As EastSide said, the shipyards mentioned in your article have no connection to the Black Sea and Turkey will not let them sail a warship into the Black Sea. So they can build as many as they want, as soon as they want, and they will not be useable against Ukraine. Losing one of the cruise missile ships they have in the Black Sea is a big deal because they can't replace it, and they don't have very many.nortex97 said:
I have no idea. Probably only a couple in the next year anyway. They have "4 fleets" but I imagine that one gets more priority at the moment.
***Russian - Ukraine War Tactical and Strategic Updates*** [Warning on OP]
7,548,560 Views |
47728 Replies |
Last: 15 hrs ago by 74OA
Russian telegrams are getting more and more concerned about Dnieper river crossings. We'll see what happens, but they seem to be suggesting Ukraine has established full bridgeheads and are starting to send armor across. Not sure I believe it yet, but worth noting.
This is all contingent on the grain deal negotiations (and whatever else Erdogan is asking for). It's highly unlikely any of this even matters past the spring.EastSideAg2002 said:
Unless they are building it in the Black Sea, they arent getting sh%t from any other shipyard.
Missiles and rockets, in a smallish lake/sea, over time are no doubt a problem to the surface vessels used. It's perhaps inconvenient (to Russia) in that way that Russia has a navy (including the sub that was hit), in fact, though I do think a great majority (over 70 percent) of missile/cruise missile strikes have been via air dropped weapons.
I don't want to distract the thread though. It is very concerning that the EU has confirmed aid to Ukraine is being disrupted:
⚡️Borrell admits conflict in Israel affecting policy towards Ukraine.
— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) November 6, 2023
In a speech delivered at the 2023 EU Ambassadors' Conference, the EU's top diplomat, Josep Borrell, admitted that the conflict in the Middle East is affecting aid policies towards Ukraine.
"Russian occupiers are unable to surround Avdiivka thanks to the actions of our defenders," the 47th Mechanized Brigade said. 👇
— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) November 6, 2023
📷 Vlada Liberova/Libkos/Getty Imageshttps://t.co/R0kVB72gmm
Exactly. Turkey has closed transit into the Black Sea to warships from the combatants. Russia can produce all the corvettes it wants but they can't get into the Black Sea to attack Ukraine.EastSideAg2002 said:
Unless they are building it in the Black Sea, they arent getting sh%t from any other shipyard.
74OA said:
More details on the Askold strike.
CORVETTE
Didn't RuZZia say they intercepted all of the incoming missiles?
I guess they didn't qualify that they intercepted them with the port side of the ship!
Here's the latest listing of all the US security assistance equipment and materiel provided to Ukraine.
STUFF
STUFF
Nov 3, 2023
Hudson Institute
The Fourteen Facts about US Aid to Ukraine
By Luke Coffey
https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/fourteen-facts-about-us-aid-support-cost-ukraine-luke-coffey
Hudson Institute
The Fourteen Facts about US Aid to Ukraine
By Luke Coffey
https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/fourteen-facts-about-us-aid-support-cost-ukraine-luke-coffey
A month ago, it was revealed that Russia is building the new railway line from Donetsk to Mariupol. It was thought that the goal is just to secure the supply line of the southern front.https://t.co/FynIrejodH
— Mark Krutov (@kromark) November 7, 2023
Big project.
Ukraine Situation Report: Dutch F-16s For Ukrainian Training Arrive In Romania
— The War Zone (@thewarzonewire) November 7, 2023
Check out our full update by clicking the image below:https://t.co/5nMRb9iw5r
that rail line will last about a week with F-16's in the house
Hugely important that we and the West learned this lesson now, rather than in the middle of a war of our own. Thanks again, Vlad.
