Meanwhile America is now struggling to produce something as simple as artillery shells, while Russia is producing 2-5 times the number produced by the entire US + EU combined.
There is good reason for that: the US/NATO war plans are not to get into an artillery war in the first place. If there is artillery in the way the US/NATO plan is send an airplane with a few bombs to take it out. There is still some room for artillery in the army and so we produce some, but that isn't the major way to fight wars.
The Soviet plan - which both Russia and Ukraine are well trained in - was to use lots of artillery. In backing Ukraine NATO suddenly sees a need for some shells that they wouldn't use if it was them. But the Ukrainian generals know them and so that is what they want. (Note too the nobody has provided Ukraine anywhere near the number of airplanes needed to fight a NATO style war - even if all promised F16s arrive today with full training it isn't enough for a NATO war)
Right, I think the idea that America plans to go into an artillery slugsfest misunderstands American military doctrine. One could argue that the reason we weren't prepared to do "artillery war" in Ukraine is because, politically, we're restrained from conducting an air superiority campaign (which would be used to eliminate enemy artillery).
The Soviet/Russian land doctrine is totally based on artillery. It makes sense that that is their priority.
Now, that doesn't mean that American doctrine would work well in a hypothetical war with China. I personally don't think the current doctrine would work well. But those that watch the military sphere know that brass have taken note of that and are implementing changes. That all you can really ask for.
The point is not whether US/NATO would fight an artillery war. The point is about proving your industrial base's manufacturing capacity. Artillery shells should be relatively cheap and easy to produce. It's a really bad sign if America is such a bureaucratic mess right now that production can't be ramped quickly. Doesn't bode well for future war, doesn't demonstrate capability.
The US doesn't want an artillery war, so they don't need that, and therefore I disagree. However it is bad that we haven't scaled up patriot production as that is something we would need and should know (in fact we knew that 20 years ago after the gulf war).
While asking we should also question how fast we can scale up F35 production along with all the various arms the F35 carries.
The US may not want an artillery war, but the US needs to inspire confidence among partners and allies, and this sort of manufacturing failure really sends a bad signal. No wonder half of Africa is turning away from US/Western partners and looking towards Russia.
It’s disingenuous to claim without citation that the US does not anticipate using artillery as one (of many) primary weapons in a land conflict against a near-peer adversary. The fact that thr US hasn’t had such a conflict since at least Vietnam (and arguably Korea) not withstanding.
Artillery has proved decisive in every conflict with static lines in the last 100 years. Sure, hopefully air supremacy would overwhelm your opponent and prevent a static conflict, but no air force has ever established supremacy in a conflict with saturated strategic air defenses. Perhaps the US air forces could, but this capability is untested. Sadam and Yugoslavia were limited to tactical air defenses in relatively small numbers compared with modern day Russia or China.
In short, artillery remains important, which is why US artillery shell production is up an order of magnitude over the last 3 years, and will continue to rise.
> It’s disingenuous to claim without citation that the US does not anticipate using artillery as one (of many) primary weapons in a land conflict against a near-peer adversary.
It's not disingenuous at all. It's pretty apparent if you even take a cursory look at modern American military doctrine/spending. The plan is always to park a carrier close by (maybe two), conduct an air campaign, then send in the troops. Artillery wars just chew up people which the the American public has not had an appetite for since Vietnam.
>The fact that thr US hasn’t had such a conflict since at least Vietnam (and arguably Korea) not withstanding.
It think that is a caveat as big as the Pacific. Vietnam was literally 60 years ago. You don't think top brass have rethought how wars are fought since then? For context, that's 10 Presidencies since LBJ (36th).
> Artillery has proved decisive in every conflict with static lines in the last 100 years.
Again, modern American doctrine has focused on the layering of power projection and troop mobility specifically to NOT fight in static positions.
> Artillery has proved decisive in every conflict with static lines in the last 100 years. Sure, hopefully air supremacy would overwhelm your opponent and prevent a static conflict, but no air force has ever established supremacy in a conflict with saturated strategic air defenses. Perhaps the US air forces could, but this capability is untested. Sadam and Yugoslavia were limited to tactical air defenses in relatively small numbers compared with modern day Russia or China.
Again caveats. Also a war with China will be fought exactly opposite to Ukraine (with missiles not artillery, and with dynamic naval fronts, not trench warfare).
> The plan is always to park a carrier close by (maybe two)
It's an open secret in military circles that aircraft carriers are useless against a peer adversary like Russia or China, which both have the ability to sink carriers and shoot down planes easily. Carriers are only good against unsophisticated terrorists.
But it is pointless to talk about a war with Russia, which would very quickly turn into nuclear Armageddon.
It funny I actually read that article earlier this month. I don't have articles to rebutt, but there are people in military circles who think diametrically to the that article (including me).
