Hacker News Reader

Comment by Waterluvian | Hacker News Reader

It’s always really easy to armchair criticize using versions of, “why weren’t you prepared for every contingency at all times?” And I see versions of that in the comments. Supply chain is really really really hard. Keeping it warm for decades is really really really expensive. Especially if you’re not churning out 50 million of something every year.

Though I imagine there are valid criticisms if we had all the details. “They didn’t think to preserve X specimens.” “Y software was lost on a tape drive somewhere.” “Z blueprints got improperly stored inside the Ark of the Covenant.”

View on HN

I think the issue is that there should have been a plan in place to create an equivalent in functionality even if it isn't an exact copy. The US doesn't need Stingers, they need something/anything that functions as a MANPAD.

Not having a way to increase production of Stingers is acceptable, but they've apparently done nothing since 1987 to make sure they have a viable blueprint for scaling production of a critical part of any modern military. That's the real story here, because it shows a fundamental problem in how the US military procures things and there is most likely similar issues all over the place for other critical things(artillery shells have similar shortages). How does the military not have a plan for war breaking out and needing to scale production? That's supposed to be their core job

Stingers aren't a critical part of the US military though. We go for air supremacy through fighters, Patriots, and NASAMs.

The Russian-Ukraine War, with no direct US involvement, is a weird edge case we weren't prepared for.

Stingers are just a symptom of the bigger problem like I mentioned, US also has shortages in artillery, Javelins, rockets, and many other things

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1168725028/manufacturing-pric...

https://www.ausa.org/news/csis-warns-ammunition-shortages

this whole situation shows deep issues in how the US military does procurement and also basic forecasting/planning

I don’t disagree that it shows these issues, but identifying these empirically is one of the reasons the US likes to constantly inject itself into international conflict.

It's a symptom of the US itself having no intention nor need of fighting a very protracted war in the style of WW1 utilizing artillery.

The US only has a shortage of Javelins because they have sent so many into Ukraine. In the past half a century the US hasn't had to supply a military conflict as it has with Ukraine v Russia, and almost nobody in a position of power (including across Europe) on the planet was predicting Russia's invasion. The notion of literally planning for every possibility is absurd, and if the US military tries to do that regarding a budget, it'll just get that much more flak for spending policies.

Armchair Internet users will proclaim the US military should know all and see all and know exactly how many Javelins it will need based on knowing every single conflict that will happen before it happens. And if they make a mistake, and spend a lot of money on weapons they don't need, then they must be attacked for the ridiculous spending. The armchair crowd can't have it both ways.

> almost nobody in a position of power (including across Europe) on the planet was predicting Russia's invasion

I’m surprised by this. There were articles and discussions on it for years. The water supply to Crimea was sore point. In the immediate lead up to war the troop build ups were in the news.

We in the eastern Europe were screaming about Russian plans for invasions for at least a decade, and were brushed off because grownups knew better.

Yup. The US uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin for portable antiarmor, and it's still in production.

If the US Army or Marines needs to defend against air attack, they expect to have their own air support available.

Weird edge case? Nonsense, proxy wars are the norm. Just because Stingers aren't a critical part of the US military doesn't mean you throw away the documentation and specification. Any military procurement should include reference material on the entire manufacturing pipeline as part of the deliverables - the manufacturer can keep the rights but military assets are too important to risk permanent loss.

Yup, all documentation and tooling should be retained except when specifically ordered otherwise by the DOD. (I'm thinking of the F-14 where they deliberately destroyed the ability to maintain them when they were retired because they wanted to ensure Iran couldn't maintain theirs.)

The article doesn't say anything about the documentations and specs being destroyed, just that the tooling etc will need to be dusted off and new workers trained. The biggest issue is legacy chips and electronics that are no longer made. These will need to be replaced and the Stinger basically redesigned with a new seeker head.

Keeping this production line hot would be extremely expensive, and since none of our allies were buying any and the US military expects to have air superiority/supremacy in any conflict they fight, this is a tempest in a teapot.

But they are. In any remotely evenly matched conflict neither side will have air supremacy. Patriots and NASAMs can not kill things they can't see--against aircraft flying a treetop level their engagement range is very short. However, aircraft flying at treetop level are very vulnerable if they fly too close to a MANPAD launcher. Flight time will be a few seconds and the desired engagement is from behind--about your only chance of beating it is automated flare dispensers or anti-missile lasers (blinding the seeker, not actually killing the missile.) An aircraft that could fly home crippled from a marginal hit will still go in because the pilot has no altitude to trade for time.

Ukraine isn't an edge case, Ukraine is what you would expect from anything less than a turkey shoot. It's just we haven't been in anything other than a turkey shoot since the Stinger came out.

If you find yourself in a fair fight then you need to rethink your strategy.

If you're the attacker, then sure.

Currently, there is no air force in the world that will match the US. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to see a combination of aircraft that can match up.

The US Air Force is the largest one in the world. The second largest? The US Army. 4th largest? US Navy. I think the USMC is #7 or so.

That doesn't mean the US will have air supremacy in every situation or even air superiority, but it's unlikely to be close to even for long, if it ever is.

None of that airplanes, except perhaps a few very secret ones, is going to fight in Ukraine. As other comments explain, the important point is what air defense weapons can be sent.

That's not the point - if the United States is actively taking part in a war, which it is definitely not currently in Ukraine, we will have air superiority.

No, US did have air superiority, but not supremacy in Balkan operation.

Good, I'm glad you agree with me.

Not really. I meant that Balkan operation was nowhere even close in technological terms to the full-scale Russian invasion, supported by their most advanced air tech.

> ... despite a world-class air force’s best effort against a second-rate defense, the United States never gained air supremacy. High-value intelligence platforms such as the E-8 Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System were prohibited from flying over land where their sensors were most useful and instead had to stand off outside the threat region.

So during the Balkan conflict, Serbia was able to send up fighters to challenge the NATO air fleets? Nope. They had to rely (and did an exceptional job) on their SAM systems and radars.

I'm not doubting USA air superiority in any plausible war, but it doesn't matter because what's needed is vastly different: reinforcing Ukrainian air defense, without sending planes to fight.

A military that cannot send stingers to allies, right now, is objectively not very capable; focusing on air superiority might be the best choice after all, but it cannot be an excuse for late stingers.

You don't have to go back too far for Russia to be viewed as a legitimate military threat who could roll through europe. I wonder if there are anything other than turkeys for the us military to shoot.

This not really well supported by basic constraints, nor by history. On the constraints side, nukes alone preclude this possibility, but even against non-nuclear enemies - war against people that can (and do) fight back is extremely difficult, grueling, and brutal. And the outcome is never certain. Both the USSR and the USA lost to Afghanistan, the US lost to Vietnam and 'drew' against North Korea (with the backing of an at the time poorly developed China), Russia lost a war to Chechnya, and much more.

Nuclear powers feared conflict between each other not because one or the other's conventional army (or arms) were superpowered, but because it dramatically increased the chances of a conflict escalating to the nuclear level - which could well be the end of both civilizations, if not the better part of the entire human species.

It is debatable whether USSR has lost to Afghanistan because it left behind a functioning secular state which happened to outlive the USSR itself.

Any even matched conflict the US would get in is a shooting war with a nuclear power, which is the very last thing that anyone wants.

Anyone planning for that war needs to stop whatever the hell they are doing and start planning for how to avoid it instead.

