So we're just giving Ukraine a bunch of old stuff we didn't need anyway?

6,458 Views | 90 Replies | Last: 11 mo ago by FCBlitz
Urban Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:47a, 7/17/23
AG
If this was already posted, someone have staff nuke me (pun kind of intended).

Quote:
Kirby was responding to a segment reporting that a Center for Strategic and International Studies report found replacing inventories for ammunitions such as 155 mm shells could take between four and seven years. Replacing Javelins could take up to eight years and Stingers up to as many as 18 years, according to the report.

Kirby said replacing the munitions, as the war in Ukraine continues and tensions rise in Taiwan, is not a matter of funding.


Quote:
Kirby's comments come after President Biden said on TV that the United States is low on 155 mm artillery rounds.

"This is a war relating to munitions. And they're running out of that ammunition, and we're low on it," Biden told CNN's Fareed Zakaria last Sunday. "And so, what I finally did, I took the recommendation of the Defense Department to not permanently but to allow for this transition period while we get more 155 weapons, these shells, for the Ukrainians."




US scrambles to increase weapons production after Biden let military info slip on TV | Fox News
Reply Quote
26
1 edit
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:50a, 7/17/23
The DemTards will stop any ramp up of munitions production citing impact on the environment and not enough DEI suppliers. We will likely be forced to buy back our stuff from Iran, Russia and China at 10x the cost.

Thanks Biden.
Reply Quote
31
Eliminatus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:26a, 7/17/23
AG
Both new and old. Stockpiles are almost always "low" and there is absolutely zero secret that our current stockpiles are being tapped and that we have been bringing more manufacturing capability online.

"US scrambles to increase weapons production after Biden let military info slip on TV" is such a incredible clickbaity title and is incredibly misleading, if not an outright lie. We have been ramping up for months now and it sure as hell is no secret and never was. Been actively discussed on several threads now. Most if not all of NATO is actually arming up and finally starting to look at meeting their obligatory contributions after Russia invaded Ukraine.

There's the facts. I leave it up to you now to put whatever political spin you wish.

ETA: Also, if anyone finds that report being referenced, can you link it please? Can't find it and very interested to read it for my own edification. Don't care about the politics of all of this and have a professional interest in some of that data. Thanks.
Reply Quote
24
1 edit
fka ftc
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:57a, 7/17/23
The best part is China and Russia have also been ramping up. Hell, Russia has been retooling, revamping and ramping up. Seems like a great outcome for the whole world.

Could have been stopped had Biden made one little phone call to Vladimir. Instead, he invited him into Ukraine by indicating we may not do anything if all Russia did was a "minor incursion".

Never underestimate Biden's ability to ferk things up.
Reply Quote
44
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to fka ftc • 5:07a, 7/17/23
AG
Yes, it's a desperate mess, as Biden indicated we are providing the cluster munitions precisely because our other stuff is so low. "Perilously low, may take decades" to recover, which is why we are doing things like going to the South Koreans to 'borrow' 500,000+ shells.

Oh, and the great Ukrainians are killing kids.



The Russians have now terminated the grain deal. More hunger on the way.

Yay, forever war!
Reply Quote
11
MouthBQ98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:49a, 7/17/23
AG
We can jump up production quickly if we need to. We are still an immense industrial power and artillery ammunition isn't that sophisticated of a product.

What enemy are we likely to engage in an artillery based war in the short term?
Reply Quote
8
Manhattan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:10a, 7/17/23
Wtf are we spending $800billion a year on if we don't have enough weapons to fight a war we aren't actively involved in for just over a year?
Reply Quote
6
DrEvazanPhD
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manhattan • 6:19a, 7/17/23
Manhattan said:
Wtf are we spending $800billion a year on if we don't have enough weapons to fight a war we aren't actively involved in for just over a year?


Good question. Why don't you ask the guy you voted for with best economy ever?
Reply Quote
76
1 edit
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manhattan • 6:20a, 7/17/23
AG
Manhattan said:
Wtf are we spending $800billion a year on if we don't have enough weapons to fight a war we aren't actively involved in for just over a year?
Our defense.
Reply Quote
7
agdoc2001
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manhattan • 6:26a, 7/17/23
AG
Manhattan said:
Wtf are we spending $800billion a year on if we don't have enough weapons to fight a war we aren't actively involved in for just over a year?


Pride flags and gender reassignment surgery.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Reply Quote
69
It Aint Easy Being Brown
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manhattan • 6:41a, 7/17/23
Manhattan said:
Wtf are we spending $800billion a year on if we don't have enough weapons to fight a war we aren't actively involved in for just over a year?


