Production problems are reported for making more Stinger MANPADs:
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/2 ... y-00027766

So what else can the US produce and provide quickly?

Could the ground-launched Sidewinder version (Chaparral) make sense for Ukraine? Obviously, that is not a MANPAD unless the man is really, really big.

Any other US options?

Short term . . Pour money into existing production lines like the UK Starstreak.

Cool idea with the Chaparral. It has the M113 chassis . . . so they will soon have the ecosystem to support some of it.

In the same vein, are there any M163 laying around?

Could work well against drones.

bt

.

I doubt this production issue poses a short term problem for Ukraine. They have already gotten or have been promised thousands of Stingers or similar missiles by allies which will come from their existing stocks.
The US alone is sitting on a huge stockpile that was getting old and obsolete and was about to be phased out.

Ukraine should have enough to last for a while.
This is more of an issue for the nations providing them which had no plan to replace them this early and might have to precipitate things a bit more than they had planned.
This temporary shortfall shouldn't be a major problem since none of them are currently involved in military ops that require their use.

Francoflier wrote:

I doubt this production issue poses a short term problem for Ukraine. They have already gotten or have been promised thousands of Stingers or similar missiles by allies which will come from their existing stocks.
The US alone is sitting on a huge stockpile that was getting old and obsolete and was about to be phased out.

Ukraine should have enough to last for a while.
This is more of an issue for the nations providing them which had no plan to replace them this early and might have to precipitate things a bit more than they had planned.
This temporary shortfall shouldn't be a major problem since none of them are currently involved in military ops that require their use.

I agree, there is a reason no new stingers have been produced lately. It’s on the way out. Good way to use an expiring stockpile though!

texl1649 wrote:

Good way to use an expiring stockpile though!

Going out with a bang doesn't get more literal than this...

The US was looking for a Stinger replacement, so this war might just accelerate that decision.

ThePointblank wrote:

The US was looking for a Stinger replacement, so this war might just accelerate that decision.

Something that is Humvee mounted and interfaces with longer range radar (even AWACs or F-35s?). Something that could also be an absolute point defense against cruise missiles

Vintage wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

The US was looking for a Stinger replacement, so this war might just accelerate that decision.

Something that is Humvee mounted and interfaces with longer range radar (even AWACs or F-35s?). Something that could also be an absolute point defense against cruise missiles

The Pentagon considers the Stinger to be obsolete, and initiated a replacement program under the next-gen interceptor program:

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2022/0 ... terceptor/

The Pentagon has requested $1.5 million in FY22 to issue an RFI and conduct an industry day ahead of a competitive shoot-off, with a contract to be awarded in FY23. They intend on purchasing up to 10,000 missiles for delivery before FY27.

The RFI as posted indicates that they want something that is man-portable, and is can be integrated with the Stinger Vehicle Universal Launcher.

ThePointblank wrote:

The RFI as posted indicates that they want something that is man-portable, and is can be integrated with the Stinger Vehicle Universal Launcher.

I think that our military has a strong aversion to fielding an effective anti-air capability. They just don't seem to want anything that's effective.

Anything that's man portable will only be useful against helicopters. Fixed wing aircraft flying low arrive and depart almost before you could point your finger at them, let alone a clunky missile tube (after you've done what's needed to activate it). And an infantryman out in the boonies where he can't even be supported by a Humvee, shouldn't need anti air capability anyway. Also, anything that will reach up to 5,000 feet or so is going to be too big of a load for an infantryman to carry around. By the time the need arises he will be half dead from exhaustion.

IMO the greatest need is point defense against cruise missiles, something that can spot the target and launch before the missile gets in a soldier's eyesight. If it can do that, it can also down any nearby aircraft.

Only one international customer at present for the production line and they need to provide some of the obsolete parts!

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/04/no- ... March%2028.

Today, the Stinger production line services only a single international customer, who has sourced and provided many of the obsolescent parts needed to build its own Stingers.

only recent sale I can find would be this for Taiwan, which makes sense, they have many many hundreds if not thousands Stingers for Avengers, Dual Mount Stinger systems, Apache Longbows but were denied single round shoulder fired ones for years, some one in DC was worried they would be, I don't know smuggling them into mainland China and somehow shooting down PLA planes or something! Plus they can certainly provide Raytheon with whatever widget the production line needs.
https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major- ... -states-10

Vintage wrote:

I think that our military has a strong aversion to fielding an effective anti-air capability. They just don't seem to want anything that's effective.

