Capt M, I just read that "the military" has decided to stop buying the "Osprey" tiltrotor aircraft. If this is accurate, what are the Navy's plans for a carrier delivery aircraft to replace it ? Do you know where to find the answer to that question ? I presume there is some office working on that question.
Donald Rumsfeld and Harold Brown got away with sacrificing current readiness to develop future capability in the 1970s (the Strategy of Technology), but it was a gamble. And they knew it. If the Soviets had made a move in 1978, NATO would have been toast.
The DOD leadership for the last 20 years has been making similar gambles, but don't seem to realize it. Nor to understand that in the mid-'70s, there was a whole raft of weapons in the offing that exploited the then-new microprocessor technology. What equivalent breakthrough are they proposing to exploit today?
This has become rather like the calls for another BRAC round...people not understanding the costs, the risks, or the actual savings. Just spouting slogans because it fits a politically dictated top-line budget.
Maybe the Roman Republic had it right when they required that their leaders spend time in field command.
Oh, how glibly the Army procurement man dismissed the vast array of risk factors of cutting spending on 155mm. Hey, it's just another spreadsheet exercise of course. We have enough? (no, we never have enough). We can keep the industrial base warm? (ah yes, those facilities constructed in early 1900s, with machinery dating from WWII and Korea, staffed by aging Baby Boomers who are pensioning off in droves). Yeah, right.
.
Characteristic to the US pol-mil machine, lack of ammunition is a strategic failure at the highest levels... by politicians and even generals/admirals who don't understand war very well, let alone the "way of war" of US opponents, now or in the future. Because again & again, war after war (US or non-US), we are always "shocked, shocked!" that ammo consumption rates are through the roof. Israel 1973, Falklands 1982, Iran-Iraq 1980s, Desert Storm 1991, Serbia 1999, Afghan 2002-02 etc., Iraq 2003 - 2011... Everybody, everywhere ALWAYS used more than planned. And now comes Ukraine, a Niagara of ammo consumption. And still, once again, the Suits are Shocked!
.
And do you really think it's any better for just about everything else? Have you tracked procurement and the industrial base for, say, Mk-48? SM-variants? Tomahawk? Even basic aircraft defensive kit like chaff & flares?
Not trying to denigrate the overall accuracy of the post as applied to munitions in general, but speaking as an ex-combat arms type, how useful would a huge stockpile of dumb 155mm shells do if sitting in Iowa?
- can we get, say 800,000 (the number we sent Ukraine in 6 months) to the West side of the Pacific in time to do any good anywhere?
- where, other than Korea, would/could they be used?
- Taiwan? would they get there? When you got them there, how would you land them?
I can make the case for most all of the air delivered munitions, most Navy ones, but only the GPS Army missiles or ADA
We have enormous air shipping logistics capabilities even if you stick to just c5/c17/c141/kc135 and not the civilian air shippers. It certainly would be best to get them their before you start to use huge amounts of artillery ammo, that makes it a lot harder and more risky.
Stealth up an MUSV. 356 DWT with potential of 300 ton deck cargo. Even filling it with gas and water you can probably have 100 tons on deck and make 24 knots (If they kept the 5th engine). It would easily have the range from Sasebo to Taipei and back. Pretty much anywhere on Taiwan and go via the outside of the outlying Japanese islands.
How much could a really cheap, really dumb XLUUV carry? It would just take much longer.
Err, no, we do not. Currently heavy airlift is tasked out a few months - even one breakage is a HUGE disruption to the plans...
And shipping by air is a really, really expensive, slow and stupid way to move munitions - because the absolute number of rounds you can ship is small. The aircraft reach max takeoff weight WAY before they are filled up, munitions are dense.
What we need are depots in the Pacific. We used to have them - Hawaii, the PI, Guam, Okinawa. Both for the CCP threat, and to support S. Korea. These days S. Korea is too close, and Okinawa and Hawaii are politically unsuitable and closing. Then, whatever depots need to be well protected against attack, particularly from IRBM/hypersonic missiles. And the magik incantation "Aegis" doesn't work when we are decommissioning Aegis equipped ships faster than replacing them.
We didn't know the Ukrainians would fight in 2021, nor that the Russians would be so incompetent; hence, why send them arty when it becomes the enemy's possession.
All ordnance must be shot or demil'd. The latter is expensive.
Regarding China and Russia, both on the Asian landmass, we have no war plan that involves invading either nation or immediate indigenous use of 155 rounds; see references attributed to either Bernard or Dwight circa WW II.
We have CVNs and DDG behind in schedules, Comanches not built, future combat systems that never reach IOC, yet no defense industry is working double shifts...we have a history of doing when needing done.
