IT'S HAPPENING>The Pentagon, alarmed at the low weapons stockpiles the U.S. would have on hand for a potential future conflict with China, is urging its missile suppliers to double or even quadruple production rates on a breakneck schedule.>“This effort has been a collaboration between defense industry leaders and senior Pentagon officials.”>The new acceleration council is focused on 12 weapons that the Pentagon wants on hand for a potential conflict with China, some of the people said. The list includes PAC-3s, LRASM/JASSMs, SM-6s, and the new PrSMs.Personally I think the SM-6 should be the highest on that list as between destroyer VLS, air wings slinging the AIM-174b, and Army's CAML-H, there just aren't enough to go around at current 150/year production rates.While the article doesn't outline how beyond >'An early request for information asked weapons makers at the June roundtable to detail how they could increase production to 2.5 times current volumes through steps taken over the following six, 18 and 24 months,' I have a pretty good idea of how this can be achieved. Ironically enough, the RAM paint, circuits and seekers aren't bottlenecks for missiles, it's the SRMs.Lockmart has signed a bunch of MOUs with Rheinmetall who has impressively (or embarrassingly for us) shown capability to manufacture SRMS at 5x the rate of RTX/LM by next year. Nammo and Avio also play smaller roles ramping up with RTX. Locally, Anduril is already working with RTX to manufacture cheaper propellant mixes and will be producing full scale from their 5 million square foot Arsenal-1 plant by 2026. All we need is the funding and it will happen.>https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/pentagon-pushes-to-double-missile-production-for-potential-china-conflict
We're so back
>>64332511Now that's taking a war seriouslyHave yet to see similar such commitments from Europe for critical guided weapons
>>64332511How the fuck is the booster the bottleneck? I ask as someone that has produced solid fuel rocket motors for fun.
In the other news: nu-Moot to quadruple jannies cheques in 24 months
>>64332543Anything concerning energetics is regulationscucked in the US. Pros: no city blocks exploding like China. Cons: this
>>64332543There's 1 company producing ammonium perchlorate at far higher cost than foreign sources (like Europe) and they refuse to scale up production.
>>64332554You use to pump out UA1207s for the Titan and SRBs for the shuttle no worries.>>64332570Now that makes more sense, gotta love every industry turning into a monopoly.
>>64332511with FY2026 defense budget set to pass 1 trillion as per Trump's latest speech I can absolutely see this happening
>>64332537I mean to be fair Rheinmetall is German and still leading production. You're right about the rest of Europe though.
>>64332511I think ESSM should also get priority for the navy, SM-6 is great, but in terms of magazine capacity ESSM beats everything else. It has enough range to deal with sea-skimming missiles, and being ARH missiles they don't take up FCS radar time. Hell I'd say naval PAC-3MSE and ESSM would be a pretty good combo for ship self-defense, PAC-3MSE as the anti-ballistic and anti-HGV option and ESSM the anti-sea-skimmer option. SM-6 production is important too, though, as the outermost layer of defense, and as the long range anti-air and general fleet-defense missile.
>>64332831selling, not buyingRheinmetall is selling rocket motors to the Americans because the Europeans aren't buying
>>64332909>outermost layer of defenseThat's the SM-3.Dual packed PAC-3MSE and quad packed ESSMs certainly give much deeper magazine depth but I wonder if the shorter range will compress the engagement window for HGVs too short.
>>64332511Not on my watch!
>>64332588The shuttle SRB facilties folded witb the shuttle program. There's like one company that makes SRB propellant and the overhed to try and start a competitor would be obscene (in part due to aformentioned regulationscucking)
>>64332511>The Pentagon, ..., is urging its missile suppliers to double or even quadruple production ratesNot even a promise, wow.
What the fuck does "urging" even mean?Will they have contracts lined up to support new production lines? What kind of funding are they talking?
