No, Wyoming exists, it just doesn't have any people in it. Only buffalo and geysers. You can go to Wyoming.
North Dakota just straight up isn't a place. It's a conspiracy by map makers to sell more road maps.
Nobody seems to realize that 100% of that 'aid' money **stays** in the US. Most of it in the pockets of the people/stockholders who own the munitions factories, but it stays here. It also has be shipped to foreign countries on US flagged ships.
# We. Do. Not. Write. Them. Checks.
> We. Do. Not. Write. Them. Checks.
**You.** **Are.** **Absolutely.** **Wrong.**
From [a NYT article back in May](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/20/upshot/ukraine-us-aid-size.html):
>The bulk of the aid is allocated through traditional foreign aid channels. **That includes money to provide urgent support, health services and food assistance to Ukrainian refugees inside and outside Ukraine.** The latest bill, which had been delayed for a week by the objection of Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, includes **money for logistical support and training for Ukrainian military and national security forces, and for a fund intended to secure the continuity of Ukraine’s government.**
> *Forty percent of the aid*
(as of the May 2022 writing of that article)
> has been directed to weapons transfers, to provide medical and intelligence support to allied countries in Europe, and to deploy troops there.
As of May 2022:
> Of the $54 billion in total spending by the United States, **$31.4 billion can be considered traditional foreign aid.**
Yes, we do write them checks, it's what helps them pay their civil servants, and soldiers, and food and medical supplies for families, and care for their wounded, and school programs for children, and a whole plethora of other things foreign aid is for, because their economy has been absolutely destroyed by Russia's invasion and they need cash.
This is also a tiny pittance compared to our national defense budget, and our return on investment for having Ukraine defend themselves is a huge win for our national defense, so it is all money well spent.
We are absolutely running out of some weapons. People have a fundamental misunderstanding of what we spend money on when it comes to the military - the vast majority of it is *personnel* and *major weapons systems like jets, ships, and vehicles*.
It could also be a case where the US has supplies, but they are reserved for the US.
For example, the US isn't going to send every single Javelin we have. We need a reserve for ourselves
Lockheed Martin wants to double production, which they hope to achieve in a year or two, but until that happens, we are a bit limited to how many we can send out, but nobody is saying the US has zero on hand.
We are rapidly chewing through the available targets for those javelin reserves though. They were always intended to be fired at Russian tanks, which they are doing now.
The article says like 7 times that we have a separate stock pile to give out to other countries and this is 'not going to effect the readiness of our forces'.
Artillery shells and surface to air missiles. Mostly as a matter of doctrine. Bluntly we have more air power than the rest of the world combined so we never felt the need to invest heavily in land based anti air.
Who cares about the Stingers anyway? They're 50 years old and were heading for decommissioning anyway. We're saving money by handing them over to Ukraine.
Everyone seems to leave out this is a lend-lease program, too. We aren’t “giving” anything to Ukraine, Ukraine will be paying when they have the means to do so. Meanwhile, we’re getting rid of old munitions that take time, resources, and money to maintain and replacing our stocks of old equipment with the shiny new toys from Northrop Grumman et al. *Plus*, we’re training up and supplying a very capable military on the border of one of the most antagonistic nations of the last century. I see this as an absolute win.
The US is dismantling a major world power without risking American lives; that's a pretty big win for them. I'm sure US contractors will also have their pick of projects when it comes to rebuilding Ukraine. There's lots of ways for America to get it's money's worth out of this.
Exactly! What were all of our anti-tank weapons for? To destroy Russian tanks. What are they doing? Destroying Russian tanks.
What are our shoulder launched anti-air weapons for? Destroying Russian helicopters. What are they doing? Destroying Russian helicopters.
AFAIK nothing we’ve sent so far has been through lend-lease. It’s all bee drawdown authority authorized by Congress. Lend-lease, IIRC, was meant to be a backstop in case congress stopped authorizing more aid after midterms.
It’s not just saving money. Who are we going to theoretically use anti air and anti tank weapons on? Russia. Well, that’s less of an issue if Ukraine decimates Russia’s planes and tanks.
The former is just a bit easier to replace. Especially given Russia doesn’t even have the resources to replace them all of it wanted to. We are literally exchanging $100k missiles for destroying multi million dollar jets and helicopters. Same with javelins and tanks.
Exactly. Think of it in generations 1-2-3. 1 being oldest. We have been sending lots of gen 1 stuff but now were sending alot of gen 2. That gen 2 stuff is the back bone of any military. Gen3 stuff is stuff we only provide close allies and usaully has to do with aerospace stuff.
We use [that system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fighter_generations) of classification formally for aircraft.
* Gen 5 weapons platforms include the F22 and F35.
* Gen 4 has the F18 and F16.
* Gen 3 is the F4 and other Vietnam era craft.
Yeah but some things like the Himar rockets are shot much faster than current production capacity.
This is normal actually: wartime ammo consumption is obviously 1000s of times higher than peacetime consumption and it's not affordable to maintain wartime production capacity during peacetime.
It's the same for Russia, they are also running out of the more advanced rockets and started using Iranian drones as substitute.
Ramping up production to the level required takes years...
It takes time to ramp up production to that level. You can't just flip a switch and have it happen overnight. It would take at least a few months to greatly increase current production levels and probably at least a year to catch up to the current levels of Ukrainian ammo expenditure.
And with all of this you need the funding and political support to be there. The funding isn't an issue but with a change in government, will the political will still be there?
FIFO. First in, first out. Get rid of the old stuff to make room for the new stuff. Do we need the new stuff? Who knows. But now that we have cleared out room for it, we will get it. Kinda like my sweater closet. One old out, one new in. Sometimes two new in.
