5 ms·

That's the one glaring weakness of relying too heavily on missiles. They are expensive and difficult to manufacture. And they have a limited shelf life, making

That's the one glaring weakness of relying too heavily on missiles. They are expensive and difficult to manufacture. And they have a limited shelf life, making stockpiles also expensive In previous conflicts the US military could get a lot done with bombs, but that's risky if you can't get air superiority and take out all enemy anti-air systems. Which is more difficult against an enemy who can shoot at your air bases and aircraft carriers. But those previous conflicts might have contributed to a false sense of security about required missile stockpiles

MagicMoonlight 3mo ago
[dead]
closewith 3mo ago
You have the same issue with the conventional bombs and their guidance kits, which when delivered in contested areas are not usually cheaper. The issue is general industrial capacity, not missiles specifically.
- throwthrowuknow 3mo ago
  The issue is restraint, an all out bombing campaign with no regard for civilians or international condemnation would do the job in a month
  - closewith 3mo ago
    I think it takes a wilful ignorance of the history of industrialised warfare to believe this.
- budman1 3mo ago
  JDAM's are a lot cheaper. They are a guidance kit bolted on to a MK-82 gravity bomb. There are a lot of MK-82's in stock, as they have been made since the 1940's. Problem is you put a crew and an expensive airplane at risk. We are out of missiles because the current administration wants to minimize combat losses. Looking at the dollar cost; it seems like a bad idea. But is this war worth any of our soldiers / sailors / airman ? (no)
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - greedo 3mo ago
    Also, you can jam JDAM (GPS) guidance. The Russians are masters at jamming and I'm fairly confident they've shared some systems with Iran.
PowerElectronix 3mo ago
Doctrine never intended for these bombs to be used almost exclusively as means to wage wars. These are meant for strikes that need to be precise and carried in a short notice. If you have 10 targets and use atacms in all 10, there's something wrong in the decision making process or the strategy.
- pjc50 3mo ago
  The fault in the decision process was starting this war in the first place. Everything follows from that.
  - rbanffy 3mo ago
    We all know Operation Epstein Fury has been an extremely successful employment of weapons of mass distraction.
- dathinab 3mo ago
  > something wrong like waging a war while insisting they aren't really waging a war and it's just a special military operation and as a side effect having effectively no access to a lot of the resources/means normally used
- wookmaster 3mo ago
  We all know there's something very wrong with this administration and their decision making.
  - rbanffy 3mo ago
    All things considered, it appears it's working as intended by the administration.
- rasz 3mo ago
  >If you have 10 targets and use atacms in all 10, there's something wrong in the decision making process or the strategy. but AI generated that target list so its all good! "900 strikes on Iranian targets in the first 12 hours" "1,000 targets were struck in the first 24 hours" "2,000 targets in 96 hours" keep shooting, Im sure those are all good targets and totally not a waste of ammo
locknitpicker 3mo ago
> That's the one glaring weakness of relying too heavily on missiles. They are expensive and difficult to manufacture. And they have a limited shelf life, making stockpiles also expensive I don't think so. This observation completely misses the root cause, and it ain't missiles. Armed forces size their stockpiles in terms of their short term needs focused on rapid reaction and deterrence. The goal is to be able to react to immediate threats and then shift the economy to a war economy to supply the effort in economically efficient ways. What failed this time is that the trump administration was hoping to attack Iran without having to declare war, effectively starting a war without preparing for the war. The results are obvious: the peace time stockpile was depleted at a time where the country was not prepared to replenish it. Trump shifter the us armed forces to deplete their stockpile while avoiding the responsibility of supporting them in their mission by taking care of supplies. And so they ran out of ammo. There are further compounding factors such as a lack of plan and lack of exit strategy. But placing your military in a state where they spend their ammo without any plan to ressuply it... You will have the same problem if you replace hellfire missiles with sticks and stones.
- Yokolos 3mo ago
