aezmvp said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

The way the BRAC process played out didn't help. With so many of the ammunition plants out in the middle of nowhere in rural areas (rightfully so), they didn't have a lot of political clout trying to protect them.

Re: the Navy, anybody who took Dr. Beaumont's History of Naval Warfare class (or whatever it was called), knows this is the pattern of naval power. It gets ramped up in times of war and then the longer the peace endures, the lower the Navy is drawn down, while people who should know better talk themselves into "new paradigms" that don't require a large standing Navy. Then when war breaks out, everybody spends the first several years suffering and bleeding each other while they build up their Navy to where it needs to be to properly support the goals of the war effort.

It's the "the false economy of peacetime" or the false " peace dividend". That short sightedness has cost America 10s of thousands of lives to correct everytime we get into combat.

txags92 said:

---

aezmvp said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

The way the BRAC process played out didn't help. With so many of the ammunition plants out in the middle of nowhere in rural areas (rightfully so), they didn't have a lot of political clout trying to protect them.

Re: the Navy, anybody who took Dr. Beaumont's History of Naval Warfare class (or whatever it was called), knows this is the pattern of naval power. It gets ramped up in times of war and then the longer the peace endures, the lower the Navy is drawn down, while people who should know better talk themselves into "new paradigms" that don't require a large standing Navy. Then when war breaks out, everybody spends the first several years suffering and bleeding each other while they build up their Navy to where it needs to be to properly support the goals of the war effort.

---

Dr. Beaumont was my very favorite professor during all my time at A&M, and it isn't a close contest.

AgLA06 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Doesn't seem like nearly enough

---

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.

---

Exactly. It's not all on the US to provide. For example, South Korea is providing hundreds of thousands of artillery rounds and the EU has created a multi-billion Euro fund to centrally finance increased ammunition production across Europe.

AMMO

Same. I remember he didn't have much mercy on tests but what a great class.

txags92 said:

---

aezmvp said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

The way the BRAC process played out didn't help. With so many of the ammunition plants out in the middle of nowhere in rural areas (rightfully so), they didn't have a lot of political clout trying to protect them.

Re: the Navy, anybody who took Dr. Beaumont's History of Naval Warfare class (or whatever it was called), knows this is the pattern of naval power. It gets ramped up in times of war and then the longer the peace endures, the lower the Navy is drawn down, while people who should know better talk themselves into "new paradigms" that don't require a large standing Navy. Then when war breaks out, everybody spends the first several years suffering and bleeding each other while they build up their Navy to where it needs to be to properly support the goals of the war effort.

---

This is kind of the way of military power in general. Hence the, "Lighter, faster, cheaper," vision for the military in the 90's.

Even Jefferson screwed this up with his idea for cheap, small, coastal defense gunboats manned by what essentially amounted to local militia instead of a blue water navy. They were terrible impractical and couldn't perform the job they were supposed to, and we ended up building much larger frigates to compete with British warships.

Militaries, and the capabilities to supply and equip them, are like guns: Most of the time it's better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them. At least the lesson is being learned in someone else's war this time.

Grain corridor still open, Russia hacked Ukraine's power grid, NK continues weapons shipments and other notes.

To those with short memories:

Between 2014 and 2022, Ukraine held about 200 rounds of talks with Russia.

During this period, 20 cease-fire agreements were reached, all of which were quickly violated by Russia.

None of the 200 rounds of talks or the 20 ceasefires have prevented…

— Dmytro Kuleba (@DmytroKuleba) November 9, 2023

UPDATES

The Telegraph: 40,000 Russian troops poised for major assault on Avdiivka

Quote:

---

Russia has amassed an estimated 40,000 troops around Avdiivka as it prepares for a third wave assault on the shattered eastern town, the Ukrainian military has said.

"They are building up reserves. They've brought in about 40,000 men here along with ammunition of all calibres," said Anton Kotsukon, spokesperson for the 110th separate mechanised brigade. "We see no sign of the Russians abandoning plans to encircle Avdiivka."

Russian forces, he said, had surrounded the town on three sides and were "playing cat and mouse", sending up "huge numbers" of drones to scout out Ukraine's defences.

The Russian military has focused on eastern Ukraine after failing to advance on Kyiv in the early days of its invasion, and have been pounding Avdiivka since mid-October. Online videos show apartment buildings reduced to shells, with 1,500 of its 32,000 pre-war residents remaining.

Ukrainian forces regard the town as a gateway for future advances to recapture territory in the east.

