A new Pentagon budget realignment file dropped (thank you @osmnactej for finding it).
Again it has a lot of interesting info about what weapons have been sent to Ukraine... and what the Pentagon is ordering more than $2 billion from the US industry to replace it.
1/22
It seems a lot of smoke grenades have been given to Ukraine (which are used by infantry as here in Iraq):
• $2.78m M18 Smoke grenades (Red)
• $0.59m M18 Smoke grenades (Yellow)
• $1.55m M8 Smoke Pots 2/n
• $38.4m M7A4 Bradley Fire Support Team (BFIST) artillery forward observer vehicles
• $15.6m 25mm ammo for the Bradleys' M242 chain gun
• $1.14m Bradley spares
• $0.2m Bradley Operator Tablets
3/n
Other infantry equipment:
• $3.06m M2 and M240 machine guns, and M2 modifications
• $3.05m M2 .50 ammo
Until now the US delivered $2.18m in night vision devices to Ukraine... this time: $58.14m!
• $29.6m PVS-7 Night Vision Goggles
• $28.5m PVS-14 Night Vision Monoculars 4/n
M1235A4 MaxxPro DASH OGPK vehicles & M1151A1 Integrated Armor Package Humvees given to Ukraine are being replaced with JLTV Heavy Gun vehicles respectively M1165A1B3 Expanded Capacity Command & Control/General Purpose Humvees.
• $51.1m JLTV
• $23.3m M1165A1B3 5/n
A lot of demolition munitions for breaching obstacles, with three things standing out:
Ukraine also received Selectable Lightweight Attack Munition (SLAM), which is a demolition munition AND an off-route mine AND a belly attack mine. It can be triggered by the operator, by its passive infrared sensor or its magnetic influence sensor, in
• $2.65m M4A1 SLAM 7/n
short I think this means Ukrainian special forces and partisans are placing SLAMs in the russian rear to ambush russian vehicles.
And now let's move on to artillery, which at $1.634 billion is once again forms the lion's share of the Pentagon's acquisitions.
8/n
• $122.4m for M992A3 Carrier Ammunition Tracked (CAT) vehicles, which carry extra rounds and charges for the M109A6 Paladin self-propelled howitzers given to Ukraine.
In total the Pentagon is buying $1 billion of M109A7 and M992A3 CATs in FY23. So it is likely Ukraine will 9/n
receive more M109A6 in the future.
The realignment file also contains a "classified effort"... but thanks to the overall acquisition sum for this effort I can say that it is GMLRS rockets:
• $71.3m "classified effort" ($2,1 billion in FY23) = around 12,450 M30/M31 rockets 10/n
$193.7m are spent on "Ammunition Production Base Support Industrial Facilities":
• $18.5m for increased 155mm acceptance testing
• $24.7m for new Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (pictured) industrial facilities and
• $150.5m for new Load, Assemble and Pack (LAP) facilities
11/n
In total the Pentagon has spent by now at least $777.55m to increase US 155mm artillery ammo production capacity. Another $65m is being spent on the facilitization of HF-1 Steel for artillery shells.
For the first time the Pentagon is listing High Explosives for artillery
12/n
ammo production, which makes me suspect it has to be bought it from a foreign source:
• $32.1m IMX-104 for undisclosed 155mm rounds
• $47.6m TNT for M795 artillery rounds
The Pentagon is also spending $123m for redesigned components for obsolete Excalibur parts, which
12/n
will allow the increase of Excalibur production.
Speaking of which:
• $41.1m M982A1 Excalibur ($801.8m FY23 total = around 8,000 rounds), which are being used extensively by Ukraine to hit russian vehicles and equipment.
13/n
Other artillery ammo:
• $70.6m M795 High Explosive rounds
• $158m for undisclosed "155mm extended range projectiles", which I suspect are the new M1113 RAP projectiles, which replace M549A1 RAP.
Due to its streamlined shape and high-performance rocket motor the M1113 14/n
has a range of 40+ km (M549A1 RAP: 30km). Likely Ukraine is receiving all the remaining M549A1 RAP.
As for fuzes - the Pentagon is ordering two:
• $15.15m M739 Point Detonating fuzes
• $76.48m M767 Electronic Time fuzes
The latter is a surprise... I would have expected
15/n
an order for M762 Electronic Time fuzes, which are used for base ejecting projectiles... like the M483A1 DPICM and M864 DPICM cluster munitions projectiles.
M767 is used with High Explosive rounds or i.e. M110 Smoke projectiles... it could be that the US is running out of
16/n
M739 fuzes and using the M767, which includes a point detonating option, as a interim solution until M739 production can be ramped up (The Pentagon earmarked $33m for a new M739 production line in July 2022).