Well 10% goes straight to the big guy

Then you have Hunter's hooker, blow, & child sex slave habbit

The rest of the swamp gets their cut

Zelensky takes his cut

& all the other communist countries get their cut
Reply Quote
27
Mary Bailey
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eliminatus • 6:57a, 7/17/23
https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/2023-01/230119_Jones_Empty_Bins.pdf?VersionId=mW3OOngwul8V2nR2EHKBYxkpiOzMiS88
Reply Quote
1
Get Off My Lawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Urban Ag • 7:13a, 7/17/23
There's a thread on the Military board about the restructuring of the USMC which answers this question in its lack of consensus: nobody knows.

The corps is going toward HIMARS launchers and doing away with tanks and towed howitzers. Even if EAOB is a good strategy (playing roulette with small groups of Marines to help Navy ships) - the anti ship rockets that we need aren't isn't even ready yet for a war with China. And those launchers are incapable of volume fire. No smoke missions, illumination missions, FPF missions, etc.

So - it's all in on precision fire. Which is fine when you're killing IED emplacers via Aerostat…. but a Marine in a Chosin Reservoir 2.0 situation would give his left nut for 155mm support and his right nut for that support to be in the form of DPICM.

The flip side to consumption is getting production lines back up and running - which is good - because HE separates over decades and becomes unstable, so shells DO have a shelf life and having new ones is nice…. But if they're not remaking DPICM then we're self-limiting our options by burning through one of the best indirect fire assets to ever exist.

I could go on - but the bottom line is that you fight with what you have, not what you wish you had - and there's tons of folks well more knowledgeable than I on this stuff who are also arguing what the 'right stuff' is… and most of them are nervous about us being in a period with 'no stuff.'
Reply Quote
8
Street Fighter
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manhattan • 7:15a, 7/17/23
AG
Manhattan said:
Wtf are we spending $800billion a year on if we don't have enough weapons to fight a war we aren't actively involved in for just over a year?


It takes money to turn dudes into ladies.
Reply Quote
18
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manhattan • 7:21a, 7/17/23
AG
Manhattan said:
Wtf are we spending $800billion a year on if we don't have enough weapons to fight a war we aren't actively involved in for just over a year?

The bulk of that is personnel and operations/maintenance. Procurement is very small compared to those.
Reply Quote
4
TheBonifaceOption
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MouthBQ98 • 7:36a, 7/17/23
MouthBQ98 said:
We can jump up production quickly if we need to. We are still an immense industrial power and artillery ammunition isn't that sophisticated of a product.
Reply Quote
15
Manhattan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DrEvazanPhD • 7:38a, 7/17/23
DrEvazanPhD said:
Manhattan said:
Wtf are we spending $800billion a year on if we don't have enough weapons to fight a war we aren't actively involved in for just over a year?


Good question. Why don't you ask the guy you voted for with best economy ever?


He inherited a weakened economy and military.
Reply Quote
1
Get Off My Lawn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manhattan • 8:11a, 7/17/23
Manhattan said:
DrEvazanPhD said:
Manhattan said:
Wtf are we spending $800billion a year on if we don't have enough weapons to fight a war we aren't actively involved in for just over a year?


Good question. Why don't you ask the guy you voted for with best economy ever?


He inherited a weakened economy and military.
Weakened by WHOM?
Reply Quote
26
usmcbrooks
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Get Off My Lawn • 8:22a, 7/17/23
Get Off My Lawn said:
Manhattan said:
DrEvazanPhD said:
Manhattan said:
Wtf are we spending $800billion a year on if we don't have enough weapons to fight a war we aren't actively involved in for just over a year?


Good question. Why don't you ask the guy you voted for with best economy ever?


He inherited a weakened economy and military.
Weakened by WHOM?




Trump, in 3...2...1
Reply Quote
2
Kvetch
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manhattan • 8:24a, 7/17/23
AG
Manhattan said:
DrEvazanPhD said:
Manhattan said:
Wtf are we spending $800billion a year on if we don't have enough weapons to fight a war we aren't actively involved in for just over a year?


Good question. Why don't you ask the guy you voted for with best economy ever?


He inherited a weakened economy and military.


Dude, at least try. This is dumb, even by your standards.
Reply Quote
54
doubledog
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MouthBQ98 • 8:44a, 7/17/23
MouthBQ98 said:
We can jump up production quickly if we need to. We are still an immense industrial power and artillery ammunition isn't that sophisticated of a product.

What enemy are we likely to engage in an artillery based war in the short term?
Not the point... The point is never let the opposition into the huddle.
Your elected president has diarrhea of the mouth as well as the normal kind.
Reply Quote
8
MouthBQ98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to doubledog • 8:50a, 7/17/23
AG
Huh? I voted for Trump. He didn't win Though.

Point is, I don't think the artillery ammunition issue is a big immediate problem as it isn't likely to be a critical item for us in the short term or long term regarding demand and production capacity. We simply don't have anyone willing to fight us in a land war we would want to be directly involved in in the near future.
Reply Quote
5
1 edit
ABATTBQ11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MouthBQ98 • 8:53a, 7/17/23
AG
MouthBQ98 said:
We can jump up production quickly if we need to. We are still an immense industrial power and artillery ammunition isn't that sophisticated of a product.