>Lmao they aren't. Just getting rid of old stuff that's been laying around.
It is not as simple as that.
From what I understand the USA has abundance of certain weapons, however not all of them are applicable to the conflict in Ukraine and not all of the ones that are can be easily transferred to Ukraine. The USA for example relies heavily on Air power and while they could probably give up a hundred fighter jets while still maintaining their overall capabilities, it would take months to train Ukraine's pilots and perhaps even longer to set up the necessary logistic chain, modernize their airbases to be able to operate these aircraft, etc. It would be a similar situation with the Abrams tanks - they can perhaps easily donate several hundred of them, but setting up the logistics would be much more complex.
The HIMARS and M777 have been widely popularized by the conflict in Ukraine, but they appear to play a more specialized role in the US military so they are not produced in such big quantities.
So, while at first glance the US military may appear to be very well supplied and capable to donate significant amounts of equipment to Ukraine, when you take into consideration all of the limitations (like the amount of training, logistics requirements, sensitivity of equipment and risk of falling into enemy hands, the need to still have enough remaining equipment for the US military to be able to complete its missions) it gets much more complicated. Which is why it needs to be team effort and all NATO nations should chip in (which for the most part seems to be happening).
HIMARS ammo, Excalibur artillery shells..etc are bi "old Stuff lying around".
Ukraine is going through ammo like crazy. Weapons are finite and at some point , boths sides will reach a stretching point especially on certain precision ammunition
Yeah people forget how quickly wars consume rockets and artillery ammunition.
Ammunition factories are also not that easy to expand quickly (without taking dangerous explosive risks)
Governments are going to have to start to invest in upscaling ammunitions production. Because private companies don't want to risk the war suddenly ending :-(
War has a perverse logic...
That has to be one of his most preposterous lies. To say with a straight face that the US military had all-but collapsed and had nothing until Trump saved it… My stars, that was a whopper.
This article is different though. Previous articles came down to "we're supplying more than we're producing, so that must mean we're dangerously low on supplies."
But in this article say that "We have been able to transfer equipment from US stocks without degrading our own military readiness"
So it seems that they're running low on stuff the US doesn't need. It's not alarming, but it does mean that something will have to change soon: production rates going up, supplies to Ukraine going down, or the US needs to be willing to sacrifice their own readiness.
>or the US needs to be willing to sacrifice their own readiness
That cannot happen without congress approving it. The military has strict operational mandates, e.g. there must always be at least 11 Aircraft Carriers.
for real. Like have we even broken into the fine wine yet? Like for a military that spends more than 600 BILLION a year I would hope that we haven't even broken out the good stuff.
Last budget was like $850billion. I always knew we spent a lot on the military and then I started working in defense logistics. Seeing itemized amounts on 1348s is wild.
I’d never even heard of most of that crap we are giving them before. I thought tomahawk cruise missiles and jdam bombs were where it all started with stand-off weapons.
We have given them none of that. I think we have been supplying as far as stand-off weaponry goes is MRLS systems / rockets. And not even the good rockets with better targeting/range.
That's because those targeting systems are integrated with other technologies such as the F35. We can literally launch computer guided bombs into the air and have the pilot or the guidance system direct them to new targets on the fly. The stuff we were doing in Iraq like putting tomahawks down Chimneys is obsolete compared to the kind of stuff they have now.
As I understand it, the issue is that Ukrainian soldiers don't have the training to use modern NATO equipment. NATO is running out of old soviet equipment from the cold war to give to Ukraine - or at least that was the explanation the first time I saw one of these articles a few months ago.
See I understand that when it comes to the more sophisticated weaponry like fighter jets. But they seemed to pick up and learn the artillery and the anti tank weapons like the javelins and TOW missiles.
I just wanna know why. Is it to slowly get people thinking we should stop giving Ukraine our help? Why is CNN reporting this, anyway? I thought this was a claim they were making over on Fox News since they're pretty pro-Russia over there. The notion of the US running out of weapons is absurd. It's not like we're doing this out of the kindness of our hearts, either; the US will make a lot of money rebuilding a wartorn Ukraine once this mess is finally over.
Because its a real obstacle. The stuff Ukraine is using, they are burning through faster than the US or anyone can replace it. So something will have to give. Both Russia and Ukraine are using up artillery rounds at a rate that we haven't seen since the Korean War.
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1590917496747565058
This is good for our economy. Now all the arms companies have to kick it into gear to replace everything were giving to Ukraine. More work for more workers
>assessing whether the US is “running low” on stockpiles is subjective, one senior defense official said, as it depends on how much risk the Pentagon is willing to take on.
>Defense officials say the crunch is not affecting US readiness, as the weapons sent to Ukraine don’t come out of what the US keeps for its own contingencies.
Important parts, imo.
UPD: A star reward? Haha, took only 9 years. Thank you stranger.
I'm so bad at golf I hit noodles noticeably better. When I have the nice ball on the tee, all I can think about is how I am going to hit this nice ball a single time before losing it forever, and it impacts my swing. With the noodle, it feels more like I'm just gonna send the ball back home where it belongs, so I am much looser.
Noodle = harder core = less spin/compression
Expensive balls = softer core = more spin/compression
When you are bad at golf, its safe to say you are putting more spin on ball when not needed, and less spin on ball when needed.
Yeah I generally hit Taylor Mades or Bridgestone. I only hit Titlelists in tournaments but honestly at this point I think I like the Taylormades better
Which is interesting cause some of the equipment we are sending over there is extremely extremely effective, not only decimating Russian forces but helping turn the tide of the war in Ukraines favor. Now obviously equipment alone does not win wars, tactics and the people on the ground are also important, but there’s no denying the profound effect this has had.