I think someone on here awhile back mentioned that there wasn't as much need because the USAF would have air superiority, if not supremacy.

johns624 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

I think that our military has a strong aversion to fielding an effective anti-air capability. They just don't seem to want anything that's effective.

I think someone on here awhile back mentioned that there wasn't as much need because the USAF would have air superiority, if not supremacy.

I think that's a correct analysis, except there is a need. I believe that it's Air Force lobbying that prevents the development of a good point defense system like Iron Dome. And it's the the AF that lobbies against a good medium range system like the A-400. So we have virtually no defense against cruise missiles or drones.

I see it as near criminal selfishness.

So it does seem the last batch of Stingers in production were destined for Taiwan. If as Raytheon says the customer (Taiwan) are providing components Raytheon can no longer source themselves and US are possibly delaying deliveries, maybe Raytheon needs to find another source ASAP or Pentagon needs to sweeten the deal to make it worth Taipei waiting.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 022-05-03/

OT but in similar vein Javelin supply issues and empty cupboards potentially
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... id=1156110

trex8 wrote:

So it does seem the last batch of Stingers in production were destined for Taiwan. If as Raytheon says the customer (Taiwan) are providing components Raytheon can no longer source themselves and US are possibly delaying deliveries, maybe Raytheon needs to find another source ASAP or Pentagon needs to sweeten the deal to make it worth Taipei waiting.
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-paci ... 022-05-03/

OT but in similar vein Javelin supply issues and empty cupboards potentially
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... id=1156110

Likely, the parts are obsolescent, and no longer made by the OEM; Taiwan was probably providing a close equivalent thanks to their extensive semiconductor industry that works.

With how old the current Stinger version is (the current model was developed in 1992 and entered production in 1995), it would be better to acquire a new MANPAD design for production in the US; hence the plan for a new competition for a Stinger replacement.

ThePointblank wrote:

Likely, the parts are obsolescent, and no longer made by the OEM; Taiwan was probably providing a close equivalent thanks to their extensive semiconductor industry that works.

Obsolescence can be dealt in two ways.

1) Buy enough stock to complete your production run (include some percentage for spares). This would be the cheapest and what Taiwan probably did.

2) Develop new components to replace the obsolete components. This is more expensive and require time. I suspect that this is what will happen to the Taiwan contract. The US would put in money to design/test/certify the new hardware. Taiwan would have to wait for their missiles but they would now have the ability to buy more. And so does everyone else.

And of course some compensation would be negotiated for the delay.

bt

Seems instead of potentially spending lots of $$ and lots of time (with all the usual delays in any new program) that the Stinger replacement should be more a Stinger update to 21st century tech.

trex8 wrote:

Seems instead of potentially spending lots of $$ and lots of time (with all the usual delays in any new program) that the Stinger replacement should be more a Stinger update to 21st century tech.

Or, they can go Mil-COTS, and buy an existing weapons system already in production.

Remember, they intend on a competitive shoot off sometime this year, with a contract award sometime next year. Based upon that timeline, it would have to be something already in production for that to happen.

ThePointblank wrote:

trex8 wrote:

Seems instead of potentially spending lots of $$ and lots of time (with all the usual delays in any new program) that the Stinger replacement should be more a Stinger update to 21st century tech.

Or, they can go Mil-COTS, and buy an existing weapons system already in production.

Remember, they intend on a competitive shoot off sometime this year, with a contract award sometime next year. Based upon that timeline, it would have to be something already in production for that to happen.

Such as the being proven in combat Starstreak/Marlet system, available in MANPAD, triple launcher and vehicle integrated configurations. MDBA should team up with a US partner.
Ironically it’s nearly 40 years since the first Stinger kill, just prior to Afghanistan, the SAS shot down a Pucara in the Falklands, along with some sat and secure comms gear their commander had been with Delta Force in the US, also bringing some early production Stingers.

GDB wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

trex8 wrote:

Seems instead of potentially spending lots of $$ and lots of time (with all the usual delays in any new program) that the Stinger replacement should be more a Stinger update to 21st century tech.

Or, they can go Mil-COTS, and buy an existing weapons system already in production.

Remember, they intend on a competitive shoot off sometime this year, with a contract award sometime next year. Based upon that timeline, it would have to be something already in production for that to happen.

