"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (24 Viewers)

SaparotRob said:

I'm guessing there's some politics involved. These munitions are about thirty (?) years old. This is the stuff that would have been decommissioned anyway. I'm wondering if that was a consideration to reduce criticism from opponents of aid to Ukraine?

Click to expand...

I think an issue is that the US stocks of the "good" ATACMS are deemed insufficient to both defend US interests such as those in Taiwan AND to arm Ukraine.

I expect Lockheed Martin has been told to increase production of ATACMS. A big financial challenge for the US taxpayer is that there are very few defence contractors left, with the big 5 remaining contractors below being able to essentially blackmail the Pentagon to pay whatever price they want.

SaparotRob said:

I'm guessing there's some politics involved. These munitions are about thirty (?) years old. This is the stuff that would have been decommissioned anyway. I'm wondering if that was a consideration to reduce criticism from opponents of aid to Ukraine?

Click to expand...

That, and the idea that we may need the more-modern variants sooner rather than later ourselves.

Admiral Beez said:

I think an issue is that the US stocks of the "good" ATACMS are deemed insufficient to both defend US interests such as those in Taiwan AND to arm Ukraine.

I expect Lockheed Martin has been told to increase production of ATACMS. A big financial challenge for the US taxpayer is that there are very few defence contractors left, with the big 5 remaining contractors below being able to essentially blackmail the Pentagon to pay whatever price they want.

View attachment 742243

Click to expand...

lol

Nope

They wish they could get whatever price they wanted.

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

lol Nope They wish they could get whatever price they wanted.

Click to expand...

What's the Pentagon going to do? They want long range land attack missiles like ATACMS, well you'll either pay what Lockheed-Martin wants or pound salt. 60 Min covered this...


"It wasn't always like this. The roots of the problem can be traced to 1993 when the Pentagon, looking to cut costs, urged defense companies to merge. 51 major contractors consolidated to five giants. The landscape has totally changed. In the '80s, there was intense competition amongst a number of companies. And so the government had choices, they had leverage. We have limited leverage now. The problem was compounded when the Pentagon, in another cost saving move, cut 130,000 employees whose jobs were to negotiate and oversee defense contracts. The watchdogs, the negotiators, the engineers, the program managers, over 50% was removed."

J_P_C said:

south of Kherson - ZSU forces crossed Dnipro they are already more than 6 km deep behind russian defense lines

Click to expand...

I see it now, thanks. Nice!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU7eXZsgDjo

The thing about hoarding ATACMs is that they are scheduled for replacement by the Prism system. That may be why the U.S. has been reluctant to release the ATACMs until now.
I don't remember which letters in Prism are supposed to be capitalized. Still better than "gimlers".

SaparotRob said:

The thing about hoarding ATACMs is that they are scheduled for replacement by the Prism system. That may be why the U.S. has been reluctant to release the ATACMs until now.
I don't remember which letters in Prism are supposed to be capitalized. Still better than "gimlers".

Click to expand...

The U.S. Navy's TACMS equivellent is being withheld for potential use in the Pacific, same with the USMC's Army TACMS.

The Army has upgraded a substantial number of their TACMS, but not the early Blocks, which appear to have been sent to Ukraine.

One of the upsides to using the early Block TACMS, is they don't have GPS, so can't be jammed.

Admiral Beez said:

What's the Pentagon going to do? They want long range land attack missiles like ATACMS, well you'll either pay what Lockheed-Martin wants or pound salt. 60 Min covered this...

60 Minutes: Defense Contractors Overcharge Pentagon Transcript | Rev

A six-month 60 Minutes investigation found the nation’s defense budget is plagued by a military supply chain rife with price gouging. Read the transcript here.

www.rev.com

"It wasn't always like this. The roots of the problem can be traced to 1993 when the Pentagon, looking to cut costs, urged defense companies to merge. 51 major contractors consolidated to five giants. The landscape has totally changed. In the '80s, there was intense competition amongst a number of companies. And so the government had choices, they had leverage. We have limited leverage now. The problem was compounded when the Pentagon, in another cost saving move, cut 130,000 employees whose jobs were to negotiate and oversee defense contracts. The watchdogs, the negotiators, the engineers, the program managers, over 50% was removed."

Click to expand...

I wish it were actually that simple…

Serbians for Rusia:


And damage done by the ATACMS:

Admiral Beez said:

What's the Pentagon going to do? They want long range land attack missiles like ATACMS, well you'll either pay what Lockheed-Martin wants or pound salt. 60 Min covered this...

Click to expand...

The Pentagon has SO MANY ways to mess with defense contractor that don't play ball that it's ludicrous.

Play games on one system and you'll find the next big competitive weapons contract all of a sudden has criteria that are surprisingly favourable to your competitors.

Or you'll find your indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract buys temperarily reduced or delayed. Shareholders LOVE it when multi-billion dollar purchase orders don't materialise in time for dividends to be finalised.

Or you'll find some under-performing/high cost suppliers will get added as 'strategically necessary' to the next round of purchases. Or certain suppliers will disappear from the 'approved' list. Or a 'Buy American' audit will be required.

In extreme cases, parts of FAR 52 get re-written by Congress. Like upping the domestic content thresholds, or changing reporting standards.

I've only been on the periphery of things as a civil consultant, but the horror stories about dealing with US military contracts are numerous.

It seems the ATACMS strike on the airfield destroyed five Ka-52 and four Mi-8, potentially damaging further 3-4 Mi-8.
A very good introduction for this rocket, now the russians have to move even further away from the frontline.

Denniss said:

It seems the ATACMS strike on the airfield destroyed five Ka-52 and four Mi-8, potentially damaging further 3-4 Mi-8.

Click to expand...

How many operational Ka-50/52 can the Russians have left?

Back in June 2023 it was reported that fifty out of a fleet of 150 had been lost, or 1/3 of the fleet.


It has to be demoralizing to climb aboard your attack helicopter and knowing you're likely going to die. And for what? Not the defence of Russia or saving your people, etc…. but for Putin, the Kremlin or the oligarchs? I'd be thanking the AFU for wrecking my bird on the ground.

I know its tangential to the war, maybe bordering off-topic.

But, don't you think that we Europeans are really lucky?

RogerdeLluria said:

I know its tangential to the war, maybe bordering off-topic.

But, don't you think that we Europeans are really lucky?

Musk considers removing X platform from Europe over EU law - Insider

Elon Musk, owner of social media platform X, is considering removing the service formerly called Twitter from Europe in response to a new internet platform regulation in the region, news site Insider reported on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

Click to expand...

That almost makes me want to move back to Germany!

Jabberwocky said:

The Pentagon has SO MANY ways to mess with defense contractor that don't play ball that it's ludicrous.

Play games on one system and you'll find the next big competitive weapons contract all of a sudden has criteria that are surprisingly favourable to your competitors.

Or you'll find your indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract buys temperarily reduced or delayed. Shareholders LOVE it when multi-billion dollar purchase orders don't materialise in time for dividends to be finalised.

Or you'll find some under-performing/high cost suppliers will get added as 'strategically necessary' to the next round of purchases. Or certain suppliers will disappear from the 'approved' list. Or a 'Buy American' audit will be required.

In extreme cases, parts of FAR 52 get re-written by Congress. Like upping the domestic content thresholds, or changing reporting standards.

I've only been on the periphery of things as a civil consultant, but the horror stories about dealing with US military contracts are numerous.

Click to expand...

Ding, ding, ding…

Jabberwocky said:

Play games and you'll find the next big contract has criteria that are surprisingly favourable to your competitors.

Click to expand...

The issue reported in the media is that there are few competitors.



Are we saying the reported concerns of the Pentagon over price gouging due to lack of competition and oversight are erroneous?

RogerdeLluria said:

I know its tangential to the war, maybe bordering off-topic.

But, don't you think that we Europeans are really lucky?