Is there any air war that the USAF would not be in a turkey shoot that is not a direct war against China? Let's be realistic here... The US expects to have full air supremacy against most any adversary. They certainly would against Russia. Despite Russia having a few exceptional air superiority fighers. They're only "as good or worse" as the best American equivalents and they might have one tenth as many as the US does.

Russia denies air supremacy with a spectrum of anti air defences, not air superiority fighters.

IIRC Russia is at 99% air defence effectiveness vs the start of the Ukraine war; i.e. it has not been materially degraded at all, despite HARM anti-radar missiles and so forth given to Ukraine.

I meant vs the USAF, with modern stealth multi role jets such as the F35. We can target their anti-air for long range GMLRS artillery / precision artillery like Excalibur, or with cruise missiles like tomahawks. The SEAD / DEAD missions seem quite appropriate for F35s.

Though I don’t full agree with Russia only using ground based air defense as the few newer generation jets Russia have are shooting down a lot of Ukrainian jets. They fly higher, faster, and can both lock and engage Ukrainian jets before the Ukrainian have even detected them.

Well, to be fair the the Ukrainians, they're flying old old Flankers and Fulcrums. Compared to Su-35 etc, it's no contest.

I think that the USAF will have its hands full overcoming Russia's A2AD environment, assuming it's set up and competently managed. The range on S300/S400 makes it hard to use anything other than Tomahawks and stealth aircraft to target. It definitely won't be like Baghdad during DS.

In the first 48 hours of the Afghanistan war, a tomahawk was launched, on average, every 12 seconds. To pivot back to near peer threats like china, the US Marine Corps now has a ground based tomahawk launcher[1] they can setup on small islands. Also, the US has a crapload more stealth aircraft than the Russians and the maintenance is actually performed on them.

[1] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/first-marine-corps-tom...

You're seriously comparing the air defense capability of Afghanistan against a near peer? I love the Tomahawk, and I think it still has some use until LRSO comes into inventory in significant numbers, but I think it's going to struggle against China if it comes to that. Even with saturation attacks, you'll have to have a lot of luck and careful planning to overwhelm China's A2AD.

HARM are operating at basically few percent of their capabilities, due to

- old C versions from early 90s - only working on pre-programmed target mode - no targeting pods like AN/ASQ-213

Indeed. Very little of what the US has sent Ukraine is the latest and greatest, though I’d expect that to change in the near term future.

Nobody's realistically trying to take down the Russian air defense network because they're not conducting strikes into Russian territory.

They would take down short range AA if they could because it would permit the use of ground attack aircraft.

While your comment could be true, if it were phrased as a hypothetical, there isn't anything that could bring an "evenly matched conflict" to the US. The US military capability is literally approaching two orders of magnitude greater than almost everything else on the planet.

And nobody flies aircraft at "treetop level", with the possible exception of the A10 which is designed to and actually has flown home successfully after a missile hit. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/a-10-pilot-explains-how-the-...

Also there is no such thing as a "MANPAD", it's not a plural -- it means "Man-portable air-defense system".

IIRC, at least on the original Stinger, the heat signature of the trees and other objects on the horizon confuses the seeker head so you need a clear shot. You also need the target to be a certain distance away, otherwise the rocket can't maneuver toward it. Something close and literally at treetop level might not be an ideal target.

> And nobody flies aircraft at "treetop level", with the possible exception of the A10...

Helicopters fly this low all the time.

not where this kind of threat exists.

And can they produce "fighters, Patriots, and NASAMs" fast enough when they run out of them?

You are overlooking a critical fact: the US capacity is optimized for US military doctrine and practice i.e. how the US fights wars. For those purposes, they have plenty. The US doesn't have vast numbers of artillery shells, for example, because the US doesn't need them nor would have any use for them if they were produced en masse. It would make no sense for the US to maintain the supply chain for a Soviet style military if the US isn't a Soviet style military. The shortages now are only relative to the military doctrine of other countries, not intrinsic to the US military.

What if we need to support a country that does need lots of artillery shells like Ukraine? Surely they should have a plan for that contingency?

I can understand not having full production facilities due to expense, but at least plans for those facilities if they need to be built in a hurry?

Common sentiment was that the US would go more isolationist, no more foreign adventures with the exception of maybe shooting some rockets on some djihadists.

> What if we need to support a country that does need lots of artillery shells like Ukraine?

We have allies to do that for us.

Before the Russia-Ukraine war escalated in 2022, Ukraine was procuring drones from Türkiye, artillery from Germany, and combat training from Canada and the UK.

If we began directly providing offensive weaponry to Ukraine before 2022, we would have ended up escalating the conflict much sooner.

By allowing our allies to handle procurement we were at least able to buy Ukraine enough time to rebuild their army after it collapsed in the aftermath of 2014.

"Ukraine was procuring drones from Türkiye, artillery from Germany"

Don't you mean artillery from Deutschland? :)

I think Turkey tried a couple of years ago to specify that the spelling of the country’s name in English should be the same as in Turkish. I remember reading about it in the news.

Probably that suggestion/rule is followed by some parts of the UN and perhaps some documents from a few foreign ministries. I certainly hadn’t ever seen it in the wild until the GP comment. It made me chuckle…not at the commenter but at the country.

But what the hell, yes I wrote (and will continue to write) “Turkey”, but I won’t call Istanbul Constantinople, much less Byzantium.

"Please spell our country name with letters you don't have in your language"

Not sure why these absurd dictatorial tendencies are being taken seriously...

Well, if governments in 東京, 서울, and กรุงเทพมหานคร do, shouldn't we also? /s

If it's okay for Côte d'Ivoire or Réunion then I don't see why Türkiye should be snubbed for making a similar request.

Also it's 2023 and people know how to deal with tricky alphabets and stuff now.

Right like it takes any effort to just look it up and copy and paste.

Well... There is an argument for those based solely in the volume of loan words from French though right?

Not saying it's wrong to not deride someone for using the proper spelling but the existence of the French forms shouldn't inherently require forms from languages without significant influence on English.

> I think Turkey tried a couple of years ago to specify that the spelling of the country’s name in English should be the same as in Turkish

They asked for it to be changed, and got what they asked for. Both the UN (https://turkiye.un.org/en/184798-turkeys-name-changed-türkiy..., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Turkey#Presidential_ci...) and the USA (https://www.dw.com/en/us-officially-changes-spelling-of-turk...) decided to change that spelling.

I'm pretty sure that Germany was not selling any artillery systems to Ukraine prior to the 2022 invasion. Otherwise they wouldn't have been so reticent to supply PZH2000 and MARS.

Good catch.

I think I may have mixed up some of the post-2022 arms exports to Ukraine with pre-2022 with earlier reporting about Ukrainian weapons imports.

The Stinger shortage is exactly contradicting your point about artillery shells.

Everyone in the military did indeed have their "doctrine and practice" in mind, the status quo, and suddenly the world rushed up to the military's front door, knocked furiously at the door saying "we need 20,000 Stingers, fast!" And hopefully they had the introspection to realize 'wow, we failed. We can't supply this. Our doctrine and tactics are wrong."

Do you seek air superiority via spending money to create an air-superior fighter jet, or do you seek air superiority via spending money to give every infantry soldier a manpad? Two different tactics with the same goal. Except that the former is a wasteful illusion of superiority, the latter is meat-and-potatoes common sense superiority.

Begs the question what's going on with the lack of common sense in the military.

