Russian performance is extremely good - actually

In another thread about these missiles I asked if we had any left for ourselves.....Looks like we are further down that path than we know. Rope a doped.....
The production lines are still active. All we have to do us pay the builder and push construction of replacement missiles and launchers.
 
Eh? All are in production.

Actually, they are not.

Here is a fact, I actually find that claim funny. I spent many years in PATRIOT missiles in the late 2000's and early 2010's. And in my Battalion, I was the only one older than my launcher. In fact, I have never seen a launcher made after around 1988. Not even the PAC-3 launchers that started to come out in 1995. They simply took in older launchers and reworked them into PAC-3 launchers. One I worked on was dated to 1982, but it was PAC-3 (reworked in 1997). And production of "new" (reworked original PATRIOT into PAC-3) ended almost 2 decades ago.

They are still making the missiles, but production of launchers ended decades ago. The same with the RADAR systems, and everything else. They simply take an older unit that is not in service, and rework it into a new one. And it is actually the same with a lot of our military equipment. They have not really made a "new M-1 Abrams" in about 2 decades. They simply strip the hull of an old one, then build a "new" tank around that. Replace all of the equipment inside, but still on the hull of an old tank.

The only launchers they are likely making are some of those for other nations. But those are all low numbers, and largely insignificant. Like the PATRIOT for Germany.

512px-PATRIOT_SAM_launcher_at_ILA_2012.jpg


It may look the same as a US launcher, but other than the part that holds the missile canisters, there is very little in common between the two physically.
 
Actually, they are not.
I thought you were talking about the stingers and javelins. Yes, IADS get block upgrades rather than replaced. IADS is a major national investment, not throw away systems.

The PAC-3 missiles are in production, and a new generation of radars is here. Lockheed got a $6 Bn contract in 2020 that will run to 2027 for missiles and launcher modifications. The launchers can go on any chassis, it doesn't really matter who makes that part.

Raytheon has a new radar that is in OT&E right now.


These billion dollar deals are the bread and butter for Lockmart and Raytheon- even the Javelin multi-year orders are like $150 Mn and go for several years. So even if the margins are double, the profits are still just a fraction of what they earn on the IADS side.

Plus the IADS always has a sustainment and maintenance component so once the installed base is in place, the money keeps coming in even if they don't do the block upgrades.

I think the order book on Javelins is something like 50K missiles, so figure at least 5K CLU's to go with. They could crank up production if they wanted to. Most customers won't complain about an early delivery, and if say, Germany doesn't want them early, someone else will be happy to take them.

They don't really have the incentive to do that. They are happy with a ten-year order book, the JV can run on autopilot and they can put their attention on whatever is their latest and greatest big ticket item to peddle to the Pentagon...
 
Last edited:
Regarding the OP. Russian performance, the ISW put out a more detailed assessment yesterday.

I know a guy whose entire career has been the sustainment side, first as an NCO and now as a civilian. He wrote up an excellent comparison of the way we do it and the way Russia is doing it. I might post that here.

The underlying problem with the ORBAT is the absence of organic sustainment units within the BTG structure. This isn't something Russia can just fix in the middle of a war.

Anyway, most of the focus of this assessment is the state of the Russian forces, so I post it here.

 

Forum List

Back
Top