Military equipment & technology used in the war

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
Another batch of military aid (small typos in the first infographic)
View attachment 49415
View attachment 49416
This is nuts.

Think of all the good that money could do the tax slaves in each of those countries.

The irony is that the EU forces are just depleting their own stock and will have no place to go to replenish them.

This does benefit US arms manufactures later down the road of course....
 

TruckDriver9

Hummingbird
M198 was a much more rugged howitzer.
More rugged, would be a good thing for the ukrainians, since there have been some reports about M777 malfunctions/lack of proper maintenance. Those M198 guns may be on the older side, but are still better than what ukraine had before.

I think we've sold all those to the Saudis or some other country at this point though.
I don't think we sold them all - we've got a lot of old tech locked up in storage.
 
Last edited:

Thomas More

Crow
Protestant
This is nuts.

Think of all the good that money could do the tax slaves in each of those countries.

The irony is that the EU forces are just depleting their own stock and will have no place to go to replenish them.

This does benefit US arms manufactures later down the road of course....
I noticed Canada is providing 500,000 cold weather uniforms. This has to cut into their inventory quite a bit. It's not actual weapons, but the next thing to it. Russia's advantage in cold weather uniforms over the wehrmarcht was a major factor in their victory in WWII.

It seems likely that Canada knows a thing or two about cold weather uniforms, but now they must have stripped their existing inventory to provide a half million uniforms.
 

get2choppaaa

Hummingbird
Orthodox
More rugged, would be a good thing for the ukrainians, since there have been some reports about M777 malfunctions/lack of proper maintenance. Those M198 guns may be on the older side, but are still better than what ukraine had before.


I don't think we sold them all - we've got a lot of old tech locked up in storage.
Yes. We do, of course, i was being glib...

The issue is that we need an aging population of Field Service Reps to train people on their use as majority of Artillerymen who used a M198 are most likely E7 or E8s at this point...

I'm very sure they are not performing the proper pmcs. The gun is like a nice 1911 with a match trigger which needs a little attention here and there on the finer aspects of it but will be a tack driver compared to something like a Glock 10mm which is more rugged, needs less attention but is a lot more clunky.

That's my analogy at least... There are better ones out there I'm sure.
 

Samseau

Eagle
Orthodox
Gold Member
Iran is on the cutting edge. They are going to carry Russia all the way to Britain at this point. Unlimited suicide drones that are cheap as dirt. The future of warfare is here, this is similar to how the first armies started using muskets against crossbows. This is a major elevation in warfare and anyone who fails to adapt to drone warfare is going to be conquered.

I would expect our side to replicate this kind of drone tech, but who knows, maybe not enough money for Raytheon to make in 8K drones. And even if we do copy them, since Iran developed this kind of tech I would assume they're already ahead of us and know how to counter these drones too. We've fallen behind in the tech race and the odds of American victory are extremely slim right now.
 

Cuchulainn2016

Kingfisher
Iran is on the cutting edge. They are going to carry Russia all the way to Britain at this point. Unlimited suicide drones that are cheap as dirt. The future of warfare is here, this is similar to how the first armies started using muskets against crossbows. This is a major elevation in warfare and anyone who fails to adapt to drone warfare is going to be conquered.

I would expect our side to replicate this kind of drone tech, but who knows, maybe not enough money for Raytheon to make in 8K drones. And even if we do copy them, since Iran developed this kind of tech I would assume they're already ahead of us and know how to counter these drones too. We've fallen behind in the tech race and the odds of American victory are extremely slim right now.
It's not really an advance in technology though, it's an ability to get more bang for your buck that they have.

Utilising relatively simple tech to make a useful weapon to bridge a gap is good.

I have mentioned this before, but it's like when NASA found ink pens didn't work in zero-g, so they spent millions designing a pen that can write in zero-g. The Russians used a pencil.
 

dicknixon72

Ostrich
It's not really an advance in technology though, it's an ability to get more bang for your buck that they have.

Utilising relatively simple tech to make a useful weapon to bridge a gap is good.

I have mentioned this before, but it's like when NASA found ink pens didn't work in zero-g, so they spent millions designing a pen that can write in zero-g. The Russians used a pencil.

135.png
...both NASA and the Soviets used pencils in the beginning, but in a zero-G environment, the last thing you want are little shards of graphite (good electrical conductor) and wood splinters floating around sensitive equipment. Its also best not to have a flammable object like a wooden pencil in a 100% oxygen-saturated environment.

