Thanks Don. My only gripe is with the initial 2 paragraphs. Kyiv has not realised anything. Back in June 2023 Zelenskyy fired the chief of Ukroboronprom for essentially failing to do anything useful. Rumours of plans for join ventures and building factories abroad, have also been flying around since last year. How far that has gone, I do not know.
There is nothing ingenious or innovative about munition production. There's simply being competent or incompetent. Also, I don't know what you consider a major weapons producer but Ukraine will not be an important international arms exporter for decades, if ever.
Yes, and western allies advice and support arms and ammo development in Ukraine for their money themself. It's better for the Ukraine and the allies, too.
There should be a lot of international cooperation in munitions production, but I don't know if that's the case. In Europe the big bottleneck is not shell casing production but powder/explosives. Nitrocellulose seems to be the bottleneck in Stugna missile production.
Also, the NATO arms manufacturers are certainly big winners by showcasing the effectiveness of their weapons in Ukraine. A small positive for Ukraine is that they can learn all sorts of technologies and solutions that they can then try to realise in their own products.
There had been cooperation in some areas. One of the conditions for the US buying another weapons system is the ability to also produce it in the US so their national security isn't compromised by events outside their control. For example, the British developed the M777 and it was built both in the UK and US, and the Norwegians developed NASAMS and it is built in both Norway and the US.
There have been a lot of new realisations in the last couple of years. Naturally, it'll take time to make changes, but I think NATO as a whole realizes it needs to be stronger. The EU realizes it needs to be stronger outside of NATO so it can function if US support is interrupted or ended. The source of energy supplies has been reconsidered and some small degree of energy self-reliance through renewable energy is being accelerated. And as part of that, there is talk about adhering to actual standardization going forward instead of near-standardization.
Ironically, rumours are that the polish SPG Krab is the only Western SPG in Ukraine that can use any 155mm ammo and propellants, because of it's non standard construction (sorry, the technical explanation is beyond my understanding).
Ukraine's an IT exporter, an industry that generates 5% of its income. There are several joint ventures moving forward. Off the top of my head: Sweden will help build the CV90 in Ukraine, Rheinmetal has a couple of ventures, and APCs and IFVs should start production this year. The US is providing technical information and will joint produce 155mm shells.
The new chief made changes that improved production in some areas within three months but is not happy with the rate of change in other areas.
Setting up new supply lines for raw materials to feed new production facilities that have to be built takes time. Still, that can be faster than trying to overcome bureaucratic inertia of established inefficient entities.
As far as heavy equipment is concerned, I will believe it when I see it. Germans are kings of promises.
What should've happened already in April/May 2022, is some prep work to have started on setting up factories in or outside of Ukraine. The focus should have been on the simplest, but functionally appropriate, designs, preferably soviet style due to familiarity. Whether that happened or not, I don't know. However, all evidence points to the fact, that it didn't. The amount of heavy equipment in NATO countries has never been a secret, nor was the production rate of ammunition. Anybody who is surprised, shouldn't have been.
The hot item in the arms bazaar for the next decade will be drones. Ukraine's showing itself to be a leader in the field, with very cost effective products, and an unprecedented test facility.
Of course they do need to expand production, or better yet reduce domestic consumption by ridding themselves of targets, before it can become a significant export earner.
There are many western companies producing drones for, and in, Ukraine, not just Ukrainian. NATO countries already produce excellent recon drones. Ukraine can certainly hope to carve out a niche on the international market. However, that is all it will be, a nice little niche.
"Ukraine is going to establish not only vast technological superiority vis-a-vis the Russian Federation, but position itself as a major factor on the international markets, too."
You must be smoking something much stronger than tobacco with your morning coffee.
Don, mentioned guy (https://twitter.com/VozimDrony/status/1769611282729017406) managed himself drones supply to UA for more than 2 years, directly to the front units all secured by crowdfunding and donations (thousands of drones)
You mentioned quite a few times that Russians are at their current pace running out of several weapon systems buy the end of 2025. So the European produced ammo is actually coming in time to extinct the then endangered species of Soviet stored equipment?
I had been wondering when barrel wear would really kick in for the Russian artillery. I was hoping for it to be sooner than you suggest, but at least you're suggesting that when they're gone, they're gone - annual production of about three week's combat losses does not bode well in a long war.