We are pushing a defense budget into the $900B/year range...now let's talk about where we are lacking. Oh, and the comment about generals and admirals not understanding warfighting needs...well, we didn't win the last few but it was never because we didn't have the resources.
That's not true MF. Talk to anyone who had been training them the last few years. It isn't my fault that senior DOD leadership didn't attend the debriefs or read the reports.
The bottom line is we have no 4-digit war plan calling for the amount of unguided ordnance now being demanded for Ukraine. Hence, DoD cannot push that buy through Congress without a justification. Can't wish that away.
And as it is today, we have a goodly % of the House who want nothing to do with Ukraine...even Presidential candidates bark that Ukraine is Eurasia's business like Taiwan is China's business. Asking them to vote for a DoD authorization to appropriate warehouses of 155mm in advance of need just doesn't happen.
"Good leaders with sound ideas and well developed plans will welcome hard questions and informed challenges.
Bad leaders with weak ideas and compromised plans will be defensive, flinty, and more often than not will resort to appeals to authority or credentialism. Those are your warning signs."
Somewhat off-topic, but these statements are always true. I try to apply them in all matters of public policy, even, dare I say, experimental therapeutics. When one is not allowed to question, perhaps even actively censored by the government/technocrat complex for asking a question or publishing data, concerns may be appropriate.
155mm projectiles, loaded or not, are not very useful if you lack fuzes for the projectiles or primers for the bag charges.
Both of which use small amounts of old fashioned blackpowder. The ONLY remaining U.S producer of black powder quit after a plant explosion a couple of years ago, but sold the facility to Estes, the model rocket folks. Estes is rebuilding the plant, and expect to be back in limited production soon. Environmental and safety issues are huge impediments to rebuilding and operation in the future. It is well known that making black powder is NOT a risk free business, and with so many underemployed lawyers it gets even more expensive.
Another non-sexy but essential bit of military supply chain which we have largely ignored.
Meanwhile, just hope no one on our side gets hurt in a war. A lot of our medicine and medical supplies come from CHINA. I predict supply chain interruptions!
Asking questions that no one wants to hear ensures you will not promote in any job. (Unless you're a staff wienie of an unusual boss. Last I checked we ain't got no Nimitz or Halsey types, but plenty of Redman brothers.
USAF flew the first few hundred thousand rounds to Europe, there were videos of them coming off the aircraft. This is what you do when you fail to plan, and this admin is really, really good at being a couple of bucks short and a week late.
Whoa...no administration has the corner in poor planning. And that is true of the military, as well.
We flew 9.2 million pounds of AM2 matting into Afghanistan in a single year, for instance. The WH didn't push that...DoD did that. Local commanders...unbridled by budgets.
Though this article is about the Army, and spot on, I very much fear that our Navy is just as bad--if not worse--in its own way.
Maybe worse. I'd like to know what the magazine status is like. We're probably running near empty.
I think our annual planned LRASM buy (a couple of hundred?) would easily be spent in a single day of fighting.
No need for any Toulon port calls, naval "leadership" builds elevated stages for the filthy and confused city gut denizens on every quarterdeck.
Tragic. Soup. Sandwich.
https://thefederalist.com/2023/05/02/report-unable-to-meet-recruiting-targets-the-u-s-navy-is-turning-to-drag-queens-for-help/
Capt M, I just read that "the military" has decided to stop buying the "Osprey" tiltrotor aircraft. If this is accurate, what are the Navy's plans for a carrier delivery aircraft to replace it ? Do you know where to find the answer to that question ? I presume there is some office working on that question.
"Follow him who seeks the truth. Beware of him who has found it."
Not sure who said it. Might have been Eric Hoffer.
Donald Rumsfeld and Harold Brown got away with sacrificing current readiness to develop future capability in the 1970s (the Strategy of Technology), but it was a gamble. And they knew it. If the Soviets had made a move in 1978, NATO would have been toast.
The DOD leadership for the last 20 years has been making similar gambles, but don't seem to realize it. Nor to understand that in the mid-'70s, there was a whole raft of weapons in the offing that exploited the then-new microprocessor technology. What equivalent breakthrough are they proposing to exploit today?
This has become rather like the calls for another BRAC round...people not understanding the costs, the risks, or the actual savings. Just spouting slogans because it fits a politically dictated top-line budget.
Maybe the Roman Republic had it right when they required that their leaders spend time in field command.
Unmanned, that's what they think the future is. Iran & Russia are showing this to be folly, but no one is learning.
You're kidding right? Just a matter if anyone is left alive when it happens and in whose lifetime, our kids? Us?