Lesson of #Ukraine war is the amount of munitions you burn through. “Think of a ludicrous number, double it, add a zero, and you’re still not there.” – official under Chatham House Rule #IFC23 pic.twitter.com/bXwoQkrp5Z
— Gareth Jennings (@GarethJennings3) November 7, 2023
Yeah, this war more than anything should contribute to a complete rethinking of American industrial and manufacturing policy at every level. It's been clear for at least a decade and really 2 decades that after NAFTA and aggressive offshoring we have completely imploded our capacity to turn out a high volume of material and our conflicts against inferior and completely outmatched military groups, especially the Iraqis in the Gulf War has led us down a path which is completely out of step with peer to peer or near peer conflicts.
The reason I say especially Iraq is that on paper in 91 they had a large and capable military force. It was of course mostly lightly trained conscripts with a corrupt officer corps and a lack of logistical support subjected to a sustained campaign that was a generation ahead of anything they were strategically or tactically prepared for with a political restriction that prevented them taking full advantage of their strategic surprise. And so it looked like American military doctrine of strategic precision strikes could rapidly defeat a conscript army equipped with Soviet/Sino-Russian equipment in short order.
That's not the environment we would go up against in our most likely conflict vs. China. We are woefully lacking munitions and our mismanagement of naval infrastructure has put us in a precarious position there too. I'm not saying we would lose, I think, currently, we would win or draw. But recovery of any loses would be difficult and we would very, very quickly run low on critical munition supply in a conflict that would go on more than a few months.
The reason I say especially Iraq is that on paper in 91 they had a large and capable military force. It was of course mostly lightly trained conscripts with a corrupt officer corps and a lack of logistical support subjected to a sustained campaign that was a generation ahead of anything they were strategically or tactically prepared for with a political restriction that prevented them taking full advantage of their strategic surprise. And so it looked like American military doctrine of strategic precision strikes could rapidly defeat a conscript army equipped with Soviet/Sino-Russian equipment in short order.
That's not the environment we would go up against in our most likely conflict vs. China. We are woefully lacking munitions and our mismanagement of naval infrastructure has put us in a precarious position there too. I'm not saying we would lose, I think, currently, we would win or draw. But recovery of any loses would be difficult and we would very, very quickly run low on critical munition supply in a conflict that would go on more than a few months.
I have been doing environmental work on current and former ammunition plants for nearly 20 years and seeing the amount of downsizing that they have been doing has concerned me for years. They have been consolidating production down to larger and larger contracts on smaller and smaller numbers of facilities and demolishing the old lines. I would have much rather seen them keep the old lines active by doing smaller contracts with multiple suppliers to maintain the capability to rapidly ramp up production.aezmvp said:
Yeah, this war more than anything should contribute to a complete rethinking of American industrial and manufacturing policy at every level. It's been clear for at least a decade and really 2 decades that after NAFTA and aggressive offshoring we have completely imploded our capacity to turn out a high volume of material and our conflicts against inferior and completely outmatched military groups, especially the Iraqis in the Gulf War has led us down a path which is completely out of step with peer to peer or near peer conflicts.
The reason I say especially Iraq is that on paper in 91 they had a large and capable military force. It was of course mostly lightly trained conscripts with a corrupt officer corps and a lack of logistical support subjected to a sustained campaign that was a generation ahead of anything they were strategically or tactically prepared for with a political restriction that prevented them taking full advantage of their strategic surprise. And so it looked like American military doctrine of strategic precision strikes could rapidly defeat a conscript army equipped with Soviet/Sino-Russian equipment in short order.
That's not the environment we would go up against in our most likely conflict vs. China. We are woefully lacking munitions and our mismanagement of naval infrastructure has put us in a precarious position there too. I'm not saying we would lose, I think, currently, we would win or draw. But recovery of any loses would be difficult and we would very, very quickly run low on critical munition supply in a conflict that would go on more than a few months.
This is all changing now. Not only has this war provided a lot of lessons, but the reshoring and increase in US manufacturing is taking place. The problem is it's going to take time to ramp back up.