Isn't it that the necessary machine tools are produced mostly by Europe and Japan? It's a specialized, small-volume market, relatively easy to control if there's the will for it.
However, Russia should definitely be able to draw out the war, at least, if they keep improving the accuracy of their diminishing artillery, and supplement it with even more drones.
There should be a limit to the extent NK is willing to part ways with its equipment, seeing how their military strength is the sole support of their regime, and they face a similarly oversized army to the south. As for China, they are indeed a dark horse. They are probably carefully weighing the opportunity to milk Russia for all its worth vs the danger of keeping the West on edge too long and making it inconveniently militarized.
I don't think any sane country plans to invade NK - with its poor and communist population. Moreover, they got nukes. Thus they may sell most of their conventional weapons.
Regimes are supported by their internal forces, not armies.
Sure, no one would likely invade them. But they still need to project strength, and they have invested a lot in their army, practically all they have. They are visibly not satisfied with having nukes only. They seem to be a proper military state, not a police state like Russia.
In any case, we will see. I'm betting their barrel supply won't make much difference, but of course, anything is possible.
I'm curious why you refer to the double-tap strikes as "Israeli-style". They have been used extensively by Russia in the Syrian Civil War, and it appears the first recorded use of double-tap strike has been by American drones in the War on Terror.
Thanks Don. My only gripe is with the initial 2 paragraphs. Kyiv has not realised anything. Back in June 2023 Zelenskyy fired the chief of Ukroboronprom for essentially failing to do anything useful. Rumours of plans for join ventures and building factories abroad, have also been flying around since last year. How far that has gone, I do not know.
There is nothing ingenious or innovative about munition production. There's simply being competent or incompetent. Also, I don't know what you consider a major weapons producer but Ukraine will not be an important international arms exporter for decades, if ever.
Yes, and western allies advice and support arms and ammo development in Ukraine for their money themself. It's better for the Ukraine and the allies, too.
There should be a lot of international cooperation in munitions production, but I don't know if that's the case. In Europe the big bottleneck is not shell casing production but powder/explosives. Nitrocellulose seems to be the bottleneck in Stugna missile production.
Also, the NATO arms manufacturers are certainly big winners by showcasing the effectiveness of their weapons in Ukraine. A small positive for Ukraine is that they can learn all sorts of technologies and solutions that they can then try to realise in their own products.
There should be international cooperation, and a standardized 155mm round was supposed to be one of the cornerstones of such interoperability. But protection of local defense industries lead to backsliding of the standards and there are now 14 slight variations on the 155mm round throughout NATO, and this impacts performance when different rounds are used in different guns in Ukraine. https://www.reuters.com/world/nato-urges-common-standards-curbs-protectionism-boost-artillery-output-2023-10-24/#:~:text=Bauer%20said%2014%20NATO%20nations,of%20GDP%20on%20the%20military.
There had been cooperation in some areas. One of the conditions for the US buying another weapons system is the ability to also produce it in the US so their national security isn't compromised by events outside their control. For example, the British developed the M777 and it was built both in the UK and US, and the Norwegians developed NASAMS and it is built in both Norway and the US.
There have been a lot of new realisations in the last couple of years. Naturally, it'll take time to make changes, but I think NATO as a whole realizes it needs to be stronger. The EU realizes it needs to be stronger outside of NATO so it can function if US support is interrupted or ended. The source of energy supplies has been reconsidered and some small degree of energy self-reliance through renewable energy is being accelerated. And as part of that, there is talk about adhering to actual standardization going forward instead of near-standardization.
Amen to a standardized 155mm artillery shell. It's ridiculous to watch more than a dozen "standards" in ammunition for the same size.
It reminds me of the aphorism "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from"
Ironically, rumours are that the polish SPG Krab is the only Western SPG in Ukraine that can use any 155mm ammo and propellants, because of it's non standard construction (sorry, the technical explanation is beyond my understanding).
Ukraine's an IT exporter, an industry that generates 5% of its income. There are several joint ventures moving forward. Off the top of my head: Sweden will help build the CV90 in Ukraine, Rheinmetal has a couple of ventures, and APCs and IFVs should start production this year. The US is providing technical information and will joint produce 155mm shells.
