Thread 64111387

Recent conflicts had me thinking. Example was the number of Patriots, airplane bombs or arty ammo, counties have. I'm certain that supplying weapons to countries that need it by the West, would not be a problem, say in 1989. But today it seems, MiCs of the West have degraded so much (USA included) that stockpiles are dangerously low. Heck, the Patriot supply question - it sounds like production of Patriots is like some ye ancient lost arcane knowledge - and only like 2/10/20... per year can be produced. Supplying 35 Patriots to any country today seems it would significantly weaken US defences globaly.

USA and EU are economic powerhouses. Setting up a proper MiC should take 1 year and we would be ahead of everyone else. Yet, 1 million of arty rounds or 35 patriots seem like a massive issue.

What the fuck happened?

>>64111387 (OP)
Still asshurt your ships wrecked into each other like idiots, I see.

>This contracting action increases Lockheed Martin’s annual PAC-3 MSE missile maximum production rate from 550 to 650 annually.

>550-650 annually.

https://www.army.mil/article/281669/us_army_awards_patriot_advanced_capability_3_contract_worth_up_to_368_6_million

>>64111387 (OP)
Political will, we're not in an active war so it's harder to get exuberant arms spending past the opposition who are gonna bitch and moan about it.

>>64111400
NTA but 550-650 is still too low. It took like 3 years for American/European arms production to ramp up after the Russian war and we're still lacking in production.

>>64111408
>NTA
From his shill Discord, TG, or leftypol thread though. Here to own the /k/iles, huh? Still asshurt you saviors the chinsects shat themselves and totally embarrassed themselves on the world stage. lol lmao even.

>>64111408
>We
Lol
>>64111387 (OP)
The main reason is that any money invested into the military is money not invested into economic growth. Spending 5% of your GDP on defense yields you a more powerful military, more robust economy and a happier population than spending 20%. The most effective strategy is to maintain enough stockpiles and dormant production lines in peacetime to last you until you can spin up wartime production in a crisis and not spend a dollar more unless necessary

>>64111387 (OP)
>should take 1 year
Setting up new production lines including tooling takes typically 5 years.

>>64111426
To elaborate a little bit more, reasonable 2-5% military spending yields you a very, very slow exponential capability curve, since GDP growth is exponential. The more you spend on the military however, the more your GDP stagnates and your capability curve over time tapers off to linear growth, which quickly gets overtaken by faster growing economies

We need legislation that does not tax strategic stockpiles of parts and idle machine tools as assets.

Stockpiling costs money that could be used for healthcare and bribing elderly voters. Also making surplus is illegal in most EU countries. Also no nationalized arsenals anymore and no one wants to build production lines that don't make profit.

>>64111387 (OP)
>What the fuck happened?
Peace dividends

We had produced so much stockpile during the cold war.
We had won such an overwhelmingly easy victory in the Gulf War.
There were basically no other army on Earth that had both the quantity and quality to even hope to rival us.
And even if it did, chances were it was one of our allies.
So we thought (rightly so) that we wouldn't need the ability to produce tons of shit for a conventional conflict for at least a generation.
And indeed :
For 10 years, what little conflict there was didn't even put a dent on yearly peace time prrocurement.
For the GWOT, we had some equipment that was produced too slow compared to consumption but it's not like not having them would be an urgent problem when shooting at goatfuckers.
So for 30 odd years, we were at the top, with very few countries wishing to risk a conflict and even less countries being able to afford a conflict against us.
Even today, Russia is pathetically incompetent while China is still building up to catch up.

So we had no need for large scale production of weapons because we had more weapons than the rest of the world AND the weapons we had were at least a generation further than whatever the rest of the world had.
So we spent to keep improving the quality but didn't see the need to keep a large production capacity when nobody could seriously threaten us.

The mistake was to refuse to get out of that mentality when China started taking its military seriously and Russia started to get paranoid about "HATO expansion".

