[awskinda]

There’s a very big difference between what the USA does in proxy wars vs direct conflicts.

Ukraine doesn’t have air superiority, and is basically getting shipped leftover or soon-to-be disposed equipment. You have some really good points, but I would be cautious about extrapolating over Ukraine.

As a counter-point, you can look at what happened in Iraq when it was basically a large military power entering the Gulf War (and stealth fighter/bombers were in their infancy).

[wolverine876]

> Ukraine doesn’t have air superiority, and is basically getting shipped leftover or soon-to-be disposed equipment. You have some really good points, but I would be cautious about extrapolating over Ukraine.

The US and Europe is manufacturing artillery shells and other things, and cannot nearly keep up with Ukraine's needs.

[awskinda]

That’s true, but the US and Europe also haven’t structured their modern capabilities around artillery. It’s a component of their doctrines, but wasn’t expected to be required in such large quantities as Ukraine has required.

They have astronomical stockpiles of other weapons like JDAMs able to be delivered by F-35, etc.

I think Ukraine is just in a weird situation, because they are fighting WWI-style. NATO has strongly aligned their doctrines with total air superiority, and Ukraine hasn’t been able to take advantage much in that area.

[wolverine876]

What I said about a lack of capacity is openly said by the US military to be a leading priority.

> They have astronomical stockpiles of other weapons like JDAMs able to be delivered by F-35, etc.

Why do you think that? Last I knew, which was several years ago, it was constrained. I think they ran out in some situations (nothing of much consequence).

[awskinda]

There’s a lack of capacity, but it’s a generalization to a very large cold-war style conflict. ie - you are right NATO has identified shortages, but it’s more of a concern for conflicts on world war scales.

Just searching around, the USA alone has 500,000 JDAMs sitting in warehouses. I knew it was a lot because of the recent quotes on what Israel has stockpiled. They are much more effective than artillery, don’t miss, and can be used for deep strikes on stealth aircraft.

My main point here is that Ukraine is a bad example of supply shortages, so I don’t want to lose sight of that. That conflict is a good example of shortages for _part_ of the military supply chain in an unexpected use-case. Full NATO involvement or support would have seen the end of the conflict by now one way or the other. The reason I say that is that Ukraine has put a major dent in Russia’s military with no modern air force, no navy, world war 1 tactics, and at best mediocre support from other countries.

[wolverine876]

> Just searching around, the USA alone has 500,000 JDAMs sitting in warehouses.

Where did you find that? I'm surprised they publish it.

[emptysongglass]

It's well-known that the US and Europe are not structured for artillery warfare. The reason why Europe can't produce enough artillery is because they'd need to massively expand manufacturing to provide for a country that still operates using a land warfare doctrine.

Not that it's an excuse for the EU's poor showing here but it's not at all transferable to the ability of the US and the EU to fight a near-peer. None of the same considerations apply.

I can recommend spending some time in r/credibledefense for more on the topic.

[wolverine876]

It's not just artillery. It's surprising that seems to be something widely believed. Just off the top of my head, the Navy needs many more cargo ships to supply the Pacific during a war. They need many more anti-air missiles - and much cheaper options, because the missiles are too expensive and, with the advent of drones, too many are needed.

[giantg2]

"Ukraine doesn’t have air superiority,"

In a near peer conflict, we may not either. That is one part of the scenarios being thought through now. Some of that is already starting to trickle in as changes to things like the Marine Corps restructuring.