---

Here's the background on the Dutch F-16s just delivered to Romania for the Ukrainians to train on.

Not the most modern variant, but they are all MLU birds and far superior to what the Ukrainians fly now.

F-16s

Is there some kind of permitting/regulatory issue preventing a faster ramp up of artillery shell production? You would think if you give a company a guaranteed contract for multiple years then manufacturers would jump at the prospect of getting into the business.

12th Man said:

---

txags92 said:

---

aezmvp said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

The way the BRAC process played out didn't help. With so many of the ammunition plants out in the middle of nowhere in rural areas (rightfully so), they didn't have a lot of political clout trying to protect them.

Re: the Navy, anybody who took Dr. Beaumont's History of Naval Warfare class (or whatever it was called), knows this is the pattern of naval power. It gets ramped up in times of war and then the longer the peace endures, the lower the Navy is drawn down, while people who should know better talk themselves into "new paradigms" that don't require a large standing Navy. Then when war breaks out, everybody spends the first several years suffering and bleeding each other while they build up their Navy to where it needs to be to properly support the goals of the war effort.

---

Dr. Beaumont was my very favorite professor during all my time at A&M, and it isn't a close contest.

---

I am an old and seem to remember having Bradford for this class. Circa '95. It was also one of my favorite classes.

JB!98 said:

---

12th Man said:

---

txags92 said:

---

aezmvp said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

The way the BRAC process played out didn't help. With so many of the ammunition plants out in the middle of nowhere in rural areas (rightfully so), they didn't have a lot of political clout trying to protect them.

Re: the Navy, anybody who took Dr. Beaumont's History of Naval Warfare class (or whatever it was called), knows this is the pattern of naval power. It gets ramped up in times of war and then the longer the peace endures, the lower the Navy is drawn down, while people who should know better talk themselves into "new paradigms" that don't require a large standing Navy. Then when war breaks out, everybody spends the first several years suffering and bleeding each other while they build up their Navy to where it needs to be to properly support the goals of the war effort.

---

Dr. Beaumont was my very favorite professor during all my time at A&M, and it isn't a close contest.

---

I am an old and seem to remember having Bradford for this class. Circa '95. It was also one of my favorite classes.

---

I think mine was an honors class with Beaumont in 88 or 89.

AgLA06 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Doesn't seem like nearly enough

---

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.

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.

---

I get that.

It doesn't seem like enough production for us. 20- 30 k shells is a couple of days worth in a peer to peer fight, if even that much.

Agthatbuilds said:

---

AgLA06 said:

---

Agthatbuilds said:

---

Doesn't seem like nearly enough

---

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.

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.

---

I get that.

It doesn't seem like enough production for us. 20- 30 k shells is a couple of days worth in a peer to peer fight, if even that much.

---

Unfortunately, that's what the system can produce at the moment, but it will be at 100K a month in less than two years. Fortunately, and despite giving so many shells to Ukraine, we still have a large stockpile buffer we can draw from in the meantime. The goal is not to produce each month as many as we might fire in a month, but to produce enough to quickly rebuild and expand that stockpile. 1.2M shells a year will not take too many years to do that.

Realistically a N Korea - S Korea conflict would eat through that in a month. Hell the South Koreans have 5000 155 tubes by themselves. That's 8 rounds a day for a month to go through 1.2 million shells. My guess is they'd do that in a week. I'm glad it's getting addressed however.

aezmvp said:

---

Realistically a N Korea - S Korea conflict would eat through that in a month. Hell the South Koreans have 5000 155 tubes by themselves. That's 8 rounds a day for a month to go through 1.2 million shells. My guess is they'd do that in a week. I'm glad it's getting addressed however.

---

I think you mean North Korea has that many, but nonetheless what does that scenario have to do with us? We have only a fraction of that amount of active tube artillery.

The primary reason Russia and Ukraine are going through such vast quantities of artillery ammunition (as would NK) is that their air forces are largely ineffective and targets that should be serviced from the air are relegated to being attacked with tube artillery. In contrast, we have the finest Air Force on the planet and our Army has almost 800 Apache attack helicopters, a number which is alone larger than most country's entire Air Force, and a ground launched tactical missile inventory to match. 10 years of artillery round production at that rate will adequately stock our artillery stockpile for any imaginable scenario, even after accounting for the lessons of Ukraine.

I too had Bradford, fall of 2005.

My most vivid memory, which was also shared by a few buddies that also had the same class, was Bradford throwing his leg up on the table and yelling about the Straight of Gibraltar when discussing the Barbary wars. Stephen Decatur man, what a legend.

