alt.hn

4/8/2026 at 8:41:56 AM

US fired 1k JASSM cruise missiles in 37 days. Lockheed makes 396 per year

 https://www.shatterbelt.co/articles/jassm-stockpile-crisis

by realpolitik9

4/8/2026 at 2:52:30 PM 

    > If Lockheed dedicates the entire Troy, Alabama line exclusively to JASSM-ER and produces zero LRASM anti-ship missiles, the maximum rate is 860 per year. That drops the timeline to 2.2 years, but it means the Navy gets zero of the anti-ship missiles it would need for a Taiwan contingency.
China wins by literally doing nothing.

US losing on manufacturing, automobiles, renewables, human talent, global good will, etc.

by CharlieDigital

4/8/2026 at 6:55:52 PM

This is a back of the envelope, not cognizant of all of the factors, estimate.

We don't know what the pacing item of the manufacturing is. It could be sub-assemblies from another company, raw materials, final assembly workers, facilities for final assembly, or a lack of capital to address these shortcomings.

Double the price you are willing to pay, and I bet the rate goes up a lot. You can build a new building in 6 months. In 90 days you can hire and train enough new workers for a third shift.

At the current demand, and the current sales price, and the current planned procurement's, that is all LM can make....

by budman1

4/8/2026 at 7:01:29 PM

I have a saying I use with clients: "anything is possible with time and money".

Certainly, anything is possible. But this is a current and present risk if China were to make a move in the next month (if we agree that anything is possible). Author is saying "this is a clear and present risk", not that "this can't be solved with time and money".

by CharlieDigital

4/8/2026 at 7:12:46 PM

we are in agreement.

what we don't know is what is the blocker? it maybe that LM is running at 10% capacity, with a lot of material in stock. a purchase order shows up, and they start a night shift next week.

may or may not be a dire situation. unless, as you mentioned, we need them next month.

by budman1

4/8/2026 at 7:33:16 PM

That's the thing: this Iranian operation produced nothing of value for the United States but most definitely weakened our capabilities even if we say it is a temporary state until our supplies are replenished.

Trading a rook for a pawn makes sense if you can take a queen. But if you just trade a rook for a pawn...

Speak nothing of the waste of tax payer dollars and loss of Iranian civilian lives for this nothingburger.

by CharlieDigital

4/8/2026 at 4:00:07 PM

Yeah but the upside is that the elderly got to keep most of the federal tax revenue

by someguydave

4/8/2026 at 4:08:52 PM

i don't think this has much to do with the elderly

by recursivedoubts

4/8/2026 at 4:16:10 PM

It certainly does.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/age-generati...

    > About two-thirds of voters ages 18 to 24 (66%) associate with the Democratic Party, compared with 34% who align with the GOP.
    > About six-in-ten voters 80 and older (58%) identify with or lean toward the GOP, while 39% associate with the Democratic Party.
https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-americans-vote-and-ho...

    > How does voting behavior differ by age?
    > In 2024, 47.7% of citizens between the ages of 18 and 24 voted, compared to 60.2% of 25- to 44-year-olds, 70.0% of 45- to 64-year-olds, and 74.7% of people 65 and older.
Older voters have higher turnout and skew heavily Republican.

by CharlieDigital

4/8/2026 at 8:11:32 PM

Put my tax dollars to better use.

In 2025, BYD manufactured 2.2 million battery electric vehicles.

I only need one.

by morninglight

4/8/2026 at 8:10:14 PM

We're not at war with China.

by gosub100

4/8/2026 at 8:24:58 PM

We're not in a military war with them...yet (and maybe Trump would just let them take Taiwan; who knows).

We are definitely in an economic "war" with them, basically outright banning their automotive industry from gaining a foothold in the US and doing things like pressuring Nvidia to limit exports to them.

by CharlieDigital

4/8/2026 at 3:08:21 PM 

    > By September 2016, Lockheed Martin had delivered 2,000 total JASSMs [...] to the USAF. [0]
So probably another 1k plus all production of the last 10 years is all that's left in stock.

Nothing to see here, moving along.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM

by maratc

4/8/2026 at 3:19:31 PM

More: They produce 396 a year when they already have 20 times that number in stock. If they don't have 20 times that number in stock, can they produce more per year? As CharlieDigital noted, yes, they can, though at the price of lower or no production of LRASM missiles.

by AnimalMuppet

4/8/2026 at 3:37:49 PM

The Chinese YKJ-1000 is reported to cost $99000 per unit, is hypersonic and has a range of ~1300 KM.

It's looking like the US needs some disruption on their armament suppliers, kinda what SpaceX did for space launches.

Compare that to the 1.5M each of the JASSM cost.

by juancn

4/8/2026 at 5:12:20 PM

Thus far Chinese weaponry has not shown to be as effective as promised. Maybe this YKJ-1000 is the exception, maybe it is not. Maybe exported versions of the weaponry have been crippled in some way, maybe not. The future will tell. The future, also, which I expect to bring down the price of western weaponry, probably not as low as the Chinese equivalents but closer to those than to those demanded by the old defence dinosaurs.

by hagbard_c

4/8/2026 at 6:13:36 PM

What's your source for this? There isn't really a lot of credible, publicly available information on what you're saying... just anecdotes. In the India v. Pakistan conflict recently a French produced Indian Rafale was downed via a Chinese long range air-to-air missle (PL-15) from a a Chinese produced J-10 jet. Even if they don't have the same hit rate, you can buy 10x for the same price.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/how-pakis...

by stanfordkid

4/8/2026 at 5:04:24 PM

I guess they got rid of bunch of rockets with near expiration date

by romperstomper

4/8/2026 at 3:16:49 PM

Good. They were sunk costs.