>Do you seek air superiority via spending money to create an air-superior fighter jet, or do you seek air superiority via spending money to give every infantry soldier a manpad? Two different tactics with the same goal. Except that the former is a wasteful illusion of superiority, the latter is meat-and-potatoes common sense superiority.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Stinger type MANPADS are designed for short range point defense, no greater than 5km range and limited by cloud cover. It's a completely different ballgame to have air superiority fighters with radar guided missiles covering you from above. US doctrine is based entirely around this fact; that winning a war means being the side which is able to maintain that.

If the US military ever requires manpads to down enemy aircraft, things have gone so incredibly wrong that not being able to supply thousands a year is the least concerning part of the situation.

Stingers would provide no protection against a competently managed and equipped air force. If we were fighting the Russians in Ukraine, we would be using JADAMs etc from well outside the engagement envelope of any MANPAD.

The only way to achieve air superiority is with a fighter aircraft and its associated support aircraft. You can deny air superiority with a full spectrum AD program (which a MANPAD is but a small part), but you can not impose it.

It could make sense for NATO to maintain the supply for Soviet style military.

Poland plus Romania plus Czechia plus Croatia, Hungary and Slovakia, and potentially Ukraine and Bosnia and Central Asia with Georgia and Azerbaijan, where these could be used.

It was totally not obvious that Russia (an important but quite small subset of Warsaw pact) will keep its military production capacity but the rest of collective will not - eventually running out of it and often without meaningful replacement.

Poland has developed and is producing their own MANPAD system initialy based on Soviet design.

They supplied significant number of these to Ukraine where it performed well.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.armyrecognition.com/polish_...

US purchased those for Ukraine https://defence24.com/industry/polish-piorun-manpads-exporte...

Estonia and Norway also likes them https://www.technology.org/2022/12/01/piorun-manpads-goes-ma...

The current US national defense strategy says the US must be capable of fighting one major war against a near peer enemy (nominally China) and defeating them:

https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/558342-america...

The lack of basic weaponry seems to be a failure in that regard. Imagine if the US and Russia were fighting directly. The US may not have air superiority because of Russian jamming and air defense systems. Neither side wants to use nukes. So a long term ground and air war is a possibility, and the same seems possible with modern China. The Pentagon was not prepared for this as shown by what is happening in Ukraine. Instead they seem to have assumed that there will be no more big wars (not unreasonable until Russia decided otherwise and the US decided to "diversify supply chains" away from China) and they spent all the trillions on ever more advanced weaponry, never making large quantities of anything, but always starting the next new program. It is apparent they were caught by surprise, as was the EU who underinvested in defense for a long time. Now everybody is putting out contracts for new arms, but the manufacturers are going to take years to ramp up production. I expect this is partly caused by Congress in the US who tend to assume money solves everything, but in this case money can not buy time. Much of the material needed to make gunpowder and rocket motors comes from China, good luck ramping up production of those quickly if the US is fighting China. Part of the problem is outsourcing of manufacturing to other countries such that the US no longer has the ability to quickly switch industry to a war footing. US car makers rely on thousands of parts from other countries. That happened slowly over time, but even so the Pentagon wasn't keeping their eye on the ball and let capabilities slip away; car factories today could not make a tank, they are not set up for handling the heavy sheets of armor, all the robots would be useless, and there are no workers still trained in the old manufacturing methods. Yet another factor is secrecy, the US can't/won't give its most current weapons to Ukraine because that would reveal them to Russia and China. So all our super weapons can't even be used because of secrets. This shows a lack of foresight that not everyone fighting on our side in a war is going to have access to the most current US weapons. If it was NATO fighting Russia the EU do not and would not have the most advanced versions of the F35 and F22 for example, they'd have the export versions. There are factors unique to the Ukraine war, such as the time needed to train the Ukrainian military to use Western weapons (where the assumption was the US and EU already knew how to use them, so no problem for us) and the fear of escalation to nuclear war, but it seems the US military really was not ready for a long drawn out war in a remote location and they are obviously scrambling to adjust to that. A big concern recently is the realization that it would be very difficult for the US to fight against China (say to protect Taiwan) because it is so far away and we have few bases in the area. F22's and F35's can be refueled mid-air, but mid-air refueling planes can be shot down. Aircraft carriers are really vulnerable to anti-ship missiles. Basically it seems the world has changed (or perceptions of it anyway) and the US military has not adjusted (yet) to the that and didn't seem to see it coming. Maybe their hands were tied by Congress (for example demands to keep old planes flying instead of stocking more ammunition), we'll probably never know. The US has not fought a war against a near peer power in a long time, much of its planning for such a war has to be guesswork by people with little experience. If the US was attacked by Russia or China in a conventional war current munition stockpiles would probably be plenty, the long distance would work against the attackers. A war on the other side of the world is a very different set of logistical problems, yet may be considered just as crucial as defending home territory. If US military strategy says that is not worth considering, that's a decision to intentionally limit what kinds of wars can be fought. History would then judge whether that was a mistake or not.

The idea that the US would not achieve air superiority against Russia is laughable. Russia’s Air Force has been pathetic in Ukraine relative to all their claims of supposed capabilities. The lack of stingers is not a hugely important factor compared to modern fighter jets, long range striking capabilities, and a competent set of pilots.

The “game changing weapons” that the US has been providing are very old. And we’re still not giving them the good stuff. Secrecy is not the reason.

Ukraine wants ATACMs for the HIMAR units and F16s.

The storm shadow missiles which have been making headlines lately are fired off of Ukrainian Soviet era planes

I worked on the F22 program, the same things that have prevented Russian air superiority in Ukraine can prevent American air superiority. F22's and F35's are not immune to attacks from lots of cheap IR missiles. Russia has also not yet brought most of its air force to the Ukraine fight. Secrecy is very much a stated reason for not giving Ukraine some weapons, the US doesn't even give some secret weapons to its EU allies. That is why it has export versions of weapon systems. Russia is perfectly capable of reverse engineering anything they capture in Ukraine.

Russia’s Air Force is largely non functional. It’s not capable of bringing it all to the front due to a mix of parts, maintenance, and pilot shortages. The latest phase of the war has seen them trying to use their copters (which are effective) but they’re dropping pretty fast.

It’s true that surface to air missiles are very good these days. But that’s not very useful against long range missiles precision weapons. Which Russia largely does not have. See their recent use of an iskander ballistic missile to take out a company of infantry under a bridge out of desperation and lack of alternatives.

Your comment lacks not only paragraphs, but understanding of both US doctrine and understanding and US logistical systems.

1) Poorly trained (by highly motivated) Ukrainian soldiers are fighting successfully against the best the Russian Federation can offer, using both old Soviet era that they owned and manufactured (Most of the good Soviet gear was made in Ukraine), and old US and NATO gear. Old HIMARS, old M113, old Leopard tanks, etc etc. The best stuff being provided is Javelin, M777, a few Patriot batteries, etc. Even the Abrams and Bradleys are old versions.

So the Russians aren't doing well, and are no threat in conventional terms.

2. The US wasn't surprised at all by the invasion, though the IC was surprised at how poorly the revamped Russian military performed.

3. The EU has been underinvesting in defense for 50 years, so their lack of deep inventories is no surprise.

4. This isn't WW2 where Detroit can switch in a month from building Studebakers to Sherman tanks. The only tank factory in the US is in Lima, OH, and has been building Abrams since 1980. The idea that defense items can be built quickly and cheaply ignores the complexity of the gear US forces use.