>>64333786political speak for>we're thinking of doing thiswe go from urging > discussion > letter of intent > memorandum of understanding > contract
>>64333660Yeah, you're right, but you'd have to go to IRBM-tier missiles for SM-3 to make more sense than SM-6, I'm thinking about likely threat to ships.Radar horizon is gonna compress your engagement window regardless. Against HGVs PAC-3MSE would serve as a backup for SM-6, SM-6 would still be your primary tool for dealing with it. With sea-skimmers though, radar horizon compresses your engagement window regardless, anything beyond that and you'd need AWACS up, for CVBG, yes, SM-2MR (with IR targeting) and SM-6 would be the go to, but if it's a pure surface combatant group, or the enemy fires a volley of stealthy sea-skimmers, or you get caught with your pants down, their range is gonna more-or-less match your detection range. For less sophisticated ASBMs, magazine depth is going to matter. I'm not talking about supplanting SM-6 with ESSM + PAC-3MSE, I just think they're gonna be valuable tools, Chang isn't just gonna fire HGVs, they're gonna be firing a slew of other AShMs, including what will likely be dozens if not more than a hundred Chang-poon and Chang-libr missiles, as well as Chang ASBMs like BP-12B, having a reserve of PAC-3MSE and ESSM available would make dealing with such threats easier.Non-state actors firing sea-skimmers from concealed positions could also limit your engagement window significantly, and I think the threat of these is only gonna increase, especially since it's a low-investment high-return tactic for our opponents. You already see this with the amount of Iranian copies of Chinese sea-skimming missiles in Houthi hands. There's various important shipping lanes which could be disproportionately affected by non-state actors slinging sea-skimmers and I think we're gonna see that tactic ramp up in usage.
>>64334089NTA but>Chang-poonyou're having me on>Against HGVs PAC-3MSE would serve as a backup for SM-6, SM-6 would still be your primary tool for dealing with itdo you not mean SM-3 would be the primary weapon against HGVs?
>>64332511Non-paywalled article https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/pentagon-pushes-to-double-missile-production-for-potential-china-conflict/ar-AA1NvNsu
>quadrupleshould increase by an order of magnitude at leastalso>started doing things>late 2025United Slowpokes of America
>>64334109HGVs are not exoatmospheric, especially if Chang's work as advertised. SM-3 is excellent at dealing with exo-atmospheric threats but it's a waste of an expensive KKV to use them against something atmospheric, especially since current SM-3 blocks are dumping atmospheric maneuverability for drag reduction and a bigger motor. If you catch them while they're still in the boost-phase, and the missile can reach them before they dive back into the atmosphere, then yeah SM-3 might make sense, but otherwise, you'll want SM-6.
>>64333660>Dual packed PAC-3MSECan't do it, not unless they swap out some of the VLS cells for LM's 32 or 36 inch cells, or they massively redesign the MSE for compact stowage. They're going to be single pack in the Mk41 VLS cells, we already know that much. I'm just glad they're actually doing it. MSE is a beast, and the ACS and dual-pulse motor gives it high divert abilities. >>64332909>I think ESSM should also get priority for the navy, SM-6 is great, but in terms of magazine capacity ESSM beats everything else.ESSM is an extremely short range interceptor, only good for CMs, sea skimmers, fixed and winged targets. SM-6 is not only able to cover all those that ESSM does, it also covers up to IRBM class targets, and they say HGVs, too. On top of that, it can act as an anti-ship, or land attack missile, too. So, if you fill up with ESSM, you're limited to short range, low altitude defense. If, you load up with SM-6, you're covered from everything that the ESSM can take out, all the way up to IRBMs on the defensive side, with the added benefit and option to use those same SM-6s as offensive anti-ship, or land attack missiles. You're very limited on magazine capacity, and jamming nothing but short range defensive missiles in those limited cells limits your options and roles in an actual war. Jamming those cells with SM-6 is like having an ESSM, SM-2, PAC-3, and Tomahawk all in one cell. You can see why they'd rather have SM-6, now. Yes, they're more expensive, but, printer go BRRRRRRRRR.
