• Ukraine is able to fire just 2,000 shells a day, its defense minister said.
  • That’s about a third of what Russia is firing, Rustem Umerov added.
  • In a letter seen by Bloomberg, Umerov urged his EU counterparts to fulfill their ammo commitments.
  • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    If there’s one thing NATO needs to immediately address with its own supply chain, much less support for Ukraine, it’s that artillery production has been woefully underprioritized.

    That Russia alone is outproducing the combined efforts of NATO should have heads rolling in every procurement office in the West.

    One estimate put Russian production at 7x that of NATO.

    It’s fine and dandy to point out that that discrepancy is partly going into air and naval munitions but that’s just not an excuse for there not to be parity, much less a reverse in the production gap.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      How do I start an artillery shell manufacturing company? Not how do I make them, how do I get a contract without producing one and how can I start producing them without legal authority? How do I get that authority?

      • Maalus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        “how do I start a company making these huge medical robots they use for surgery?” The answer is “you don’t”. You start off with a small company that does small things. You gain experience. And by the time you get to making an artillery shell, you know what people you need to hire, you have a network of people that probably includes someone in the military procurement. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          I still don’t see the step where you actually make the shell legally. I am familiar with the procurement labyrinth, but how do I have samples ready when I respond to a request? Where does that authorization come from?

          • Maalus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            Also, my point still stands - you first make bullets, then move onto weapons. To produce weapons, you need permission and a lot of red tape to cut through. Once you have that done, then you move onto grenades with even more tape. Then when you move onto grenade launchers, etc etc, you already have a wealth of knowledge on how to file every form, what you need to be able to produce it, about safeties.

            The answer to your direct question is “I don’t know because I don’t make artillery”. The answer to “how do I make a medical device and have it be legal”, about which I know plenty, cannot fit into any number of comments. It’s something you do for a number of months, maybe even years. It depends on every country. It depends on the medical device. It depends on the people you have, on the money available. It isn’t an answer to a question.

          • Maalus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            11 months ago

            Well, look for the info. Every business owner needs to do plenty of research. Just typing into google led me to a barnes & noble book “for dummies” on how to start an artillery business.

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I really don’t think this information is meant to be secret. I can’t imagine the US doesn’t want more domestic weapon manufacturers vying for their contracts.

          Edit: I thought this was a different movie. I haven’t seen it, the description is vague… but maybe this is the sequel.

            • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Yeah… I have already found way better information directly off the DOD website. Still not entirely clear how you get authority for testing though.

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      Maybe if certain NATO countries like Germany, Canada, and France listened to Trump, Obama, or Bush and actually put 2% into defense spending it wouldn’t be this bad. They are three of the largest economies in NATO, and have been coasting for decades on appropriate spending.

    • JC1
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Why would they need production capacity to produce a product that is useless for the NATO military doctrine? That’s just not how NATO countries wage war. Of course they don’t have a good production capacity of a tool they are not likely to use. And even if they wanted to start to produce them at the start of the war, it wouldn’t be ready today, it takes a lot of time and resources to build production capacity from scratch.

        • wewbull@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Supporting Ukraine is far more important than supporting Israel IMHO. Israel needs no support. The civilians of Gaza are the people needing support in that conflict.

          • من البحر إلى النهر@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I do agree. But it is not just being evil or believing in biblical myths that makes the US support Israel unconditionally. As much as I hate it, Israel serves a strategic interest to the US and is seen as an asset in the region rather than a liability but that’s changing. Of course nothing justifies a genocide but for the US, it can’t risk Israel falling, it needs it to control the oil exports and international trade that passes through the region.

            • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              An asset to destabilize the region?

              If “strategic interest” means “overthrow any government that doesn’t give us oil” then maybe.

              “Every time anyone says that Israel is our only friend in the Middle East, I can’t help but think that before Israel, we had no enemies in the Middle East.” - John Sheehan, S.J.

            • wewbull@feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              it needs it to control the oil exports and international trade that passes through the region.

              Does it?

              It wants to control it, but it’s megalomaniacal to NEED to control it. The US does not govern the world. Israel could fall, and the world would live on. Trade would continue. Oil would still be sold.