US Artillery Ammunition Production

[cyanidekid]

Those are't gravity dropped. Those are a fully functional $500 loitering munition. If you want to make them look fancier, I could make Russia's Lancet system for under a grand a pop.

I'm not saying that we need those systems, exactly. I'm saying that our near peer adversary could make literally a million of those systems per month, on their existing infrastructure, and no amount of artillery counters THAT.

we mostly agree, so this s just a bit of friendly sparring.. ... but ok, "those aren't gravity dropped" so what system are you talking about?

you referenced consumer electronics, 50$ of mass produced electronics, no effective "loitering munition" that can take out real armor fits that description other than a cheap quadcopter with a shaped charge RPG warhead gravity dropped.

even more sophisticated drone systems (that cost a LOT more than 500$ ) are STILL basically UNusable in heavy rain, winds over a light breeze, a low overcast or fog.

anything that can be effectively deployed in a contested airspace where counter drone EW is deployed, or can operate in adverse environmental conditions is going to cost 100K and up per unit and be military, not consumer.

im not saying we shouldn't be making those by the thousands at least, or that we are basically asleep at the wheel it seems, but under those operating constraints, I'd sure want some guns and Excalibur rounds available....

 

[cyanidekid]

"this "tooling up" is going to continue for years"
We were involved in Afghanistan for 13 years and spent something like $2.3 Trillion dollars.

Since that defense contractor gravy train ended no doubt the Big Brains in D.C. had to come up with another location to justify defense spending.
Goodbye Afghanistan---Hello Ukraine.
This time the EU is getting a real piece of the action. Read where German is reallocating green/renewable energy money to defense spending.
Best guess is, based on past performance, the Administration is cutting open purchase orders that are good for years worth of defense production.

BTW---Had to laugh---google-- 'how long was the U.S. in' and you get quite a list.

yes absolutely, im not contesting the pointless (sometimes more that others) waste of blood and treasure on the part of many, including the USA. over and over again.

my contention is simple here really, it's the proposition that "building a modern efficient production capability for 155 in the USA is a good idea."

and additionally, I'll add FULLY supporting a country fighting a mass murdering invading dictator is usually a good idea also.

 

[Comatose]

we mostly agree, so this s just a bit of friendly sparring.. ... but ok, "those aren't gravity dropped" so what system are you talking about?

you referenced consumer electronics, 50$ of mass produced electronics, no effective "loitering munition" that can take out real armor fits that description other than a cheap quadcopter with a shaped charge RPG warhead gravity dropped.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1619142795679399936

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1619261161207394305

They're not dropping them, they're flying them directly into armored vehicles now. That removes a lot of the environmental difficulties, and if the drones are cheap enough, makes a lot more sense. Still a consumer drone with an RPG warhead, just without the dropping.

The consumer stuff in a lot of areas is just plain better than the military equivalent. Communications, especially. Not in this case, obviously, but there is no distributed EW environment as bad as you'll find naturally in a stadium with 100,000 people, all of whom expect cell coverage.

Okay, different example, Iran's Shahad 136 is made entirely with consumer electronics. Cheap consumer electronics. If you look at the teardowns of the Lancet loitering munitions on the Russian side, I personally know the people who designed some of the electronics that they employ (chinese knockoffs of, anyway.) None of those systems cost $100,000.

Fortunately for Ukraine, Russia is a failed state kleptocracy and Iran is not much better, and they're both heavily sanctioned. They can't make a million units of a thousand dollar system. They couldn't make a million units of a free system.

But China absolutely, positively can. If you launch 100 Shahad-class "really cheap cruise missiles", that's easy for air defense to take down. A thousand, probably not. Ten thousand, definitely not. A million would be an unmitigated slaughter.

The electronics in such a thing is MUCH simpler than in a cell phone. 1.46 billion cell phones were shipped in 2022. Billion with a B. We know where the vast majority of them were made.

All you have to do is look at the satellite imagery anywhere near the Ukranian front to see what the probability of hitting anything with artillery is, at least as fired by Ivan. It looks like the surface of the moon, with a notable lack of burned out vehicles over most of it. Artillery is area denial. It can't counter loitering munitions that outrange it.