Such as the being proven in combat Starstreak/Marlet system, available in MANPAD, triple launcher and vehicle integrated configurations. MDBA should team up with a US partner.
Ironically it’s nearly 40 years since the first Stinger kill, just prior to Afghanistan, the SAS shot down a Pucara in the Falklands, along with some sat and secure comms gear their commander had been with Delta Force in the US, also bringing some early production Stingers.

Stinger is just basically Redeye NG. Swapping out electronics with modern ones and a newer seeker would be incremental in improvements. There’s a good chance to leapfrog ahead 2 generations here easily.

Spacepope wrote:

GDB wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Or, they can go Mil-COTS, and buy an existing weapons system already in production.

Remember, they intend on a competitive shoot off sometime this year, with a contract award sometime next year. Based upon that timeline, it would have to be something already in production for that to happen.

Such as the being proven in combat Starstreak/Marlet system, available in MANPAD, triple launcher and vehicle integrated configurations. MDBA should team up with a US partner.
Ironically it’s nearly 40 years since the first Stinger kill, just prior to Afghanistan, the SAS shot down a Pucara in the Falklands, along with some sat and secure comms gear their commander had been with Delta Force in the US, also bringing some early production Stingers.

Stinger is just basically Redeye NG. Swapping out electronics with modern ones and a newer seeker would be incremental in improvements. There’s a good chance to leapfrog ahead 2 generations here easily.

Would it have, in the case of Starstreak, a speed of Mach 3-4, Marlet Mach 1.5? Starstreak range of up to 7km?
The fact that Stinger is out of production and it is, if we are being honest a not very high priority for the US in their air defence doctrine which is more based around assumed air dominance and with SAMs like Patriots.
So why spend money a new system when there is one which already in performance terms a leapfrog?

GDB wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

GDB wrote:

Such as the being proven in combat Starstreak/Marlet system, available in MANPAD, triple launcher and vehicle integrated configurations. MDBA should team up with a US partner.
Ironically it’s nearly 40 years since the first Stinger kill, just prior to Afghanistan, the SAS shot down a Pucara in the Falklands, along with some sat and secure comms gear their commander had been with Delta Force in the US, also bringing some early production Stingers.

Stinger is just basically Redeye NG. Swapping out electronics with modern ones and a newer seeker would be incremental in improvements. There’s a good chance to leapfrog ahead 2 generations here easily.

Would it have, in the case of Starstreak, a speed of Mach 3-4, Marlet Mach 1.5? Starstreak range of up to 7km?
The fact that Stinger is out of production and it is, if we are being honest a not very high priority for the US in their air defence doctrine which is more based around assumed air dominance and with SAMs like Patriots.
So why spend money a new system when there is one which already in performance terms a leapfrog?

Starstreak is itself an early 90s design with systems firmed some 30 years ago. A clean sheet design now would still be quite a leapfrog in capabilities. I'm sure the US is getting good feedback on these MANPADS in UKR service, even though apparently all that's been leaked are Martlets are good at plinking low value drones, and lips have been tight on Stinger use. I've not heard a peep on whether Starstreak has even been employed yet.

Spacepope wrote:

GDB wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

Stinger is just basically Redeye NG. Swapping out electronics with modern ones and a newer seeker would be incremental in improvements. There’s a good chance to leapfrog ahead 2 generations here easily.

Would it have, in the case of Starstreak, a speed of Mach 3-4, Marlet Mach 1.5? Starstreak range of up to 7km?
The fact that Stinger is out of production and it is, if we are being honest a not very high priority for the US in their air defence doctrine which is more based around assumed air dominance and with SAMs like Patriots.
So why spend money a new system when there is one which already in performance terms a leapfrog?

Starstreak is itself an early 90s design with systems firmed some 30 years ago. A clean sheet design now would still be quite a leapfrog in capabilities. I'm sure the US is getting good feedback on these MANPADS in UKR service, even though apparently all that's been leaked are Martlets are good at plinking low value drones, and lips have been tight on Stinger use. I've not heard a peep on whether Starstreak has even been employed yet.

Starstreak has been for over a month, this footage was confirmed by the MoD as Startstreak and it certainly looks like a non IR guided HVM hit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_b64pkeDM4

It is already certified for (and Marlet) naval and helicopter mounting.
If Stinger, being IR, is essentially Redeye NG, in concept at least Starstreak still has a 30 year lead.
And like Stinger 40 years ago, not at the end of it's development potential, something a US partner could be involved with.