Time is both the bad news and the good news. Bad because, as you say, ramp up won't happen overnight. Good because lessons from Vlad's war give us just enough warning to get it done before any likely big fight.Not a Bot said:
This is all changing now. Not only has this war provided a lot of lessons, but the reshoring and increase in US manufacturing is taking place. The problem is it's going to take time to ramp back up.
It's more the result of Covid and increased Chinese diplomatic and military aggression along with increased costs of doing business overseas and the fragility of the supply chains. The Russian invasion of Ukraine was the cherry on top and drove home for many more the need for local-ish manufacturing.
The US policy under Trump AND Biden has been to divest from Chinese manufacturing, and to reassess and reshore (when possible) key supply chains. Chinese labor is now 10x more expensive than it was in 2005 so many businesses were already divesting even before Covid.
The Mexico/Texas trade corridor is booming already and is about to get much more lucrative.
The US policy under Trump AND Biden has been to divest from Chinese manufacturing, and to reassess and reshore (when possible) key supply chains. Chinese labor is now 10x more expensive than it was in 2005 so many businesses were already divesting even before Covid.
The Mexico/Texas trade corridor is booming already and is about to get much more lucrative.
No need to wait on F-16s. These should be in-country now: GLSDB2wealfth Man said:
that rail line will last about a week with F-16's in the house
74OA said:No need to wait on F-16s. These should be in-country now: GLSDB2wealfth Man said:
that rail line will last about a week with F-16's in the house
That article was written in 2022.
MaroonStain said:74OA said:No need to wait on F-16s. These should be in-country now: GLSDB2wealfth Man said:
that rail line will last about a week with F-16's in the house
That article was written in 2022.
Right. So they should be in country by now, no?
12thFan/Websider Since 2003
txags92 said:I have been doing environmental work on current and former ammunition plants for nearly 20 years and seeing the amount of downsizing that they have been doing has concerned me for years. They have been consolidating production down to larger and larger contracts on smaller and smaller numbers of facilities and demolishing the old lines. I would have much rather seen them keep the old lines active by doing smaller contracts with multiple suppliers to maintain the capability to rapidly ramp up production.aezmvp said:
Yeah, this war more than anything should contribute to a complete rethinking of American industrial and manufacturing policy at every level. It's been clear for at least a decade and really 2 decades that after NAFTA and aggressive offshoring we have completely imploded our capacity to turn out a high volume of material and our conflicts against inferior and completely outmatched military groups, especially the Iraqis in the Gulf War has led us down a path which is completely out of step with peer to peer or near peer conflicts.
The reason I say especially Iraq is that on paper in 91 they had a large and capable military force. It was of course mostly lightly trained conscripts with a corrupt officer corps and a lack of logistical support subjected to a sustained campaign that was a generation ahead of anything they were strategically or tactically prepared for with a political restriction that prevented them taking full advantage of their strategic surprise. And so it looked like American military doctrine of strategic precision strikes could rapidly defeat a conscript army equipped with Soviet/Sino-Russian equipment in short order.
That's not the environment we would go up against in our most likely conflict vs. China. We are woefully lacking munitions and our mismanagement of naval infrastructure has put us in a precarious position there too. I'm not saying we would lose, I think, currently, we would win or draw. But recovery of any loses would be difficult and we would very, very quickly run low on critical munition supply in a conflict that would go on more than a few months.
A good side effect of supplying Ukraine has been a huge push to increase our own capacity. All those crying about the "military industrial complex" don't seem to comprehend that when you need that kind of production, it's not something you can just will into being. It's not 1940 when you could just throw people and mills/lathes at a manufacturing shortage and make anything. Everything is highly automated and specialized now, and we don't have the people and equipment to just change production lines and make new stuff.
USA*** said:MaroonStain said:74OA said:No need to wait on F-16s. These should be in-country now: GLSDB2wealfth Man said:
that rail line will last about a week with F-16's in the house
That article was written in 2022.