Check out what a goat rope UK's Tempest program is turning into.
There is right now and a generation or 2 from now. It will happen, time is on my side. Which of course is bad for all of us.
Oh, how glibly the Army procurement man dismissed the vast array of risk factors of cutting spending on 155mm. Hey, it's just another spreadsheet exercise of course. We have enough? (no, we never have enough). We can keep the industrial base warm? (ah yes, those facilities constructed in early 1900s, with machinery dating from WWII and Korea, staffed by aging Baby Boomers who are pensioning off in droves). Yeah, right.
.
Characteristic to the US pol-mil machine, lack of ammunition is a strategic failure at the highest levels... by politicians and even generals/admirals who don't understand war very well, let alone the "way of war" of US opponents, now or in the future. Because again & again, war after war (US or non-US), we are always "shocked, shocked!" that ammo consumption rates are through the roof. Israel 1973, Falklands 1982, Iran-Iraq 1980s, Desert Storm 1991, Serbia 1999, Afghan 2002-02 etc., Iraq 2003 - 2011... Everybody, everywhere ALWAYS used more than planned. And now comes Ukraine, a Niagara of ammo consumption. And still, once again, the Suits are Shocked!
.
And do you really think it's any better for just about everything else? Have you tracked procurement and the industrial base for, say, Mk-48? SM-variants? Tomahawk? Even basic aircraft defensive kit like chaff & flares?
What does these have in common?
Badger Army Ammunition Plant
Indiana Army Ammunition Plant
Joliet Army Ammunition Plant
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant
Kansas Army Ammunition Plant
Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant
Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant
St. Louis Army Ammunition Plant
Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant
Tarheel Army Missile Plant
Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant
Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant
Just a guess: all are closed now?
They're all fully modern state-of-the-art plants with superlative logistics and 99% on time delivery?
Some more: The following installations closed on or before 2011 as part of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission findings
Installation Location
Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant Texarkana, Texas
Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant Stennis Space Center, Mississippi
Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant Riverbank, California
Red River Munitions Center Texarkana, Texas
‘ But Jack Daniels made me cut the budget! ‘
Well that makes a ton of sense. JD has made me do some stupid stuff over the years too
Not trying to denigrate the overall accuracy of the post as applied to munitions in general, but speaking as an ex-combat arms type, how useful would a huge stockpile of dumb 155mm shells do if sitting in Iowa?
- can we get, say 800,000 (the number we sent Ukraine in 6 months) to the West side of the Pacific in time to do any good anywhere?
- where, other than Korea, would/could they be used?
- Taiwan? would they get there? When you got them there, how would you land them?
I can make the case for most all of the air delivered munitions, most Navy ones, but only the GPS Army missiles or ADA
We have enormous air shipping logistics capabilities even if you stick to just c5/c17/c141/kc135 and not the civilian air shippers. It certainly would be best to get them their before you start to use huge amounts of artillery ammo, that makes it a lot harder and more risky.
Flying that amount of ammo into Taiwan before hostilities would be hard politically and diplomatically.
after?
1000 sorties of excess capacity?
airfields already struck by IRBMs? under threat 24/7?
needing CAP coverage the last 400 miles in?
sea sweeps to ensure a PLA DDG doesn't get under your airbridge?
Stealth up an MUSV. 356 DWT with potential of 300 ton deck cargo. Even filling it with gas and water you can probably have 100 tons on deck and make 24 knots (If they kept the 5th engine). It would easily have the range from Sasebo to Taipei and back. Pretty much anywhere on Taiwan and go via the outside of the outlying Japanese islands.
How much could a really cheap, really dumb XLUUV carry? It would just take much longer.
Artillery ammo is heavy! The only practical way of shipping the quantities needed in any serious war is by ship and rail.
Err, no, we do not. Currently heavy airlift is tasked out a few months - even one breakage is a HUGE disruption to the plans...
And shipping by air is a really, really expensive, slow and stupid way to move munitions - because the absolute number of rounds you can ship is small. The aircraft reach max takeoff weight WAY before they are filled up, munitions are dense.
What we need are depots in the Pacific. We used to have them - Hawaii, the PI, Guam, Okinawa. Both for the CCP threat, and to support S. Korea. These days S. Korea is too close, and Okinawa and Hawaii are politically unsuitable and closing. Then, whatever depots need to be well protected against attack, particularly from IRBM/hypersonic missiles. And the magik incantation "Aegis" doesn't work when we are decommissioning Aegis equipped ships faster than replacing them.
We didn't know the Ukrainians would fight in 2021, nor that the Russians would be so incompetent; hence, why send them arty when it becomes the enemy's possession.