Star streak is semi automatic command to line of sight ( like a TOW missile) so you have to keep the target in your crosshairs after launch
While it’s speed and novel warhead and difficulty to be jammed has its advantages so does the ability with Stinger and most infra red systems to allow the operator to move away after launch.

trex8 wrote:

Star streak is semi automatic command to line of sight ( like a TOW missile) so you have to keep the target in your crosshairs after launch
While it’s speed and novel warhead and difficulty to be jammed has its advantages so does the ability with Stinger and most infra red systems to allow the operator to move away after launch.

That’s why it’s a HVM, at normal combat ranges time to firing and impact is very brief.
Most cases, they don’t see it coming.

GDB wrote:

trex8 wrote:

Star streak is semi automatic command to line of sight ( like a TOW missile) so you have to keep the target in your crosshairs after launch
While it’s speed and novel warhead and difficulty to be jammed has its advantages so does the ability with Stinger and most infra red systems to allow the operator to move away after launch.

That’s why it’s a HVM, at normal combat ranges time to firing and impact is very brief.
Most cases, they don’t see it coming.

That's why I think the next generation needs to receive data from theater radar sets and even AWAC and maybe even F-35 radars.
Guys in Humvees could be nodes in an air defense network.
Nothing could get past that kind of a system.

trex8 wrote:

Star streak is semi automatic command to line of sight ( like a TOW missile) so you have to keep the target in your crosshairs after launch

It was originally. Later platforms have ATT (automatic tracking something). So you only have to keep the target in the field of view, but can switch to SACLOS if needed. It may or may not be on the equipment supplied to Ukraine. There’s a lot of variations in these systems, three missiles, various platforms, they added thermal imaging at one point to give day night capability, ATT, ADAD.

Not saying Starstreak or martlet are the answer mind, definitely not for Ukraine because of the paltry number of missiles and platforms that can be supplied in the near term. But the poor performance of heat seeking Manpads suggests to me they are approaching obsolescence against any decent countermeasures system.

BaconButty wrote:

trex8 wrote:

Star streak is semi automatic command to line of sight ( like a TOW missile) so you have to keep the target in your crosshairs after launch

It was originally. Later platforms have ATT (automatic tracking something). So you only have to keep the target in the field of view, but can switch to SACLOS if needed. It may or may not be on the equipment supplied to Ukraine. There’s a lot of variations in these systems, three missiles, various platforms, they added thermal imaging at one point to give day night capability, ATT, ADAD.

Not saying Starstreak or martlet are the answer mind, definitely not for Ukraine because of the paltry number of missiles and platforms that can be supplied in the near term. But the poor performance of heat seeking Manpads suggests to me they are approaching obsolescence against any decent countermeasures system.

A variety of reasons why heat seeking missiles might be struggling.

1. They might be of an older type that is more prone to countermeasures because of their age;
2. The missiles might have been employed outside of their engagement profile and thus already had a low chance to begin with;
3. and Operator error

ThePointblank wrote:

BaconButty wrote:

trex8 wrote:

Star streak is semi automatic command to line of sight ( like a TOW missile) so you have to keep the target in your crosshairs after launch

It was originally. Later platforms have ATT (automatic tracking something). So you only have to keep the target in the field of view, but can switch to SACLOS if needed. It may or may not be on the equipment supplied to Ukraine. There’s a lot of variations in these systems, three missiles, various platforms, they added thermal imaging at one point to give day night capability, ATT, ADAD.

Not saying Starstreak or martlet are the answer mind, definitely not for Ukraine because of the paltry number of missiles and platforms that can be supplied in the near term. But the poor performance of heat seeking Manpads suggests to me they are approaching obsolescence against any decent countermeasures system.

A variety of reasons why heat seeking missiles might be struggling.