Right. So they should be in country by now, no?
The last article I read said there were some issues and they were about 1-2 months behind but ready to ship some quantities.
This was about 2 weeks ago.
Gordo14 said:
Russian telegrams are getting more and more concerned about Dnieper river crossings. We'll see what happens, but they seem to be suggesting Ukraine has established full bridgeheads and are starting to send armor across. Not sure I believe it yet, but worth noting.
There's pictures of a humvee the russkies hit, but it's on their side of the river. The Ukrainians have definitely gotten some equipment across and established themselves pretty well on the opposite bank.
For defence-industrial policy wonks. ASD Doug Bush on US monthly production of 155mm shells.
— Anton La Guardia (@AntonLaGuardia) November 8, 2023
- Feb 2022: 14k
- today: 28k
- Q1 2024: 36k
- Q3 2024: 60k
- early 2025: 70k-80k
If Congress approves 155mm supplemental of $3.1bn (part of Biden’s $106bn request)
- late 2025: 100k
Doesn't seem like nearly enough
Agreed. Given depleted US stockpiles, the threat of a multi-year artillery duel in Ukraine remaining, and the tremendous demands/volume of rounds being expended hourly in Israel, I am not sure the ramp up matches the real need.
I'm not sure why the militaryland tweet won't show, but here is the link to their article/analyses. I consider it fairly neutral.
I'm not sure why the militaryland tweet won't show, but here is the link to their article/analyses. I consider it fairly neutral.
It's not in a vacuum. It's why many countries are all providing and ramping up aid, manitions, and equipment. Which is the point of allies and treaties. However, any stand alone country with the resources to do so also has to recognize that in order for that aid to realize, you have to be able to stand on your own until it does.Agthatbuilds said:
Doesn't seem like nearly enough
Tin foil hat me thinks this is why you are seeing what we are seeing in the middle east. Russia was aware they could possibly lose the long game with so many countries stacked against them and China hesitant to make the same mistake. So they pushed and used their puppets to start another front (Israel) to divert and split aid support and visibility to their massive special operation screw up.
Doubling monthly production likely means that they just added a second shift at their facilities and not that they've actual increased their manufacturing capacity in any way.nortex97 said:For defence-industrial policy wonks. ASD Doug Bush on US monthly production of 155mm shells.
— Anton La Guardia (@AntonLaGuardia) November 8, 2023
- Feb 2022: 14k
- today: 28k
- Q1 2024: 36k
- Q3 2024: 60k
- early 2025: 70k-80k
If Congress approves 155mm supplemental of $3.1bn (part of Biden’s $106bn request)
- late 2025: 100k
JFABNRGR said:USA*** said:MaroonStain said:74OA said:No need to wait on F-16s. These should be in-country now: GLSDB2wealfth Man said:
that rail line will last about a week with F-16's in the house
That article was written in 2022.
Right. So they should be in country by now, no?
The last article I read said there were some issues and they were about 1-2 months behind but ready to ship some quantities.
This was about 2 weeks ago.
Sounds familiar. The universal axiom of military service...hurry up and wait
12thFan/Websider Since 2003
aezmvp said:
Yeah, this war more than anything should contribute to a complete rethinking of American industrial and manufacturing policy at every level. It's been clear for at least a decade and really 2 decades that after NAFTA and aggressive offshoring we have completely imploded our capacity to turn out a high volume of material and our conflicts against inferior and completely outmatched military groups, especially the Iraqis in the Gulf War has led us down a path which is completely out of step with peer to peer or near peer conflicts.
The reason I say especially Iraq is that on paper in 91 they had a large and capable military force. It was of course mostly lightly trained conscripts with a corrupt officer corps and a lack of logistical support subjected to a sustained campaign that was a generation ahead of anything they were strategically or tactically prepared for with a political restriction that prevented them taking full advantage of their strategic surprise. And so it looked like American military doctrine of strategic precision strikes could rapidly defeat a conscript army equipped with Soviet/Sino-Russian equipment in short order.