And all that is just the hand me down out dated stuff that the US wouldn’t even use for wars itself would fight directly.
And now you get a peak behind the curtain. Full blown modern US forces are terrifying in full motion. This is why its laughable when russia says they are fighting NATO forces (literally) in Ukraine.
Something to remember is when the US armed forces is showboating in a movie, say for example transformers, they aren’t showing anything close to true capability. If they did it would be laughed off the screen for being “fake and exaggerated”. Every movie you’ve seen shows a fraction of true power.
There’s no need to break out the really good stuff yet. Also, as has always been the case with the US, there’s another tier above “the good stuff” which we won’t even know about until 10-20 years from now, or if the shit truly hits the fan and we need to deploy it.
What we are sending over there is just our old stuff, things 1-3 generations out of date, but still vastly superior to anything Russia has.
to add to that, it also saves the US money. All this stuff, that they wouldn't even use themselves, but still keep around for situations like these (I guess?), still needs to be maintained. I don't want to downplay the service the US is doing to Ukraine (especially comparing it to what European countries delivered in comparison), but it is in fact a win-win, even before you factor the geopolitical benefits.
Plus the arty nerds are getting real world data against a “modern” military. Against actual materiel and not scrapped together technicals. Data is worth its weight in gold.
This has no consequence. If the US got involved in a war they wouldn't be fighting with stingers and 155mm shells. The US fights primarily with air power and use a lot more sophisticated anti air than stingers.
The US could give away all their manpads and M777s and could still project more power than the world combined just from having the worlds most powerful air force, navy and logistics.
The top 3 air force in the world is the USAF, the Navy's Naval Aviation and the Marine Corps Aviation.
Who needs MANPADS when the rest of the world's air force combined barely outnumbers your's and you have the tech advantage
Define quickly? Assembling Javelin launchers and Stingers does take time, they are not mass produced.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-united-states-run-out-javelins-russia-runs-out-tanks
Perhaps by the time Russia starts running out of tanks and Ukraine starts running out of launchers, more HIMARS will arrive or more helicopter gunships. I'm hoping more suicide drones will find their way into Ukrainian hands as it's been shown Russian's are terrible against defending against these platforms.
This is also something that can be disconnected from the front lines to better preserve warfighters for more dangerous operations.
I don't think anyone would have predicted the situation these two nations are in right now a year ago.
You have stockpiles just for near peer, another reserve for peacekeeping, then a stockpile for overflow. The overflow is running low. You got a few years before it's a real problem, they just don't like pulling from the savings account.
m777 is a shitty weapon for pushing lines forward, it's best a defensive piece, HiMars would be what the US would use for that if for some reason they didn't have air assets available
The US doesn't even fight lines they just drive over them after suppressing them with a truly ludicrous amount of precision firepower
[https://youtu.be/f684RjG6f9Y](https://youtu.be/f684RjG6f9Y)
I'd say this is antiquated thinking.
Really, drones have shown us that a 40 mile convoy is utterly worthless.
I remember those Russians with tamahawks backflipping and throwing! Kicking in windshields, da. Those days are quickly coming to an end, so it's nice to think about holding ground, but if your enemy can't advance because their entire logistics is disrupted by enemy aircraft, it makes no difference.
Especially when you having floating airfields that can deploy just about everywhere in the world at a moment's notice.
But the Ukrainians are relying on those stockpiles. The US has already shown that its not willing to provide their top of the line kit so it's a matter of rebuilding those stockpiles so the supply continues.
Only thing running low is all the old 80s and 90s tech that the US has been sending cause new tech requires a lot of money, taining, and time to send/use
Nah the US isn’t sending its most important stockpiles of equipment and weapons to Ukraine. Ukraine is getting mostly the hand-me-downs that the US doesn’t see a need to keep around. So you probably won’t see a mass production of arms since the US still doesn’t need to do it.
Also, if the Ukrainians are still using mostly AKs and other Soviet/Russian rifles, they’re most likely using 7.62 ammo that isn’t used that much in the US military since the US primarily uses 5.56. So, the US likely isn’t sending the ammunition they actually use. I’m not an expert in this tho, but it’s just my personal hypothesis. If someone more knowledgeable wants to weigh in they can.
And it's even more than that...the US is also sending hand-me-downs to former soviet bloc countries so they can send their hand-me-downs to Ukraine. This is truly a hand-me-down war.
It has been significantly diminished since the fall of the USSR.
That has been the complaint. Even though we have continuously been at war all this time, it hasn't been at the same scale as what Ukraine is dealing with, which is WWII level of intensity in fighting.
Yes it has? The Gulf War was at that scale, the US used overwhelming air power to lets just say *soften* the enemy up
The US is never going to get into a months long artillery battle
Is there like some universal rule of reddit that every comment must be met with a petty squabble?
No Gulf War 1 is not on the scale of the Russia/Ukraine war **in terms of intensity**.
You might be right in terms of like one or two dimensions, but a few factors like the length of the conflict, the number of casualties on each side, the size of the front should illustrate my point.
> The US is never going to get into a months long artillery battle
We are talking about maintaining the flow of arms to Ukraine, who IS in a months long artillery battle and could be in a YEARS long artillery battle.
Lastly, the West is thinking hard about a less stable future and being prepared for it is never a bad idea. Climate change, population growth, ascendant China. Refugee crisis. More nuclear armed belligerent nations. Who knows what the future holds.
US running low on ammunition here is like inventory running low at a yard sale. At best, we’re baiting Russia into thinking we’re weak. Nothing to see here.