We still laugh about that animated man to this day. Loved that class. Took it my freshman year and instantly knew that college edumacation was definitely for me.

The navy's first US war hero. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Decatur

[Let's get back on topic, shall we? -- Staff]

Two more small landing ships attacked in Chernomorske, Crimea, last night, says GUR and posts this proof.https://t.co/E3dDMfQjjp pic.twitter.com/2QxB8snEuK

— Dmitri (@wartranslated) November 10, 2023

Seems pretty conclusive

Sorry South Korea has around 4000 towed or self propelled 155 tubes. 1800 towed and 2200 self propelled with just under 3000 105mm tubes.

Either way it's a lot and works out to an extra 2 rounds a day difference between 4k and 5k tubes to go through 1.2 million shells. I think any army looking at an active or dangerous border should be looking at ammo stocks and saying "yeah, maybe the Soviets in the 60's weren't crazy building up stores of millions of shells."

txags92 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.

---

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.

---

Speaking from literal personal experience since 7 October

in dealing with supply chain limitations and the Defense Priority Acquisition System for 33 days

the truth is we are in no shape for the USA to fight an actual war right now.

Just supplying Ukraine and Israel with requisite components for ITAR articles is beyond our capacity.

aezmvp said:

---

Sorry South Korea has around 4000 towed or self propelled 155 tubes. 1800 towed and 2200 self propelled with just under 3000 105mm tubes.

Either way it's a lot and works out to an extra 2 rounds a day difference between 4k and 5k tubes to go through 1.2 million shells. I think any army looking at an active or dangerous border should be looking at ammo stocks and saying "yeah, maybe the Soviets in the 60's weren't crazy building up stores of millions of shells."

---

Again, we have roughly a thousand active artillery tubes of all types, so we won't go thru anywhere the same number of shells as SK/NK even if all of them are in action. But your larger point is exactly why we kept a stockpile of millions of shells after the Cold War (unlike our NATO allies), which turned out to be very fortunate for Ukraine.

LMCane said:

---

txags92 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.

---

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.

---

Speaking from literal personal experience since 7 October

in dealing with supply chain limitations and the Defense Priority Acquisition System for 33 days

the truth is we are in no shape for the USA to fight an actual war right now.

Just supplying Ukraine and Israel with requisite components for ITAR articles is beyond our capacity.

---

.........which is why Putin's war is such a timely wakeup call. Better for us to be scrambling now rather than in the middle of a big fight of our own. Thanks, Vlad!

Funding for Ukraine about to run out and other updates.

Today's SITREP.

Ukraine's sea drones strike again.

CRIMEA

LMCane said:

---

txags92 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.

---

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.

---

Speaking from literal personal experience since 7 October

in dealing with supply chain limitations and the Defense Priority Acquisition System for 33 days

the truth is we are in no shape for the USA to fight an actual war right now.

Just supplying Ukraine and Israel with requisite components for ITAR articles is beyond our capacity.

---

I agree with you. Our procurement system is broken, and having to put out new contracts to ramp up is incredibly inefficient. We should have contracts to maintain existing loadlines in operable conditions and to maintain the capability to add shifts to existing lines as needed with new contract actions. Consolidating load operations down to a couple of plants and operating multiple shifts at those plants may make sense to maintain what we need right now, but it is the least desirable way to maintain the capability to quickly ramp up when needed.

74OA said:

---

LMCane said:

---

txags92 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.

---

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.

---

Speaking from literal personal experience since 7 October

in dealing with supply chain limitations and the Defense Priority Acquisition System for 33 days

the truth is we are in no shape for the USA to fight an actual war right now.

Just supplying Ukraine and Israel with requisite components for ITAR articles is beyond our capacity.

---

.........which is why Putin's war is such a timely wakeup call. Better for us to be scrambling now rather than in the middle of a big fight of our own. Thanks, Vlad!

---

There needs to be a new strategy for munitions going forward. We need to be able to ramp up to war-scale production within 6 months. Those 6 months should be able to be covered by inventory. It truly is shocking the state of our artillery shell production - as an example - prior to the Russian invasion. If we need to increase training with live munitions, sell excess to allies, have higher turnover of inventory - so be it.

Ukraine telling Russia: You hit our power grid this winter, we will go after your Oil and Gas

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-energy-minister-floats-potential-184211634.html

Regarding yesterday's attack on the Russian base in Skadovsk, names and ranks of victims:

“Regarding the strike on the building of the 126th military investigative department of the Russian Investigative Committee.

