Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Russia/Ukraine conflict

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
  • Informative
Reactions: SwedishAdvocate
Haven't seen much about Ruzzia using chemical weapons against Ukrainian forces. This article claims they are using chloropicrin, a toxic fungicide that causes respiratory damage when inhaled.

Official: Russia launches 5 attacks with chemical weapons on southeastern front lines in past day

Russian forces launched five attacks with munitions containing poisonous chemicals against Ukrainian soldiers on the southeastern front lines in the past day, Oleksandr Shtupun, the spokesman for the Tavria group of forces, said on Jan. 30.

Russia has recently increased its use of chemical weapons in Ukraine, with 81 cases documented only in December, according to the Ukrainian military. The 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in war.
 
I'm going to go ahead and guess you've never worked in the defense industry.

I developed MARS artillery software for DLA-EEM at NDHQ in the 1990s. The Captain who was the program officer was a coursemate of mine on Officer training when I was in the Army. I know a bit about the subject, and the System (my coursemate retired recently as a Lt.Gen)

Do you know how long it took to develop the 'bunker buster' used in Iraq during Gulf War 1? The 155mm gun barrel packed with semtex, and a pavetack seeker and fins tacked on? One week, including a weekend, and airlifting the prototype from the U.S. to Kuwait.
 

The defense industry actually contributes proportionately less in this regard.
Which makes sense. Here's an older article that discusses the difference between the two, but much of it still applies. Lobbying is simply way more effective for the given money, so it's going to be used much more than campaign contributions, where it is very vague how much you get back for the amount contributed.
Campaign Contributions vs. Lobbying Expenses

I think you showed pretty clearly the defense industry have drastically less influence than people make it out to be. As it relates to this forum and sub-forum, the financial, energy, transportation sectors have drastically more influence.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: SwedishAdvocate
See? This is what I mean. Why the hell did it take 2 years to get this done? They're dribbling out the pee like they were an octagenarian on the pottty... ossheee... :
GLSDB was already approved in February 2023 before even ATACMs were approved. So this is not from the "dribbling" that was referred to above thread (a lot of that is actually deliberate frog boiling discussed up thread to push Russian red lines without risk of escalation). As per the wiki article, the delays stemmed from problems in development and production. The original estimate was delivery in up to 9 months (so around November last year) with hope it can release earlier, but it went past that due to problems within the manufacturer.
I developed MARS artillery software for DLA-EEM at NDHQ in the 1990s. The Captain who was the program officer was a coursemate of mine on Officer training when I was in the Army. I know a bit about the subject, and the System (my coursemate retired recently as a Lt.Gen)

Do you know how long it took to develop the 'bunker buster' used in Iraq during Gulf War 1? The 155mm gun barrel packed with semtex, and a pavetack seeker and fins tacked on? One week, including a weekend, and airlifting the prototype from the U.S. to Kuwait.
There were only two bunker busters used during the whole war.
GBU-28 - Wikipedia

Instead there are 12 of these in each M270 (which Ukraine operates around 15) and 6 of these in each HIMARS (which Ukraine operates around 30) and they are also making them for Taiwan (order of which had to be delayed to give priority to Ukraine), so it's going to be a long term supplied weapon, not something cobbled together for almost one time use. Ukraine seems to be expecting around 200-300 units delivered for each batch and in the long run thousands would be made.
GLSDB: Ukraine Will Have to Wait for These Long-Range Missiles – Here’s What They Can Do

I think the development that needed to go into this is going to be a lot more, and making a production line that can pump this out consistently is going to be way different. Given there is potential long term business, the earlier the manufacturer can make this without delay, the better the business, so there is no defense industry incentive for delaying this. As a sanity check, I also considered if it was an issue with cannibalization, but the more expensive longer range ATACMs is made by Lockheed Martin, the more expensive shorter range M31 is made by General Dynamics, while this is made by Boeing/Saab.
 
Last edited:
GLSDB was already approved in February 2023 before even ATACMs were approved. So this is not from the "dribbling" that was referred to above thread (a lot of that is actually deliberate frog boiling discussed up thread to push Russian red lines without risk of escalation). As per the wiki article, the delays stemmed from problems in development and production. The original estimate was delivery in up to 9 months (so around November last year) with hope it can release earlier, but it went past that due to problems within the manufacturer.