>>64334089>Radar horizon is gonna compress your engagement window regardless.Not when your AEGIS system is connected to literally every radar within a 400-mile radius, along with the whole missile defense satellite constellation. Any shooter, any sensor.>Non-state actors firing sea-skimmers from concealed positions could also limit your engagement window significantly, and I think the threat of these is only gonna increase, especially since it's a low-investment high-return tactic for our opponents.SS AShMs aren't cheap, nor easy to produce. And you have to remember that CVGs have airpower, too, that are more than capable of taking out those targets with their A2A missiles. They also have RAM CIWS.>You already see this with the amount of Iranian copies of Chinese sea-skimming missiles in Houthi hands.What ones?
>>64332511apologize
>>64334905>Search for: "palmer luckey cosplay"Deranged faggot.
>>64334915>married with kidsguy is based and doing exactly what needs to be done with defense
I asked my local McDonalds to look into quintupling burger production. I might buy them later or I might not, it depends on how I do on fanduel and what my wife says. Also only me and like three other guys are allowed to buy burgers, and two of them talk about going vegetarian every so often. I don't understand why McDonalds hasn't already done this.
>>64334807>but if it's a pure surface combatant group, or the enemy fires a volley of stealthy sea-skimmers, or you get caught with your pants down, their range is gonna more-or-less match your detection rangeAEGIS is great, but if you don't *have* sensors around you it won't help, and stealthy subsonic sea-skimmers are hard to detect from AWACS amongst the clutter, non-stealthy ones light up on any modern doppler radar sure, but stealthy ones might require shipborne radars to get a good SNR. Satellites can detect launches but not provide targeting-tier data.>SS AShMsNot particularly expensive these days, everyone produces them in large numbers.>What onesC-801, likely via Iran. Chang-xocet
>>64335026>stealthy subsonic sea-skimmersAren't we the only ones with this class of munition
yeah the US would never be initially woefully under-stocked for a major conflict
>>64334807woops forgot a few points>CVGs have airpower, too, that are more than capable of taking out those targets with their A2A missiles. They also have RAM CIWS.Yes, I specifically talked about surface combatant groups, AWACS and linked fighter radars will significantly extend ranges regardless. In any case, it's better if the ships can take care of defense by themselves while the aircraft go after launch platforms. RAM CIWS is also the final layer of defense, which should never be relied upon.>>64335040That we know of, but better safe than sorry.
>>64334321>especially since current SM-3 blocks are dumping atmospheric maneuverability for drag reduction and a bigger motor.SM-6 is moving to the bigger 21" booster, too.
>>64335026>AEGIS is great, but if you don't *have* sensors around you it won't helpThere's always going to be land based, or ship based radars around you, and there's always going to be a space based early warning or missile defense sat around. You act like a ship is going around by itself in a vacuum.>and stealthy subsonic sea-skimmers are hard to detect from AWACS amongst the clutterWhat stealthy subsonic sea-skimmers are you talking about? And clutter hasn't been a problem since the 60s with modern PESA, AESA, and MESA radars. Along with high resolution EO/IR sensors.>non-stealthy ones light up on any modern doppler radar sureAre you stuck in 1978?>but stealthy ones might require shipborne radars to get a good SNR.SPY-1, SPY-6/7 all have low SNR, and are able to detect them. Again, it's not the 60s.>Satellites can detect launches but not provide targeting-tier data.They can, and have, for almost a decade.https://spacenews.com/lockheed-martins-aegis-system-intercepts-ballistic-missile-target-using-satellite-based-information-for-the-first-time/>>SS AShMs>Not particularly expensive these days, everyone produces them in large numbers.They're still relatively expensive - it you actually want them to work.>C-801, likely via Iran. Chang-xocetThose still need radar to track, target, and launch them. Also, I've not heard of one of them even getting close to hitting a target.
>>64335051>Yes, I specifically talked about surface combatant groups, AWACS and linked fighter radars will significantly extend ranges regardless.I'm not just talking about using the fighter's radar as a remote tracking and targeting radar; I'm specifically saying the fighter can engage those threats using its AIM-9xs, AMRAAMs, APKWS, or cannon.https://www.twz.com/israeli-f-35-shoots-down-cruise-missile>In any case, it's better if the ships can take care of defense by themselves while the aircraft go after launch platforms.Fleet defense has always been a part of the fixed wing assets of a CSG responsibilities.>RAM CIWS is also the final layer of defenseSo is ESSM...>which should never be relied upon.And you're talking about relying solely on ESSM, which is a part of that point defense layer.
