Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt Texan gun ranges need a lot of 155mm.
If it were allowed and available I bet a huge amount of Texans would be buying 155mm just for bragging rights.
[deleted]
As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production
281–290 of 367 posts
Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point, I think the burden of proof is on anybody who thinks a serious saturation attack on a carrier group (hundreds of missiles and/or decoys per wave, multiplied by multiple waves) from a peer adversary wouldn't work. If a conflict with Russia or China breaks out, I think the first thing that happens is aircraft carriers are going to immediately become obsoleted by antiship missiles as quickly as battleship…
Russia's Black Sea Fleet has been largely confined to port in Novorossiysk by Ukrainian "naval drones", having previously been used to bombard Ukrainian cities with cruise missiles. So what are these naval drones? I assumed they were fancy, expensive sea-skimming cruise missiles; nope. Apparently they're modified jet-skis with cheap FPV navigation equipment. So I don't think you're wrong, and I think we've already fo…
Apparently they're modified jet-skis with cheap FPV navigation equipment.
Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production
#283The US government-owned facilities are not the only US source of 155mm rounds. NAMMO [1] is a major manufacturer, and they have a facility in Mesa, AZ. Here's their marketing video for 155mm rounds.[2] Nammo's management complains that they are being offered 3-4 year contracts, and they need 10-15 year contracts to build new factories. Peacetime demand for large-caliber ammo is very low, so when there's not a war on,…
> Israel is unhappy that the US stores of ammo in Israel are being sent to Ukraine Yes, they have their own ground-leveling to do after all..
They have JDAMs, and their opposition doesn't have AA... or tanks. Less need for 155mm
Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production
#284The US government-owned facilities are not the only US source of 155mm rounds. NAMMO [1] is a major manufacturer, and they have a facility in Mesa, AZ. Here's their marketing video for 155mm rounds.[2] Nammo's management complains that they are being offered 3-4 year contracts, and they need 10-15 year contracts to build new factories. Peacetime demand for large-caliber ammo is very low, so when there's not a war on,…
> Peacetime demand for large-caliber ammo is very low Even in the US?
anything larger than 7.62mm (.30, like 30-06 or 308, or maybe 12ga slugs) is comparatively uncommon -- even in the US. clearly this is disappointing, as the founding fathers intended for us to own 12 pounder cannons. "tally ho lads!", etc.
and when it comes to mortars, arty, etc, they don't fire that many rounds in training and exercises. even during the Iraqi-led pushbacks against ISIS, where US Marine artillery fired a ton of rounds in support, there was little over-all impact on supply. before that, counter insurgency work generally doesn't use much artillery -- though lord knows they tried to until around mid-to-late 2004.
by comparison, estimates are as high as 20k-50k shells per day in Ukraine.
Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production
#285Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Peacetime demand for large-caliber ammo is very low Even in the US?
While the American Dream of howitzer ownership may be alive and well among the 0.01%, it's getting harder and harder for the rest of us to maintain our $4,000/round artillery habits. A modest proposal: the US Army should offer obsolete and surplus artillery in exchange for handguns. Given the price of ammunition, correlation between poverty and gun violence, the logistics involved in large-scale artillery theft, and…
> (...) it's getting harder and harder for the rest of us to maintain our $4,000/round artillery habits.
The $4,000/round figure sparked my curiosity, and after checking it looks like the actual unit price is below $2,000.
There are some beefy pricetags being floated around, buy they are calculated indirectly by dividing the total cost of a ammo supply contract by the number of artillery rounds ordered. From the article, I wouldn't be surprised if those contracts also covered investments required to ramp up production, which is also covered by this article.
Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point, I think the burden of proof is on anybody who thinks a serious saturation attack on a carrier group (hundreds of missiles and/or decoys per wave, multiplied by multiple waves) from a peer adversary wouldn't work. If a conflict with Russia or China breaks out, I think the first thing that happens is aircraft carriers are going to immediately become obsoleted by antiship missiles as quickly as battleship…
I agree with the general threat, but an aircraft carrier can still project force at a distance, so a foe must strike from a great distance. It's doable but expensive. So not sure about how quickly carriers will be obsolete or ever really. Only a really advanced and large foe can threaten them.
but an aircraft carrier can still project force at a distance
It's ~130 ship-launched guided missiles and ~75 fighter jets. They will not be operating at a stand-off distance relative to the reach of cruise and ballistic missiles launched from Chinese homeland. And the planes are not going to be able to take off and land if the carrier is executing evasive maneuvers because of missile attack.
If you were China, how would you tackle that? Is there any reason you wouldn't just send several waves of several hundred missiles their way?
Carrier strike groups are still useful. 130 missiles and 75 jets is plenty to dissaude most countries on earth. Just not the biggest ones, if they have committed to waging a full-scale war against you.
China would definitely not emerge unscathed. The CSG would be augmented with a lot of longer range stuff such as US fighters/bombers/missiles/subs launched from elsewhere. But I mean, I think the CSG gets effectively deleted in the first few hours of war. Hope I'm wrong.
Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production
#288Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm relatively sure the search/track radar doesn't go with individual bullets, but yeah, you have a high PK (percentage of kill) when defending against one, two missiles. But that's not how they'll be employed - your problem is attack mass and engagement time. You'll have maybe a swarm of cheap drones, a few dozen Mig-21s revamped for drone control, a few incoming guided ballistic missiles at mach 7, fifty or so subs…
I also don't entirely understand how directed energy stuff can work against things that aren't just going on a ballistic trajectory like hypersonics. You need to nail that target for an extended period of time. And it's safe to say that if these things ever taken off then the countless sorts of passable protection (multiple layers of thick highly reflective surfaces for instance) would end up being applied to importa…
> multiple layers of thick highly reflective surfaces
this protects from lasers, but also makes it glaringly obvious to EW and radar systems.
Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production
#289Earlier quoted context omitted.
Towards the end of WW2 the US Navy got pretty good at anti-aircraft gunnery. The Japanese responded by sending their "guided missiles" (kamikazes) to attack in column formation. By the time the target ship shot down the attacking aircraft at the head of the column the others shielded behind it would be that much closer. Often the last one would get through to score a hit. The weapons are faster and more lethal now, b…
At this point, I think the burden of proof is on anybody who thinks a serious saturation attack on a carrier group (hundreds of missiles and/or decoys per wave, multiplied by multiple waves) from a peer adversary wouldn't work. If a conflict with Russia or China breaks out, I think the first thing that happens is aircraft carriers are going to immediately become obsoleted by antiship missiles as quickly as battleship…
> (...) aircraft carriers are going to immediately become obsoleted by antiship missiles (...)
I think aircraft carriers are already obsolete, not due to antiship missiles but due to small, quiet diesel subs.
Pretty much any NATO navy operating these has stories from NATO exercises where their small, unimpressive sub managed to score hits on a carrier.
This isn't new. Around two decades ago, the US felt the need to ask Sweden to loan them their HSMS Gotland to learn how to do something about them.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/think-us-navy-aircraf...
Re: As much as you ever wanted to know about 155M artillery shell production
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Israel is unhappy that the US stores of ammo in Israel are being sent to Ukraine Yes, they have their own ground-leveling to do after all..
Grounds not going to level itself now is it
I somehow doubt Israel uses a lot of 155 mm artillery shells per day at the moment.