The new chief made changes that improved production in some areas within three months but is not happy with the rate of change in other areas.
Setting up new supply lines for raw materials to feed new production facilities that have to be built takes time. Still, that can be faster than trying to overcome bureaucratic inertia of established inefficient entities.
As far as heavy equipment is concerned, I will believe it when I see it. Germans are kings of promises.
What should've happened already in April/May 2022, is some prep work to have started on setting up factories in or outside of Ukraine. The focus should have been on the simplest, but functionally appropriate, designs, preferably soviet style due to familiarity. Whether that happened or not, I don't know. However, all evidence points to the fact, that it didn't. The amount of heavy equipment in NATO countries has never been a secret, nor was the production rate of ammunition. Anybody who is surprised, shouldn't have been.
The hot item in the arms bazaar for the next decade will be drones. Ukraine's showing itself to be a leader in the field, with very cost effective products, and an unprecedented test facility.
Of course they do need to expand production, or better yet reduce domestic consumption by ridding themselves of targets, before it can become a significant export earner.
There are many western companies producing drones for, and in, Ukraine, not just Ukrainian. NATO countries already produce excellent recon drones. Ukraine can certainly hope to carve out a niche on the international market. However, that is all it will be, a nice little niche.
Yes, some Western drones look to be very good.
But have you seen the prices ?
NATO drones are major capital items, Ukrainian ones are consumables.
Correct URL for Reuters article: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-capital-kyiv-is-under-russian-missile-attack-mayor-says-2024-03-21/
"Ukraine is going to establish not only vast technological superiority vis-a-vis the Russian Federation, but position itself as a major factor on the international markets, too."
You must be smoking something much stronger than tobacco with your morning coffee.
Don, mentioned guy (https://twitter.com/VozimDrony/status/1769611282729017406) managed himself drones supply to UA for more than 2 years, directly to the front units all secured by crowdfunding and donations (thousands of drones)
In case anyone wants to aparticipate https://www.weaponstoukraine.com/kampane/drony-pro-dobrovolniky-na-ukrajine
or you can join this initiative https://www.dronynemesis.cz/en (originally aimed fo 10k drones, but there is no limit)
And we also bought 15 Victors to manage not only Shaheds a year ago (https://www.weaponstoukraine.com/kampane/zavreme-ukrajinske-nebe)
Thank You Tom and Don for all Your commitment.
Very good report Don Thanks
Thank you Don.
You mentioned quite a few times that Russians are at their current pace running out of several weapon systems buy the end of 2025. So the European produced ammo is actually coming in time to extinct the then endangered species of Soviet stored equipment?
Very informative, thanks Don.
I had been wondering when barrel wear would really kick in for the Russian artillery. I was hoping for it to be sooner than you suggest, but at least you're suggesting that when they're gone, they're gone - annual production of about three week's combat losses does not bode well in a long war.
They can import the equipment
Isn't it that the necessary machine tools are produced mostly by Europe and Japan? It's a specialized, small-volume market, relatively easy to control if there's the will for it.
However, Russia should definitely be able to draw out the war, at least, if they keep improving the accuracy of their diminishing artillery, and supplement it with even more drones.
They can import old guns or barrels from NK, Iran or whoever already sold them the ammo. China may have already started the production of barrels.
There should be a limit to the extent NK is willing to part ways with its equipment, seeing how their military strength is the sole support of their regime, and they face a similarly oversized army to the south. As for China, they are indeed a dark horse. They are probably carefully weighing the opportunity to milk Russia for all its worth vs the danger of keeping the West on edge too long and making it inconveniently militarized.
I don't think any sane country plans to invade NK - with its poor and communist population. Moreover, they got nukes. Thus they may sell most of their conventional weapons.
Regimes are supported by their internal forces, not armies.
Sure, no one would likely invade them. But they still need to project strength, and they have invested a lot in their army, practically all they have. They are visibly not satisfied with having nukes only. They seem to be a proper military state, not a police state like Russia.
In any case, we will see. I'm betting their barrel supply won't make much difference, but of course, anything is possible.
Thank you very much.
I'm curious why you refer to the double-tap strikes as "Israeli-style". They have been used extensively by Russia in the Syrian Civil War, and it appears the first recorded use of double-tap strike has been by American drones in the War on Terror.