>>64335051>That we know of, but better safe than sorry.So, you'd rather make an assumption that isn't based in reality, and fill your ships up with ESSM for a potential threat that maybe, somewhere, someone might have? I'm glad you're not in charge of making those decisions.
>>64334321I see, thanks>>64335090>SM-6 is moving to the bigger 21" boosterblock 1b?
>>64335197>What stealthy subsonic sea-skimmers are you talking aboutHypothetical adversarial onesClutter is still an issue no matter what, even with modern techniques like STAP, if the missile is LO it can get lost within the noise.>SPY-1, SPY-6/7 all have low SNR, and are able to detect them. Again, it's not the 60s.Yes, SPY-1, SPY-6/7 are shipborne radars, I don't see why you found that line particularly offensive.>for almost a decadeNotice how that's against a exo-atmospheric target, (MRBM, it's solidly exo-atmospheric), and it only provided boost and maybe early midcourse guidance, SPY-1 was still used at the endgame at the very least. Maybe DARPA has real fancy shit hidden away on Starlink, but I wouldn't put my bets on satellites being able to produce efficient guidance data for atmospheric targets, remember the quality of the data directly relates to the aerodynamic efficiency of the guidance.>Those still need radar to track, target, and launch them.OK, doesn't mean non-state actors don't have them.>Also, I've not heard of one of them even getting close to hitting a target.C-801s in the hands of non-state actors have been a pain for multiple navies for several decades now. When the HSV-2 was operating in the region back in 2016 it took a hit from a C-801, several cargo ships have been hit by them. No hits on Navy ships since the INS Hanit took a hit back in 2006, sure, but not for lack of trying. If they managed to get sufficient numbers of them they'd be a much more credible threat.>>64335230Yes, fighters can go missile hunting but that's not really the ideal scenario. The fleet defense tasking of aircraft has always had going after the launch platforms prior to launch as the primary objective and shooting down the missiles as a last resort. No sense in keeping them hugging the fleet, or far from the fleet while loaded with sub-optimal munitions for that primary role.
>>64335230>dune coon runesWhat is this Blandolorian saying?
>>64335230ESSM is not that short legged, Sea Sparrow was, but ESSM can basically reach out to the radar horizon.>relying solely on ESSMNo, I said it'd be nice to bolster shipborne defense with ESSM. SM-6 still forms the primary, outer layer of defense, but I think ships should carry a decent stock of ESSM (which wouldn't eat up that many VLS cells), to deal with lower end targets, if SM-6s have to be prioritized and there aren't enough on-board to go around. I think Chang spamming a buttload of sea skimmers along with more sophisticated missiles in order to saturate defenses is a credible threat. If a ship could go all SM-6 and have enough magazine depth to counter Chang-spam I'd agree, but I don't think that's credible, especially for surface combatant groups.>>64335238I never said fill up the ships with only ESSMs, I just think having a few cells of quad-packed ESSMs and dual-packed PAC-3MSEs would go a long ways to dealing with potential magazine depth issues. And yes, I think it's good to think of the adversary as capable opponents who can achieve the same level of sophistication as the USN, even if that notion isn't *that* credible.
>>64332537Europe is ahead of America in ramping up weapons and ammunition production you retarded twit.
>>64332511damn were really going to war huh
>>64336223you voted for this
>>64336224yesit's time to we showed the global south what actual Western aggression looks like
>>64335911>block 1b?yeah.>>64336071>Hypothetical adversarial onesDisregarded>>64336085>I just think having a few cells of quad-packed ESSMsThey already do this.>and dual-packed PAC-3MSEsI already told you MSE cannot be dual packed in Mk41 VLS cells.
>>64336224I didn't vote because I didn't think Trump had a chance of winningI was pleasantly surprised
>>64336224
>>64333786It means plan now, incase we need to. So that means logistic planning, talking to t1/t2/t3 suppliers and making sure they are aware in case of production increase demands from pentagon. Basically saying "be alert/ready" for procurement from all stages.
