No. of Recommendations: 4
I was curious about the accumulated total of ground attack missiles and drones (excluding battleground anti-tank/personnel)fired by Russia against Ukraine. I remember, back in 2022, there was speculation that Russia was running low on missiles, but have since fired an order of magnitude more. So the question begs, what supply they started with, what is the manufacture rate - and if it does not exceed usage, what is their available stockpile? What is the US (and Chinese) stockpile of similar weapons and what is our ability to keep up an equivalent rate of usage (assuming that current tactics would be indicative of those used in a future European conflict).
Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, it has launched over 9,600 missiles and nearly 14,000 attack drones, with estimated costs exceeding $20 billion. These include a mix of cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and kamikaze drones.
Here’s a breakdown of the types, quantities, and estimated costs:
🚀 Missile and Drone Usage Since 2022
Cruise Missiles ~5,000+
Kh-101, Kh-555, Kalibr, Kh-22 @ $1.5M–$2M = ~$7.5B–$10B
Ballistic Missiles ~4,600+
Iskander-M, S-300 repurposed for ground use @ $3M–$5M = ~$13.8B–$23B
Attack Drones ~14,000+
Shahed-131/136 (Iranian-made), Lancet, Orlan @ $20K–$50K = ~$280M–$700M
Per Copilot AI, Sources: Ukrainian Air Force, Frontliner.ua, Al Jazeera, Wikipedia
📊 Notable Attack Patterns
- Largest single-day attack: On September 9, 2025, Russia launched 823 projectiles, including 810 drones and decoys and 13 cruise/ballistic missiles.
- Second-largest attack: October 30, 2025, saw 705 drones and missiles, including 653 drones and 52 missiles.
- Guided bombs: Over 33,000 dropped by Russian aircraft, adding to the destruction.
💰 Cost Implications
- Total estimated cost of Russia’s aerial campaign (missiles + drones) likely exceeds $20 billion, not including aircraft operations or infrastructure damage.
- The use of Shahed drones—cheaper and mass-produced—has allowed Russia to sustain frequent attacks despite sanctions and resource constraints.
There has been speculation that Russia is a "has been" as a military force and no match for the US and/or NATO. That may be the case, but despite their dubious military tactics, they have succeeded in throwing millions of personnel and vast amounts of munitions and equipment into the Ukraine conflict over the past two years.
This should be taken in the context of the potential of a US conflict with China in the Asian theatre - next door to them, and thousands of miles from us. An neighborhood where their navy outnumbers the entire US navy, their army ours and their weapon systems approaching our best as well. I assume (not based on their battle experience, but rather on a level of confidence that they have analyzed our tactics with the same adroitness that they do the rest of our technology - which they have not only copied, but improved on, that they would not squander their resources in the fashion that Russia seems willing to do.
After our (probably useless) bombing of the Houthis in Yemen this year, it was feared that we were running low on some types of munitions. How would we fare in a multi-year war of attrition against a country with the resources (manufacturing and otherwise) like China?
Jeff
No. of Recommendations: 7
"What is the US (and Chinese) stockpile of similar weapons and what is our ability to keep up an equivalent rate of usage (assuming that current tactics would be indicative of those used in a future European conflict).
After our (probably useless) bombing of the Houthis in Yemen this year, it was feared that we were running low on some types of munitions. How would we fare in a multi-year war of attrition against a country with the resources (manufacturing and otherwise) like China?"
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/missile-stockpil...US depleted its missiles in Ukraine, Israel. Now it wants more fast.
But experts say that under current conditions that may be impossible.
Namely, it hopes to boost production rates for 12 types of missiles it wants on-hand, including Patriot interceptor missiles, Standard Missile-6, THAAD interceptors, and joint air-surface standoff missiles.https://responsiblestatecraft.org/us-stockpiles-mi...By the numbers: US missile capacity depleting fast
Our industrial base isn't keeping up with the pace of weapons transfers to Ukraine and Israel
Regardless of the merits or demerits of the Biden administration’s policies on the wars in Ukraine and Gaza and the wider Middle East, it has become clear that the United States has been using and giving away its missiles faster than it can produce them.
It is also clear that from the perspective of missile inventories and production, the United States is far from prepared to engage confidently in a sustained direct conflict with a peer competitor like China.
This is demonstrated by the fact that U.S. missile and artillery shell reserves are currently inadequate to provide Ukraine with what it needs to keep its missile defense systems supplied with interceptors. Indeed, the inability of the United States and its NATO allies to provide enough air defense missiles — a.k.a. interceptors — has made it easier for Russia to attack and destroy key military targets, as well as cripple Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.
This missile deficit parallels the well-documented lack of U.S. artillery shell production that has enabled Russia to increase the rate at which it’s taking control over territories in Ukraine today.https://responsiblestatecraft.org/cost-russian-mis...Many of the articles emphasizing the high cost of Russia’s massive missile and drone strikes rely on missile cost estimates from an October 2022 Forbes Ukraine article estimating some key Russian missile costs including the Kh-101 at $13 million, the Kalibr at $6.5 million, the Iskander at $3 million, the P-800 Oniks at $1.25 million, the Kh-22 at $1 million, and the Tochka-U at $0.3 million.