If you have the technology to have 100,000 cell phones working in a stadium, you have the technology to have a 100,000-unit drone swarm go anywhere you like, and mesh network back to 100,000 individual operators. The military, at least our military, hasn't really been too concerned about doing things at that kind of scale in quite some time. In electronics we call a 100,000 unit order "Thursday."

I'm not saying don't make more artillery shells. It's cheap, it doesn't hurt anything to do it. It probably helps us fight proxy wars. But whether or not we make lots of artillery shells or few artillery shells will make exactly no difference in any of the wars we might HAVE (rather than choose) to fight in our lifetimes.

 

[Bill D]

The riverbank army ammunition plant was closed in 1981. and sold off by 2005. part of the plant is supposed to be used to taker CO2 and store it underground? permanently to please the greenies.
Bill D

 

[standardparts]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1619142795679399936

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1619261161207394305

They're not dropping them, they're flying them directly into armored vehicles now. That removes a lot of the environmental difficulties, and if the drones are cheap enough, makes a lot more sense. Still a consumer drone with an RPG warhead, just without the dropping.

The consumer stuff in a lot of areas is just plain better than the military equivalent. Communications, especially. Not in this case, obviously, but there is no distributed EW environment as bad as you'll find naturally in a stadium with 100,000 people, all of whom expect cell coverage.

Okay, different example, Iran's Shahad 136 is made entirely with consumer electronics. Cheap consumer electronics. If you look at the teardowns of the Lancet loitering munitions on the Russian side, I personally know the people who designed some of the electronics that they employ (chinese knockoffs of, anyway.) None of those systems cost $100,000.

Fortunately for Ukraine, Russia is a failed state kleptocracy and Iran is not much better, and they're both heavily sanctioned. They can't make a million units of a thousand dollar system. They couldn't make a million units of a free system.

But China absolutely, positively can. If you launch 100 Shahad-class "really cheap cruise missiles", that's easy for air defense to take down. A thousand, probably not. Ten thousand, definitely not. A million would be an unmitigated slaughter.

The electronics in such a thing is MUCH simpler than in a cell phone. 1.46 billion cell phones were shipped in 2022. Billion with a B. We know where the vast majority of them were made.

All you have to do is look at the satellite imagery anywhere near the Ukranian front to see what the probability of hitting anything with artillery is, at least as fired by Ivan. It looks like the surface of the moon, with a notable lack of burned out vehicles over most of it. Artillery is area denial. It can't counter loitering munitions that outrange it.

If you have the technology to have 100,000 cell phones working in a stadium, you have the technology to have a 100,000-unit drone swarm go anywhere you like, and mesh network back to 100,000 individual operators. The military, at least our military, hasn't really been too concerned about doing things at that kind of scale in quite some time. In electronics we call a 100,000 unit order "Thursday."

I'm not saying don't make more artillery shells. It's cheap, it doesn't hurt anything to do it. It probably helps us fight proxy wars. But whether or not we make lots of artillery shells or few artillery shells will make exactly no difference in any of the wars we might HAVE (rather than choose) to fight in our lifetimes.

Guess it's all about having a lot of tools in the tool box so to speak, and whether the objective is to take ground and hold it, or deplete the enemy of manpower and resources, or both.

You point out the abilities of one country to produce a staggering number or common electronic devices that may or may not contain some technology to be used against a foe should be concerning I guess, unless of course here in the U.S. we have the same manufacturing capabilities.

Hopefully our current leadership team can cope with the challenges.

 

[jaguar36]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1619142795679399936

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1619261161207394305

Those videos are clearly faked, there is no way a drone that small is carrying a warhead that big. If you want a drone that can fly FPV for 10km holding 5lbs you're going to be spending $2k. I've got a little racing drone that was $500 and would struggle with a 1lb grenade. The ones holding small canisters are probably likely, but those small bombs aren't going to touch an armored vehicle.

Don't draw too many conclusions from this war for how a war the US was actually involved in would go. Air superioity and a fleet of B-21s would make it look very different than this WW1 style artillery war.

 

[TAIWA NUMBA WAAN]

I just wanna point out that near the end of the photo article, they mentioned that there is a 3lb weight tolerance for the finished 155mm munitions........ Is anyone else alarmed by this spec?