  This logic doesn't hold under closer scrutiny. The timeline to expand missile production is on the order of years. This isn't the 1940s anymore where you can convert every car factory into making tanks and missiles. The idea of a war economy is wildly outdated. Either you have enough stockpiled until your weapons manufacturers can scale their production, or you're just out of missiles. Being out after some weeks of a "military operation" is frankly a damning indictment of the US military's logistics and manufacturing.
  - locknitpicker 3mo ago
    > This logic doesn't hold under closer scrutiny. The timeline to expand missile production is on the order of years. You're missing the whole point. The point is not that missiles are easy to build. The point is that military interventions planned not only to prop up logistics but also to accommodate for supply constraints. There is no plan on earth that consists of firing a constant barrage of expensive missiles, and instead you have armed forces planning around using dumb and cheap alternatives that are easier to source and provision. And Trump did nothing of the sort. There was no plan, no exit strategy, nothing. Not even a war declaration to kickstart the country's logistics infrastructure. Of course ammo runs out if there is no plan to provision it. > This isn't the 1940s anymore where you can convert every car factory into making tanks and missiles. That's also another point you missed. Trump even failed to mobilize the infrastructure to supply with basic ordnance. There is no plan. Pay attention to what you are saying yourself: how do you start a war when you don't even secure your own supply needs for the first weeks of the engagement?
firesteelrain 3mo ago
Air superiority was established fairly early on in the conflict. Flying F-15 and F-16s now. Not even stealth and they drop more than just missles - they carry bombs. B-52s weren’t sent in to carpet bomb the area of that’s what you mean. US could indiscriminately drop dumb bombs but you would have a higher civilian casualty rate.
- appointment 3mo ago
  > Flying F-15 and F-16s now. Except not really. If they were willing to risk sending many aircraft deep into Iranian airspace with SDBs and JDAMs they wouldn't be running out of ballistic missiles.
  - firesteelrain 3mo ago
    There have been 60-70 F15 and F16s operating in Iran (could be more just found via public sources).
    - justin66 3mo ago
      And when an F-15E was shot down they got spooked. They're relying heavily on missiles because it doesn't cause a multiday story in the news when one is shot down on its way to the target (and because they're incapable of thinking more than one move ahead, and because it's not their money...).
      - firesteelrain 3mo ago
        [dead]
- elendilm 3mo ago
  This is hilarious. Yeah. Air superiority. Last I heard they moved all their equipments to Jordan to stay out of range from Sijjeel and they are still getting hammered in Jordan. Saw the video taken by the US service men. In movies you see US soldiers yelling "go go go" while in the battlefield we saw them scream "run run run". Your confidence in claiming air superiority is commendable. Keep it up.
mrweasel 3mo ago
You can't really stockpile missiles, their explosives and fuel needs to be replaced with some interval, so having a massive stockpile doesn't make that much sense, because it's as you suggests expensive to maintain. In the case of an war (like you know, a war-war) the US is perfectly capable of ramping up manufacturing to ungodly numbers (but it won't be cheap). I would however like to see what Ukraine does, if they get the go-ahead to start making Patriot missiles. They probably won't just do a run of 50 or 100 missiles and call it a day.
- lowbloodsugar 3mo ago
  >the US is perfectly capable of ramping up manufacturing to ungodly numbers Evidence? Genuinely curious. I read that for every ship the US can build, China can build 200. Our drones come from China. Have we got a magic tomohawk cruise missile factory that can be dialed up to the rate that China can produce? We have the raw materials pipeline and know-how still?
- greedo 3mo ago
  I think you should avail yourself of this thing called the Internet to research before you beclown yourself. US missile production is extremely, painfully slow. From Standard missiles used by the Navy to Patriot. From THAAD to PrSM. LRASM, Tomahawk, you name it, we have a Tiffany weapons arsenal. We're winning so much, we just put the F-15 back into production; a plane that entered service 50 years ago. Historians used to mock the Nazis for continually developing wunderwaffe; while the Allies overwhelmed them with Sherman and T-34 tanks. Now we've become the Nazis (in so many more ways than one.)
- elendilm 3mo ago
  [flagged]
  - tomhow 3mo ago
    > Source - trust me bro Please don't post snark on HN, no matter how right you are or feel you are. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