While some of the Forbes UA cost estimates seem reasonable, most of them seem to arrive at costs suspiciously close to what U.S. taxpayers would pay for a comparable missile. Finding such costs not credible, Defense Express Ukraine made a good faith effort to come up with more realistic missile cost estimates, including the Kh-101 at $1.2 million; the Kalibr, approximately $1 million; the Iskander R-500, $1 million; the Iskander 9M723 ballistic, $2 million; and the replacement for the legendary SS-N-22 “Sunburn, supersonic anti-ship cruise missile,” approximately $3 million.
the Russian military budget’s lack of transparency means that in most cases one has to guesstimate. However, with input costs for weapons production and development being much lower than those for the United States, one would expect Russian missiles to be less expensive than the production of U.S. or Western European ones. Russian defense manufacturing labor costs average $1,200 per worker per month, compared to at least $4,000 for U.S. workers. Materials like steel, titanium, and composites are also less expensive in Russia. Russia’s defense industry prioritizes mass production and efficiency, unlike the U.S defense industry, where profitability and shareholder returns are of greater importance.Shareholder Value Uber Alles!
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2...The Army — in response to diminishing stockpiles as it supported Ukraine’s defense against Russia — set a goal to produce 100,000 155mm artillery rounds per month by this October.
The service opened a number of new facilities to support this endeavor — and as one Army official stated, “We haven’t seen this level of investment in our industrial base since World War II.”
However, the Army is going to fall short of its goal. Service spokesperson Steve Warren told reporters in July that the Army is not expecting to produce 100,000 155mm rounds per month until mid-2026.This is the fault of Congress. They dithered and waited a year after the Russian invasion to fund increased production of 155mm artillery munitions.
The US military industrial plant has been allowed to deteriorate. We have not faced an equal opponent since WW 2-Thankfully.
The US certainly has the capability to build any needed weapon system. BUT it will take years to implement. Our procurement system needs to be not overhauled but replaced. Our nation has a propensity to build over complicated weapon systems that frankly do not work.
F 35 a decade long problem that still has not been corrected.
https://www.pogo.org/analysis/f-35-the-part-time-f...https://www.pogo.org/analysis/f-35-and-a-10-close-...https://www.pogo.org/analysis/f-35-testing-report-...https://responsiblestatecraft.org/f35-gao/Littoral Combat Ship
Zumwalt destroyer
Ticonderoga-class ships moderation program
Constellation-class frigates
Ford class aircraft carrier
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/10/27/...Even the Pentagon has to stand in line and wait for delayed shipments of major weapons, like Hellfire missiles, Javelin rocket launchers and sophisticated air defense interceptorshttps://www.csis.org/analysis/rebuilding-us-invent....
Be sure to click on link below
<img src="
https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-pu..."/>
US defense budget is $962 billion.
The defense department has failed to pass an audit for the past 7 years.
Why did DODGE not look into defense spending?
I am sure this reply is much more than you wanted. But there are BIG problems that are needed to be rectified! IMO
No. of Recommendations: 11
There has been speculation that Russia is a "has been" as a military force and no match for the US and/or NATO. That may be the case, but despite their dubious military tactics, they have succeeded in throwing millions of personnel and vast amounts of munitions and equipment into the Ukraine conflict over the past two years.
I wouldn't call that a success. On the other board we had a ongoing Ukraine thread before CMFMints closed it. I wish she hadn't because there was an excellent example of this playing out in real time. Way back in summer of 2024, the Russians began advancing towards an obvious objective, the village of Pokrovsk which is a minor transportation hub, a mere ten or so miles from Russian front lines at the time. Most analysts concluded that based on Russia's superior manpower (roughly 8:1 advantage in that area) and equipment advantage the Pokrovsk would fall in at most a matter of months if not weeks.
Turns out that was not quite the case. The advance was slowed by the Kursk incursion (which most analysists seemed to object to at the time) and Russia is just now entering the town, which is now a completely lifeless bombed out hulk. Outmanned and outgunned Ukraine fought Russia to a near stand-still for over year. When Russia finally captures the town they will have captured only a few dozen square miles and some worthless ruins.
I mention that because although we all have complaints about the military-industrial complex, the US military itself is good at learning and adapting. Running low on certain types of munitions might not be ideal, but IMO it won't really make much difference operationally.
The lesson here is the Congress and our leaders need to be more mindful of application of US power. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were designed to fail. I don't know the final financial costs, but surely it is in the trillions. Air strikes on Houthi mud huts costs us hundreds of millions. An effort which is also designed to fail. At the same time our leaders are telling us we don't have money for medical research, national parks, or feeding our hungry. This is a clear and terrible misapplication of resources. Our leaders have failed the military and failed us as well.