That's huge! I would think the whole purpose of finish turning these shells on a lathe would be to keep tight form tolerances so the volume for the explosive filler is uniform across all munitions.

At max artillery range, small differences in launch weigh directly affect the range substantially. It's the difference between overshooting and undershooting a target by tens of meters, easily.

I am surprised to see such lousy specs allowed for "precise" munitions.

 

[Trboatworks]

Isn’t general purpose ammunition an “area” weapon.
It could be some dispersal is designed into targeting solutions.
That is - some dispersal is wanted and not a liability.

 

[cyanidekid]

yup, I think that OSINT photo is suspect at best...unless those are completely hollow plastic those don't fly, lol!

 

[sfriedberg]

but those small bombs aren't going to touch an armored vehicle.

A few months back, there was a drone video released by a Ukrainian team where they dropped a small explosive charge down the open hatch of a Russian tank. Interesting bird's eye overhead view, and clearly hard to control in the breeze. This speaks more to the inattentiveness of the tank crew (and their supporting infantry, if any) than the size of the explosive.
Yes, there is no way in hell a consumer quadcopter is going to carry even a 75mm mortar round. There is a reason you put flyweight GoPro cameras on those things, rather than hefty Canon 5Ds. Weight. If you want a hefty payload, you need a much larger vehicle, like the Iranian Shahed-131/-136, which are small winged aircraft, not copters. In this size class, wings&rudders are much more effective (performance and cost) than rotors for lift&control.

 

[Milling man]

Does WW2 tactical use of artillery still play into Russian war planning?
And...returning to manufacturing, what is Russia's capability to ramp up production to sustain firing 20K rounds a day?

I will write what I can write on the Web without risk to myself.
1. Approximately 6 years after the delivery of the rather famous Soviet MLRS BM-21 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21_Grad), an automatic line for the production of the main type of shells was created for this MLRS. This was around the end of the 60s.
2. The main number of tank shells in the Russian Federation is produced on automatic lines - at least that's what open sources say.
3. With artillery shells, everything is more joyful for Ukraine - at least with a quick search, I did not see automatic lines for their production in Russia. But in any case, the volume of their production is measured in thousands per day.

I read the Time and NYT reports - very interesting, but really sad to see it. Lots of manual labor...
I hope that in the industrialized countries of the former Warsaw Pact (Czech Republic, Poland, maybe Romania) there are enterprises for the mass production of simple shells

 

[Milling man]

A few months back, there was a drone video released by a Ukrainian team where they dropped a small explosive charge down the open hatch of a Russian tank. Interesting bird's eye overhead view, and clearly hard to control in the breeze. This speaks more to the inattentiveness of the tank crew (and their supporting infantry, if any) than the size of the explosive.
Yes, there is no way in hell a consumer quadcopter is going to carry even a 75mm mortar round. There is a reason you put flyweight GoPro cameras on those things, rather than hefty Canon 5Ds. Weight. If you want a hefty payload, you need a much larger vehicle, like the Iranian Shahed-131/-136, which are small winged aircraft, not copters. In this size class, wings&rudders are much more effective (performance and cost) than rotors for lift&control.

I want to please you - it's not so bad. "Civilian" drones can do a lot. Two examples, the second one is more important:

 

[standardparts]

I will write what I can write on the Web without risk to myself.
1. Approximately 6 years after the delivery of the rather famous Soviet MLRS BM-21 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BM-21_Grad), an automatic line for the production of the main type of shells was created for this MLRS. This was around the end of the 60s.
2. The main number of tank shells in the Russian Federation is produced on automatic lines - at least that's what open sources say.
3. With artillery shells, everything is more joyful for Ukraine - at least with a quick search, I did not see automatic lines for their production in Russia. But in any case, the volume of their production is measured in thousands per day.

I read the Time and NYT reports - very interesting, but really sad to see it. Lots of manual labor...
I hope that in the industrialized countries of the former Warsaw Pact (Czech Republic, Poland, maybe Romania) there are enterprises for the mass production of simple shells

No doubt production capacity for ordnance of all types will be utilized and expanded over most of the world. Should make for great investment opportunities.

