Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Tamas]

I mean... in a proper WW3 situation, can production of Javelins and similar high-tech expensive weapons be scaled up and maintained long enough to remain as decisive a factor as they seem to be in Ukraine? Maybe yes, I have no idea. But I wouldn't send tanks to the scrapyard just yet.

[celedhring]

I mean... in a proper WW3 situation, can production of Javelins and similar high-tech expensive weapons be scaled up and maintained long enough to remain as decisive a factor as they seem to be in Ukraine? Maybe yes, I have no idea. But I wouldn't send tanks to the scrapyard just yet.

They probably can be produced faster and cheaper than AFVs can.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I would wager yes. The current generation Javelin (F-model, and I suspect a lot that are in Ukraine are E-Model older versions), went into production in May of 2020, at that point it had no firm foreign sales contracts so Javelin (which is a joint venture company between Raytheon and Lockheed) was basically producing them just to have an inventory, and they said around 550 would come out of the first lot by the fall (with a start manufacturing date of mid-May 2020.) So that suggest a couple hundred a month at a very low "intensity" pace.

For domestic use, the United States DoD awarded Javelin a contract to produce 2,100 of the newest F models for domestic use in 2020. Across all model generations 45,000 Javelins have been produced since 1996 when they entered service. While I don't see that it is disclosed publicly, going by piecemeal data in a few press releases of foreign + domestic sales and production I would guess at regular "full rate" production the Alabama factory churns out ~2500-2700 javelin missiles per year. The production line is part of a very large industrial park owned by Lockheed and the Javelin line has 70 employees.

My guess is with appropriate incentives they could scale up production decently. Some things in their favor:

- Large site already procured, probably with space to grow
- Most of the supply chain is domestic
- Large base of industrial weapons workers already on site, some of whom could likely be re-tasked if it was determined it was important enough

Certainly javelin production, as a much simpler system with simpler supply chains, could be increased more easily than could production of Russian tanks. There's also some works with an Indian defense company (unclear on status) to co-manufacture a different version of the Javelin in India, so there are options along those lines as well.

[viper37]

The best way to gain the Black Sea Coast is to:

1) Send in your elite troops in the North and Central Fronts to be butchered.
2) Have large armored and mechanized formations rush in to be ambushed and lose large numbers of equipment.
3) Make sure these units ignore the tactical formations you have bragged about so they can lose large numbers of soldiers
4) Even in the South have incompetent Hell-Rides to places where they are ambushed.
5) Expend thousands of lives besieging a city.

Seems like a sound strategy.

[Jacob]

Interesting. Thanks OvB.

Re: India - but a different tangent: I've read that India is doing less to isolate Russia than even China. I know that India is a valuable counterweight to China, but how much can they be relied upon vs Russia and how wise is to share tech etc with them?

[Tamas]

I don't think there can be any doubt the original Russian goal was to install a puppet regime and thus reclaim Ukraine (probably to take away some territory as well). They are moving the goal posts after being utterly defeated due to hubris.

[The Brain]

I don't think there can be any doubt the original Russian goal was to install a puppet regime and thus reclaim Ukraine (probably to take away some territory as well). They are moving the goal posts after being utterly defeated due to hubris.

Someone hasn't read YouTube comments. CLEARLY Putin just wanted to bloody his raw recruits. His elite units which are all still in Russia could take Ukraine any time he wants.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Interesting. Thanks OvB.

Re: India - but a different tangent: I've read that India is doing less to isolate Russia than even China. I know that India is a valuable counterweight to China, but how much can they be relied upon vs Russia and how wise is to share tech etc with them?

India has close relations with Russia going back to the mid-1950s, while the recent thaw in Chinese/Russian relations is a post-Cold War manifestation designed to counter the United States, India and Russia's ties go back further. India certainly doesn't really have any broad cultural approval of Putin's ethos of imperial territorial expansionism and autocracy, but India views Russia as an important strategic partner.

The U.S. somewhat soured Indian relations during the Cold War in a few ways--by warming towards China, we were seen to be cozying up to a strategic enemy of India's, and by Nixon siding with Pakistan in the Kashmir dispute we really got on their shit list. Meanwhile Russia was India's largest provider of advanced military technologies and development assistance during the Cold War even while India remained technically a Non-Aligned country. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was a bone of contention since India was not one of the "approved" nuclear powers under the treaty and when they conducted their first nuclear tests we imposed sanctions on them--these were lifted by Bush.

A few things in the last 10-15 years have seen us improving our relationship with India. One is we've kind of broken off with Pakistan, which helps a lot in improving the Indian relationship (and I'd much rather be dealing with India than Pakistan.) The other is we dropped bitching about them going nuclear, and have steadily cozied up our trade and defense relationships. We've started laying groundwork for closer defense industry sharing between the two countries.

However, as of now the vast majority of India's foreign defense equipment is provided by Russia, and Russia is an important strategic partner that India looks to to mediate clashes with Pakistan and China when possible. I think India is in kind of a unique situation where we really shouldn't expect them to forcefully break with Russia like much of the West have done, as it isn't reasonable for us to expect a country the West largely "sided against" in many ways for decades to turn on its long-time benefactor.