>>64332537? Europe is producing more Patriot missiles annually than the USA
>>64332511>Have to rely on kraut manufacturing right after pissing them off.Oof
>>64336578>is producing more1) are they BUYING more?2) do they STOCKPILE more?
>>64335026>>64335040A point worth considering, the sea lanes today are at least an order of magnitude more crowded. Lots of non-stealthy threats can achieve the same effect - reduced defensive reaction time - by hiding amid said clutter, and that civilian trade cannot simply be shut down when so many of these third-world countries rely on fishing and imported grain to feed their populace. Look at the surprise strikes Ukraine has achieved via Russia's own civil-logistics traffic - the culture of indifference and corruption being exploited isn't uniquely slavic.
>>64336819Assuming the scenario is what the Pentagon is preparing for; a war with China, wouldn't that be prefaced by a full Chinese blockade of Taiwan and counterblockade of the SCS by the US?
>>64336224Yes.
>>64336578>Europe is producing more Patriot missiles annually than the USANo they're not.
>>64336224I support Cold War 2
>>64337118There's no avoiding that such a conflict is all but certain to involve Southeast Asia. Both Chinese trade and US naval assets utilizing European infrastructure depend on access to the region.
>>64336624The USA isn't France so the Germans will just allow it.
>>64337537I support a less cucked variant of it. Russia should get gutted and decapitated. Chinks should have wash their face with blood if they try anything. Hell, even India should get buckbroken to get inline with the civilized world or blockaded to drown in their own shit.
>>64338315I support a full Iron Curtain 2.0 on China and its partnersnever deal with a dragon, chummert. ethnic chink
>>64338012At least the Philippines will be fully cooperative. Who knows, the reefs might even be healthier after the Chinese trawler pirate ships get turned into fish homes.
>>64338315Never knew how good things were before the End of History mentality made all POTUSes degrees of cucked when it came to dealing with shitter nations and their turdie following.>tfw even a too nice of a guy like carter was a lil spicy
>>64336290>They already do this.yes I'm well aware, I'm saying ESSM production should also be ramped up, as it's a useful tool>MSE cannot be dual packedYup, sorry, didn't see your original post.>DisregardedWould be retarded given the Changs have shown both the ability to develop low observable aircraft and the ability to produce long ranged AShMs. Just because they primarily rely on Chang-libr and Chang-burn (YJ-12) doesn't mean they might not be developing such capabilities.>>64334751>extremely short range interceptorGoes up to radar horizon, not *that* short ranged.>only good for CMs, sea skimmersYes, and I think those will be spammed.>fixed and winged targetsNot actually that good for that purpose, and I would definitely go for SM-6 here.SM-6 is great, I'm not denying that, and I know what SM-6 is thank you very much, I've never shat on SM-6. I'm well aware that it provides "just in case" anti-ship and land attack capabilities (which come on anon, let's be real here, it's a last resort, hell the Navy is procuring Block Va Tomahawk kits as the real "oh shit, we need destroyers to fight in a surface action" missile after axing the Harpoon tubes), and I'm not saying it's a bad thing to be able to pack more SM-6 tubes without worrying about losing those "just in case" capabilities. What I do think is that ESSM production should also be ramped up as I think it's a pretty cost effective missile and provides extended magazine depth that defends against saturation attacks, both in the form of huge waves of low sophistication missiles, and also in the form of potential adversarial stealth AShMs which might be detected late. Yes, SM-6 can do the job, but SM-6s might be needed to take down the aircraft bringing these munitions into range, or take down far more sophisticated HGVs. Hell, maybe the Navy just isn't worrying too much about ESSM because foreign procurement has got Raytheon announcing a doubling of production capacity by next year.
>ctrl+f nuc 0 results>ctrl+f nuk 0 resultsI don't get it, what's the motivation for pretending that a direct military conflict between China and the US doesn't escalate into lobbing nukes at each other
>>64341817You're dumb. The US has 3.7k nukes with half of them able to hit China while only a third of China's 600 nukes can reach the continental US. The Sentinel program is already underway too.
>>64341842Taking 200 nukes to the face because the Chinese don't run their own country the way the US wants them to would be an interesting calculus.The Cubans also don't run their country the way we want them to. Should we nuke ourselves 200 times over it?
