Enceladus skrev: ↑tisdag 20 september 2022 1:06
Is the United States Running out of Weapons to Send to Ukraine?
CSIS skrev:Although some U.S. stocks are running low, alternatives―older, experimental, or nonstandard systems―are available, and these will constitute an increasingly large proportion of transfers. The United States might also acquire some stocks from third countries. The reliance on alternatives does not indicate a lack of commitment or a reduction in military capability. These systems can still be effective on the battlefield. However, they are an acknowledgment that the U.S. military was not structured to fight or support an extended conflict. That should, of itself, spark some debate in the national security establishment about budget priorities. In the meantime, the flow of weapons and munitions will continue, as will the war.
Inget land har obegränsade resurser, men USA har mycket större möjligheter än Ryssland.
Pentagon says NATO-style tanks for Ukraine are ‘on the table’ — but not yet
The Washington Times skrev:On Monday, a senior Defense Department official said Western-style tanks for Ukraine’s soldiers are “absolutely on the table” — at some point in the future.
[...]
Providing Ukraine with upgraded Western tanks would require “substantial” training and maintenance periods before they would be ready to take on the Russians, Pentagon officials said. The Biden administration is encouraging other countries still relying on Soviet-era tanks to provide them to Ukraine to supplement its existing inventory.
Förr eller senare blir det även dags för västerländska stridsvagnar.
Mycket intressant CSIS-artikel, som förtjänar att läsas i sin helhet, inte bara de citat Enceladus-kollektivet valt. Det här visar klart och tydligt på vad jag återkommit till gång på gång - USA och Nato är har inte kapacitet att utkämpa en långt krig. För små arsenaler och begränsad tillverkningskapacitet.
viewtopic.php?p=406227#p406227 (inlägget skrivet redan 29/5)
Ryssland kanske inte har det heller, men där har vi ingen detaljerad kunskap. USA/Nato har nått den gräns då man inte kan ge bort flera vapensystem - inget flyg, inget pansar (trots påståendena ovan om "on the table"), inga långräckviddiga missiler. Alltså inga vapen som kan ha en avgörande inverkan på krigets utgång, utan "more of the same", och då tydligen äldre, förrådsställda system (ex.vis 105 mm haubits). På LV-sidan en del moderna system, men de dröjer och är alldeles för få, liksom rakerartilleriet. Det är inte möjligt att ombeväpna Ukrainas försvarsmakt i den omfattning som skulle krävas, under brinnande krig.
På ammunitionssidan blir det ingen brist för handeldvapnen, men granater och missiler är en trång sektor - speciellt de tekniskt avancerade M31-missilerna som avfyras från HMARS/M270-enheter. Det går åt fasanfullt mycket ammunition i kriget.
CSIS skrev:These guided rockets (M31) are enormously useful, but the numbers are likely limited. The United States has an estimated inventory of about 25,000 to 30,000 remaining from a production run of 55,000 rockets to date. If the United States sent one-third of that inventory to Ukraine (as has been the case with Javelin and Stinger), Ukraine would receive 8,000 to 10,000 rockets. That inventory would likely last several months, but, when the inventory is exhausted, there are no alternatives. Production is about 5,000 a year. Although the United States is working to increase that amount, and money has recently been allocated for that purpose, it will take years.
Total U.S. production has been about 450 HIMARS launchers and production had nearly ceased by 2021, though the United States is ramping up production now. Therefore, giving large numbers to Ukraine will be difficult. The United States could send some of the tracked MLRS instead of HIMARS as some allies have done, though these systems are also limited. As noted in the discussion of MLRS rockets, however, the availability of rockets is likely to be the constraint. There is no point in providing a large number of rocket launchers, all competing to fire a limited number of guided rockets.
Reportedly, the United States has given about one-third of its inventory to Ukraine, and reports have emerged that the military has raised concerns about having enough for other conflicts. Surprisingly, the August 19 arms package includes another 1,000 Javelins despite the low inventory. The current production rate is about 1,000 a year. Although DOD is working to increase that, it will be many years before the inventory is fully replenished.
155 mm Ammunition is the NATO standard medium-caliber ammunition. The United States has given over one and a half a million projectiles to Ukraine, and this is probably close to the limit that the United States is willing to give without risk to its own warfighting capabilities. In FY 2023, the United States only planned to buy 29,000 of the basic high explosive projectiles (M795). Surge capacity was 288,000 projectiles per year, though with a 48-month lead time. However, because this is a NATO standard munition, a dozen countries can supply these projectiles. Therefore, transfers to Ukraine are unlikely to be constrained when the global market is considered.
Som framgår av artikeln är också alla UAV-er (Switchblade osv.) Ukraina fått av USA rent experimentella vapen och finns inte tillgängliga i någon större omfattning.
Som sagt, Ukraina får slåss med vad de har. Det finns inte möjlighet att (åtminstone inte på kort sikt) förse Ukraina med de vapen och i den omfattning som skulle behövas för att skapa ett avgörande i kriget. Och det har varit ett återkommande tema: för lite och för sent. Nu får vi hoppas att Ukraina kan bekämpa de ryska UAV-erna på ett sätt som gör att Ryssland inte får ett strategiskt övertag på slagfältet. I luftkriget har Rysskand det redan, som jag påpekat åtskilliga gånger. Med Ukrainas begränsade luftförsvar blir den begränsande faktorn i det strategiska missilkriget huvudsakligen den ryska tillgången på missiler.