Anyone have the skinny as to whether the US (or other NATO countries) have significantly ramped up production of conventional arms? I don’t hear much about this in the media. With situations in Europe (Ukraine), the Middle East (Gaza, shipping), and Asia (Taiwan) it seems possible that the US will be directly involved in these conflicts, and if not, at least indirectly involved by supplying arms, tech, and intelligence.
Advocates for foreign aid of this type often cite the benefit to the US as being: a) protecting our interests, b) good for the US economy, as the aid packages go to mainly domestic arms manufacturers, and c) we’re getting rid of old stock reaching end of life that needs replacing anyway.
I have to assume initial arms shipments came from existing stock, and manufacturing has ramped up beyond what is needed to remain engaged at our current level (and replace any stock shortages) but can’t seem to find any hard numbers or news related to other preparation for a broader conflict.
Are we pumping out ammo, small arms, shells, rockets, missiles air defenses, vehicles, etc at a higher rate than say, 2021? Are arms stockpiles being created or expaned in prep for further engagement?
The general approach among NATO countries has been to provide Ukraine with in-stock older models / old munitions stocks, and then replace them locally with newer stuff.
That said, they’re struggling to ramp up production enough to restock their own inventories in a timely fashion, so production rates are going up.
Wow - seems worse than I thought! Years (decades) even to replenish some of these. I guess that’s assuming production levels at the time and perhaps places to ramp, but has that happened? I guess this is my question. Thanks for sharing that.
One reason production of things like 155mm shells took a while to ramp up is because that’s not how the West fights wars. The West likes airpower. If it were the U.S. fighting Russia directly, it would be a JASSM/LRASM/TLAM war. Howitzers and other artillery took a back seat. The war on terrorism consumed relatively few shells. So there were few facilities that made shells, since the U.S. couldn’t fathom itself getting into a situation where it would have to fight a WWI type of conflict.
But when Ukraine found itself in a WW1 situation, the West had to try to ramp up more shells through a bottleneck. That being said, 2 years on, there’s no excuse by this point for not cranking up millions of shells per year.
Another thing to consider is that a lot of this is still going to be manufacturer reaction to the constraints of the contracts.
For example, current production/rebuilding of M1 Abrams tanks (taking them from the boneyards and remaking them to the latest standards) is about 12 a month. During the initial production runs in the 1980s and 1990s, they built 75 a month from scratch. So considerably higher production is possible on larger systems, given enough lead time and enough money/incentive.
Javelin missiles are a good example. Pre-Ukraine, the US Army was buying them at about 1000 per year, but Lockheed Martin is expected to be producing 4000 a year by the end of 2026, and is already producting 2400 a year.
I’ve always wondered if the original productions lines are kept intact (I would assume not due to cost) and how easy they can be restarted (assume not very, given sourcing/supply chain, tooling, skills, etc.). Like the F-22 for example.
However, things like artillary shells would seem much easier to source materials for an assemble, and being commodity ammo there are active production lines…I’m just surprised they can’t be ramped faster. Or is it a matter or can’t, or it just has not been done for whatever reasons? I have no idea how much weaponry is stockpiled, but would assume any longer conflict would require more production.
I’d guess that with artillery shells, the big sticking point is the fuse. It’s a pretty highly intricate piece of hardware, while the rest is basically a steel/iron shell filled with high explosive.
The biggest bottleneck is that there’s one plant (Scranton Army Ammunition Plant in Scranton, PA) that produces artillery shells in the US.
I’m sure with enough financial incentive, someone else could build/convert a factory to start building them, but that’ll take a while.
I am involved with a component part supplier to various sectors in the defense space. They have seen a significant amount of orders placed over the past 6-9 months that have long lead time deliveries scheduled. Most of these are for replenishment of stockpiles that have been diminished with aid being supplied to Ukraine and Isreal.
I recall reading somewhere that restarting the F-22 production line would cost tens of billions of dollars, so much so that it would be prohibitive. That sort of program requires a massive amount of specialized talent - and workers who have probably long since left the company or department and are working elsewhere on other things now, since the line closed down.
Another issue is demand. Yes, Ukraine needs a massive influx of simple armaments like shells, But presumably, they are only one heart attack (Putin’s) away from the war most likely ending abruptly. Ramp up production to fill demand, and suddenly there will be zero demand … or if Putin stays away from red meat and open windows, it could be a high demand for several years.
I presume some contractors would like certain government assurances before commiting to greatly expaniding production, even if it were not ddifficult to expand.