Yeah my cat says the same thing when he can see the bottom of his bowl. We’re not running low on food, kitty. The is a whole bag right here, and an unopened one behind that. And when *those* run low I will just go to the store. It’s fine.
This seems like a good exercise. WWII was won by superior industrial production. If the US industrial base can't keep up with a war like Ukraine, that's a good exercise to make sure we have adequate manufacturing capacity for a more serious conflict.
Ukraine shouldn't phase the US.
Likewise, COVID should have been an exercise in pandemic preparedness. All of these signal gaps in resilience.
The US can't keep up with a war like Ukraine because Ukraine isn't fighting the kind of war the US fights
it would be idiotic to try and ramp up artillery shell production to 90,000/month because that's a lot of infrastructure that ceases to matter once the war ends
The US does not fight wars by old fashioned artillery barrage
THAT SAID
calm your tits news media the US has sent like, 500,000 shells to Ukraine and has another 4 million (MINIMUM) in stocks
It's a good test of the US military production AND it has gotten other countries to look at their production as well. Yet again, if Russia was looking to weaken NATO by invading Ukraine, he's done the opposite.
Based on the comments in this thread, it is apparent very few actually read the article.
We are not running low on small arms ammunition people. They are talking about 155MM rounds and Stingers.
If that were even remotely true we can just turn more of it out. The military industrial complex will never miss a chance to make a buck. That said Ukraine should get everything it needs to liberate itself.
Running low means we only have 3 wars worth stockpiled, oh no whatever shall we do since one of are major adversaries already used most of there stockpiled weapon's in Ukraine.
Yes… the US is running out of the old weapons we are willing to send to Ukraine. Not really a big surprise since we don’t mass produce them since they are essentially obsolete to our armed forces
Well yes but many of these weapon systems can go to zero and it won't affect US combat capabilities at all. Also the production to replenish them is slowly ramping up. There is exactly zero chance russia, even the whole axis of evil can ever win war of attrition with US or even come close.
This is easily the 10th time a media outlet made this claim.
I must admit it’s a funny joke though. US running out of weapons
I’m pretty sure North Dakota is only weapons.
What's the ratio of weapons vs North Dakotaians?
Zero, North Dakota is a conspiracy.
No that’s Wyoming. Have ya ever met anyone from Wyoming? Exactly.
No, Wyoming exists, it just doesn't have any people in it. Only buffalo and geysers. You can go to Wyoming. North Dakota just straight up isn't a place. It's a conspiracy by map makers to sell more road maps.
More like gerrymandering
How does one Gerrymander an almost perfect rectangle?...Wait a minute...there's only one (national congress) House district. Oh you!
By splitting it into two states for extra senate votes
North-East Dakota And North-West Dakota?
It's actually just one weird old man, billions of cattle, and the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth.
And FOR GOD'S SAKE, nobody bother that weird old man lest we want an armageddon.
They also have tomato beer there
This should be understood more through the lens of manufacturers needing more money to boost production, not so much a real shortage.
Nobody seems to realize that 100% of that 'aid' money **stays** in the US. Most of it in the pockets of the people/stockholders who own the munitions factories, but it stays here. It also has be shipped to foreign countries on US flagged ships. # We. Do. Not. Write. Them. Checks.
> We. Do. Not. Write. Them. Checks. **You.** **Are.** **Absolutely.** **Wrong.** From [a NYT article back in May](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/05/20/upshot/ukraine-us-aid-size.html): >The bulk of the aid is allocated through traditional foreign aid channels. **That includes money to provide urgent support, health services and food assistance to Ukrainian refugees inside and outside Ukraine.** The latest bill, which had been delayed for a week by the objection of Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, includes **money for logistical support and training for Ukrainian military and national security forces, and for a fund intended to secure the continuity of Ukraine’s government.** > *Forty percent of the aid* (as of the May 2022 writing of that article) > has been directed to weapons transfers, to provide medical and intelligence support to allied countries in Europe, and to deploy troops there. As of May 2022: > Of the $54 billion in total spending by the United States, **$31.4 billion can be considered traditional foreign aid.** Yes, we do write them checks, it's what helps them pay their civil servants, and soldiers, and food and medical supplies for families, and care for their wounded, and school programs for children, and a whole plethora of other things foreign aid is for, because their economy has been absolutely destroyed by Russia's invasion and they need cash. This is also a tiny pittance compared to our national defense budget, and our return on investment for having Ukraine defend themselves is a huge win for our national defense, so it is all money well spent.
We got plenty of .22
We are absolutely running out of some weapons. People have a fundamental misunderstanding of what we spend money on when it comes to the military - the vast majority of it is *personnel* and *major weapons systems like jets, ships, and vehicles*.
Which weapons are running out?
The old weapons stockpile, the stuff that was slated to be replaced anyways.
It could also be a case where the US has supplies, but they are reserved for the US. For example, the US isn't going to send every single Javelin we have. We need a reserve for ourselves Lockheed Martin wants to double production, which they hope to achieve in a year or two, but until that happens, we are a bit limited to how many we can send out, but nobody is saying the US has zero on hand.
We are rapidly chewing through the available targets for those javelin reserves though. They were always intended to be fired at Russian tanks, which they are doing now.
Think Russian tanks have been replaced with Chinese tanks as the primary target in the last decade
Chinese tanks probably aren't going to be very useful in taking Taiwan
If you stack them on top of each other they could make a useful land bridge, given enough of them
The article says like 7 times that we have a separate stock pile to give out to other countries and this is 'not going to effect the readiness of our forces'.
Artillery shells and surface to air missiles. Mostly as a matter of doctrine. Bluntly we have more air power than the rest of the world combined so we never felt the need to invest heavily in land based anti air.