5. NATO members who have purchased the F-35 have the same capabilities as the USAF etc. There's no "export" version, and some purchasers are even part of the manufacturing process. And none of them have the F-22 as you imply, since it's not available for export (and the production line has been shut down for decades).

6. It's not "a big concern recently" about the tyranny of distance in fighting a war against China. This has been discussed for decades.

7. Finally, you say that the US has not fought a war against a near peer power in a long time. Well, duh. The US has had the most powerful economy since 1916, two oceans to keep enemies away, and hasn't had it's homeland significantly touched by an enemy since the War of 1812.

I'd suggest you read this article in Foreign Affairs:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/how-america-bro...

That sounds great until first engagement where you learn your whole air superiority doctrine doesnt work because enemy rolled out some new type of weapon (swarm of $1000 autonomous drones).

To be fair, Russia was not expecting to fight a trench war either.

just FYI, it's MANPADS -- the S isn't for plural, it's for "System" (as in "MAN Portable Air Defense System)

There’s a deeper structural problem that affects almost all military supply chains.

Modern military equipment is incredibly expensive, complex, bespoke, and made in small batches. Even in cases when that is not true, as with artillery shells, peacetime supply chains cannot meet wartime demand. Ramping them up takes time, and maintaining them in a constant scaled state of readiness entails an opportunity cost that most societies are not willing to pay.

HN readers should know that military supply chains are not like global commercial supply chains. The supply chains that say Apple or Walmart have built are global scale and quickly responsive to demand. That simply does not apply to many military components from manufacturing through assembly and deployment. The timelines are much longer.

There are things Ukraine needs that money cannot immediately solve. These bottlenecks are an example. (Fears of escalation are another…)

Ukraine is fighting a poor man’s war with a lot of second-hand Cold War equipment and Stingers that served the mujahedeen just as well decades ago.

This is partially due to US funding mechanisms. It’s very easy for Biden to exercise discretion in what he sends (and therefore regulate the intensity of the war) through the mechanism of Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), which can only draw upon existing DOD stocks. He relies heavily on PDA, thus the nature of the second-hand stuff.

What’s interesting is the dual-use piece of the equipment used in Ukraine. By paying frontline soldiers some 5x what they would normally earn, Ukraine has created a market driven by the demand of infantry, usually pooling their purchases in small groups.

They are buying all sorts of equipment, notably power banks, satellite ground terminals, mobile devices, from much more responsive supply chains.

That is, we have strong revealed preferences of the kind of equipment soldiers buy when their lives depend on it, and it looks very different from the bloat purveyed by primes to the Pentagon.

Disclosure: I work with Ukraine Defense Fund to send dual-use tech to the AFU.(Ukrainedefensefund.org)

The DOD can’t even tell you what is made in which country.

That’s how completely mismanaged the defense industry is in the US.

this isn't just a military production issue. Industry has always been bad at contingency planning. Healthcare was blindsided by the covid pandemic, even though the flu has been the most prominent pandemics in human history. Finance industry was blindsided housing crash. Supply chain disruptions make waves through the entire system.

Businesses barely do any contingency planning because there is no money to be made in it and it takes away from making money. so when a contingency finally hits, they're all caught with their pants around their ankles

> Supply chain is really really really hard. Keeping it warm for decades is really really really expensive.

I’m glad this realization is making its way to the knowledge of the general population.

People have been seduced by cheap foreign goods, and balked at the idea of something costing more than the lowest cost.

Come to think of it, I am wondering if making cheap industrial labour generally available was a “soft power” exercised by some countries. This enabled the dismantling of flexible Western production capabilities, increased reliance on these countries, and dissuaded aggression towards them.

Also see the reliance of Europe on Russian fossil fuel imports.

> cheap industrial labour generally available was a “soft power”

Of course it is. But US and Global Capitalism fought tooth and nail to get into China. The manufacturing base in the US was dismantled (literally) on purpose by American billionaires and the politicians they owned.

the initial plan made sense as a way to weaken the Soviets, but after the USSR collapsed in the 90s the US should have pulled out and also not let China into the World Trade Organization unless they played fair. Going to be seen as an all time historical blunder.

Tiananmen square made it clear China wasn't going to change and the idea that "improving economy leads to democracy" has literally never happened unless that nation was occupied by the US military like Germany and Japan

The US never cared about Democracy, we don't defend it, or support it. The only thing the the US cares about is markets.

I feel this is true. I think one effect is that when merchandise and fossil fuels are super cheap for long enough, people stop perceiving them as being super cheap, and any return to a healthy state of more domestic production and conservation is seen as things becoming super expensive. And then they’re bigmad and someone else ought to pay.

My general understanding is that "dismantling of flexible Western production capabilities, increased reliance on these countries, and dissuaded aggression towards them" was the whole point of global supply chains; literally the doctrine.

Not sure about the implicit attempt to address power imbalance: if you invest your IP in some "underdeveloped" country and then they decide to sell chips to all comers, or not to sell to you and sell exclusively to your global competitors something is going to give... or break. Or get broken.

But that's literally how it was sold: give up your industrial base for a safer world. (We thank you for your patriotism, former industrial worker of the western world.)

This is true. It was an explicit tactic. Also, the plan was to help develop China as an ally against Russia. So we setup trade conditions that were favorable to China. And it worked beyond all expectations. But now they're not much of an ally. And we're having a hard time returning to balanced trade conditions.

"An actual war breaking out" is an extremely foreseeable contingency when building weapons of war. That said, I blame the government more for not keeping the supply chain alive, and in particular not ensuring they can change manufacturers.

Yeah but that’s just the same kind of unqualified broad answer. Then there’s someone blaming the government for spending so much money during peacetime. Then someone will say that military spending is such that they ought to be able to. And someone will say the Stinger is 50 years old and they should be building something entirely new instead. And nobody can actually quantify any of their feelings on the matter.

I think when the dust settles from all the supply chains restarting, we'll be able to quantify the benefits pretty well. For anyone actually interested in truth, anyway.

As long as we also quantify every other instance where not maintaining production over two generations was the advantageous choice.

That's the tricky thing with preparatory expenses, though, right? Skipping them always looks like "the advantageous choice", right up until you bitterly regret it.

"An actual war breaking out, against the full Russian army, that NATO isn't directly involved in so it's fought in a very different way than NATO would, but in which a large part of the equipment is still provided by NATO" is quite different though.

NATO would have air superiority and not need as many stingers.

A proxy war between NATO and Russia isn’t that rare of an edge case.

Hindsight, dude

The proxy war started in 2014 with Euromaidan. Here is what's baffling: no army goes to war except with strategic plans. The geniuses in the Pentagon decided to push for war but omitted to make plans for armament supplies! The same mistake thankfully did Hitler in - the switch to the war economy came only in 1942 when it was clear that Stalingrad was going to fall.

The Pentagon did not push for war at all, this is a Russian invasion.

The Pentagon should have recognized that the Eastern expansion of NATO would collide with the national security interests of Russia, and that war would be the inevitable consequence. It probably even did, the task of the High Command is to draw up and revise plans for every contingency. What went on between the Pentagon and the Secretary of State's office? Why was the military establishment with all its experience in logistics overruled? The incompetence and lack of preparedness that are on view here is staggering.

NATO is a defensive alliance. The defensive alliance is only at odds with Russia due to the imperialist tendencies.

Not to mention that Russia has had a land border with NATO since 1948.

NATO is a general purpose alliance with a defensive clause amongst many and a history of involvement in offensive operations.