If there is a downside (other than death and destruction) it is likely that lead times and prices for forgings, castings, and materials will increase.

 

[Milling man]

A small thought about the consumption of shells. A British instructor who is involved in the training of Ukrainian soldiers said that Ukraine is now consuming too much ammunition. NATO fights differently, he said, we will teach the Ukrainian army to use fewer shells.
OK, let's be "analysts on the couch" for a bit. The length of the front line is about 750 miles. The maximum range of howitzers, on average, is about 22 miles.
The Ukrainians fire about 5.000 shots a day, or 6.6 shots for every mile of the front. Each one mile of front is 1*22=22 square miles of combat area. That is, Ukraine makes 6.6 shots per day for 22 square miles. It doesn't seem like overkill to me at all.
I have a strong impression that even some of the professional military misunderstand the scale of this war.

 

[standardparts]

A small thought about the consumption of shells. A British instructor who is involved in the training of Ukrainian soldiers said that Ukraine is now consuming too much ammunition. NATO fights differently, he said, we will teach the Ukrainian army to use fewer shells.
OK, let's be "analysts on the couch" for a bit. The length of the front line is about 750 miles. The maximum range of howitzers, on average, is about 22 miles.
The Ukrainians fire about 5.000 shots a day, or 6.6 shots for every mile of the front. Each one mile of front is 1*22=22 square miles of combat area. That is, Ukraine makes 6.6 shots per day for 22 square miles. It doesn't seem like overkill to me at all.
I have a strong impression that even some of the professional military misunderstand the scale of this war.

I get the strong impression the Brits and other NATO members oversold and now are about to underdeliver on thier mission to support Ukraine.

EDIT: Today Kamala Harris meeting in Munich (certainly a location with historic significance) so sounds like the munition industry will be BOOMING!

Munich Security Conference: Kamala Harris vows support to Ukraine for 'as long as it takes'

United States Vice President Kamala Harris, who joined world leaders at the Munich Security Conference in Germany, said on Saturday that even in the face of continued aggression by Russia, Ukraine is still standing a year later. The speech comes days ahead of the one-year anniversary of Russia's...

www.wionews.com

 

[tomjelly]

Col. Macgregor: Ukraine is About to be ANNIHILATED (Exclusive Interview):​

 

[Rob F.]

This one from Milley is a little more recent. He says the Ukies have already won?
Here is "long" version so nobody can claim it is just a soundbite taken out of context.

I generally take anything from CNN/big news and/or Politicians of both sides with a buckets of salt, but that is just me.
Recent examples of media/politicians blowing things out of proportion are the china weather ballon fiascos and the ohio train....

 

[FJsapper]

A small thought about the consumption of shells. A British instructor who is involved in the training of Ukrainian soldiers said that Ukraine is now consuming too much ammunition. NATO fights differently, he said, we will teach the Ukrainian army to use fewer shells.
OK, let's be "analysts on the couch" for a bit. The length of the front line is about 750 miles. The maximum range of howitzers, on average, is about 22 miles.
The Ukrainians fire about 5.000 shots a day, or 6.6 shots for every mile of the front. Each one mile of front is 1*22=22 square miles of combat area. That is, Ukraine makes 6.6 shots per day for 22 square miles. It doesn't seem like overkill to me at all.
I have a strong impression that even some of the professional military misunderstand the scale of this war.

You can’t just divide frontage like that, that’s not how artillery is applied tactically. Mass and concentration are principles of the defense.

 

[Bill D]

russian ammunition must be terrible. The latest russian general to commit suicide? had to shoot himself in the head five times. He was 72 years old so he probably couldn't get the window open to jump.
Bill D

 

[Milland]

russian ammunition must be terrible. The latest russian general to commit suicide? had to shoot himself in the head five times. He was 72 years old so he probably couldn't get the window open to jump.
Bill D

This one was just 58, so spry enough to get out the window: https://nypost.com/2023/02/16/top-putin-war-official-marine-yankina-plunges-to-her-death/

The claim is she called her husband before the jump to let him know, but gosh - a lot of these Russian officers and apparatchiks are finding life after failure just too much to (Russian) bear...