That being said it should be a strategic goal to continually strengthen cooperation and relations between the West and India, and as the world's largest democracy we have a lot of ground for mutual cooperation. I think if handled correctly, further years of relationship building could lead to India drifting away from Russia and be an important Western ally, but it's not something that can happen overnight and it has to be managed appropriately. I think Biden and the other NATO leaders have done well in not publicly laying into India or pressuring India very much to get on board with Russian sanctions.

India has some of the same reasons for maintaining good relations that Israel does--India has powerful enemies at its gates and it would be strategically dangerous for it to not have powerful friends. While Israel is certainly more in the American camp than the Russian, and India is more in the Russian camp than the American, both countries have incentives to try and be on decent ground with both, since it is very unlikely that India will ever have good relations with its giant neighbor China or its smaller but dangerous/troublesome neighbor Pakistan.

[Sheilbh]

Interesting. Thanks OvB.

Re: India - but a different tangent: I've read that India is doing less to isolate Russia than even China. I know that India is a valuable counterweight to China, but how much can they be relied upon vs Russia and how wise is to share tech etc with them?

They can't on Russia. As OvB says Russia is a long standing strategic partner for India, in the Cold War but even in the modern day Russia tends to back India on, say, Kashmir. But that history is long too. Plus about two thirds of India's defence imports come from Russia (best way to align India away from Russia - develop cheaper weapons they could buy).

I also think India is ideologically committed to a stance of non-alignment and not really condemning anyone - which is what's led to these very weird statements from their UN team where they set out all the reasons Russia is wrong but then abstain. It's a non-alignment that has removed Nehru's radical anti-imperialism, so is more amoral, but again has quite deep roots that India does not want to be in a "bloc". Also I think there is probably a bit of a strand of Indian politics that just likes a strongman.

My suspicion is that there'll be countries that are aligned on opposing Russia and China, countries that oppose Russia but are open to China and countries, like India, that oppose China but not Russia. I suspect Western leaders will have to work with all of them.

[celedhring]

and countries, like India, that oppose China but not Russia.

I've always wondered how that's going to work for them in the long run. I mean, I understand they don't have any other options in the region, and they need at least an ally there but I wouldn't trust Russia having my back against China...

[OttoVonBismarck]

and countries, like India, that oppose China but not Russia.

I've always wondered how that's going to work for them in the long run. I mean, I understand they don't have any other options in the region, and they need at least an ally there but I wouldn't trust Russia having my back against China...

India more doesn't think it can have good relations with China since China seems to view Indian development as contrary to China's destiny as Asian hegemon, and has territorial claims against India which it saber rattles about.

The answer is India will try to maintain good ties with Russia but participate in arrangements with the West that counter-China, without fully becoming part of the Western alliance. India's participation in the Quad (India/Japan/Aus/US) being one example of their approach.

[viper37]

I mean... in a proper WW3 situation, can production of Javelins and similar high-tech expensive weapons be scaled up and maintained long enough to remain as decisive a factor as they seem to be in Ukraine? Maybe yes, I have no idea. But I wouldn't send tanks to the scrapyard just yet.

It's not so different than WW2.  GM changed its production from civilian vehicles to military vehicles.
Microchip producers would possibly shift a part of their civilian manufacturing for chips used in military equipment.

During the recent covid crisis, sports jersey manufacturers changed their production line to make medical coveralls instead.  So, it can be done, but it means we are rationed for other mundane things.  If it was a WW3 the scale of WW1 & 2, lots of people would be in the army, so there would be less needs for civilian clothing and gaming consoles.

[Josquius]

I mean... in a proper WW3 situation, can production of Javelins and similar high-tech expensive weapons be scaled up and maintained long enough to remain as decisive a factor as they seem to be in Ukraine? Maybe yes, I have no idea. But I wouldn't send tanks to the scrapyard just yet.

It's not so different than WW2.  GM changed its production from civilian vehicles to military vehicles.
Microchip producers would possibly shift a part of their civilian manufacturing for chips used in military equipment.

During the recent covid crisis, sports jersey manufacturers changed their production line to make medical coveralls instead.  So, it can be done, but it means we are rationed for other mundane things.  If it was a WW3 the scale of WW1 & 2, lots of people would be in the army, so there would be less needs for civilian clothing and gaming consoles.

From what I've heard being a soldier in a war is like, there'd be far more need for handhelds :p

[Darth Wagtaros]

I think people talking about the need for infantry support are missing the point.

Touche.  It took a lot of luck and finesse to kill a tank with man portable weapons in WWII, unlike now.

[Berkut]

I think people talking about the need for infantry support are missing the point.

Touche.  It took a lot of luck and finesse to kill a tank with man portable weapons in WWII, unlike now.

They relevant point though is that all man portable AT weapons in WW2 themselves had lower range than infantry small arms. Hence having supporting infantry could actually screen armor from infantry attack.

That is no longer the case - man portable AT weapons have much longer range then the weapons of the infantry that would be screening the armor. So that entire "ZOMG Armor needs infantry support!" as a response to seeing modern armor falling to modern man portable AT weapons doesn't actually make much sense.