MagicMoonlight 3mo ago

[dead]

closewith 3mo ago

You have the same issue with the conventional bombs and their guidance kits, which when delivered in contested areas are not usually cheaper. The issue is general industrial capacity, not missiles specifically.

throwthrowuknow 3mo ago
The issue is restraint, an all out bombing campaign with no regard for civilians or international condemnation would do the job in a month
- closewith 3mo ago
  I think it takes a wilful ignorance of the history of industrialised warfare to believe this.
budman1 3mo ago
JDAM's are a lot cheaper. They are a guidance kit bolted on to a MK-82 gravity bomb. There are a lot of MK-82's in stock, as they have been made since the 1940's. Problem is you put a crew and an expensive airplane at risk. We are out of missiles because the current administration wants to minimize combat losses. Looking at the dollar cost; it seems like a bad idea. But is this war worth any of our soldiers / sailors / airman ? (no)
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- greedo 3mo ago
  Also, you can jam JDAM (GPS) guidance. The Russians are masters at jamming and I'm fairly confident they've shared some systems with Iran.

PowerElectronix 3mo ago

Doctrine never intended for these bombs to be used almost exclusively as means to wage wars. These are meant for strikes that need to be precise and carried in a short notice. If you have 10 targets and use atacms in all 10, there's something wrong in the decision making process or the strategy.

pjc50 3mo ago
The fault in the decision process was starting this war in the first place. Everything follows from that.
- rbanffy 3mo ago
  We all know Operation Epstein Fury has been an extremely successful employment of weapons of mass distraction.
dathinab 3mo ago
> something wrong like waging a war while insisting they aren't really waging a war and it's just a special military operation and as a side effect having effectively no access to a lot of the resources/means normally used
wookmaster 3mo ago
We all know there's something very wrong with this administration and their decision making.
- rbanffy 3mo ago
  All things considered, it appears it's working as intended by the administration.
rasz 3mo ago
>If you have 10 targets and use atacms in all 10, there's something wrong in the decision making process or the strategy. but AI generated that target list so its all good! "900 strikes on Iranian targets in the first 12 hours" "1,000 targets were struck in the first 24 hours" "2,000 targets in 96 hours" keep shooting, Im sure those are all good targets and totally not a waste of ammo

locknitpicker 3mo ago

> That's the one glaring weakness of relying too heavily on missiles. They are expensive and difficult to manufacture. And they have a limited shelf life, making stockpiles also expensive I don't think so. This observation completely misses the root cause, and it ain't missiles. Armed forces size their stockpiles in terms of their short term needs focused on rapid reaction and deterrence. The goal is to be able to react to immediate threats and then shift the economy to a war economy to supply the effort in economically efficient ways. What failed this time is that the trump administration was hoping to attack Iran without having to declare war, effectively starting a war without preparing for the war. The results are obvious: the peace time stockpile was depleted at a time where the country was not prepared to replenish it. Trump shifter the us armed forces to deplete their stockpile while avoiding the responsibility of supporting them in their mission by taking care of supplies. And so they ran out of ammo. There are further compounding factors such as a lack of plan and lack of exit strategy. But placing your military in a state where they spend their ammo without any plan to ressuply it... You will have the same problem if you replace hellfire missiles with sticks and stones.