> It's an open secret in military circles that aircraft carriers are useless against a peer adversary like Russia or China, which both have the ability to sink carriers and shoot down planes easily.
This is not true. How else do you expect to fight an adversary in their home turf without a platform for air superiority? If anything, aircraft carriers would have more survivability (they move) than our supporting airbases in Korea, Japan, and the Philippines (which will almost immediately be hit with ballistic missiles at the start of a conflict). Carriers have layered missile defense. Our arguably biggest weakness in our navy is our lack of ability to underway replenish vertical launch missile cells (used for both offense and defense at sea), but there is a huge push to solve this at the moment.
I'd also challenge you to show examples of China actually shooting down a fighter jet. There's also the fact that China just doesn't have the military experience. Half of war fighting is experience (rehearsing isn't the same as active conflict), and logistics.
> Carriers are only good against unsophisticated terrorists.
This is laughably untrue.
> But it is pointless to talk about a war with Russia, which would very quickly turn into nuclear Armageddon.
No reason to think their nuclear arsenal is in any better shape than the rest of their armaments. (Or are they going to buy nukes from the Norks, too?)
Fighting static positions is what you do when your opponent is literally your neighbor occupying slightly different dirt that touches yours. Which is not the case with China and the US.
When you switch from land to water tooling your military doctrine to things like air superiority, missiles, island hoping make much more sense to me at least.
Well we certainly do agree that artillery will not be the primary weapon of choice in any naval war!
I do appreciate your point of view, but I maintain that in a lengthy land war with a near peer, missile stockpiles would run low and 4th gen fighters would be unable to contest enemy airspace. Of course, the caveat is that the US would very much like to avoid any such conflict via either diplomacy or a decisive first few weeks of combat. And the hope is that 5th gen fighters would evade air defenses. Even so, US doctrine calls for being capable of fighting prolonged land wars on multiple fronts.
> US artillery shell production is up an order of magnitude over the last 3 years, and will continue to rise.
God bless. Let's outperform all the adversaries combined in shell, ammunition, carrier, and fighter production. American military dominance must never be called into question even by the possibility of multi-theater war.
If the factory isn't used you have no idea if it will work. Did mice eat the wires? Machines rust? Did we discover the something is hazardous and we wouldn't use it? Is the thing obsolete and we wouldn't want it anymore? Do we have people who know how to run the factory? This is one reason why the army has thousands of tanks they don't want (the more cynics say is is a jobs program that congress forces on the army - you decide which view you want to take, but both are valid)
> As a Ukrainian, this sounds like betrayal. We went to war expecting sufficient military support from our superpower partner/ally.
You didn't "go to war". A portion of your sovereign territory was invaded, and you did/are attempting to defend it. The fact that the US/NATO are willing to contribute to your defense is just a plus. Ukraine is not a NATO member and has no defense treaties with anyone in Europe.
> A portion of your sovereign territory was invaded, and you did/are attempting to defend it
Technically true, but if you get some amount of promised military support, you're going to try to be more ambitious in your defense/counter-attack, and you're going to reject unfavourable peace terms.
Russia also spends something like 7% of its gdp in the military, while for most European countries defence budget is around 2% of their gdp.
I'm not a war analyst also, but nato doctrine is kinda different from Russia'S. During both Bosnia and Serbia bombing campaigns nato inflicted most damage through bombs, not shells. In Ukraine both Ukrainians and Russians had to resort to artillery shells because none of them could fly uncontested
Your linked articles don’t back up the first part of your claim: the US doubled production, and exceeded production targets, but that progress is being hindered due to Congressional funding. So we have the ability to make shells, but don’t need them in mass numbers (because we’re not in an active war).
The OP article is about creating the manufacturing capability, which is different from having the capability and not needing it.
Sure, if you have the mistaken belief that making modern artillery shells at scale is simple, the US looks bad compared to a country whose government has always prioritized having lots of supplies for its army because unlike the US, it is not separated by vast oceans from any army that could possibly pose a threat to it.
Did you read these? The first article clearly states the US is actually ramping up production better than expected and it can do even better with more support/funding. It's Europe/NATO being behind where they want to be and limitations on funding/support in the US that is causing the difference in supply, not US production struggles.
The economics and politics actually matter! The public do not want a war, and they do not like forseeing one, they want their own pricing issues dealt with, and they have power at elections. Whereas Russian and Chinese leaders can simply impose whatever level of hardship they need that doesn't provoke full scale open revolt and mass slaughter in their own streets.
Slavoj Žižek talks about "wartime communism", the tendency towards centralized control during extreme situations like a war or pandemic, because it is absolutely necessary for effective results at scale, when the problem is narrow and well-defined. Capitalism tends to do better at peace when there is no single fixed objective.
Sources:
[1] https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artill...
[2] https://edition.cnn.com/2024/03/10/politics/russia-artillery...