• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Whoops, the U.S. Sent So Many Missiles to Ukraine That It Depleted Its Own Stockpiles

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The U.S. Sent So Many Missiles to Ukraine That It Depleted Its Own Stockpiles

Some, like the Stinger missile, have been out of production for years with no easy path toward replenishment.

The Pentagon’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been swift and nonstop, delivering thousands of rockets, missiles, small arms, and howitzers since the war began on February 24. The Department of Defense is now becoming a victim of its own success, however, having delivered so many weapons to Ukraine that the shipments have made a visible hole in the U.S. military’s own wartime stockpiles. Officials are already negotiating for brand-new shipments, but some weapons—out of production with no easy way to start building them again—won’t come easy.

Since the beginning of the war, the U.S. has delivered a stunning $3.8 billion in military aid to support Ukraine, according to the Department of State. It ships the weapons and supplies via Air Mobility Command transport planes across the Atlantic to military bases in Poland. From there, the equipment is sent by truck and train to Ukraine. The result has been devastating: Russia has lost at least 342 tanks and more than 1,000 armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles; a significant number of those losses can be attributed to Javelin missiles.

So far, the Department of Defense has sent at least 7,000 FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missiles and 1,400 FIM-92E Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to Ukraine. These are big numbers even by Pentagon standards; Mark Cancian, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates the U.S. has sent Ukraine about one-third of its total inventory of Javelin missiles, and one-quarter of its stockpile of Stinger missiles. The stockpiles are maintained worldwide to ensure the armed forces can respond to emergencies across the globe—from Russia in Europe, to China and North Korea in Asia— and even respond to multiple emergencies simultaneously.

Lockheed still makes the Javelin missile and will have to ramp up production to replenish the military's inventory, but it will still take years. Raytheon stopped producing Stinger missiles in 2020. It will take 6 to 12 months to restart the line.

The United States, Poland, and Estonia have sent Javelins to Ukraine, weapons that all three countries will eventually need to replace. The Javelin missile, first issued in the mid-1990s, is still in production. To replenish those stockpiles, Lockheed Martin is set to ramp up production of the Javelin from 2,100 a year to 4,000 missiles a year. Although that sounds like a lot of missiles, it would still take two years at that rate just to backfill America’s Javelin inventory. The company will also require additional time to set up the supply chain to provide parts for the missiles, no small feat considering the global shortage of semiconductors, which the Javelin’s guidance system is reliant upon.

Another lag in the schedule is a lengthy delivery time, which is currently 32 months— meaning missiles are delivered 32 months after the missiles are ordered. Unless this is shortened by boosting production, it will take nearly three years for the first new missiles to get to troops in the field.

Producing more Stinger missiles will be trickier. Stinger was first introduced in the 1980s, and according to Cancian, the U.S. ceased buying the missiles in 2003. Raytheon’s Stinger production line was sustained for another 17 years on overseas orders, but finally closed in December 2020. The Stinger is a decades-old part design that is obsolete by modern standards, and many of its components, including microchips, are no longer in production. Raytheon’s CEO says it will take six to 12 months to restart the production line, and it will redesign the missile’s seeker, which sees in both infrared and ultraviolet light, to use currently available components.

Replenishing the supply of Stingers and Javelins will take months to years. Fortunately, demand is now reduced. Thanks in large part to both weapons, the Russian Army is in shambles, and is only a threat to its smallest neighbors; Russia’s difficulties might well make China think twice before making the decision to invade Taiwan. The U.S. and its allies may have bought themselves some time with their decision to send arms to Ukraine.

