition, but also scales down what it can possibly do.Hell in those terms Russia are doing great. Far fewer plane losses.
As i said, it's all about political will, if that's found in sufficient quantity, other problems will become minor.Must be the lack of classic Ukrainian planes like F16s or F35s being flow by totally legitimate Ukrainian pilots with names like John Smith. Frankly I'm shocked that hasn't happened yet, the USSR 100% did it Vietnam. Turn about and all that.
Political will isn't some minor thing. The gathering political will and national effort is literally what's keeping Russia competitive in the war. It takes concentrated effort to shift political inertia to motivate a population to war. It's hardly something that happens overnight.The manpower question is treated without much haste because they don't want to raise more light infantry, and without major increase in equipment shipments they can't turn the manpower to something else.
Political will is a bigger issue than anything else, there's plenty of stuff in reserve that could be handed out if there was money and/or political will, and there's no point in increasing production if those aren't on the horizon.
It's grinding its own army more than Ukrainian one though.
Russia couldn't lose this many planes even if it wanted to on account of not having them in the first place, while what they have has a terrible readiness rate. Look at the sortie numbers. One supercarrier could do more sorties than their whole air force. Of course that slows attrition, but also scales down what it can possibly do.
As i said, it's all about political will, if that's found in sufficient quantity, other problems will become minor.
>profit centric policiesPolitical will isn't some minor thing. The gathering political will and national effort is literally what's keeping Russia competitive in the war. It takes concentrated effort to shift political inertia to motivate a population to war. It's hardly something that happens overnight.
Likewise talking about how production would go up if massive social and political changes happen. Obviously, but it's fucked because of existing issues and won't be fixed until they are. Leftist policies in general and DEI and profit centric policies in particular are crippling western production.
We aren't talking about training them to use M16's. How do you train in expectation of getting things like fighter jets or tanks?The training for Ukraine's next army will take months. A lot of that training doesn't need equipment. If they were serious, they would be training the men in the expectation of getting the equipment. If nothing else, the men sitting around trained with no equipment might shame their sponsors into more donations.
A large problem Ukraine is facing is lead time. Even if the EU or the US wanted to dump a whole bunch of surplus equipment on them, it gathered enough political will. How long is the lead time from issuing the order/contract to begin refurbishment of equipment and delivery? I know for MBTs it's almost 9 months.
I think the west is procrastinating while it decides on it's options. I think the longer that happens, the worse it bodes for Ukraine.
How much action ready surplus is left at this point? Less then I think you realize.>profit centric policies
Come on, we aren't leftists here.
And some western countries aren't DEI crazy, so given an actual contract backed with money they absolutely could start making a lot more stuff.
We aren't talking about training them to use M16's. How do you train in expectation of getting things like fighter jets or tanks?
They don't have the appropriate sims and training vehicles. It would be a waste of money and political capital to try. Actual training would, again, need western countries to organize it in existing training facilities.
Also surplus equipment isn't made equal, some can be prepared much quicker, especially if some countries tone down on the red tape. It took a lot less than 9 months from the start of the war for Ukraine to get MBT deliveries...
sigh Knowing the US DoD, they've probably got stockpiles everywhere that they've literally lost/forgotten about in their bureaucracy.How much action ready surplus is left at this point? Less then I think you realize.
Lots of NATO stuff is more or less active but awaiting retirement or replacement.How much action ready surplus is left at this point? Less then I think you realize.
How much action ready surplus is left at this point? Less then I think you realize.
there is plenty. Just know thissigh Knowing the US DoD, they've probably got stockpiles everywhere that they've literally lost/forgotten about in their bureaucracy.
Our girl Olga Skabeeva has revealed that Russia is well aware of NATO's plan to strike Russia with overwhelming force in an initial strike. Rationally of course, she is still fearful of the threat of NATO's aggression, regardless of whether Russia is aware of the Wests centuries long perfidious attempts at destroying their country.
Also F-35's confirmed in operation over Ukraine.
If only they were also so isolationist when it comes to migrants arriving on Italy's shores, there would be a lot more money and refugee residences left for Ukraine, but no, that problem gets to be exported to the rest of Europe.Crosetto: “No ai militari in Ucraina, la Francia non parli per la Nato”
Il ministro della Difesa: «Bisogna attivare con maggior forza le vie diplomatiche. La conversione della Russia in un’economia di guerra la rende più agile dell…www.lastampa.it
Italy's Defence Minister despite sending aid to the Ukraine refuses to send troops in the Ukraine. Most military men I know here in Italy probably would risk going to military court than facing the Russians and the Ukraine's Russians.
Probably a good thing for us Italians.