> The Pentagon should have recognized that the Eastern expansion of NATO would collide with the national security interests of Russia, and that war would be the inevitable consequence.

NATO is absolutely zero threat to Russia, and Russia knows it. Finland joined and Russia shrugged, and has since even removed many troops from that border because it knows NATO will not attack.

What matters is the national security interests of Ukraine.

Russia is a massive threat to the national security interests of Ukraine, and Ukraine really wants to join NATO to be safe from Russia. Russia knew that if it wanted to invade and conquer Ukraine, a souvereign country, it would have to do soon because it would not be possible anymore after Ukraine joined NATO.

Russian security interests, fuck off. Neither Ukraine nor NATO is a threat to Russia.

Ukraine's security interests, those are very obviously threatened.

> and has since even removed many troops from that border because it knows NATO will not attack.

They've removed them because they need to avoid any possibility of a provocation. The merest hint of a wrongful look at Finland will not go well for them.

They removed them because they're sending them all to Ukraine.

"The so-called victim must have realized that going out dressed like that last night would collide with the interests of young, frustrated males in her vicinity. Who, as she must understand, would surely be unable to control their impulses. And so what happened after that was just the inevitable consequence of her recklessness."

> victim

We’re talking about the US here, not Ukraine.

Yes, if you are a third-party citizen and observe a woman as well as a group of men who you suspect to be absolutely predatory scumbags, you can make predictions about what might happen.

You know who the "victim" of the current invasion is. It's not the US.

Yes, if you are a third-party citizen and observe ...

This is just spin and narrative to suggest that the war isn't really Putin's fault.

> You know who the "victim" of the current invasion is. It's not the US.

Mhm.

The whole topic here is about how America could/couldn’t have anticipated the invasion. The very comment that you replied to says “The Pentagon should have”… that’s not Ukraine.

Not my problem that you are off-topic.

The whole topic here is about how America could/couldn’t have anticipated the invasion.

The topic here, at least where it started to veer way off course from the original thread, is the essentially pro-Kremlin narrative in the GGGP comment and its GP ("The proxy war started in 2014 with Euromaidan"). In this context - US calculations as such are a red herring. What matters here is the clear (and basically rather crass) implication in these comments of core Western responsibility for Russia's military actions.

Which implication your words definitely seemed to be (if obliquely) echoing and supporting. Or at least playing footsie with, for some reason known only to you.

> Which implication your words definitely seemed to be (if obliquely) echoing and supporting. Or at least playing footsie with, for some reason known only to you.

I’ll note that you can’t even accuse me of doing anything even remotely concrete. “Seemed to.” “If obliquely.” “Playing footsie.” All just accusations of association. Not a leg to stand on at all.

Take your control round over who is batting for the correct team elsewhere.

> US calculations as such are a red herring.

Then just say that. My God. No one cares.

I’ll note that you can’t even accuse me of doing anything even remotely concrete.

Probably because you're throwing up such an ink cloud that it's difficult to what point you're trying to make, let along for which "team".

No it isn’t. This is what you replied to:

> The Pentagon should have recognized that the Eastern expansion of NATO

This is your mock-quote:

> "The so-called victim must have realized that going out dressed like that

Clearly you are mocking this statement on what the Pentagon “should have realized”.

Then I come along and point out that the mock-quote doesn’t apply since The Pentagon is not the victim in this war.

It’s not my fault that you want to find my spooky ulterior motives.

This whole debate is so moralistic.

What matters as far as planning is concerned is analyzing likely outcomes given your own actions. We can for the sake of the argument just take as a given that the Russian government is bloodthirsty and expansionist and wants Ukraine.

Event: Euromaidan

Likely long-term outcomes: ?

There’s not more to it than that. No need to moralize over who did what or who is culpable. This is all about one entity (America) analyzing likely outcomes given a series of events.

> We can for the sake of the argument just take as a given that the Russian government is bloodthirsty and expansionist and wants Ukraine.

No, actually. I do not think it should have been taken for granted that Russia would be stupid enough to do this invasion.

The fact that they were willing to make such insane strategic bludders is a bit of a surprise.

> What matters as far as planning is concerned is analyzing likely outcomes given your own actions.

Should have been: given any kind of event.

Technically correct, it was the US State Department and Congress (See: McCain, et. al.) implicated in the ouster of a legitimately elected Ukrainian president in what would most reasonably be described as a violent coup with the president being far upon by far-right militia, one that might reasonably described as Neo-Nazi in nature.

Considering Us behavior when the Soviet Union installed assets on Cuba, there isn’t a whole lot of ethical ground to be found here. Just Great Power politicians playing stupid games with innocent lives.

The US wasn’t invading Cuba when that happened.

If the US had put nukes in Ukraine and pointed them at Russia, and did so before the Crimean invasion, your comparison might be more fair.

Yup, poor innocent Yanukovych was only minding his own business when the cruel protestors set upon him, he definitely wasn't ramming through draconian laws[0] that would have ended free speech and the right to protest, given the secret police expansive powers, and censored the internet.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-protest_laws_in_Ukraine

It was the US State Department and Congress (See: McCain, et. al.) implicated in the ouster of a legitimately elected Ukrainian president in what would most reasonably be described as a violent coup ...

No one in Ukraine believes this narrative. Why do you?

> Technically correct, it was the US State Department and Congress (See: McCain, et. al.) implicated in the ouster of a legitimately elected Ukrainian president in what would most reasonably be described as a violent coup with the president being far upon by far-right militia, one that might reasonably described as Neo-Nazi in nature.

None of this is true, what happened in reality and not in the fever dreams of FSB, GRU and SVR agents is that there where protests when Yanukovych went back on a number of election promises and started aligning himself with Russia instead of joining the EU Like he promised he would.

After that happened he was removed from his seat of power by the parliament and he fled back to his handlers in Russia.

This isn't a proxy war between NATO and Russia, this is Russia invading a neighbor, and the neighbor being supported by many different countries, some of which aren't even in NATO or "the West". Framing it as NATO vs Russia is precisely what the Kremlin talking heads try to do on a daily basis. NATO is a defensive alliance and a set of shared standards. Also, Russia has no proxy in this.

All this is true but strictly in terms of military equipment needs, it amounts to the same thing. I don't think GP meant any more than that.

If you squint a bit, Russia is the proxy. China's to be specific. The outcome tested the waters a bit for how the international community might react to the invasion of a somewhat developed nation vs a developing one. It also uses up munitions and war chests of those that might get involved. And in the now seemingly inevitable case that Russia's economy and political power are severely damaged, it has a trading partner that makes plenty of food and fuel that everyone else has promised not to trade with, so the prices are cheap.

Agreed on the first part, but I'd say the rest isn't so important: while China does rely on food imports, it's mostly stuff like meat, rice and soybeans - nothing that Russia has in abundance.

It did not *start* as a proxy war but it *became* one when we started flooding Ukraine with weapons.

So many politicians blathered on about the peace dividend but the bear was hibernating, not dead. I was repeatedly ridiculed for saying so. Fortunately, it turns out the bear rotted from within pretty badly during it's hibernation.

The best way to describe it is that it's unfinished conflict from WW1, WW2 and the Cold War, and therefore seeing it as Russia vs the west makes sense if you look at the entire history. Quite crazy that this is still happening in 2023.