>>64111421
>>64111426
Wtf is wrong with you? You're as obnoxious as the ziggers whenever someone slightly disagrees with you or provides a different take than yours. It's embarrasing being Pro-Ukrainian and Pro-NATO and seeing our politicians fumble in both delivering enough aid to Ukraine while also ramping up military production. We've barely been able to deliver more F-16's in the fourth year of the war and it took 2-3 years to ramp up artillery shell production. Our politicians have been completely re-active and not pro-active at all while Putin and Trump is running the show. The only one exception there is Poland I guess while the rest of Europe is talking the talk.

>>64111602
the moment you realize those are false flag posts to stop any constructive discussion about how to remedy the wests problems made by chinese/russians is when you understand the next level of the disinformation game

>>64111643
Yeah I was suspecting well-poisoning too.

Living in a country bordering Russia it's insane how passive Europe has become to the Russian threat. Instead of creating and arming new brigades like it was 1938-39, what we've done is just invested into companies that make weapons and made deals that down the line in 2035 we will get some more weapons then. Rheinmetall, Kongsberg Gruppen, Saab, Thales etc. stocks have risen but I've yet to see any significant change in army or weapon composition.

>>64111387 (OP)
de-industrialization makes acquisition expensive, especially scale up. there is little will for the budget increases necessary to establish production in the united states. somehow the american people are so ignorant they are unaware that half the world would genocide them the moment they had a chance

>>64111660
>>64111643
>>64111602
I'm >>64111426 literally Polish and as anti-zigger as they come you insufferable faggots. This is just how defense economics work out. I'm sorry we're not driving the entire western world's economy into the ground with 20% GDP spending because you want to see line go up.

Military support to Ukraine is purely a matter of political will, not production, in every single category INCLUDING artillery shells. Write to your representative, not defense manufacturers

>>64111408
>but 550-650 is still too low
Yep 3K should be the minimum

>>64111387 (OP)
>What the fuck happened?
Same reason Intel silicon chip makers wasted time making plants in the US that were deliberately far from where workers were willing to relocate. Same reason so many of our politicians aren't allowed to say "Taiwan is an independent and sovereign country" without getting punished by their masters in China. The goal is to not have enough to help Taiwan during the invasion.
The Chinese government has lofty goals. Once they secure the vast majority of the world's silicon manufacturing ability, they can prohibit exportation to countries until they are back in the stone age. Then, the land invasion is largely ceremonial instead of a deadly battle.

To kick it off, China needs for the US to expend it's reserves and then China needs the US to be occupied somewhere more important. By the way, those mobile piers that China keeps making aren't for Taiwan. They are for the strategic distraction that keeps the remaining US reserves earmarked for NOT Taiwan.

>>64112173
>Same reason Intel silicon chip makers wasted time making plants in the US
>Once [China] secure the vast majority of the world's silicon manufacturing ability

Don't those two things contradict each other ?

>>64112187
His point is that the issue isn't about making plants in the US per se, but the retarded way Intel went about it, i.e. making them in locations (specific states, cities, etc) where it's a problem to get staff for them. And in general Intel pumped like $100+ billions into their fabs, but they continue to suck dick in the market. I.e. it's a big dog and pony show in terms of results.

>>64111508
The massive intel failure with the Norks is a big part of it, if not for them the Western MIC would be more than adequate against Russia. No one predicted that they would become directly involved and more importantly everyone assumed they were wildly exaggerating their stockpiles and production capacity.

>>64111387 (OP)
You need a commodity market and stockpile company that continues to buy ammunition during peace time thus increasing the demand for actual products. Inorganic investment into the production company will just feed into the middle management and their useless grant money with no real work being done.

>>64111660
Meanwhile, companies like Siemens are making bank supporting Russia's CAD/CAM manufacturing, which is the only way it can make modern stuff like airplanes and missiles.