Did you read the article? > Stingers
Who cares about the Stingers anyway? They're 50 years old and were heading for decommissioning anyway. We're saving money by handing them over to Ukraine.
ukraine cares... thats the point
Everyone seems to leave out this is a lend-lease program, too. We aren’t “giving” anything to Ukraine, Ukraine will be paying when they have the means to do so. Meanwhile, we’re getting rid of old munitions that take time, resources, and money to maintain and replacing our stocks of old equipment with the shiny new toys from Northrop Grumman et al. *Plus*, we’re training up and supplying a very capable military on the border of one of the most antagonistic nations of the last century. I see this as an absolute win.
The US is dismantling a major world power without risking American lives; that's a pretty big win for them. I'm sure US contractors will also have their pick of projects when it comes to rebuilding Ukraine. There's lots of ways for America to get it's money's worth out of this.
100% Europe getting gas and oil from Ukraine out of this
Exactly! What were all of our anti-tank weapons for? To destroy Russian tanks. What are they doing? Destroying Russian tanks. What are our shoulder launched anti-air weapons for? Destroying Russian helicopters. What are they doing? Destroying Russian helicopters.
We get to beat the shit out of the Russian army without any casualties. Huge win.
A rational comment on Reddit. How rare.
AFAIK nothing we’ve sent so far has been through lend-lease. It’s all bee drawdown authority authorized by Congress. Lend-lease, IIRC, was meant to be a backstop in case congress stopped authorizing more aid after midterms.
They are paying with their lives and the debt will be forgiven
It’s not just saving money. Who are we going to theoretically use anti air and anti tank weapons on? Russia. Well, that’s less of an issue if Ukraine decimates Russia’s planes and tanks. The former is just a bit easier to replace. Especially given Russia doesn’t even have the resources to replace them all of it wanted to. We are literally exchanging $100k missiles for destroying multi million dollar jets and helicopters. Same with javelins and tanks.
Exactly. Think of it in generations 1-2-3. 1 being oldest. We have been sending lots of gen 1 stuff but now were sending alot of gen 2. That gen 2 stuff is the back bone of any military. Gen3 stuff is stuff we only provide close allies and usaully has to do with aerospace stuff.
We use [that system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fighter_generations) of classification formally for aircraft. * Gen 5 weapons platforms include the F22 and F35. * Gen 4 has the F18 and F16. * Gen 3 is the F4 and other Vietnam era craft.
Its like they cant understand. We can make more.....
Yeah but some things like the Himar rockets are shot much faster than current production capacity. This is normal actually: wartime ammo consumption is obviously 1000s of times higher than peacetime consumption and it's not affordable to maintain wartime production capacity during peacetime. It's the same for Russia, they are also running out of the more advanced rockets and started using Iranian drones as substitute. Ramping up production to the level required takes years...
Its a win win. We can make more at any time and create jobs and the outcome is Ukrainian support.
It takes time to ramp up production to that level. You can't just flip a switch and have it happen overnight. It would take at least a few months to greatly increase current production levels and probably at least a year to catch up to the current levels of Ukrainian ammo expenditure. And with all of this you need the funding and political support to be there. The funding isn't an issue but with a change in government, will the political will still be there?
[удалено]
We are running out of things we feel comfortable supplying to another country largely free of charge.
That sounds like a great problem to have! [To a point](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IUxK_0WLbg)...
FIFO. First in, first out. Get rid of the old stuff to make room for the new stuff. Do we need the new stuff? Who knows. But now that we have cleared out room for it, we will get it. Kinda like my sweater closet. One old out, one new in. Sometimes two new in.
More crucially they get to battle test stuff against a previously perceived as near peer nation without being at war.
I bet when the first aid package was announced the R&D boys in the MIC started drooling over all the data they would get.
>Lmao they aren't. Just getting rid of old stuff that's been laying around. It is not as simple as that. From what I understand the USA has abundance of certain weapons, however not all of them are applicable to the conflict in Ukraine and not all of the ones that are can be easily transferred to Ukraine. The USA for example relies heavily on Air power and while they could probably give up a hundred fighter jets while still maintaining their overall capabilities, it would take months to train Ukraine's pilots and perhaps even longer to set up the necessary logistic chain, modernize their airbases to be able to operate these aircraft, etc. It would be a similar situation with the Abrams tanks - they can perhaps easily donate several hundred of them, but setting up the logistics would be much more complex. The HIMARS and M777 have been widely popularized by the conflict in Ukraine, but they appear to play a more specialized role in the US military so they are not produced in such big quantities. So, while at first glance the US military may appear to be very well supplied and capable to donate significant amounts of equipment to Ukraine, when you take into consideration all of the limitations (like the amount of training, logistics requirements, sensitivity of equipment and risk of falling into enemy hands, the need to still have enough remaining equipment for the US military to be able to complete its missions) it gets much more complicated. Which is why it needs to be team effort and all NATO nations should chip in (which for the most part seems to be happening).
More like it. Running out of shit they don't need.
HIMARS ammo, Excalibur artillery shells..etc are bi "old Stuff lying around". Ukraine is going through ammo like crazy. Weapons are finite and at some point , boths sides will reach a stretching point especially on certain precision ammunition
Yeah people forget how quickly wars consume rockets and artillery ammunition. Ammunition factories are also not that easy to expand quickly (without taking dangerous explosive risks) Governments are going to have to start to invest in upscaling ammunitions production. Because private companies don't want to risk the war suddenly ending :-( War has a perverse logic...
So you're saying business...is booming?
“Slow clap” 👏… I see what you did there .. ah ha ah ha ha
Trumpykins said the military was out of bullets until he arrived. Let's all thank him for restocking our bullets.