What is somewhat true is that NASA started to develop such a pen themselves then gave up.

The pen itself (Fisher Space Pen) was developed by the company itself for like $1M and it works also in extreme temperatures. The company developed it completely on its own and actually pitched it to NASA to use, which they did, liked it, and bought them at normal retail pricing. The Russians bought them, too, and have used them since the late-60s themselves; Chinese taikonauts use them as well.

I'm defense about these because I am an affordable writing instrument aficionado.
 

Cuchulainn2016

Kingfisher
View attachment 49505
...both NASA and the Soviets used pencils in the beginning, but in a zero-G environment, the last thing you want are little shards of graphite (good electrical conductor) and wood splinters floating around sensitive equipment. Its also best not to have a flammable object like a wooden pencil in a 100% oxygen-saturated environment.

What is somewhat true is that NASA started to develop such a pen themselves then gave up.

The pen itself (Fisher Space Pen) was developed by the company itself for like $1M and it works also in extreme temperatures. The company developed it completely on its own and actually pitched it to NASA to use, which they did, liked it, and bought them at normal retail pricing. The Russians bought them, too, and have used them since the late-60s themselves; Chinese taikonauts use them as well.

I'm defense about these because I am an affordable writing instrument aficionado.
Haha, I actually had one of those pens as a kid. Didn't ever need to write anything hanging upside down though!

My point still stands, sometimes low cost, low tech, low maintenance options are much more effective than shiny, expensive new toys.
 

Samseau

Eagle
Orthodox
Gold Member
It's not really an advance in technology though, it's an ability to get more bang for your buck that they have.

Utilising relatively simple tech to make a useful weapon to bridge a gap is good.

I have mentioned this before, but it's like when NASA found ink pens didn't work in zero-g, so they spent millions designing a pen that can write in zero-g. The Russians used a pencil.

I don't think this is like the pencil in space situation. This situation shows that Iran has better material science to achieve the same function but a far, far, far greater efficiency than anything we can produce. In the real world, applied science is the only science so even if Iran doesn't have better "theories" than USA scientists, in terms of war, it doesn't matter until there is something tangible in the real world.

It may also be the case that Iran has a less corrupt government than ours, to produce at such low cost and scale, and not have better science than us. This cannot be ruled out but either way, they have better gear right now.
 

911

Owl
Catholic
Gold Member
Maybe a good parallel would be 1944 Germany, they were running out of resources (like metals) so they designed some brilliant planes with wood mframes, including the Horten brothers' Ho-229 flying wing, which Northrop ripped off for their new bombers, including the B-2 Spirit, the most expensive plane of all time at over $2 billion a pop. Not only did the two planes look alike, but the Ho229 also was a stealth jet due to its mostly wood composite structure.

maxresdefault.jpg


As a comparison, for the cost of one B2 bomber pictured above, you could build a quarter million Shahed-138 drones...


brothers.jpg

Reimer and Walter Horten


 
Last edited:

Belgrano

Hummingbird
Gold Member
for the cost of one B2 bomber pictured above, you could build a quarter million Shahed-138 drones

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I think a Shahed drone is also cheaper than a Stinger MANPAD.

Unit cost FIM-92A: $38,000 (missile only, 1980)

which would be $136,877 in today's dollars after taking inflation into account.

Western sources estimate the cost of a Shahed-136 drone to be around $20,000. So we end up with about 6 or 7 Shahed drones for 1 Stinger.

For comparison, the unit cost of the Turkish Bayraktar TB2 drone is said to be in the range of 2-5 million dollars. That's a different type of drone though, more akin to the American Reaper UAV.

In terms of actual loitering munition, NATO only seems to operate a noticeable amount of Switchblade-300 drones, which are far smaller than a Shahed and carry a warhead that is equivalent to a 40mm grenade, for a unit cost of about $6,000.

A larger Switchblade-600 drone is currently in development and would carry a Javelin ATGM warhead, about 1/5th the size of a Shahed drone's payload, for a unit cost estimated to be around $10,000. However, the project suffered from continual delays and production only began in October 2022. Given that the value of the contract awarded to the manufacturer by the Pentagon is only $2.2 million (miniscule by DoD standards) and with the company mentioning that right now it only has one shift building the 600 systems, as well as Ukraine stating that it was promised 10 units, I wouldn't expect it to make a dent on the battlefield anytime soon.​
 
Last edited:
Top