Is it that, or is it Russia acting as the imperial power it once was? Ukraine has been a meaningful part of Russia for a long time, with its achievements (social, arts, science etc) being a big part of Russian history. I’m not sure that Russia is taking the loss very well. I’ve encounter Russians who dispute the existence of Ukraine “it’s all Russia”. The feelings run very deep.

A Russian would travel to any interesting part of Ukraine (usually Kiev, Crimea, Odessa, Kharkov) and notice that nobody actually talks in Ukrainian around them.

A week of not hearing anybody actually use the only official language of the country, that Russian would conclude that Ukraine is mostly fake.

Of course that led Russians to underappreciate the willingness of Ukraine citizens to actually fight for it.

When an English person goes to USA, Australia or any other former colony, is it reasonable for them to assume those countries are fake?

Are they trying to limit the English language usage?

Was Ukraine? Hard to believe if Ukraine was heard nowhere (according to you) and their president spoke Russian.

Now, yes, of course.

Yes, it was, but that's not even relevant to the fakery issue.

> Yes, it was, but that's not even relevant to the fakery issue.

This is Russian propaganda and not even true all Ukraine did was introduce a bill to make all offical communications be provided in Ukrainian.

Nothing stopping people providing it in Russian too.

All Ukraine did was introduce a bill to make all official communications be provided in Ukrainian.

The law does a lot more than that, and is quite obnoxious actually.

> The bill does a lot more than that, and is quite obnoxious actually.

Can you provide a link all I’ve seen from sources is that it required all offical information to be in Ukrainian.

There's this thing known as Wikipedia, which has a full summary of law's major provisions.

It omits a few key aspects unfortunately, but I'm sure you'll be able to find those on your own.

I invite you, in particular, to make a careful study of Article 23.

That Russian would conclude that Ukraine is mostly fake.

If they have the social and political awareness of a 12 year-old, perhaps.

Nobody actually talks in Ukrainian around them.

Absolutely not true for (and a very weird thing to say about) Kyiv.

In Odesa/Kharkiv Russian is clearly dominant, but it's not like you'll never hear Ukrainian spoken.

This is both Russia invading its neighbour and a proxy war between NATO and Russia. It doesn’t have to be one of the other. NATO and its allies are directly propping up Ukraine which would have collapsed without them and they do that mostly to curtail Russia’s ambitions which is fine.

NATO is first and foremost a military alliance setup to contain the western expansion of the USSR. It’s a strategic alliance. It’s defensive in as much as a military alliance can be.

What the US is using NATO for now that the USSR is no more and what is the EU getting out of it are actually very valid questions.

What the US is using NATO for now that the USSR is no more and what is the EU getting out of it are actually very valid questions.

They were very valid questions up until the Ukraine invasion revealed Russia to be the mustachioed villain we were always told they were. Now nobody questions the need for NATO. Good job, Mr. Putin, your "Recruiter of the Year" plaque is on the way.

> What the US is using NATO for now that the USSR is no more and what is the EU getting out of it are actually very valid questions.

Countries still need protecting from the remnants of the USSR's aggression, mainly Russian aggression.

If NATO didn't exist you can be sure that Russias ambition would not stop at countries like Ukraine.

> Countries still need protecting

Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection and should have invested in a proper army decades ago.

It’s obvious that the main benefit for the USA is that NATO dissuades the EU to actually be a power. That some countries in the east are happy to play lapdogs is a major issue.

> Countries don’t need protecting. Countries should aim to protect themselves. The EU doesn’t need the US for its protection and should have invested in a proper army decades ago.

It's simply not possible from some countries to protect themselves for other larger aggressive countries (such as Russia) that can both out spend them and have many more bodies to throw at the problem.

A collective defensive alliance in this cases makes sense as both a deterrence to any possible belligerents and as a practical measure if someone does try something.

"Proxy war" does not generally imply that both sides have proxies, only that one does.

> NATO would have air superiority and not need as many stingers.

How, exactly?

I don't really know if NATO+allies would establish air superiority. However my guess is that they may use a combination of tactics from HALO insertions[1], long range missile strikes from land and sea, and around-the-clock bombing from stealth aircraft like the B2[2], to knock out AA batteries until the enemy can no longer adequately defend it's skies.

Then jets like the F-22[3] would be used to establish command of the airspace.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_military_parachu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor

Do you think the 30 year old B-2s will would be able to penetrate Russian air space? They've got quite the radar array and integrated air defense.

Do you think that the B-2 is the latest that the U.S. has[1]?

It doesn't need to be singularly successful since it's part of a collective of redundant systems[2]. Air isn't working then increase missile strikes, missiles can't attain good effect on target then increase covert operations with local insurgencies, etc.

That's just some of the possible angles of attack. There's leaving out things like drones and cyber attacks that would also be employed to some effect.

Eventually the enemy loses the ability to fight since it's critical points are weakened to such a point it can no longer wage an effective resistance.

Another example: why attack heavily defended artillery positions when you can blow up the logistical route and starve them of rounds to attack with?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_B-21_Raider [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare

What you described is exactly what Russia is doing to NATO backed Ukraine.

How so?

How is Russia establishing air superiority over Ukraine now? Or is going to change the tempo of the war into their favor?

How does this pertain to them denying NATO+allies from probably eventually attaining air superiority in a hypothetical full conflict?

Well, for one - with impunity, Russian choppers over the last month have decimated the Ukrainian counteroffensive attempts to the point of shocking even Western some observers (the uneducated ones). This is partially due to greatly degraded Ukrainian air defense after an intentional multi-month bombing campaign (using missiles, not planes - meaning no dead pilots). And Russia has shown to be very effective at intercepting various modern weapons systems via EW or direct. Maybe they are evil incarnate, but they math good.

No one's doubting Russia has built a capable defense over the last year however that's not changing the direction of the war.

How many helicopters can Russia sustain to lose? They've lost several over the last few weeks.

Supply routes have be successfully attacked by Ukraine with estimates of slowing logistics by 50% in certain areas.

And again how many AA batteries can they sustain to lose?

Meanwhile Ukraine has made slow but steady advances forward gaining ground.

Where's Russia changing the direction? Is that by terrorizing civilian targets (your bombing campaign) and blowing up hydroelectric dams? So essentially they're just using the tactics of terrorists.

Yet they still can't freely fly over Ukraine because they still lack control over the skies.

When's Russia regaining the momentum in their favor? Last week one of their best units tried to storm Moscow and hang their top military leaders.

AND now Russia is more weakened to a full confrontation with NATO than they were before starting their war in Ukraine. So all the more likely to lose air superiority to NATO+allies.

> And Russia has shown to be very effective at intercepting various modern weapons systems via EW or direct. Maybe they are evil incarnate, but they math good.

I dunno know about this part of the statement, the fact that we are still seeing long range deep strikes into important Russian territory (sometimes killing hundreds of soldiers at a time), tells me that maybe Russias EW and AA against semi modern cruise missiles isn't as good as people think.

That doesn’t mean they have full coverage. The “front” is enormous.

> That doesn’t mean they have full coverage. The “front” is enormous.

Yeah but these missile strikes have been hitting high value targets like air fields and troop barracks.

Regardless of if they can’t defend these areas because they don’t have the systems or the systems cannot intercept them it doesn’t bode well.

B-21 hasn't even had it's first flight...

Well, considering the reports coming out about how their radar systems have been deployed lacking the necessary gear (due to widespread corruption), I think that it's possible the B-2 could still penetrate. Russia's a huge country, and he who defends everything defends nothing.

