Estonia has no steel, fertilizer/nitrates or energy sources, that claim is pure fantasy. Their economy is teetering on the brink as it is, they depended on cheap Russian gas and Russian tourists. Also in the event of an escalation their factory would be toast.
Other former Soviet block countries like Bulgaria or Czechia have bigger capacities, and long-standing experience as weapon manufacturers, they can potentially scale up their production. The problem is the way the western MICs are set up, relying on the private sector, it doesn't pay for a company to invest in an expensive production process for an item that is a commodity with lower margins and where long-term demand is uncertain (what if the war stops this year or the next). This problem is further compounded today by the fact that the cost of inputs (steel, copper, nitrates, energy) has become exorbitant.
NATO can start a program where it can subsidize many countries that would be able to produce small quantities of ammunition that could eventually help Ukraine get back to usage levels it had at the start of the war, this would be achieved in about a year or two, probably too late.
What NATO also needs, badly, is to mass produce cheap drones similar to the Shaheds/Gerans and the highly effective Russian Lancet loitering drones, which cost between $10k-$40k to produce. There is no equivalent in NATO's arsenal, at least not at that cost level. Eventually in a couple of years countries like Turkey, Brazil or India are going to pick up these effective low-cost designs and start selling them on the world arms market. By that time though, Russia is going to have an inventory in the thousands, and China in the tens of thousands.
Other former Soviet block countries like Bulgaria or Czechia have bigger capacities, and long-standing experience as weapon manufacturers, they can potentially scale up their production. The problem is the way the western MICs are set up, relying on the private sector, it doesn't pay for a company to invest in an expensive production process for an item that is a commodity with lower margins and where long-term demand is uncertain (what if the war stops this year or the next). This problem is further compounded today by the fact that the cost of inputs (steel, copper, nitrates, energy) has become exorbitant.
NATO can start a program where it can subsidize many countries that would be able to produce small quantities of ammunition that could eventually help Ukraine get back to usage levels it had at the start of the war, this would be achieved in about a year or two, probably too late.
What NATO also needs, badly, is to mass produce cheap drones similar to the Shaheds/Gerans and the highly effective Russian Lancet loitering drones, which cost between $10k-$40k to produce. There is no equivalent in NATO's arsenal, at least not at that cost level. Eventually in a couple of years countries like Turkey, Brazil or India are going to pick up these effective low-cost designs and start selling them on the world arms market. By that time though, Russia is going to have an inventory in the thousands, and China in the tens of thousands.
Tubes here = cannons, tanks, MLRS rockets.Quote:
Question, can you explain the mixing of terminologies? Because if Russia is firing 20,000 - 60,000 rounds a day, how do "10,000 tubes" fit into that discussion. Are these tubes for larger shells / missiles?