1. They might be of an older type that is more prone to countermeasures because of their age;
2. The missiles might have been employed outside of their engagement profile and thus already had a low chance to begin with;
3. and Operator error

Don’t forget that there are no claims about IR MANPADS performing poorly beyond the above claim too. I don’t think we will know the entire story for quite a while

Spacepope wrote:

Don’t forget that there are no claims about IR MANPADS performing poorly beyond the above claim too. I don’t think we will know the entire story for quite a while

It's not a claim as such - it's based on the Oryx data (which has been shown to be around 80% accurate and I'd expect it to be higher for helicopters for the obvious reasons) and my expectations. I had a look at the helicopter losses around 6 weeks ago, there were 32 in total, but only 13 could be potentially MANPADS. Since then there have been a further 10 recorded. I haven't looked at them, but I know one will be destroyed on the ground on Snake Island by a TB-2, another a remarkable second hit for a STUGNA atgm. So for the whole war, 21 potential kills. BUT they need to be shared between other types of manpads and SAMS, mechanical failures or even CFIT, the various 23mm AA systems, small arms fire, atgm/rpg fire and helicopters destroyed on the ground by UAV's or artillery. And that's in a war where we've had a large airmobile assault (on Hostemel).

My expectations were substantially higher than that, YMMV. Personally, given the intensity and breadth of the conflict, I feel IR manpads have performed worse than Blowpipe did in '82, and that's saying something. But the original question of the thread, about the effect of the Stinger production issues on the war in Ukraine, it strikes me that you wouldn't bother doing anything. @texl1649 had it right, run down the stockpile. And evaluate how you want short range air defence to look like in the future. The Russians, after their issues in Syria, have equipped their helicopters with missile warning detectors, dircm etc, and in any case there are tasks that would have been performed by helicopters are now being done by low cost UAV's, Orla-10's typically. It's a war that, in this phase, is about massed artillery and cheap UAV's. Are $100k missiles the right tool for the job? Today I saw my 4th and 5th videos of a martlet shooting down an Orla-10. They're "only" $30K a pop. Still far more than the thing it's aimed at, but it makes you think.

BaconButty wrote:

Still far more than the thing it's aimed at, but it makes you think.

We can think about it. But that soldier doesn't give a rip about the cost of the missile vs. the drone as long as it kept Russian artillery off his back.

As an American tax payer paying for 20 years of spending in Afganistan and Iraq, I'm OK with the Ukrainians killing a cheap drone with an expensive Stinger if it keeps the Russians from putting a scratch on them M777s.

bt

BaconButty wrote:

Spacepope wrote:

Don’t forget that there are no claims about IR MANPADS performing poorly beyond the above claim too. I don’t think we will know the entire story for quite a while

It's not a claim as such - it's based on the Oryx data (which has been shown to be around 80% accurate and I'd expect it to be higher for helicopters for the obvious reasons) and my expectations. I had a look at the helicopter losses around 6 weeks ago, there were 32 in total, but only 13 could be potentially MANPADS. Since then there have been a further 10 recorded. I haven't looked at them, but I know one will be destroyed on the ground on Snake Island by a TB-2, another a remarkable second hit for a STUGNA atgm. So for the whole war, 21 potential kills. BUT they need to be shared between other types of manpads and SAMS, mechanical failures or even CFIT, the various 23mm AA systems, small arms fire, atgm/rpg fire and helicopters destroyed on the ground by UAV's or artillery. And that's in a war where we've had a large airmobile assault (on Hostemel).

My expectations were substantially higher than that, YMMV. Personally, given the intensity and breadth of the conflict, I feel IR manpads have performed worse than Blowpipe did in '82, and that's saying something. But the original question of the thread, about the effect of the Stinger production issues on the war in Ukraine, it strikes me that you wouldn't bother doing anything. @texl1649 had it right, run down the stockpile. And evaluate how you want short range air defence to look like in the future. The Russians, after their issues in Syria, have equipped their helicopters with missile warning detectors, dircm etc, and in any case there are tasks that would have been performed by helicopters are now being done by low cost UAV's, Orla-10's typically. It's a war that, in this phase, is about massed artillery and cheap UAV's. Are $100k missiles the right tool for the job? Today I saw my 4th and 5th videos of a martlet shooting down an Orla-10. They're "only" $30K a pop. Still far more than the thing it's aimed at, but it makes you think.

I think Oryx does a good job based on what he can observe, but one thing we see is his armor losses track well with the UKR MOD reports, and they also claim 200+ fixed wing aircraft, 160+ helicopters and lots and lots of drones (with the Martlet being a particular favorite to drop Orlan 10s). So if the MOD claims for aircraft track with their armor claims, we're looking at quite a lot of successes.