>>64112173
chip manufacture still relies on inputs from bothe the US and Europe. and Europe makes the fabs that are the current international standard.
China could choke and even starve other countries of chips. but it can't prevent new manufacturing being build.
as for why Intel build where it did.
it isn't building fabs in the US because it makes business sense to do so. US wages are to high, there isn't a pool of trained personnel and nearly all of the inputs come from other countries (and will be hit with tariffs) and the support is an ocean away. the one critical input the US does produce is a raw resource but it gets processed abroad.
Intel's fab locations make no sense because they are political fab's. they are chasing subsidies and pleasing politicians. their locations are logical with those goals in mind.

>>64112406
a missed chance for the NATO goals was not giving the more reluctant west and south European countries the option to just buy ammo and stockpile it for the other countries.
it reduces political risk, sending ammo will be easier to sell to their population then sending men and so it reduces uncertainty about their commitment. the eastern Europeans know they shouldn't count on the mighty belgian army but they can be sure that belgium is going to keep their guns fed come hell or highwater.
the stockpile nations can also sell it to their population as a jobs project.
x jobs in the factories, x jobs for storage, x jobs in the supplying sectors and x euros in taxes.

>>64111602
Cope, you false flagging shit colored pakoid mutant. I see right through your shilling attempt.

The stockpile is full m'Lord.

One of the problems is employment. You can easily build more factories, but then you have to train and hire *eligible people to work in those factories and give them a long sustaining job. War is temporary so people will get fired and the factories will get closed after the war is over. Most people don't want temporary jobs.

*Remember that not everyone is eligible to work in weapons factories because it may require clearances.

>>64111446
This the company I work for pays hundreds of people to calculate the minimum number of parts to have in inventory.

Better hope your coal plant has a large stockpile if we run out

>>64111387 (OP)
>What the fuck happened?
For starters, you made this very organic thread.

>>64111387 (OP)
>What the fuck happened?
peace dividend.

>Setting up a proper MiC should take 1 year
It takes subastantially longer. Look at how long it takes to set up, say, a car plant. You are looking at multiple years just to set up the buildings and the tooling. You will also have to train workers, which takes a lot of time. Most modern military equipment is highly complex and there are no people on the market who know how to build missiles.

>Supplying 35 Patriots to any country today seems it would significantly weaken US defences globaly.
There is a massive short term demand spike atm. The issue is that if you set up major production now, output will not only just come 18 months down the line. Companies will also have to make that investment back by either selling tens of thousands of missiles or significantly raising prices. When the spike is gone you are looking at idle production facilities which constanly cost money and you also have specialized labor that is out of work, basically the 1990s problem.
Now, you could get around that by building massive stockpiles. But as soon as there is no high likelyhood of conflict, due to funding always being scarce, the obvious solution is to cut back on military spending. The cycle is now complete and you are back to square one.

>tl;dr
Shit's complex and expensive, yo.

>>64111426
Also this.

>>64111660
What Russian threat? They're losing against the poorest country in Europe.

>>64111387 (OP)
>What the fuck happened?
China swallowed up everyone's domestic industry and no one on top stopped and said "Hey what if we get cut off from the foreign supply chain guys?" EVEN after Covid or the Evergreen incident so they'll likely never learn until the absolute worse happens. All because it's kept cheap either because Chinese companies cut corners or make a genuinely good sturdy product that they then embed malware into and intentionally sell at a loss so they can ransom other nations infrastructure on a rainy day or for shits and giggles basically.

Even Russia is basically being kept on life support due to Chinese goods flowing into their country.
Your leaders are to blame for this.

>>64115560
>What Russian threat? They're losing against the poorest country in Europe.
I wasn't aware Russia was currently locked into a full scale war against Moldova and Albania. Sure Holol's have their share of problem even before the war BUT it isn't that bad for them.

>>64117817
Poorest in the sense of level of live, GDP per capita. Otherwise some microstate would be the "poorest"

>>64117827
life*

>>64115546
>and there are no people on the market who know how to build missiles.
Wouldn't be a problem if missiles and explosives weren't so heavily regulated out of the hands of the commoner. If folks were allowed to keep and bare missiles for recreational use an self defense purposes every third person in the US would be doing just that and then the skill pool wouldn't be so sparse.

Scrap the NFA and fire all ATF agents, it's in our national security interests.

>>64111400
that's nothing, russia alone produces around 1000 TBMs yearly and the SOP is to use 2 interceptors per missile

>>64111387 (OP)
Europe is making about 2.2 million shells this year including mortar rounds tough so pure artillery shells will be lower.
it's aiming to hit 2.5 million next year and just Rheinmetall's new factory for instance is going to produce 350.000 155 starting somewhere next year.
the US is lagging a bit behind but is doing a solid 50k shells per month and is aiming for 100k per month.

it is taking more time to get things going due to how much red tape we let ourselves be bound by. but once it gets going it gets going hard.
For instance Europe can produce over 50 4th gen native fighter jets per year plus two dozen other supporting aircraft like transports, tankers, awax and trainers.
they produce close to 250 spg's per year can produce about the same amount of new tanks and that is without the K2 line a Poland is getting. IFV's APC's and MRAP's are hard to get a number on because those are spread out over a dozen producers.
in conclusion Europe can more than match russian production while russia is at war.
the main thing keeping them back is how fragmented their MiC is and states not wanting to commit to large multi year purchases. this keeps investment down and deters hiring more staff that would be hard to train and then expensive to fire of contracts dry up.

>>64117855
Is that why they have to use NK Iskander clones in Ukraine? Do they produce 1000 TELs/MELs for those supposed 1000 TBMs? You act like the US is just going to allow vatnigs to launch TBMs, take 20 minutes to reload them and do it again, over and over again without destroying th3 launch platforms. What good is a TBM 8f you can't launch it because the US jeeps destroying your launch platforms faster than you can build them? That's not even mentioning the production plants getting destroyed by the US, either. Russia nor Chiner have anything to stop B-2s loaded with 80 500lb JDAMs flying directly over their production plants and turning them into dust. Or B-52s, B-1s, and C130s launching dozens and dozens of JASSMs while Typhon and the USN launch dozens and dozens of Tomahawks in unison at said production plants and launch platforms. You retarded niggers always ack like the US is just going to stand around with their thumb up their ass waiting for TBMs to be launched and then shoot them down.

>>64117976
Not to mention the US doesn't rely on WWI/II meat wave trench warfare and mass spam artillery tactics because it's not a poor shithole with a forth rate military equipped with poorly maintained Korean war era hand-me-downs.

>>64111387 (OP)
The USA isnt in a wartime environment, we are just sending stuff to further facilitate this war between russia and ukraine, and since ukraine doesnt actually matter as a country to the USA that only leaves its being done to weaken russia military capabilities as well as expose all of their capabilities all without costing american lives which is more palatable than having a forever war against terrorism in the middle east

>>64118011
that goes without saying
I was simply pointing out that Europe at a jog is beating russia in a sprint by a country mile
as a gunjin otaku more MiC is always welcome ofc

>>64115546
The entire reason it takes so long is because there is very little impetus, if it comes down to a war this stuff will be put up with far more haste than we would see as of now in this peaceful time

>>64117802
Well its a 2 way street, china needs lets say the USA for example just as bad, the USA makes up about 30% of the worlds imports and if it disappears as a trade partner you cant fill that hole and youll see many industries and economies start tanking

>>64111387 (OP)
Government puts out a contract, Raytheon/Lockheed start building.
If we're just building them to give them away, suddenly congress doesn't want to spend the money.
Ramping up production for 155mm shells when we can just buy them from South Korea or some other country that has them isn't economical.

>>64111387 (OP)
Implessive!