"No More Stingers" Topic

It will be years before Raytheon Technologies can build new Stinger shoulder-fired missiles due to a dwindling supply of weapons parts, the company's CEO said Tuesday…

Defense One: link

I wondered about this and just asked an ex 1st Cav officer about this exact thing last week. He didn't know the answer. Sounds like they declared they would become obsolete. A replacement was to be designed and built. But I cannot see that this ever happened. It sounds like the same may be true of the Javelins. If both are true, how shortsighted. 20 years ago would have been Bush. Just like the Warthog. But every time we hear how outdated it is, we find how effective it is. Will the government jump on this right away? Maybe take the 3 billion assigned to making our vehicles environmentally correct. (Head shaking).

Not dovetailing obsolescence and replacement is probably not a new thing. The UK MOD went big on that score when they renewed the carriers (fortunately there wasn't a major maritime conflict during that period). I have hazy memories of one or more countries being caught short like that historically and having to beg and borrow from allies to cover the capability shortfall but can't recall the specifics.

Given NATO controls a pretty big chunk of the worlds defense industry there must be options out there for interim systems if required? STARStreak at least seem to be 'in production', but I'm guessing its hardly a volume production line.

Every weapon has a "best before date". Missiles get old and needs to be scrapped regardless after a certain time.

It is also very expensive to keep factories up and running if no-one is buying what is manufactured.

High tech weapons are not easy to "scale up" production. It will take time to replace what has been given to Ukraine.

But the good news is that Russia won't be a threat for quite some time after this. This basically only leaves China as a threat. All other countries are too small to pose a serious threat. What is in US storehouses would be sufficient to deal with all threats (except China)

Even if several a§§hole countries (say Iran, Venezuela and) would team up they would not pose a threat.

In a way it seems like many western countries try to use Ukraine as a dumping place of "old weapons". Especially Germany seems to do this.

They want to give old Leopard 1 and Gepards. This way they (Germany/Rheinmetall) does not need to pay the cost of scrapping them.

In a way it seems like many western countries try to use Ukraine as a dumping place of "old weapons".

Ukrainians are certainly going to end up with quite a varied arsenal, including at least:

- original Soviet equipment that they were left with in 1992
- domestic manufactured equipment from 1992 onwards
- foreign purchases from 1992-2021
- captured Russian equipment from 2022
- donated equipment 2022 (really a mixed bag)

Older weapons might have the benefit of being more familiar to the Ukrainians (especially anything based on old Soviet designs), or easier to master. On the other hand, the Western countries are less willing to hand the latest equipment that they might need for their own defense in near future.

There is a bit of similarity again with Finland during Winter War. Already before the war the Finnish army had quite a mixed selection of armaments, and immediately before, during and after whatever odd armaments could be found were purchased (market being rather limited as everyone wanted to hoard the best and latest equipment). Add on top of that all the captured Soviet stuff, and the Finnish arsenal post-war starts looking rather colourful.

@Griefbringer

A very good and interesting analogy. I agree.

Ukraine will have its own "foreign legion" when it comes to equipment. After the war even they would have to try to standardize equipment or logistics will be a nightmare with lots of old and out of production equipment.

Also what will be with old items that Ukraine have been given but might want to "resell"?

Or will it be more of lend lease, I think of the 90 US howitzers. Are they a gift to Ukraine to do with as they please or are they a loan to be returned after use?

The Army has been talking about the plan to replace Stingers, it's just coming later than would be preferred.

link

Even if several a§§hole countries (say Iran, Venezuela and) would team up they would not pose a threat.

Venezuela is not a threat to anyone, except Venezuelans. I live in Ecuador, & we have a Venezuelan refugee renting an apartment from us, & there are a lot of Venezuelan refugees & illegal immigrants here (they either try to sell minor items like lemons or candy on street corners, or beg for money). Based on my contact with them, I don't think Venezuela is really a threat to anyone, except internally.

Damon.

Yes, missiles, etc. do have expiration dates. Like fear of the Taliban using Stingers that we gave the Muj. Against us ! The batteries died, etc., etc., Hit the expiration date …

I think with all the NATO nations and others[e.g. the "ANZACs", etc.] supplying the Ukraine with weapons of all types. They may have an eclectic mix, but they have proved themselves to be "better" soldiers than the Russians. By a long shot. E.g. I'm betting those LEO Mk.Is will do fine vs the average Russian MBT crew. Again, a weapon is only as good as the crew.

"I have hazy memories of one or more countries being caught short like that historically and having to beg and borrow from allies "

The RAF had to cobble together air-to air refuelling components for the Vulcan force preparing to visit Port Stanley in the Falkands, including one part tracked down to the desk of a USAF officer in Colorado (or similar) where it was being used as a paperweight (or maybe ashtray).

That one does ring a bell, though I think the whole operation was rather put together with 'toilet roll tubes and sticky back plastic'.

or maybe ashtray

Acceptable in the 80's….