The supply issues the U.S. is facing could have been even worse if the Army and Marines found themselves fighting a war on multiple fronts. The Ukraine war will force the Pentagon to confront the issue of how to surge production on weapons in emergencies, allowing the government to receive new-build weapons in weeks, not months or years. A future conflict may depend on both government and industry getting this right.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
The U.S. Sent So Many Missiles to Ukraine That It Depleted Its Own Stockpiles









Lockheed still makes the Javelin missile and will have to ramp up production to replenish the military's inventory, but it will still take years. Raytheon stopped producing Stinger missiles in 2020. It will take 6 to 12 months to restart the line.
That was bound to happen and will have been foreseen, I'm sure, at least to an extent. But indeed, some of the components are hard to source....due to the war in Ukraine! This will drive a yet further uncoupling of global supply chains, already well under way because of not wanting to be reliant on China. I read it may also lead to a redesign of some of the weapons - no bad thing, perhaps.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
I understand.

During the Kosovar war, the United Nations defended the right to self-determination of the Kosovar people (right decision).
Recognizing Kosovo as a state.
But refused to defend the right to self-determination of the Crimean people in 2014.
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I understand.

During the Kosovar war, the United Nations defended the right to self-determination of the Kosovar people (right decision).
Recognizing Kosovo as a state.
But refused to defend the right to self-determination of the Crimean people in 2014.

An invasion by Russia is not exercising the right to self-determination. Besides which in US history there was a civil war over some states defending the right to self-determination. And even today any person who wants to exercise that by calling himself a "sovereign citizen" will find the legal system looking askance. No rights are absolute.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
As far as depletion of arms stockpiles go, it illustrates the nature of the war between NATO and Russia being fought in the Ukraine. I'm sure military planners will want more than what they had in the stockpiles given how fast they're being chewed up currently.
 

Estro Felino

Believer in free will
Premium Member
An invasion by Russia is not exercising the right to self-determination. Besides which in US history there was a civil war over some states defending the right to self-determination. And even today any person who wants to exercise that by calling himself a "sovereign citizen" will find the legal system looking askance. No rights are absolute.

I still don't understand what criteria are used to ascertain when the right to self-determination exists, and when it does not.
 

Bathos Logos

Active Member
I still don't understand what criteria are used to ascertain when the right to self-determination exists, and when it does not.
It may boil down to nothing but self-serving interests being present in the equation for the one with the authority to make such "calls". I'm not quite sure there is anything "wrong" with that, honestly. At this scale, there is certainly much to be said of a people or a government being responsible for itself anyway. When "to" and when "not to" when it comes to providing aid or world-arena legal support must necessarily come down to something, and altruism at the expense of one's own (making decisions that affect the masses for the sake of some ideal not held by them all) is historically a very, very mixed bag.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
That was bound to happen and will have been foreseen, I'm sure, at least to an extent. But indeed, some of the components are hard to source....due to the war in Ukraine! This will drive a yet further uncoupling of global supply chains, already well under way because of not wanting to be reliant on China. I read it may also lead to a redesign of some of the weapons - no bad thing, perhaps.

Yes, the article mentioned that Lockheed is still tooled for Javelin missiles, but the Stinger sounds like it might be more difficult. Many of its components are no longer in production.

After reading this and similar articles about the production of military hardware these days, it astounds me just how interdependent so many countries are upon each other to be able to make modern weapons. Not just resources or raw materials, but technology as well.

I keep thinking back to the Cold War when they said "technology is everything," as we had been working to maintain a technological edge on our adversaries, as we (and they) still try to do today. But now, with so many different countries involved and interdependent upon each other, it's like they have to cooperate with each other to be able to make war. There does seem to be some irony to that.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I still don't understand what criteria are used to ascertain when the right to self-determination exists, and when it does not.

I haven't seen any discernible consistency in this regard when it comes to the various positions taken by the U.S. or other governments in the world. We speak of defending the "free world," but a lot of governments and countries we've supported and defended haven't all been free, at least when using Freedom House standards.

I think it largely comes down to who is willing to make deals and play ball with our government and business interests.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Don't forget religion.
Our leaders love Jews, & like
Christians. But Muslims...**** them.

Except the ones in Saudi Arabia...and Qatar and UAE, along with Pakistan, Turkey (although we're not too hep about their current leader), Egypt, and of course, Kosovo, which was @Estro Felino's question. I think our government likes most Muslim-majority countries, but there are a few who seem to be on their poop list.
 
Top