That's not the environment we would go up against in our most likely conflict vs. China. We are woefully lacking munitions and our mismanagement of naval infrastructure has put us in a precarious position there too. I'm not saying we would lose, I think, currently, we would win or draw. But recovery of any loses would be difficult and we would very, very quickly run low on critical munition supply in a conflict that would go on more than a few months.
it was hard enough to supply just Ukraine with IMU Inertial Measurement Units for missiles and bombs,
now add in Israel using thousands of them and having to prep for a Chinese assault.
We are in heap big trouble.
Just wait 'til the US military implements work from home.74OA said:Time is both the bad news and the good news. Bad because, as you say, ramp up won't happen overnight. Good because lessons from Vlad's war give us just enough warning to get it done before any likely big fight.Not a Bot said:
This is all changing now. Not only has this war provided a lot of lessons, but the reshoring and increase in US manufacturing is taking place. The problem is it's going to take time to ramp back up.
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
It's a complete mismanagement of industrial and defense policy since the end of the Cold War. This is just one prong of it. The real nightmare is on the Navy side. It'll be easier to stand up ammo manufacturing than the drydock side. It's crazy how screwed the Navy is over the next two decades.LMCane said:aezmvp said:
Yeah, this war more than anything should contribute to a complete rethinking of American industrial and manufacturing policy at every level. It's been clear for at least a decade and really 2 decades that after NAFTA and aggressive offshoring we have completely imploded our capacity to turn out a high volume of material and our conflicts against inferior and completely outmatched military groups, especially the Iraqis in the Gulf War has led us down a path which is completely out of step with peer to peer or near peer conflicts.
The reason I say especially Iraq is that on paper in 91 they had a large and capable military force. It was of course mostly lightly trained conscripts with a corrupt officer corps and a lack of logistical support subjected to a sustained campaign that was a generation ahead of anything they were strategically or tactically prepared for with a political restriction that prevented them taking full advantage of their strategic surprise. And so it looked like American military doctrine of strategic precision strikes could rapidly defeat a conscript army equipped with Soviet/Sino-Russian equipment in short order.
That's not the environment we would go up against in our most likely conflict vs. China. We are woefully lacking munitions and our mismanagement of naval infrastructure has put us in a precarious position there too. I'm not saying we would lose, I think, currently, we would win or draw. But recovery of any loses would be difficult and we would very, very quickly run low on critical munition supply in a conflict that would go on more than a few months.
it was hard enough to supply just Ukraine with IMU Inertial Measurement Units for missiles and bombs,
now add in Israel using thousands of them and having to prep for a Chinese assault.
We are in heap big trouble.
Certainly it has been an eye opener for us to ramp up production and invest in the new drone technology. I feel that Russia's invasion has also woke up the German war machine. Thankfully they are on our side this time around.
Billions are being poured into increasing manufacturing capacity to reach the 100K a month number.lb3 said:Doubling monthly production likely means that they just added a second shift at their facilities and not that they've actual increased their manufacturing capacity in any way.nortex97 said:For defence-industrial policy wonks. ASD Doug Bush on US monthly production of 155mm shells.
— Anton La Guardia (@AntonLaGuardia) November 8, 2023
- Feb 2022: 14k
- today: 28k
- Q1 2024: 36k
- Q3 2024: 60k
- early 2025: 70k-80k
If Congress approves 155mm supplemental of $3.1bn (part of Biden’s $106bn request)
- late 2025: 100k
See the "AMMO" link I posted above for details.
Featured Stories
See All
24:46
15h ago
26k
'The Other Kid': A&M dismantles Mizzou in Weigman's return, 41-10
by Olin Buchanan
22:57
18h ago
17k
Post Game Review: No. 25 Texas A&M 41, No. 9 Missouri 10
by Kay Naegeli
138:15
1d ago
6.6k