>>64341817>>64341878Because of MAD. China isn't going to hurt the US if it means China no longer exists.
>>64341878That's kind of the point of nukes. A lot of people die. That's why they won't be used. Even so, assuming half China's nukes can be intercepted by our BMD, China is going to be a lot deader regardless.
>>64341883I'm glad you agree the US isn't going to hurt China if it means the US getting nuked.
>>64341883Okay, so what makes it likely that any conflict will happen with China if said conflict is likely to escalate into nuclear weapons?
>>64332511They're about 36 months late.
>>64341914Yes, China also understands this and has the same position. >>64341936Leadership drinking too much of their own kool-aid leading to a massive loss of military assets in a short conventional war that gets pulled off before nukes fly. Any long term war is going to be a nuclear one.
>>64342003>Leadership drinking too much of their own kool-aid leading to a massive loss of military assets in a short conventional war that gets pulled off before nukes fly.Genuinely asking, if there WAS a large loss of military assets in a short time like you describe what's the likelihood that either side would be willing to let it go at that without extracting retribution of some kind in a way that reopens the conflict?Say both China and the US lost one of their carriers and like, a thousand people each. What's the chance that 'cooler heads prevail' in a situation like that?
>>64342742The economy shitting the bed globally will do a lot.
>>64342742>US lost one of their carriers>a thousand peopletry six thousandas a quant I think the main first reaction would be tremendous shock to the stock marketthere will be a lot of riots against companies which do not quickly sever ties with Chinese manufacturersbut you can rely on the public to intuit which side of their bread the butter is on, so there will be calls for "understanding" and "mercy" and a good deal of whataboutism. (assuming even honours from the exchange, there will be a lot of "well we killed a few thousand of theirs in exchange so leave it, it's not worth it".) even on the hawkish side, mutterings that supply chains are "inextricably" interlinked will cool a lot of throats.but tensions and military alert levels will be heightened for quite some time, to say the least.I can't even imagine what the Joint Chiefs on both side will say under such circumstances.
>>64336224duh
>>64332511About time. I voted for this.
>>64332511BUG PEOPLE EAT MY COCK YOU WOULD NEVER DO THIS FAGGOTS ONE CHILD FAGGOTS EAT A FUCKIN WHALE DICK YOU RICE NIGGERS!
>>64332511No, that's not what the article actually says, sunshine. What it says is that the delusional retards at Pentagon *demand* MIC to quadruple production in the next 2 years, and the people at MIC resist this idea. Because in order to increase production, you need raw materials, you need skilled labour force, you need secure supply chains, you need proper management, and you need all of that at scale. The US military industrial complex does not have capacity to achieve any of that. Just look up the artillery shells program fiasco. What the american MIC can do is quadruple the cost of every individual unit, while inceasing the overall production rate by 10-20% max. Which is exactly what will end up happening
>>64346070Just like how AMRAAM production didn't just double to 1.2k last year with production on track to hit 2.5k EOY, perfectly aligning with the quadrupling in 24 months statement?Whatever narrative you're pushing you can put it to rest because the US can get shit done even while in a peacetime economy.
>>64346070all the more proof that all the bitching about MIC is russian disinfo and infected useful idiots
>>64332511>150 a yearI am vomit
>>64332570Beware the military industrial (grift) complex
>>64347806And more importantly graft. Absolute crimes against tax payers. Is their product magical or something to excuse the cost
>>64347806>>64347822The MIC is actually the most efficient receiver of government contracts. Ask city contractors why it took $400m to make a net for the Golden Gate Bridge or why it took NY $4.5b and 10 years to extend the subway by 1.8 miles.
>>64332511Gee its like giving up all the munitions to Ukraine and Israel was a bad idea. No thats crazy, it would be even crazier if we paid them both billions of dollars and gave them the munitions for free.
>>64347930The operational data obtained could be priceless. China doesn't have that, not at least beyond S-300 analog data.