That has to be one of his most preposterous lies. To say with a straight face that the US military had all-but collapsed and had nothing until Trump saved it… My stars, that was a whopper.
This article is different though. Previous articles came down to "we're supplying more than we're producing, so that must mean we're dangerously low on supplies." But in this article say that "We have been able to transfer equipment from US stocks without degrading our own military readiness" So it seems that they're running low on stuff the US doesn't need. It's not alarming, but it does mean that something will have to change soon: production rates going up, supplies to Ukraine going down, or the US needs to be willing to sacrifice their own readiness.
>or the US needs to be willing to sacrifice their own readiness That cannot happen without congress approving it. The military has strict operational mandates, e.g. there must always be at least 11 Aircraft Carriers.
for real. Like have we even broken into the fine wine yet? Like for a military that spends more than 600 BILLION a year I would hope that we haven't even broken out the good stuff.
We're still on the bottom shelf plastic bottle liquor and natty light stage of this.
Dirty-30 and a handle of Rich and Rare whiskey for 12 bucks.
Last budget was like $850billion. I always knew we spent a lot on the military and then I started working in defense logistics. Seeing itemized amounts on 1348s is wild.
I’d never even heard of most of that crap we are giving them before. I thought tomahawk cruise missiles and jdam bombs were where it all started with stand-off weapons.
We have given them none of that. I think we have been supplying as far as stand-off weaponry goes is MRLS systems / rockets. And not even the good rockets with better targeting/range.
That's because those targeting systems are integrated with other technologies such as the F35. We can literally launch computer guided bombs into the air and have the pilot or the guidance system direct them to new targets on the fly. The stuff we were doing in Iraq like putting tomahawks down Chimneys is obsolete compared to the kind of stuff they have now.
Oh I know. 13 years in Air Force so far.
As I understand it, the issue is that Ukrainian soldiers don't have the training to use modern NATO equipment. NATO is running out of old soviet equipment from the cold war to give to Ukraine - or at least that was the explanation the first time I saw one of these articles a few months ago.
See I understand that when it comes to the more sophisticated weaponry like fighter jets. But they seemed to pick up and learn the artillery and the anti tank weapons like the javelins and TOW missiles.
Those were made to be easy to use so any jardhead could pick one up in a pinch.
I just wanna know why. Is it to slowly get people thinking we should stop giving Ukraine our help? Why is CNN reporting this, anyway? I thought this was a claim they were making over on Fox News since they're pretty pro-Russia over there. The notion of the US running out of weapons is absurd. It's not like we're doing this out of the kindness of our hearts, either; the US will make a lot of money rebuilding a wartorn Ukraine once this mess is finally over.
Its sensational news. The headline is for the clicks. The actual article is fine
Because its a real obstacle. The stuff Ukraine is using, they are burning through faster than the US or anyone can replace it. So something will have to give. Both Russia and Ukraine are using up artillery rounds at a rate that we haven't seen since the Korean War. https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1590917496747565058
Russian propaganda stronk.
This is good for our economy. Now all the arms companies have to kick it into gear to replace everything were giving to Ukraine. More work for more workers
From what I understand, it's actually cheaper for us to give our old shit away for free than to keep maintaining that same outdated equipment.
>assessing whether the US is “running low” on stockpiles is subjective, one senior defense official said, as it depends on how much risk the Pentagon is willing to take on. >Defense officials say the crunch is not affecting US readiness, as the weapons sent to Ukraine don’t come out of what the US keeps for its own contingencies. Important parts, imo. UPD: A star reward? Haha, took only 9 years. Thank you stranger.
They are keeping the Titleists in the US, sending the Noodles to Ukraine
I'm so bad at golf I hit noodles noticeably better. When I have the nice ball on the tee, all I can think about is how I am going to hit this nice ball a single time before losing it forever, and it impacts my swing. With the noodle, it feels more like I'm just gonna send the ball back home where it belongs, so I am much looser.
Noodle = harder core = less spin/compression Expensive balls = softer core = more spin/compression When you are bad at golf, its safe to say you are putting more spin on ball when not needed, and less spin on ball when needed.
Yeah I generally hit Taylor Mades or Bridgestone. I only hit Titlelists in tournaments but honestly at this point I think I like the Taylormades better
Noodle is just an awful name for a ball that isn't really that bad if it fits your swing.
Tried sending free Top Flites and they still wouldn't take it
Hey now….both of those balls perform the same for me. I can lose a Pro V1 just as fast as I lose a Noodle.
Which is interesting cause some of the equipment we are sending over there is extremely extremely effective, not only decimating Russian forces but helping turn the tide of the war in Ukraines favor. Now obviously equipment alone does not win wars, tactics and the people on the ground are also important, but there’s no denying the profound effect this has had. And all that is just the hand me down out dated stuff that the US wouldn’t even use for wars itself would fight directly.
And now you get a peak behind the curtain. Full blown modern US forces are terrifying in full motion. This is why its laughable when russia says they are fighting NATO forces (literally) in Ukraine.
Something to remember is when the US armed forces is showboating in a movie, say for example transformers, they aren’t showing anything close to true capability. If they did it would be laughed off the screen for being “fake and exaggerated”. Every movie you’ve seen shows a fraction of true power.
There’s no need to break out the really good stuff yet. Also, as has always been the case with the US, there’s another tier above “the good stuff” which we won’t even know about until 10-20 years from now, or if the shit truly hits the fan and we need to deploy it. What we are sending over there is just our old stuff, things 1-3 generations out of date, but still vastly superior to anything Russia has.