All ordnance must be shot or demil'd. The latter is expensive.
Regarding China and Russia, both on the Asian landmass, we have no war plan that involves invading either nation or immediate indigenous use of 155 rounds; see references attributed to either Bernard or Dwight circa WW II.
We have CVNs and DDG behind in schedules, Comanches not built, future combat systems that never reach IOC, yet no defense industry is working double shifts...we have a history of doing when needing done.
We are pushing a defense budget into the $900B/year range...now let's talk about where we are lacking. Oh, and the comment about generals and admirals not understanding warfighting needs...well, we didn't win the last few but it was never because we didn't have the resources.
Backseat drivers...
That's not true MF. Talk to anyone who had been training them the last few years. It isn't my fault that senior DOD leadership didn't attend the debriefs or read the reports.
The bottom line is we have no 4-digit war plan calling for the amount of unguided ordnance now being demanded for Ukraine. Hence, DoD cannot push that buy through Congress without a justification. Can't wish that away.
And as it is today, we have a goodly % of the House who want nothing to do with Ukraine...even Presidential candidates bark that Ukraine is Eurasia's business like Taiwan is China's business. Asking them to vote for a DoD authorization to appropriate warehouses of 155mm in advance of need just doesn't happen.
Back seat drivers? I think not. Most of us here predicted these shortages and failures.
And with all due respect?
"......yet no defense industry is working double shifts...we have a history of doing when needing done."
And the "last few?" When was the last time the US actually used massive amounts of artillery at a sustained rate? (Truman was President.)
In fact, the only reason we had industrial capacity during WWII? Was because the French and British paid for it in 1937-39.
All the problems you cite? Are but symptoms of the delibrate and wilful decline. Duncan Sandys arrived on our shores to attend Aspin's Last Supper.
I know Duncan Sandys and his mother...but I don't know what that references.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0798industry/
If Ukraine had all the arrows in our quiver they wouldn't need as much 155. That said, we need more anyway. Ukraine won't be the only proxy war.
"they didn’t, mostly, get to where they were by being wrong"
Right or wrong is irrelevant. Team players who go along get along.
"Good leaders with sound ideas and well developed plans will welcome hard questions and informed challenges.
Bad leaders with weak ideas and compromised plans will be defensive, flinty, and more often than not will resort to appeals to authority or credentialism. Those are your warning signs."
Somewhat off-topic, but these statements are always true. I try to apply them in all matters of public policy, even, dare I say, experimental therapeutics. When one is not allowed to question, perhaps even actively censored by the government/technocrat complex for asking a question or publishing data, concerns may be appropriate.
Applause. Now do Army EW
Dude ... I've been on that beat for years. https://twitter.com/search?q=EW%20%20(from%3Acdrsalamander)&src=typed_query&f=live
Am new here, thanks for the old links!
As long as "with Fire and Terror return" on someone else's watch, it's okay- most leadership.
155mm projectiles, loaded or not, are not very useful if you lack fuzes for the projectiles or primers for the bag charges.
Both of which use small amounts of old fashioned blackpowder. The ONLY remaining U.S producer of black powder quit after a plant explosion a couple of years ago, but sold the facility to Estes, the model rocket folks. Estes is rebuilding the plant, and expect to be back in limited production soon. Environmental and safety issues are huge impediments to rebuilding and operation in the future. It is well known that making black powder is NOT a risk free business, and with so many underemployed lawyers it gets even more expensive.
Another non-sexy but essential bit of military supply chain which we have largely ignored.
Meanwhile, just hope no one on our side gets hurt in a war. A lot of our medicine and medical supplies come from CHINA. I predict supply chain interruptions!
Asking questions that no one wants to hear ensures you will not promote in any job. (Unless you're a staff wienie of an unusual boss. Last I checked we ain't got no Nimitz or Halsey types, but plenty of Redman brothers.
60,000 tons worth?
a 155mm shell is about 95 pounds. the powder bag in its can another 25
USAF flew the first few hundred thousand rounds to Europe, there were videos of them coming off the aircraft. This is what you do when you fail to plan, and this admin is really, really good at being a couple of bucks short and a week late.
Along with each administration since........
Whoa...no administration has the corner in poor planning. And that is true of the military, as well.
We flew 9.2 million pounds of AM2 matting into Afghanistan in a single year, for instance. The WH didn't push that...DoD did that. Local commanders...unbridled by budgets.
...and a lot of Rhino Snot.
I used to hear artillery going at Ft Lewis al the time. Very seldom now. I would assume the line about "adequate for training" to be a lie.