>>64347806>>64347822>>64347930uh ohmelty
>>64347930you're retarded, having a reason for the congressional penny pinchers to pay for industry to build up capacity and to pressure the MIC into actually building up capacity instead of buttering up to this politician or the other is a good thing. In a real war current stockpiles would run dry real fast, and then you're left with a thumb up your ass waiting for industry to spin up all because you want to kvetch about paying to build up american industry. It's all AMERICA FIRST until it comes time to actually build up American industry and whip the MIC into shape, then it becomes "nah we shouldn't actually make the MIC work for its pay and build in actual quantities instead of small boutique orders manufactured in Senator McFuckFace's state this year, and another small boutique order in Senator Retardstein's state at exorbitant prices for each item"
>>64332593>budget>passingNobody else seeing an issue there, what with what's happening right now?
>>64336670>1) are they BUYING more?Yes>2) do they STOCKPILE more?Whenever they can spare them for non-zigger-related uses like that.>>64337469Yes they are.
>>64348207>Yes they are.May I see proofs?
>>64348316My proofs say you're full of shit. Lockheed and Raytheon produce the PAC-3 series, and PAC-2 series, with Boeing making the seeker for PAC-3. Mitsubishi makes a small amount (30) of PAC-3s, though, they are only for nips. Germany is building a plant in partnership with Raytheon, but, it won't be producing missiles for until 2027 at the earliest.https://missilematters.substack.com/p/europes-missile-gap-how-russia-outcompetes
>>64348356tag the right post and unfuck your commas
>>64335026>but if you don't *have* sensors around you it won't helpwhy would the US Navy not have sensors around?
>>64348372I did tag the right post: an extension of my reply to you asking for proofs. Stop, being, assblasted, because, I, BTFO, you. Why do you have to start seething like a petulant child, when you get BTFO? It's ok to be a retart and wrong, just expect it and move on.
>>64348380Probably assuming a worst case scenario where other escorts and AWACS are knocked out
>>64348403>an extension of my replythat's not how you do it>>64348403>to youI'm not even him; anyone with half a brain cell knows there's no way in hell Europe is building or buying more Patriots than America>retart>expectlollmaostay in school, kid
>>64348380Because he's playing the usual bullshit of, "WELL, what if the chinks have 10,000 missiles they can spam at once, that can quantum tunnel directly to US ships that are all alone, and those chinks also have omniscient ISR and targeting capabilities 24/7/365. What about that bullshit scenario, huh? I bet you feel stupid! You should just stop trying. Chiner won." He's one of the idiots that love to ascribe omnipotent, omniscient power and capabilities to foes to work the US military in a continues cycle of fear and paralysis. Because no matter how good the US's capabilities are, Chiner will away have the upper hand, so, you might as well never attack and continue to just build-up. But, Chiner will always have more, and better capabilities, no matter how much you build up, so, you will never gain the confidence to attack. Same shit the nuclear proliferation cucks try to do with BMDS: it will never be enough, so, you might as well not even try, and just accept your enemy's ability to nuke you.
>>64348433>that's not how you do itThen how do you do it, oh wise retart?>I'm not even himYou clearly are.>retart>expect>Falling for the oldest, most basic meme phrases.Time to go back to whatever shithole you slithered over from.
>>64348464Actually retarded that first post was literally saying the US should build up more, not build up less.
>>64348488>Actually retarded that first post was literally saying the US should build up more>>64348464>Because no matter how good the US's capabilities are, Chiner will away have the upper hand, so, you might as well never attack and continue to just build-up.>and continue to just build-up.It must suck being an ESL with 4th grade reading comprehension.
>>64348483>I was only pretending to be stupidpull the other one, nigger>Then how do you do iteither tag both him and your 1st reply, or at least label your 2nd post 2/2since you don't know this you don't belong here, newfag>You clearly areWrong as usual.
>>64348507Yes, I too, can use 4ChanX to turn (You)s on and off for literally every post in this thread.
>>64348504Sorry I'll admit I didn't read your paragraph of retardation. Wait are you saying we should pre-emptively attack China? That's an even more retarded position than I could've ever imagined.
>>64348527if it comes to that then anyone can edit images
>>64348528>Sorry I'll admit I didn't read your paragraph of retardation.So, you just mindlessly replied out of pure, unadulterated rage? lol lmao even.
