6 ms·

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 dir

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.

ren_engineer 3y ago
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-price-gauging-new-u-s-military-arms https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1168725028/manufacturing-pric... https://www.ausa.org/news/csis-warns-ammunition-shortages 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
- appplication 3y ago
  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.
- adventured 3y ago
  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.
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    > 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.
    - hkpack 3y ago
      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.
dsr_ 3y ago
Yup. The US uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin 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.
anigbrowl 3y ago
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.
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  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.)
- greedo 3y ago
  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.
LorenPechtel 3y ago
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.
- chasd00 3y ago
  If you find yourself in a fair fight then you need to rethink your strategy.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    If you're the attacker, then sure.
- ameister14 3y ago
  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.
  - HelloNurse 3y ago
    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.
flakeoil 3y ago
And can they produce "fighters, Patriots, and NASAMs" fast enough when they run out of them?

ren_engineer 3y ago

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-price-gauging-new-u-s-military-arms https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1168725028/manufacturing-pric... https://www.ausa.org/news/csis-warns-ammunition-shortages 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

appplication 3y ago
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.
adventured 3y ago
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.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  > 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.
  - hkpack 3y ago
    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.

dsr_ 3y ago

Yup. The US uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FGM-148_Javelin 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.

anigbrowl 3y ago

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.

LorenPechtel 3y ago
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.)
greedo 3y ago
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.

LorenPechtel 3y ago

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.

chasd00 3y ago
If you find yourself in a fair fight then you need to rethink your strategy.
- justinclift 3y ago
  If you're the attacker, then sure.
ameister14 3y ago
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.
- HelloNurse 3y ago
  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.

flakeoil 3y ago

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