Yesterday (11/09/2023) at 9:55, the building of the 126th… https://t.co/wxESE8ZVDj pic.twitter.com/fAcrTY3sGO

— Special Kherson Cat 🐈🇺🇦 (@bayraktar_1love) November 10, 2023

Gordo14 said:

---

74OA said:

---

LMCane said:

---

txags92 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.

---

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.

---

Speaking from literal personal experience since 7 October

in dealing with supply chain limitations and the Defense Priority Acquisition System for 33 days

the truth is we are in no shape for the USA to fight an actual war right now.

Just supplying Ukraine and Israel with requisite components for ITAR articles is beyond our capacity.

---

.........which is why Putin's war is such a timely wakeup call. Better for us to be scrambling now rather than in the middle of a big fight of our own. Thanks, Vlad!

---

There needs to be a new strategy for munitions going forward. We need to be able to ramp up to war-scale production within 6 months. Those 6 months should be able to be covered by inventory. It truly is shocking the state of our artillery shell production - as an example - prior to the Russian invasion. If we need to increase training with live munitions, sell excess to allies, have higher turnover of inventory - so be it.

---

If we were in a real war, one that we haven't been in since WWII, the ramp up would probably shock people. This country has the ability to produce armaments on a very big scale and very quickly. When our federal government is United and focused on doing something, (it rarely is), it can get it done via emergency powers and lots and lots of money.

Gordo14 said:

---

74OA said:

---

LMCane said:

---

txags92 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.

---

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.

---

Speaking from literal personal experience since 7 October

in dealing with supply chain limitations and the Defense Priority Acquisition System for 33 days

the truth is we are in no shape for the USA to fight an actual war right now.

Just supplying Ukraine and Israel with requisite components for ITAR articles is beyond our capacity.

---

.........which is why Putin's war is such a timely wakeup call. Better for us to be scrambling now rather than in the middle of a big fight of our own. Thanks, Vlad!

---

There needs to be a new strategy for munitions going forward. We need to be able to ramp up to war-scale production within 6 months. Those 6 months should be able to be covered by inventory. It truly is shocking the state of our artillery shell production - as an example - prior to the Russian invasion. If we need to increase training with live munitions, sell excess to allies, have higher turnover of inventory - so be it.

---

DOD is aggressively moving to multiyear munitions procurement contracts, not only to get more munitions on order and in stock, but to encourage industry to expand its production capacity. Here is an overview of the initial industrial expansion for tube artillery ammo, for example. AMMO

Unlike the 1973 Israel war where Russia armed Syria and Egypt with weapons, they have their hands full with Ukraine. Same goes with Iran.

We must continue our support.

rgag12 said:

---

Gordo14 said:

---

74OA said:

---

LMCane said:

---

txags92 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.

---

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.

---

Speaking from literal personal experience since 7 October

in dealing with supply chain limitations and the Defense Priority Acquisition System for 33 days

the truth is we are in no shape for the USA to fight an actual war right now.

Just supplying Ukraine and Israel with requisite components for ITAR articles is beyond our capacity.

---

.........which is why Putin's war is such a timely wakeup call. Better for us to be scrambling now rather than in the middle of a big fight of our own. Thanks, Vlad!

---

There needs to be a new strategy for munitions going forward. We need to be able to ramp up to war-scale production within 6 months. Those 6 months should be able to be covered by inventory. It truly is shocking the state of our artillery shell production - as an example - prior to the Russian invasion. If we need to increase training with live munitions, sell excess to allies, have higher turnover of inventory - so be it.

---

If we were in a real war, one that we haven't been in since WWII, the ramp up would probably shock people. This country has the ability to produce armaments on a very big scale and very quickly. When our federal government is United and focused on doing something, (it rarely is), it can get it done via emergency powers and lots and lots of money.

---

I hear you. But I worry that modern weapons are sophisticated enough and supply chains are complex enough that it is not strictly a money problem.

Miscellaneous articles.

BLOG

Something I'm not understanding is the Ukes not pressing the left bank crossings and trying to break out there.

At first I thought it was a diversion to try and pull Orc troops from the main attack. But they seem to keep slowly sending new equipment across and slowly expanding without seeming to be putting much effort into it. We've seen videos of Marine units training with bridging / pontoons and amphibious armor. I just don't get why they aren't pressing this?

Insufficient resources as the brutal fighting around Andiivka is depleting available reserves.