>>64348541Of course, which is my point exactly: your image means fuck all when 4ChanX gives you the ability to turn (You)s on/off, as does inspect element. Which, and asshurt shill like you would definitely use.
>>64348549No I just don't bother reading retarded posts that long
>>64348560...oh yeah sure I'm definitely that guy lol I'm a totla fucking retard who should never have claimed that Europeans build more Patriot missiles than Americans, the two guys I replied to are absolutely correct, except maybe that guy with the comma and spelling problems, he's fucked in the head.
>>64348565So, you have the attention span of a gnat, and the IQ to match. Got it. Now, fuck off to whatever shithole you slithered from.
>>64348588>oh yeah sure I'm definitely that guyObviously. Which is why you replied to my post so fast, as you were already in the thread because of your last reply. Just admit you are retarded, and I am your superior.
>>64348589>writes a paragraph of seethe>expects everyone to read it>upon further inspection, said paragraph of seethe is even more retarded than first assumedok anon. BTW I'm sure you'll be volunteering for your proposed pre-emptive attack on China right?
>>64348603oh absolutelythis guy here >>64348207 >>64336578 is absolutely me, and I'm a complete and utter retardthis guy here >>64348403 is definitely my superior, despite being terminally unable to spell and being a newfag>>64348372 was absolutely right in correcting his spelling and shitty taggingI now see the error of my ways, I will no longer make stupid fake claims about European Patriot missile production
>>64348640>this guy here >>64348403 is definitely my superiorMy son, I forgive your stupidity.
>>64348675yeah I'm a total retard, but don't forget >>64348372 still schooled the fuck out of this moron here >>64348403 thoughit's very important!
>>64348690My son, it will get better. Do not work yourself up so much for being blatantly wrong, my son.
With what rare earth minerals.
>>64332511please build armament factories in south new jersey.
>>64348753You chinks really shot yourselves in the foot by trying to use something that isn't even rare as a bargaining chip and now they've spooked the whole world into ramping production away from China as fast as possible. Hell, even the euros including the frogs are getting into it. You'd think that they wouldn't use REEs card without the imminent threat of war, y'know, stop selling them so people can't stockpile, considering that refining isn't constrained to something like sulfides taking 3 years with heap leaching, but nope, it's something that can be infinitely ramped up, scaled and parallelized. So now you've got countries with stockpiles and dozens of new plants coming online in 2026 and 2027. To be fair, it's not something new either. The US has invested something like half a billion directly into refining since 2020.
>>64332511With what? A bunch of jeet engineers and barrels of fake porn production cum relabeled "Wishful Thinking"?
uh oh melty again
>>64349346>you chinkxIt's sad you think rotting our industrial base away while the Chinese built theirs took a sekrit foreign sabotage plan. You're a burger-vatnik blaming the yellow CIA for Chernobyl.
>>64333682>The shuttle SRB facilties folded witb the shuttle program.Northrop is still making the same SRB segments for SLS.
>>64349385And now it's been building for 5 years you're mad about it? Or are you just uninformed? Considering the 'rotting industrial base', 18% of global manufacturing, 2.5x higher than China per capita is not too bad.
>>64334109>do you not mean SM-3 would be the primary weapon against HGVs?SM-3 are an exo atmospheric interceptor, no one has an endo atmospheric mid course interceptor (yet)
Keeping with the thread topic, Raytheon recently delivered the 500th ESSM Block 2.https://www.rtx.com/news/news-center/2025/10/01/rtxs-raytheon-delivers-500th-essm-block-2-to-u-s-navy
>>64349544I always thought they were produced at higher rates, considering that they're cheaper and more expandable and all that.
>>64349750Block 2 have only been in production since 2021, so it is more than 100 a year (before any ramp up).
>>64347800Navy procurement is mega gay. Just look at JASSM and LRASM procurement. The AF will get 550 JASSMs+115 LRASMs this year while the Navy ordered only 90 LRASMs.
>>64351354there are more targets on land than at sea
>>64350599Let's hit 500 a year by the end of this 24 months