HALO insertions against an A2AD environment are suicide. Same with using something like an AC-130 in daylight. They rely on large, slow, easily detected transports.

For fun, let's assume they could get in; the math still doesn't work. A bunch of parachuter guys with automatic guns and limited ammo vs Russian combined arms is going to end very poorly.

Yeah, short of a Tom Clancy novel, using your best operators on a one-way trip doesn't work well.

Yep. Russia lost some of its best paratroopers during the initial Kiev/Kyiv thing. Not a great investment and pretty incompetent planning.

Well...

I guess they might have been Russia's best airborne units, but both at Hostomel and in other engagements, they've been shown to be overrated. Then again, Hostomel was a shitshow of poor planning/intel. I bet the VDV would have loved to know that there was a UKr unit right next door with heavy artillery before they kicked off the assault.

So how do they stop cruise missiles and other artillery? Stop decoy missiles?

What happens when the enemy has exhausted it's supply of AA ammo?

Or lost use of its radar?

If the enemy's air defense is either DEAD or SEAD, then why would you need to insert operators/SForces via HALO? At that point you could just use helicopters to infiltrate/exfiltrate.

HALO is for opponents lacking AD and radar.

I mean what's it matter though? HALO is just one option for insertion, the point is that there are multiple avenues of attack.

Like what?

Well, you just spitballed a few ideas that really aren't founded in either US or NATO doctrine, and now you ask "what's it matter though?"

Around-the-clock bombing, missile and artillery strikes, and deep insertion of covert assets are not US/NATO doctrine? Did I watch a different invasion of Iraq than you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq#Invasion

Edit: If you're objecting to HALO insertion as a measure against AA then fine but even describe as a way around AA:

"The technique is used to airdrop supplies, equipment, or personnel at high altitudes, where aircraft can fly above surface-to-air missile (SAM) engagement levels through enemy skies without posing a threat to the transport or load. In the event that anti-aircraft cannons are active near the drop zone, the HALO technique also minimizes the parachutist's exposure to flak...

... The combination of high downward speed, minimal forward airspeed, and the use of only small amounts of metal helps to defeat radar and reduces the amount of time a parachute might be visible to ground observers, enabling a stealthy insertion."

Edit: I don't understand why you're fixated on one or two options being insufficient for certain scenarios out of a redundant number of options at the U.S. disposal but whatever.

Like HALO is the only way to insert a team? You're clearly not clueless about a variety of tactics so I'm confused why you're not extending that here.

Sigh, you really want to die on this hill...

1. Round the clock bombing. We saw how F-117, flying the same route day after day in Serbia was shot down by an S-75 Dvina (first deployed in 1957) in optical mode. You will never see a B-2 flying in daylight any more than you would see an AC130.

2. What US artillery can outrange an S300/S400? US artillery is already outranged by Russian artillery.

3. Missile strikes are the only thing you list that are even doctrinal against a modern A2AD system. And those are limited, as NATO found out when several members ran out of smart munitions when overthrowing Qaddafi. But yes, that's what we'd use. JASSM, Tomahawk, SCALP, etc.

4. Using Iraq as a measure of how we'd fight a near peer opponent is ridiculous. While Iraq had a large standing army, it was never a match for the US in 1991, much less 2003. There are numerous things we did in Iraq that we'd never have attempted in the Fulda Gap.

5. Finally, back to HALO. Sure the operator jumping out using HALO might have a minimized signature, but remember that big, lumbering transport that he's jumping out of? The one with the ginormous radar signature? Flying high (so the H in HALO) can occur, meaning every radar in the world can spot it? BOOM. Shot down as soon as it's in range of an S400. Which is roughly between 300 and 400KM. So if you're expecting a team dropping in by HALO to survive, you're delusional.

Plus the tanker focused short range aircraft. Ruskies have a special missile designed just to take tankers out.

So you can’t refuel, your home runways are trashed and the carriers are sunk. Then what.

Range and logistics matters and the Ruskies have it in that neck of the woods.

NATO/US have big air forces that would simply put a bunch of its big-$$$ aircraft into the air at high altitude to fire expensive and highly accurate air-to-air missiles and knock down opposing aircraft, then bomb the ground from high altitude to get rid of anti-air installations, and only then fly in close air support.

Stingers are inexpensive comparatively cheap surface-to-air missiles that allow an individual soldier on the ground to pick off an aircraft that happens to fly sufficiently low; it's useless if air superiority is actually being contested or if aircraft are bombing away from high altitude and mainly functions to whittle down the size of the edge the opposing force's air superiority gives in the ground combat.

Russia also has accurate air-to-air missiles - with longer ranges. And very good integrated air defense. How do you overcome that without losing half your aircraft (let alone keep them fueled while your air tankers are shot down and airfields pummeled)?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_Enemy_Air_Def...

These are questions the US has been working on since Vietnam - they’ve gotten pretty good at it by now.

Why aren’t they employing it in this current conflict?

Because the US is not a direct party to the conflict and has zero troops fighting in it.

We’re all adults here and both know that’s not true - the US is literally making the payroll of the Ukrainian government.

But anyways, they’re already using US gear, tactics, ISR - why not this? You don’t need red blooded Americans to employ SEAD.

The US hasn't supplied Ukraine with aircraft capable of flying SEAD/DEAD according to USAF or NATO doctrine. The Fulcrums launching HARM (old versions at that) are using 10-20% of the missiles capability.

So no, other than one old missile, they're not using US gear, nor US tactics, nor US ISR for SEAD/DEAD.

> But anyways, they’re already using US gear, tactics, ISR - why not this? You don’t need red blooded Americans to employ SEAD.

They don't have the modern aircraft, or missiles that would make SEAD missions against modern Russian AA effective.

Despite the narrative most of the stuff Ukraine is getting is super old.

What’s newer than Patriots, HIMARS, HARMs and the other stand-off weapons and air defense that the West is donating?

Thats not most of what Ukraine has been getting though, the majority of what they have been getting is decades old like.

- Leopard 1's.

- M113 APC's

- Mig 29's

- Sukhoi 24's

- Mi-28's

- Mi-8s

The HARM's that you speak off, we don't know what variant they are but they won't be super effective because they cannot be effectively integrated with the aircraft Ukraine has so they are probably older variants using pre programmed fixed coordinate attack modes.

That should hopefully change once the F-16's arrive and they can start more effectively using more modern air borne weapons especially for SEAD.

The air defences are probably some of the most modern pierces of equipment that Ukraine has.

HIMARS are a good example of modern equipment with relatively modern munitions but they still haven't gotten any PrSM's or ATACMS.

Latest HARM has a 150km range. Kh-58 has a 250km range.

Where are the F-16s going to take off from (they need pristine runways)? Who will maintain them? How will they refuel without airtankers (they don't have enough range to make it to Donbas and back). How will they avoid the R37M (300km range) when the AMRAAM is not even 200km? And what about Russian SAMs and EW?

> Latest HARM has a 150km range. Kh-58 has a 250km range.

> Where are the F-16s going to take off from (they need pristine runways)?

Probably relatively far from the action.

> Who will maintain them?

Ukrainians its one of the reasons why its taking so long for them to get them.

> How will they refuel without airtankers (they don't have enough range to make it to Donbas and back).

They don't have to fight at the front line, they can be used effectively as missile trucks to throw long range weapons like Storm Shadow and other long range weapons at Russian lines.

If a SU25 and Mig29 can survive doing that a F-16 will have no problem.