This opens it up for newer ideas - the age of hideously expensive missiles is over.

by zulux

4/8/2026 at 3:27:37 PM

Only if you're a nation with few resources or in emergency situation.

Creativity in the US military as always been associated with a lot of $ for contract with the private sectors.

Yes, many countries are now using cheap drones to destroy targets but I'm not sure the US military has the mentality to adapt to this situation because they're not "really" at war.

How would highly ranked personnel react to the idea of a 400$ drone, cheaper than an AR15, when they usually discuss budgets about aircraft carriers (or a few 100$million F35) ?

I wonder how many potential contractors would add a 0 to the price just to be taken seriously.

by whynotmaybe

4/8/2026 at 3:56:37 PM

They'd just add a zero to the quantity to be delivered instead.

by wildzzz

4/8/2026 at 4:53:07 PM

Drones are bullets, not delivery systems like aircraft carriers and machine guns.

The US military already deploys a copy of the Iranian Shahed drone. They aren't $400 but the Shahed isn't that cheap either.

by jerlam

4/8/2026 at 2:48:34 PM

I'm not saying the Trump administration is compromised/influenced/managed by Russia but if they were I don't see what they'd be doing differently.

by 4fterd4rk

4/8/2026 at 2:51:02 PM

Yes, it was Putin that was walking into DC every other month demanding the US strike Iran...

by nprz

4/8/2026 at 3:03:54 PM

Maybe it's not a question of if the administration is compromised, but rather who is doing the compromising. Hell why can't it be both?

by troyvit

4/8/2026 at 2:51:21 PM

Then taking down the Maduro regime and the Iranians who are both Russian allies, arming Ukraine, and enabling out-of-theater sinking of Russian ships?

by vorpalhex

4/8/2026 at 4:14:29 PM 

    > ...and the Iranians
Russia is playing both sides of this. They're able to continue to deepen the dependency precisely because Iran has few allies while also raising the price of crude oil to enrich their coffers. A few Iranian lives are nothing to them. All you have to do is to look at the other side of this: if Iran were to open up and be integrated into the world, who loses? Russia.

    > ...arming Ukraine,
It certainly appears that you've been in a bunker.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-to-know-about-trumps...

    > The White House said that the U.S. is "pausing and reviewing" its Ukraine aid to "ensure that it is contributing to a solution." The order will remain in effect until Trump determines that Ukraine has demonstrated a commitment to peace negotiations with Russia.
    > 
    > The decision comes days after an explosive meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, in which Trump and U.S. Vice President JD Vance said that Ukraine's leader hasn't expressed sufficient gratitude for American support.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/04/us-military-ai...

    > The Trump administration has suspended delivery of all US military aid to Ukraine, blocking billions in crucial shipments, as the White House piles pressure on Kyiv to sue for peace with Vladimir Putin.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/04/europe/russia-ukraine-militar...

    > Russia welcomes Trump’s cut to Ukraine’s military aid

by CharlieDigital

4/8/2026 at 5:13:52 PM

Out of $188B of authorized aid for Ukraine, $109B has been disbursed incl 2025/2026 deliveries, with an additional $72B continuing to be disbursed per original timeline.

https://www.cfr.org/articles/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine

You have to get at least the most basic facts correct. If you get even those wrong, you need to throw out your entire worldview and the sources that generated that worldview and start over.

by vorpalhex

4/8/2026 at 6:43:42 PM 

    > You have to get at least the most basic facts correct
Seems like you need to get the facts correct. From your own source:

    > Since Trump assumed office in January 2025, there has been no legislation or other authorizations of significant new aid to Ukraine. However, a substantial amount of the aid **appropriated under the Biden administration** is still in the pipeline, and deliveries of aid packages have continued, although on two occasions **the Trump administration temporarily paused some deliveries...Nonetheless, the lack of new aid commitments means that U.S. aid deliveries are running out**.
    > 
    > After some initial restrictions, the Biden administration eventually permitted Ukraine to use ATACMS to strike inside Russian territory. **The Trump administration initially blocked use of the missiles in 2025, though Ukraine announced their use later in the year. The Trump administration considered providing Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, as requested by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, but ultimately chose not to do so**.
Look carefully at the first graphic and notice when those 5 aid bills were signed into law. I'll give you a hint: before Trump assumed office in January 2025.

What's your position? That Trump is sympathetic to the Ukrainian cause and has been a great supporter and ally of Ukraine?

    > You need to throw out your entire worldview and the sources that generated that worldview and start over.
Maybe you should start by reading your sources first.

by CharlieDigital

4/8/2026 at 3:07:02 PM

Madurismo without Maduro.

Ukraine? Sure, after extorting them for campaign help (minerals later) while Russians murdered their families.

And we're not "enabling" the sinking of any Russian ships.

by stldev

4/8/2026 at 5:19:43 PM

Venezuela has bulk freed their political prisoners and is on track to hold elections.

And I think you will find Ukraine lacks the necessary satellite constellations to enable very long distance corrected boat strikes. Yet strangely Ukraine has suddenly been successfukly performing trajectory corrected boat strikes.. at very long distances.. Seemingly launched from not Ukraine.

Or maybe Russian oil terminals just keep magically catching fire... along with their ships.. You know, the ones the US didn't interdict.

Could be. Could be.

by vorpalhex