Musk considers removing X platform from Europe over EU law - Insider

Elon Musk, owner of social media platform X, is considering removing the service formerly called Twitter from Europe in response to a new internet platform regulation in the region, news site Insider reported on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

Click to expand...

I deleted my account some time ago. IDK why anyone stays on Twitter/X. The best Ukrainian military news is found elsewhere now.

Admiral Beez said:

The issue reported in the media is that there are few competitors.

Click to expand...

That's a handy scapegoat excuse but it doesn't align with reality. Lack of competition only becomes an issue if a vendor is the sole supplier. However, most big acquisitions don't involve defence contractors coming up with a design on their own and then trying to sell it to the military. Much of the design work and advanced research is directly funded by the US Government through organizations like DARPA.

Take ATACMS as an example. It grew out of the existing Lance missile system but with a solid-propellant booster and a new ring laser gyro guidance system, both of which were funded by US Army Missile Command. In parallel, DARPA funded the Assault Breaker programme to explore how to destroy large number of tanks and fighting vehicles on the battlefield (this being the Cold War where NATO was vastly outnumbered by Warsaw Pact forces). These efforts eventually merged into the ATACMS programme. All that Government-funded work cannot be licenced or made proprietary, and hence there's no sole-supplier issue (although the winner of the research contract may well go on to win a sizeable proportion of the production contract).

Now, are there cases where companies can fluff up manufacturing costs? Absolutely. However, those costs are often driven by the volume of items ordered and the need to spin up/down tooling resources (which gets very expensive for low-volume production). Government purchase volumes are pretty small compared to the commercial world. Take the M1 Abrams of which just over 8,200 have been produced for the US military across 40 years. That's small beer compared to commercial car or truck production. Such low volumes have an inherent cost, I'm afraid...and adding on requirements for ruggedized/hardened technologies just brings more expense.

Yes, there are examples of exorbitant prices for some things; the infamous toilet seat on, I think, C-17s, springs to mind. However, those aren't a huge driver of cost increases. As others have already mentioned, the Government is notorious for adding requirements that massively increase costs, whether it's paperwork, audits, standards to be followed (down to grades of metal for even trivial components), specific inclusion/exclusion of subcontractors, and countless other things, not least of which is changing requirements (which happens A LOT).

We also need to consider the contracting mechanism. Is it firm fixed price, cost plus fixed fee, or one of the many other acquisition methodologies? FFP is an attempt to drive down costs, putting all the risk on the vendor to meet a price point. It's typically not popular because of the issues mentioned in the preceding paragraph. CPFF is more common but, IIRC, for US Government CPFF contracts, fee must be less than 15%. Even relatively large material costs increases don't increase the vendor's profit by much when compared to all the other cost drivers, particularly worker salaries.

The simple fact is that the bespoke technologies required for military uses ARE expensive and must meet different standards than commercial off-the-shelf items.

Admiral Beez said:

The issue reported in the media is that there are few competitors.

How the Pentagon falls victim to price gouging by military contractors

Almost half of the Department of Defense's massive budget will go to defense contractors. Experts in the field say those contractors are overcharging the Pentagon.

www.cbsnews.com

Weapons contractors hitting Department of Defense with inflated prices for planes, submarines, missiles

A six-month 60 Minutes investigation found the nation's defense budget is plagued by a military supply chain rife with price gouging.

www.cbsnews.com

Are we saying the reported concerns of the Pentagon over price gouging due to lack of competition and oversight are erroneous?

Click to expand...

There are few competitors, but we still don't get to run rampant and charge what we want.

Thumpalumpacus said:

To be fair, knocking out Russian attack heloes is probably pretty high on the Ukrainian to-do list, given that their offensive in the south has bogged, in no small part due to AFV losses. Those same submunitions are probably pretty effective against troops in trenches, too.

Click to expand...

You are of course correct, but if you want to hit command centres which are underground, or if you want to hit stores and ammo dumps deep behind the lines, you need the the later versions