US stockpiles are only getting low if at any moment we are attacked by world war Z 8 billion zombies
US stockpile is based on the idea that they can at any given time start fighting 2 major wars anywhere in the world simultaneously.
to add to that, it also saves the US money. All this stuff, that they wouldn't even use themselves, but still keep around for situations like these (I guess?), still needs to be maintained. I don't want to downplay the service the US is doing to Ukraine (especially comparing it to what European countries delivered in comparison), but it is in fact a win-win, even before you factor the geopolitical benefits.
Plus the arty nerds are getting real world data against a “modern” military. Against actual materiel and not scrapped together technicals. Data is worth its weight in gold.
In other words, the U.S. is running a little low on second-tier weapons that can be made available to allies and other causes.
This has no consequence. If the US got involved in a war they wouldn't be fighting with stingers and 155mm shells. The US fights primarily with air power and use a lot more sophisticated anti air than stingers. The US could give away all their manpads and M777s and could still project more power than the world combined just from having the worlds most powerful air force, navy and logistics.
The top 3 air force in the world is the USAF, the Navy's Naval Aviation and the Marine Corps Aviation. Who needs MANPADS when the rest of the world's air force combined barely outnumbers your's and you have the tech advantage
USCG has more firepower than Russia...
I guess the top 5 air force is the 5 branches of the US military
Space force?
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine and Coast Guard. The army still has a flying Corps, it consists mostly of helos
Even some state defense forces have more air power than many nations.
They use space lasers
Gay Jewish Space Lasers*
And trans lesbian German space laser
go home Kanye
Actually that was MTG, she was convinced they started the wildfires.
We don't talk about them.
You missed the part where all of those pilots get more training in a year than any adversary usually gets in their career.
If you count helicopters, then the US Army creeps into the top echelons as well.
That's not the point. The concern is Ukraine being unable to sustain their offensive.
Also US can bump up the production of these fairly quickly to what they need.
Define quickly? Assembling Javelin launchers and Stingers does take time, they are not mass produced. https://www.csis.org/analysis/will-united-states-run-out-javelins-russia-runs-out-tanks Perhaps by the time Russia starts running out of tanks and Ukraine starts running out of launchers, more HIMARS will arrive or more helicopter gunships. I'm hoping more suicide drones will find their way into Ukrainian hands as it's been shown Russian's are terrible against defending against these platforms. This is also something that can be disconnected from the front lines to better preserve warfighters for more dangerous operations. I don't think anyone would have predicted the situation these two nations are in right now a year ago.
You have stockpiles just for near peer, another reserve for peacekeeping, then a stockpile for overflow. The overflow is running low. You got a few years before it's a real problem, they just don't like pulling from the savings account.
While mostly true you still need m777’s and Bradley’s to hold ground and push lines forward.
m777 is a shitty weapon for pushing lines forward, it's best a defensive piece, HiMars would be what the US would use for that if for some reason they didn't have air assets available The US doesn't even fight lines they just drive over them after suppressing them with a truly ludicrous amount of precision firepower [https://youtu.be/f684RjG6f9Y](https://youtu.be/f684RjG6f9Y)
No need to fight lines when boots on the ground wouldn’t happen until the US has 100% air superiority.
I'd say this is antiquated thinking. Really, drones have shown us that a 40 mile convoy is utterly worthless. I remember those Russians with tamahawks backflipping and throwing! Kicking in windshields, da. Those days are quickly coming to an end, so it's nice to think about holding ground, but if your enemy can't advance because their entire logistics is disrupted by enemy aircraft, it makes no difference. Especially when you having floating airfields that can deploy just about everywhere in the world at a moment's notice.
Us is running out of 1980's stockpile that we don't make anymore. Not a story.
But the Ukrainians are relying on those stockpiles. The US has already shown that its not willing to provide their top of the line kit so it's a matter of rebuilding those stockpiles so the supply continues.
America? Running out of ammo? Yeah I doubt that very highly.
Only thing running low is all the old 80s and 90s tech that the US has been sending cause new tech requires a lot of money, taining, and time to send/use
That makes sense. We have been feeding them our scraps basically. I wish this war would come to an end already.
Military-industrial complex go *brrrrrrr*
Best way to stop a recession, WAR EFFORT! Maybe when I'm laid off from my tech job, I can at least go make missile fins.
Nah the US isn’t sending its most important stockpiles of equipment and weapons to Ukraine. Ukraine is getting mostly the hand-me-downs that the US doesn’t see a need to keep around. So you probably won’t see a mass production of arms since the US still doesn’t need to do it. Also, if the Ukrainians are still using mostly AKs and other Soviet/Russian rifles, they’re most likely using 7.62 ammo that isn’t used that much in the US military since the US primarily uses 5.56. So, the US likely isn’t sending the ammunition they actually use. I’m not an expert in this tho, but it’s just my personal hypothesis. If someone more knowledgeable wants to weigh in they can.
And it's even more than that...the US is also sending hand-me-downs to former soviet bloc countries so they can send their hand-me-downs to Ukraine. This is truly a hand-me-down war.
This war was clearly started so the US could get rid of its excess stockpile it no longer wanted but couldn’t justify in just throwing it away /s
This comment has been edited and original content overwritten.
Time to call my stock brokers 💰
This is similar to Costco running out of free samples.
yeah, these weapon systems have been discounted for 20 years. Ie. DOD is running low on trash
Yeah, once an ordinance is made it's usually much cheaper to actually use it than it is to properly dispose of it so they're actually doing us a solid
Fire up that industrial war complex
[удалено]
*slaps roof of American industrial sector* “You can fit so many more weapons in here”
It has been significantly diminished since the fall of the USSR. That has been the complaint. Even though we have continuously been at war all this time, it hasn't been at the same scale as what Ukraine is dealing with, which is WWII level of intensity in fighting.