> How will they avoid the R37M (300km range) when the AMRAAM is not even 200km? And what about Russian SAMs and EW?

The same way that the SU25 and Mig29 do, the F-16 will survive much better.

Apparently the old Warsaw block SUs and Migs (because the Ukrainian ones are long gone) survive so well that Ukraine is practically begging for F-16s…

Russian AAMs don't do any good if they can't target an F-22 or F-35. Russian IADS doesn't do so well against cruise missiles that are stealthy, and the US has THOUSANDs of them, as well as Tomahawk.

And how is Russia going to pummel NATO airbases? This isn't 1985 when the Soviet VVS had thousands of fighter bombers tasked with taking out the airfields. They're not next door to Germany/France/UK anymore since NATO has expanded East. The RuAF might have 500 flying aircraft for their entire nation. They have no stealth aircraft in service (the Felon isn't in production yet if ever).

Same way Russia has pummeled Ukrainian air bases: long range standoff weapons.

While behind with aircraft, Russia has objectively outclassed the West with missile tech (and defense).

Do yourself a favor and read this book:

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/40658433

I disagree entirely with your statement "Russia has objectively outclassed the West with missile tech (and defense)." Ukraine has shown that the A2AD, "hypersonic" and cruise missile tech touted by the Russians for decades aren't quite as impressive as the marketing brochures would imply.

Let's just look at AA gear. Pantsir has been shown to be ineffective against most drones, Storm Shadow, etc. Same with BUK. S300 and S400 have really good range, but I think that Patriot and SAMP stand up well in comparison. The Ukrainians are using older Patriot missiles and are successfully engaging Khinzal and any cruise missile the Russians can throw at it. NATO has THAAD and better versions of Patriot in their arsenal, so even being generous, I think this is a draw.

For offensive weapons, the Russians have nothing in the class of SCALP/Storm Shadow, much less JASSM/LRASM. They would even have a hard time coping with Tomahawk.

So what weapon system are the Russians going to use against Lakenheath and Mildenhall? A Kalibr is going to have a very hard time making it across the Baltics to the UK, and I doubt any aircraft doing a suicide mission would make it either. How about Aviano? Same problem. Ramstein and Spangdahlem as well.

And Russia sure has done a great job "pummeling" Ukrainian airbases, right? I mean, they've utterly failed at this. The Ukrainians are still flying Fencers, Fulcrums and Frogfoots from their bases.

Proof is in the pudding.

> Proof is in the pudding.

Indeed it is and the proof shows that Ukraine intercepts a large number of Russian missiles with air defence.

Whilst Russia intercepts a lot of Ukrainian weapons with the intended targets.

The Russians have maybe shot down a single stormshadow out of all the ones that have been fired.

They don’t seem so good at intercepting modern western cruise missiles.

This all ignores that Ukraine managed to get TU141 drones that look like they have the radar signature of a truck past Russian air defence to hit targets within Russia.

Yeah, they’ve shot down many more than that… plenty of photo evidence.

Your true believer enthusiasm is endearing, but it doesn’t win wars.

Relax. You're just a Russian sympathizer. Easy travel partisan.

> Yeah, they’ve shot down many more than that… plenty of photo evidence.

They have a single photo of a single storm shadow.

Because they haven't shot down anymore, I presume they will move it to 100 different sites to try and claim they have shot down more like they did earlier with the downed drones.

The qualifiers you raise are largely irrelevant. You only have a military because you want to be ready for war. In a war, no matter the reasons or participants, you're going to fire a lot of ammo. Probably more than you really wish. And you might hope you fire less of some particular sort, because of some other battlefield victory you plan on attaining, but you're still a fool if you absolutely depend on it, because the enemy gets a vote.

And all I'm saying is, plan to be able to start the dang factories again.

> I blame the government more for not keeping the supply chain alive

A broad section of Americans, from the 1970s (roughly post peak Soviet power) through today (albeit declining), has called for dismantling our military-industrial complex. That production capacity is the military-industrial complex. The peace dividend of the 90s was a direct result of reörienting military production to civilian use, making fewer guns and more butter.

I think the blame should be less for not keeping the supply chain alive, and way more for being caught by surprise. The interval between needing/buying X and receiving X is critical to understand.

Crucial electronic components for a piece of equipment designed in 1978 and last manufactured in 1987 are no longer manufactured, and replacing them will require a redesign and a requalification? Who could have understood that, besides anyone with a EE degree.

> Though I imagine there are valid criticisms if we had all the details. “They didn’t think to preserve X specimens.” “Y software was lost on a tape drive somewhere.” “Z blueprints got improperly stored inside the Ark of the Covenant.”

The thing is, in IT it's a common saying "a backup ain't a backup unless you regularly validate it". The US MIC clocks in at many hundred billion dollars a year in budget - seriously it can't be that hard for the government to select every five years a couple dozen small metalwork, electronic and other companies needed to make arms parts, give them all the blueprints and instructions and look if they can make parts that meet the specs?

Had they done that instead of allowing the weapon manufacturers to gobble up small competitors left and right, they wouldn't be stuck with the current clusterfuck. Because what I just said is precisely what would happen should the US be forced to enter a full blown war with China instead of just steamrolling over some poor guys in deserts armed with Kalashnikovs.

> “why weren’t you prepared for every contingency at all times?”

And when you are: “wow the MIC is leeching the country dry!”

They already are and we are even less prepared for war now. It’s a giant grift.

Exactly. Oftentimes its not even that they don't have the original design data and files. Sometimes it's that they don't even have the computer and software to open it anymore because it doesn't exist. It's akin to trying to re-shoot a movie with just the script and a few DVDs of the movie. It's like step 1 - boot up your SGI indigo workstation and open this software, if you don't have those two things contact this guy who retired long ago. And then it's a whole engineering project just to open the files

Russia annexed Crimea in February 2014. A full scale invasion in 2022 was totally unforeseeable.

> Supply chain is really really really hard.

Does the traditional idea of "supply chain" actually apply here? There isn't a "market" for these parts. There's a single buyer and a single supplier behind an exclusive government contract. The single-use equipment has no intrinsic value, can't be put to any other use, and can't be sold after it's shelf life has expired.

There's a single buyer that wants a particular missile, and multiple defense contractors bidding on right to supply it. At some point hopefully before, but sometimes after the bid is won, that contractor has to figure out how to make and deliver that thing, which is a standard manufacturing process involving a bunch of components and subsystems, some of which are made in house, some of which are bought of the shelf, and some of which are outsourced. That part's the supply chain.

Oh, the idea of supply chains, and supply chain management make aboslute sense. Traditionally, logistics, and as an out grow of that supply chains, started with the military.

In the case of military goods, especially of the more expendable type like all kinds of ammunitions but also complex systems like tank or fighter jets, it is even harder since there is, in piece time at least, no continious demand. That means as soon as the large initial production runs are delivered, production capacity sits there unused. And gets ultimately dismanteled, technology becomes obsolete, people change jobs and retire.

All that is left at some point is maintenance capabilities, which only gets you that far in terms of building new gear, and low level production to replenish stores or conduct retrofits. Increasing that lost capacity is expensive and time consuming.

Generally, a supply chain is everything that has a supplier and a customer and moves physical goods. And the general, underlying principles haven't really changed since the days of the first silk road, or heck, since as early as the bronze age.

There are multiple buyers of most US weapon systems. For the FIM-92 (Stinger), there are over 30 not counting the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com