There were only two bunker busters used during the whole war.
GBU-28 - Wikipedia

Instead there are 12 of these in each M270 (which Ukraine operates around 15) and 6 of these in each HIMARS (which Ukraine operates around 30) and they are also making them for Taiwan (order of which had to be delayed to give priority to Ukraine), so it's going to be a long term supplied weapon, not something cobbled together for almost one time use. Ukraine seems to be expecting around 200-300 units delivered for each batch and in the long run thousands would be made.
GLSDB: Ukraine Will Have to Wait for These Long-Range Missiles – Here’s What They Can Do

I think the development that needed to go into this is going to be a lot more, and making a production line that can pump this out consistently is going to be way different. Given there is potential long term business, the earlier the manufacturer can make this without delay, the better the business, so there is no defense industry incentive for delaying this. As a sanity check, I also considered if it was an issue with cannibalization, but the more expensive longer range ATACMs is made by Lockheed Martin, the more expensive shorter range M31 is made by General Dynamics, while this is made by Boeing/Saab.

Exactly, the GLSDB didn't exist when the war started. Boeing and Saab had proposed it, but nobody had even built a prototype. In 2022 some were hand built to prove the concept, and then the time delay up to now was getting full scale production spooled up.

Making a handful of prototypes is usually not that difficult, especially when all the technology is proven, but it takes time to getting a product ready for manufacturing and then actually get it into production. Look at the time delays Tesla has had from first demo car to production. The Cybertruck is just starting production now, the Roadster II was demoed years ago and hasn't made it into production, and the Semi hasn't made it into production yet either.

Tesla is not the greatest company at getting things from prototype to production, but it always takes time. First a facility has to be chosen. An existing factory could be reused, but if something else was being built there, it either has to be moved or shut down and cleared out. Then all the machine tooling for the factory has to be decided on and purchased. Any steps that are to be automated require specialized equipment that needs to be designed to do that purpose. Humans are slower and less efficient than robots, but robots need to be built for the particular purpose you have for it. Next you need to hire and train the humans to work the factory. This is happening at a time of record low unemployment in the US which means you may have trouble finding good quality workers.

Then the kinks need to be worked out on the production line. First run through some builds fairly slowly to make sure there are as few bottlenecks as possible, then test the final products more than you would a full production item to ensure everything was built right.

After all that work, then you are ready for full production.

In the case of the GLSDB, it uses components from existing weapons: rocket motors that are surplus from a retired system and aerial bombs. This does add some efficiency to production, but both components also need to be checked out to ensure they are still within spec. Explosives decay over time, and so does rocket propellant.
 
I developed MARS artillery software for DLA-EEM at NDHQ in the 1990s. The Captain who was the program officer was a coursemate of mine on Officer training when I was in the Army. I know a bit about the subject, and the System (my coursemate retired recently as a Lt.Gen)

Do you know how long it took to develop the 'bunker buster' used in Iraq during Gulf War 1? The 155mm gun barrel packed with semtex, and a pavetack seeker and fins tacked on? One week, including a weekend, and airlifting the prototype from the U.S. to Kuwait.

Oh good. So you're aware that delays like this are hardly unusual during peace time. While war tends to speed things up a bit, we are not at war.
 
From this morning’s Guardian news feed:

  • The French president, Emmanuel Macron, said on Tuesday that European countries must get ready to help Ukraine keep fighting “over the long term”, with or without American help. “If the United States were to make a sovereign choice to stop or reduce this aid, it should have no impact on the ground.”
  • EU nations have decided to approve an outline deal that would deliver Ukraine the taxes and profits from hundreds of billions of dollars in Russian central bank assets that have been frozen outside Russia because of its war against Ukraine. It is seen as a first step towards using the Russian assets – there are also calls to seize the entire sum outright for Ukraine’s benefit.

 
Some good news from the President of the European Council.


We have a deal. #Unity

All 27 leaders agreed on an additional €50 billion support package for Ukraine within the EU budget. This locks in steadfast, long-term, predictable funding for #Ukraine.

EU is taking leadership & responsibility in support for Ukraine; we know what is at stake.



twitter.com/CharlesMichel/status/1753001809268920719