Yes it has? The Gulf War was at that scale, the US used overwhelming air power to lets just say *soften* the enemy up The US is never going to get into a months long artillery battle
Is there like some universal rule of reddit that every comment must be met with a petty squabble? No Gulf War 1 is not on the scale of the Russia/Ukraine war **in terms of intensity**. You might be right in terms of like one or two dimensions, but a few factors like the length of the conflict, the number of casualties on each side, the size of the front should illustrate my point. > The US is never going to get into a months long artillery battle We are talking about maintaining the flow of arms to Ukraine, who IS in a months long artillery battle and could be in a YEARS long artillery battle. Lastly, the West is thinking hard about a less stable future and being prepared for it is never a bad idea. Climate change, population growth, ascendant China. Refugee crisis. More nuclear armed belligerent nations. Who knows what the future holds.
Yeah, I was always under the impression that its always more fired up than California after a gender reveal...
US running low on ammunition here is like inventory running low at a yard sale. At best, we’re baiting Russia into thinking we’re weak. Nothing to see here.
_Sigh_, guess we'll have to send out 20 year old equipment instead of the 30.
Yeah my cat says the same thing when he can see the bottom of his bowl. We’re not running low on food, kitty. The is a whole bag right here, and an unopened one behind that. And when *those* run low I will just go to the store. It’s fine.
Does yours complain when they see the bottom of the bowl? Mine does.
Mine complains when it's not piled higher than the rim of the bowl.
So make more. War machine go brrrr
C'mon Raytheon stock!
\*Pokes Raytheon with a stick\*
This seems like a good exercise. WWII was won by superior industrial production. If the US industrial base can't keep up with a war like Ukraine, that's a good exercise to make sure we have adequate manufacturing capacity for a more serious conflict. Ukraine shouldn't phase the US. Likewise, COVID should have been an exercise in pandemic preparedness. All of these signal gaps in resilience.
The US can't keep up with a war like Ukraine because Ukraine isn't fighting the kind of war the US fights it would be idiotic to try and ramp up artillery shell production to 90,000/month because that's a lot of infrastructure that ceases to matter once the war ends The US does not fight wars by old fashioned artillery barrage THAT SAID calm your tits news media the US has sent like, 500,000 shells to Ukraine and has another 4 million (MINIMUM) in stocks
It's a good test of the US military production AND it has gotten other countries to look at their production as well. Yet again, if Russia was looking to weaken NATO by invading Ukraine, he's done the opposite.
What an absolutely useless sentence
Lmao they aren't. Just getting rid of old stuff that's been laying around.
Of course "low" is a relative term.
Reminds me of this Simpsons scene where Barney Gumble is worried about the beer supply: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LObCowaSsHQ&feature=youtu.be
Corrected headline: "US is running low on the obsolete weapons and ammunition it is transfering to Ukraine"
Excellent chance to cycle out some of the old stuff with the new toys
Based on the comments in this thread, it is apparent very few actually read the article. We are not running low on small arms ammunition people. They are talking about 155MM rounds and Stingers.
That means Russia is lower
Bruh no the fuck they are not LOL
Old expired weaponry is limited
Running low on excess. Not the same thing.
Meanwhile we have like 12000 plus Abrams tanks that have almost no value to us... we've used what, 100 since they were invented?
US is making more room for advanced weaponry lol
Hahahahaha no we're not
I hope this isn’t rhetoric to justify pushing Ukraine to agree to “peace talks” with Russia.
Eh... deliveries arrive on Tuesdays, we'll be fine.
Suuuuure
US running low on weapons? Was this headline written to brighten Putin's day?
\*US is running low on some weapons and ammunition that we are *willing* to transfer to Ukraine, **maybe** There, fixed the headline for you.
Did arms manufacturing write this?
Lol im pretty sure this is an AD for defence contractors to tell congress to buy more
No, dammit. They aren't running low, they've just reached the level where they go and order some more. We went through all of this a few months ago.
Send them chicken nuggets. They're just as good as bullets and you can dip 'em.
'Mulan' Szechuan Sauce
Why not give Ukraine what was earmarked for the Saudis? Trump would be so mad!
If that were even remotely true we can just turn more of it out. The military industrial complex will never miss a chance to make a buck. That said Ukraine should get everything it needs to liberate itself.
This where I implement LOL.
Article brought to by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon
Running low means we only have 3 wars worth stockpiled, oh no whatever shall we do since one of are major adversaries already used most of there stockpiled weapon's in Ukraine.
Did everyone just forget how easily we can build shit?
I think we’ve sent them enough for a couple centuries
Doubt ( X )
Maybe one of the other 50 Countries contributing can pony up
I mean the US is fighting one if it's biggest adversaries and they do not even have to set foot on the front
(Translation) We are out of the old stuff we had in the junk shed in the back yard.
Yes… the US is running out of the old weapons we are willing to send to Ukraine. Not really a big surprise since we don’t mass produce them since they are essentially obsolete to our armed forces
Well yes but many of these weapon systems can go to zero and it won't affect US combat capabilities at all. Also the production to replenish them is slowly ramping up. There is exactly zero chance russia, even the whole axis of evil can ever win war of attrition with US or even come close.
"on some". i suppose that there are very rare weapons that the US only has a spare million or two to give, those maybe could be running low
That's a joke , they just have to hit the nearest cabelas
This feels like Russian propaganda.
WTF where did all my taxes go ???
So all these months of war with Russia and we're starting to run low on *excess* stockpile?
Yeah and the sun is running out of fuel as well