17/n
No howitzer can function without charges... and this time the Pentagon is spending $541.27m on charges (!) and another $70m on MACS material.
And this is interesting: so far the Pentagon ordered only M231 (pictured the green blocks) and M232A1 charges, and also spent $265m 18/n
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
To give you an idea, why European militaries prefer US-made weapons to European-made weapons:
Europe militaries urgently need a ground launched cruise missile capability... the US already had such a (nuclear) capability in 1983, then dismantled all of its BGM-109G Gryphon
1/10
ground launched cruise missiles after signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
russia of course broke this treaty after putin came to power and after 15 years of ignoring russia lying about it Trump finally ordered to withdraw from the treaty in August 2019.
2/n
Just 16 days after withdrawing from the treaty the US Army began to test launch Tomahawk cruise missiles form land (pic) and in June 2023 (less than 4 years later) the US Army formed the first battery equipped with the Typhon missile system.
And as Raytheon has a production 3/n
These are the 🇬🇧 UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carriers.
First, as you can see in this picture, only one actually carries aircraft. The UK barely had enough money to buy the F-35B for one. For the other the Blairites expected the US Marine Corps 1/9
to provide the required aircraft, because the two carriers were bought so the Royal Navy could fight alongside the US Navy against China in the Pacific.
But the US does NOT want the British carriers anywhere near its carrier strike groups, because the UK carriers would slow
2/9
down a US carrier strike groups, as the UK did not have the money for nuclear propulsion.
And as the UK doesn't have the money for the ships that make up a carrier strike group (destroyers, frigates, submarines) the UK expected the US Navy to detach some of its destroyers and 3/9
🇬🇧 decline: Only one SSN is operational, three are no longer fit for service and got no crews. One carrier has no air wing and has been sent to rust away. The other carrier only has an air wing when the RAF cedes a third of its fighters. Only 1 destroyer is operational. The
1/5
frigates are falling apart. New Type 31 frigates won't get Mark 41 VLS or bow Sonar. The RAF took 48 of its Eurofighters apart, because it got no money for spares. The army has just 14 155mm howitzers. The Ajax vehicle is injuring the troops it carries. The Warrior IFVs are
2/5
outdated and falling apart. They amphibious ships are not deployable / crewed for lack of funds. The UK has not anti-ballistic missile system (e.g.Patriot). There is only money for 12 F-35A, the smallest F-35A order on the planet. The tank force is at its smallest since 1938.
3/5
International Law is worthless paper if you cannot and will not back it up with military power.
Dictators do not care for international law. But they fear the US Air Force. The moment the US signaled it would no longer back "international law" putin annexed Crimea and Assad
1/10
gassed his people. International Law is what defence laggards hide behind to not have to spend for their own security (hoping the US will save them from their irresponsibility) .
European politicians like to grandstand about "international law" but NO European nation has the
2/n
the means (nor the will) to the enforce it. European politicians grandstanding about international law always do so in the belief that the US will enforce their balderdash.
So European politicians lecturing the US about "international law" now are utter morons, because they
3/n
All this "NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war in Ukraine" is ridiculous, because:
• of course NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war IN (!) Ukraine,
• because that is not how a NATO-russia war will be fought. NATO, even just European NATO,
1/4
fields: 244 F-35, 403 Eurofighter, 183 Rafale, 177 modern F-16, 3 Gripen E, and 896 older fighter types.
A total of 1,906+ fighters (without the US Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force; and with more new fighters entering European service every week).
russia, when counting
2/4
generously can't even put half that fighter strength into the field, and the 1,010 modern European NATO fighters would devastate russia's fighter force.
With NATO air supremacy comes absolute dominance of the battlefield. Every russian moving near the front would get bombed
3/4
Gripen fans keep hyping the Gripen with fake claims & as long as they do, I will counter them:
Scandinavian Air Force officer about the Gripen E: It can either be fully fueled or fully armed or flown from short runways. Never can 2 of these things be done at the same time.
1/25
The Gripen fans keep claiming that the Gripen has a better range than the F-35 and can fly from short runways... then admit that its max. range can only be achieved with external fuel tanks, which weigh so much that the Gripen E can no longer fly from short runways.
2/n
External fuel tanks also mean: the Gripen becomes slower, the radar cross section increases (making detection more likely), the fuel consumption increases,... and even with all 3 external fuel tanks the Gripen E carries 1,340 kg less fuel than the F-35A carries internally.
3/n