More or less all of these yes. I always found it ironic how the new Javelin is believed to be cheaper because the components are less mechanical and easier to source. The continued support especially. Military systems can be designed (and warrantied) to last decades if maintained properly - and that costs the big bucks.
During wartime, it may be better to design for a short lifespan. Build the seeker with ordinary AA batteries welded in instead of thermal batteries with a standby life of decades. If it's intended for Ukraine or Taiwan, skip the part temperature range that would allow the thing to sit in the sun for a year in Iraq.
Seal up the unit and stencil it "NO USER SERVICEABLE PARTS INSIDE" and "USE BEFORE 2026-12-31". It will have been fired at the enemy long before then.
It isn't as simple as "make a new design with a shorter lifespan" either. These systems are intended to work the first time every time, and every change introduces numerous second-order consequences. You swapped the batteries? Great the balance of the missile now changed and we have to re-calculate the flight dynamics. Remove some shielding and conformal coating? Now the thermal properties have changed on the control boards and the welds are cracking due to different heat propagation. We certainly could make them cheap and dirty, but their reliability and consistency would suffer. The last thing you want is to shoot a missile and piss off the guy on the receiving end, who isn't dead but is now very motivated to get revenge.
Ukraine is out of ammunition NOW. If the war suddenly ends and they have to dispose of warheads that will expire soon, that is a cost that can be paid. But more importantly for them is ammunition now, if that can be achieved by making the build process simple, it should probably be done.
You can't immediately scale up manufacturing. People have to be trained, parts have to be procured, and facilities made available to build the things. Ramp-up takes months, and if you're lucky the product is well established already so you aren't stepping on landmines as you scale. I helped to restart a mothballed process for a military product once and I have stories that you wouldn't believe.
You’re advocating general motors approach over tesla/spacex approach. Tesla is selling millions of evs every year now an gm, boeing and friends are with you making excuses about training people and their process
I'm not advocating any approach. I'm telling you, as someone who has years of experience in the field of defense manufacturing, that one cannot force manufacturing processes into existence through sheer will. My posts on the topic are for the edification of whoever reads them, convincing anyone isn't my concern as ultimately it isn't HN comments that are going to change the situation. Maybe SpaceX should start making Javelins by the millions (:
For context btw: I oversaw the production of hundreds (if not into the thousands) of the Javelins we sent to Ukraine. Two of my coworkers were Ukrainian too. Do not mistake my brutal realism for a lack of caring about the situation.
> that one cannot force manufacturing processes into existence through sheer will
That worked for russia but somehow doesn't work in the west?
I mostly lack experience in defense tech beyond being a user but ime it often doesn't work as well as the certificate (which probably cost a lot of effort to obtain) states it does. I'm of the opinion that we need to radically rethink our approach here if we hope to deter or withstand potential conflict with china in the next 10 years.
The Russians certainly did scale up as you say, but there are underlying issues that have remained with them. Captured equipment has shown issues, some of which are potentially fatal to the user. The quality of work is poor and leads to a high failure rate. They do, however, make plenty of them - which has an advantage. Go to the war museum and look at any soviet tank built between 1940 and 1945, the welds look terrible and some are even missing the full complement of armor plating. They made thousands of them though.
The Western powers are not treating the situation as if they themselves were at war, hence no drastic changes in economic output to favor war machines. We have increased production though. Can't say how much, but it would raise eyebrows. I feel we should have been far more generous with the munitions, especially the older aircraft (think F-16, F-18) early on.
The certificates are basically just a paper trail. The aluminium is aircraft grade, the optics in spec, EMI shielding is sufficient, etc. We do extensive testing, but things slip through. Some issues are storage-related, and others are issues that don't show up til years later - such as microscopic ESD damage. Much of what we've been giving Ukraine was in storage for a while.
Out of interest, since you seem really knowledgeable: is there any reason no one ever mentions shipping VT fuzes to Ukraine? They seemed to work really nicely in the Battle of the Bulge, and the US is likely to have a vast stockpile of Cold War era fuzes. If they make the sparse shells even marginally more effective, it'd probably be worth it, yet there is not a whisper of their existence.
And now imagine how that stuff would work if certification requirements were lower.
Regarding China, I thought the same thing. Until Ukraine. Because as it turned out, that being at constant, if low intensity, war for basically all the time since Vietnam and Korea (at least since Gulf War 2 over Kuweit), really has benefits for the warfighting capability of countries. NATO, and especially the US, have that. Russia and China don't. And it shows, Russia didn't walz over Ukraine the way the West did over Iraq. And China has to deal with an amphibious invasion against a country that had decades to prepare for just that. Which leaves the question of supply lines across the pacific for a prolonged conflict. And there my money really is on western navies.
Just as a reminder, Russia is at a war economy by now, and still has to source from North Korea. All the while, NATO countries are just emptying stockpiles and slowly, maybe too slow, replenishing them. And despite that, all Russia got is a stalemate.
"Russia didn't walz over Ukraine the way the West did over Iraq"
Not really the same thing. Iraq was very low on quality military supplies with years of sanctions before that.
And Russia did walz over Georgia in 2008 and Russia would have walzed over Ukraine in 2014 (some russian military was enough to capture lots of ground back then). But much happened between 2014 and 2022.
Yes, you should tell theilitary industrial complex to produce arms and ammunitions during times of peak demand. You know, they might not have gotten the memo that they should get production volumes up.
They're certainly facing a serious situation. But by all accounts they still have some runway. And if you'll check your current news feeds very carefully: no, the front hasn't collapsed, and no, the Russians aren't on the verge of overrunning Kharkiv and Odesa.
They have so little ammunition, that they have to think 2 or 3 times about every artillery and even more so every anti air shot they have to take. With resserves are shrinking and less and less on the way. It is hard, waging war this way. Russia on the other hand is now in war economy mode. They produce ammunition and tanks way, way faster, than the west.
So if there would be a startup saying, we can build a automated factory, spitting out cheap javelin alike warheads using off the shelf components, would surely get money, if they have some expertise.
I was in trench few km from Avdiїvka for 2 weeks few days ago, and I can confirm that our artillery is out of ammunition. The silence of our artillery was horrible to listen. When we cannot use our drones because of fog, heavy snow, or strong wind, Russians are advancing because we have no shells enough to fire at them.
I might have done a bit of hyperbole to get the point across, true. But by my understanding, when you are in a war and see the enemy, but cannot shoot at them, then you are effectivly out of ammunition by my definition. Even though sure, more precise would have been, very low on ammo.
- small production runs
- obsolete components
- obsolete production technology
- certification requirements
- continued support and design changes to account for the above
- the mandatory defence surcharge
From top of my head.