“I recommend they all hold their breath until that happens.”
No kidding. Sounds to me that Russia simply doesn’t throw out their older weapons. They likely store them, figuring that they could be useful in some, unexpected, future scenarios. After all, storing hardware is not particularly expensive, at least compared to the cost of building new hardware.
The US, on the other hand, has ‘expert’ institutions, such as the Neocon-run “Institute for the Study of War”. Those experts know EVERY war scenario and there is no reason for anyone to doubt their expertise, so if they say that there can never be a use for, say, and old battle-tank model, then THEY KNOW EVERYTHING, and so those tanks are melted down and steel sold to China.
In addition, Russia likely figured out that keeping SOME production of key weapons going and keeping now-unused capacity to ramp up production, puts them in a much better situation, should a need arise to produce weapons quickly. For the US, our Harvard MBAs consider that ‘a waste of resources’ and immediately cut off production funding the moment the target number is reached...after all, our MBAs know everything and the Russian approach is ‘totally yesterday’, as we’re in a new paradigm.
Damn idiots.
The US has ALWAYS over estimated our adversaries capabilities. That is kind of good, but they are also doing it for bad reasons...they want more money.
No kidding. Sounds to me that Russia simply doesn’t throw out their older weapons.
Depends on the type of weaponry.
Russia has huge number of tanks in storage, even obsolete models like T62. Why? Because there may be still use for them, T62 reported passing Crimea were used not as battle tanks but as fortifications.
On the other hand they are serious about the expiration date. S300 missiles were actually destroyed, so were Tochka-U’s.
Incidentally Ukraine kept both... S300 missiles past the expiration date behave in unpredictable ways.... many buildings in Kiev were destroyed by them.