Yokolos 3mo ago
This logic doesn't hold under closer scrutiny. The timeline to expand missile production is on the order of years. This isn't the 1940s anymore where you can convert every car factory into making tanks and missiles. The idea of a war economy is wildly outdated. Either you have enough stockpiled until your weapons manufacturers can scale their production, or you're just out of missiles. Being out after some weeks of a "military operation" is frankly a damning indictment of the US military's logistics and manufacturing.
- locknitpicker 3mo ago
  > This logic doesn't hold under closer scrutiny. The timeline to expand missile production is on the order of years. You're missing the whole point. The point is not that missiles are easy to build. The point is that military interventions planned not only to prop up logistics but also to accommodate for supply constraints. There is no plan on earth that consists of firing a constant barrage of expensive missiles, and instead you have armed forces planning around using dumb and cheap alternatives that are easier to source and provision. And Trump did nothing of the sort. There was no plan, no exit strategy, nothing. Not even a war declaration to kickstart the country's logistics infrastructure. Of course ammo runs out if there is no plan to provision it. > This isn't the 1940s anymore where you can convert every car factory into making tanks and missiles. That's also another point you missed. Trump even failed to mobilize the infrastructure to supply with basic ordnance. There is no plan. Pay attention to what you are saying yourself: how do you start a war when you don't even secure your own supply needs for the first weeks of the engagement?

firesteelrain 3mo ago

Air superiority was established fairly early on in the conflict. Flying F-15 and F-16s now. Not even stealth and they drop more than just missles - they carry bombs. B-52s weren’t sent in to carpet bomb the area of that’s what you mean. US could indiscriminately drop dumb bombs but you would have a higher civilian casualty rate.

appointment 3mo ago
> Flying F-15 and F-16s now. Except not really. If they were willing to risk sending many aircraft deep into Iranian airspace with SDBs and JDAMs they wouldn't be running out of ballistic missiles.
- firesteelrain 3mo ago
  There have been 60-70 F15 and F16s operating in Iran (could be more just found via public sources).
  - justin66 3mo ago
    And when an F-15E was shot down they got spooked. They're relying heavily on missiles because it doesn't cause a multiday story in the news when one is shot down on its way to the target (and because they're incapable of thinking more than one move ahead, and because it's not their money...).
    - firesteelrain 3mo ago
      [dead]
elendilm 3mo ago
This is hilarious. Yeah. Air superiority. Last I heard they moved all their equipments to Jordan to stay out of range from Sijjeel and they are still getting hammered in Jordan. Saw the video taken by the US service men. In movies you see US soldiers yelling "go go go" while in the battlefield we saw them scream "run run run". Your confidence in claiming air superiority is commendable. Keep it up.

mrweasel 3mo ago

You can't really stockpile missiles, their explosives and fuel needs to be replaced with some interval, so having a massive stockpile doesn't make that much sense, because it's as you suggests expensive to maintain. In the case of an war (like you know, a war-war) the US is perfectly capable of ramping up manufacturing to ungodly numbers (but it won't be cheap). I would however like to see what Ukraine does, if they get the go-ahead to start making Patriot missiles. They probably won't just do a run of 50 or 100 missiles and call it a day.

lowbloodsugar 3mo ago
>the US is perfectly capable of ramping up manufacturing to ungodly numbers Evidence? Genuinely curious. I read that for every ship the US can build, China can build 200. Our drones come from China. Have we got a magic tomohawk cruise missile factory that can be dialed up to the rate that China can produce? We have the raw materials pipeline and know-how still?
greedo 3mo ago
I think you should avail yourself of this thing called the Internet to research before you beclown yourself. US missile production is extremely, painfully slow. From Standard missiles used by the Navy to Patriot. From THAAD to PrSM. LRASM, Tomahawk, you name it, we have a Tiffany weapons arsenal. We're winning so much, we just put the F-15 back into production; a plane that entered service 50 years ago. Historians used to mock the Nazis for continually developing wunderwaffe; while the Allies overwhelmed them with Sherman and T-34 tanks. Now we've become the Nazis (in so many more ways than one.)
elendilm 3mo ago
[flagged]
- tomhow 3mo ago
  > Source - trust me bro Please don't post snark on HN, no matter how right you are or feel you are. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html