What enemy are we likely to engage in an artillery based war in the short term?


I don't think that's really the case. We are trying to ramp up production, and it is currently forecasted to take years to get to where we want to be because of labor shortages and backlogs for equipment to make more.

That said, we are where we are because we have not fought or even thought of fighting a near peer in decades. We've let these things slip. Now that we are supplying someone fighting a near peer, it is painfully obvious that we are lacking. Better to figure it out now than in a direct conflict when it's is burning through stockpiles at even higher rates.
Reply Quote
7
MouthBQ98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ABATTBQ11 • 8:55a, 7/17/23
AG
I agree, we have not properly prepared for the volume modern warfare might demand, but we are a very resourceful nation with a lot of capacity and capability and if we had to produce a lot of ammunition in the short term, we absolutely could make it happen.
Reply Quote
3
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manhattan • 9:22a, 7/17/23
AG
Manhattan said:
DrEvazanPhD said:
Manhattan said:
Wtf are we spending $800billion a year on if we don't have enough weapons to fight a war we aren't actively involved in for just over a year?


Good question. Why don't you ask the guy you voted for with best economy ever?


He inherited a weakened economy and military.

How was the military weakened from January 2017 to January 2021? Be specfic.
Reply Quote
10
ABATTBQ11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 9:43a, 7/17/23
AG
This war could stop right now if the country guilty of shooting civilians in the street, hitting apartments with cruise missiles, targeting maternity wards with airstrikes, and bombing shelters so clearly marked, "children" that you could see it from space would just stop trying to murder their neighbors and go home. It's tragic that people died, but Ukraine hit a bridge at night when traffic would be at its lowest level to minimize collateral damage. It's not like they shelled a cafe full of people to kill some off duty soldiers.
Reply Quote
9
1 edit
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ABATTBQ11 • 9:45a, 7/17/23
AG
"there are no good sides here"
Reply Quote
2
deddog
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manhattan • 9:45a, 7/17/23
AG
Manhattan said:
DrEvazanPhD said:
Manhattan said:
Wtf are we spending $800billion a year on if we don't have enough weapons to fight a war we aren't actively involved in for just over a year?


Good question. Why don't you ask the guy you voted for with best economy ever?


He inherited a weakened economy and military.
This comment is Two Teas level of ignorance.
Reply Quote
16
Manhattan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Teslag • 9:48a, 7/17/23
Teslag said:
Manhattan said:
DrEvazanPhD said:
Manhattan said:
Wtf are we spending $800billion a year on if we don't have enough weapons to fight a war we aren't actively involved in for just over a year?


Good question. Why don't you ask the guy you voted for with best economy ever?


He inherited a weakened economy and military.

How was the military weakened from January 2017 to January 2021? Be specfic.


Let's start with Milley.
Reply Quote
1
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manhattan • 9:53a, 7/17/23
AG
Manhattan said:
Teslag said:
Manhattan said:
DrEvazanPhD said:
Manhattan said:
Wtf are we spending $800billion a year on if we don't have enough weapons to fight a war we aren't actively involved in for just over a year?


Good question. Why don't you ask the guy you voted for with best economy ever?


He inherited a weakened economy and military.

How was the military weakened from January 2017 to January 2021? Be specfic.


Let's start with Milley.



The guy that was placed on the Joint Chiefs of Staff by Obama? Let's start with him then…
Reply Quote
18
Manhattan
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Teslag • 9:54a, 7/17/23
Obama didn't promote him to chairman, or hold up Milley's replacement as Republicans are doing.
Reply Quote
1
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manhattan • 9:56a, 7/17/23
AG
Manhattan said:
Obama didn't promote him to chairman, or hold up Milley's replacement as Republicans are doing.


Milley was promoted to chairman in October of 2019. What did he do between October of 19 and January of 2021 then? Again be specific.

Reply Quote
6
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Manhattan • 9:58a, 7/17/23
AG
Also Milley was confirmed by an 89-1 vote in the Senate.
Reply Quote
3
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 10:00a, 7/17/23
AG
nortex97 said:
Yes, it's a desperate mess, as Biden indicated we are providing the cluster munitions precisely because our other stuff is so low. "Perilously low, may take decades" to recover, which is why we are doing things like going to the South Koreans to 'borrow' 500,000+ shells.

Oh, and the great Ukrainians are killing kids.



The Russians have now terminated the grain deal. More hunger on the way.

Yay, forever war!
Well, the Russians could leave Ukraine and end this forever war today.
Reply Quote
7
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 10:04a, 7/17/23
AG
Reply Quote
1
Last Page
Page 1 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.