I know the headline numbers about how much money countries are spending to support Ukraine run into the billions, but it seems that most of the equipment being sent (such as the stingers and javelins) were systems close to expiring and being decommissioned anyway. I'm curious how much of America's $40bil commitment is actually essentially free because it's old / expiring systems we were going to basically throw out anyway...

muralir wrote:

I know the headline numbers about how much money countries are spending to support Ukraine run into the billions, but it seems that most of the equipment being sent (such as the stingers and javelins) were systems close to expiring and being decommissioned anyway. I'm curious how much of America's $40bil commitment is actually essentially free because it's old / expiring systems we were going to basically throw out anyway...

The Stingers might be, the early batches of Javelins too, along older protected vehicles like the M-113 series.
Everything is far from expiring, some notably the drones are new, in particular one model very new.
As posted in Non Av, not perfect as the channel says but judge for yourself;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDKYT2pikFw

muralir wrote:

I'm curious how much of America's $40bil commitment is actually essentially free because it's old / expiring systems we were going to basically throw out anyway...

Good question but answer would be really complicated.

Expire may not necessarily means scrap. Sone system can be re-furbished by replacing components like batteries etc.

There is also a cost to scrapping these weapon systems, in terms of hazardous material disposal, which is now being dumped on Ukrainian soil.

Some systems do have some resale value, like the M113, but the cost may not be the full value allocated to Ukraine.

Does the $40 bil include transportation? If Ukraine were to take the money and buy stuff on the open market, transportation cost would be included in the price. Wonder if the cost of transporting the hardware on the C-17 included in the $40 bil or is being absorbed elsewhere.


bt

Another question about the $40 bil would be does it include cost of training? Or does that cost also get absorbed somewhere else.

And then there is the invaluable assets of the spy planes, AWACS and satelites. My guess is use of those services are free.

bikerthai wrote:

Another question about the $40 bil would be does it include cost of training? Or does that cost also get absorbed somewhere else.

And then there is the invaluable assets of the spy planes, AWACS and satelites. My guess is use of those services are free.

With training, from 2016 to just before the war, the US, UK, Canada and the Baltic NATO states involved, so not a new cost factor, the training largely in Poland since the invasion.

Training and transport probably are charged to other programs, did we ever see what we spent on transport in Iraq? I don't recall it.

The Stinger is at the end of its life. For now, ensure other anti-air and anti-tank missiles still in production get their production kicked up to build inventory in NATO. As the dust settles in Ukraine, we will have a lot of experience to evaluate and incorporate the best in a good replacement for the Stinger, possibly a new generation of the Javelline.

JayinKitsap wrote:

The Stinger is at the end of its life. For now, ensure other anti-air and anti-tank missiles still in production get their production kicked up to build inventory in NATO.

Anyone keeping an eye on Stingers for Taiwan? Taiwan has secured enough components for their production order, but with the war, is there any rumors of how they are going to proceed with the contract?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

The Stinger is at the end of its life. For now, ensure other anti-air and anti-tank missiles still in production get their production kicked up to build inventory in NATO.

Anyone keeping an eye on Stingers for Taiwan? Taiwan has secured enough components for their production order, but with the war, is there any rumors of how they are going to proceed with the contract?

bt

I had read that Taiwan secured a number of the components that are out of production to do their order of 250, at that time it was a concern how the Ukraine conflict would affect this. I haven't seen anything further. It is a similar situation to finding parts for the TF-33's on the BUFFs, still possible but the cupboard looks bare.

The US is likely to still have enough inventory of Stingers to be OK and probably doesn't want to introduce a new product into service. However, we should help NATO get replacement missiles in production to offset those used in Ukraine, say the Starstreak or Brimstone. In the anti-tank, getting AT4's (single shot) and the Gustaf reloadable recoiless rifles.

We also need to ramp production of the M982 Excaliber howitzer shells along with boatloads of ammo.

What they need is to develop cheap small anti-drone mini missiles.

bikerthai wrote:

What they need is to develop cheap small anti-drone mini missiles.

Easier and cheaper per shot to deploy a counter-UAV AAA system; the US Army has trialled a version of the Stryker armed with a 30mm auto cannon, coupled to a radar, an EO/IR suite, and radio jammers.

ThePointblank wrote:

Easier and cheaper per shot to deploy a counter-UAV AAA system; the US Army has trialled a version of the Stryker armed with a 30mm auto cannon, coupled to a radar, an EO/IR suite, and radio jammers.

Laser as well. But those are vehicle mount. I was thinking man portable for small operations.

bt

More on the first combat use of a Stinger, with a twist in the tale;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHpOzXhddQE