Going to war? Good news! The United States is 13 years behind in ammunition production, NYT reports
By: Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert (Business Insider via Yahoo News)
Thanks, Joe! You're doing a bang up job.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The United States' commitment to support Ukraine against the Russian invasion appears to have rattled the stability of the domestic stockpile of missiles and munitions.
The Biden administration has promised — as part of $33 billion sent in military aid for the besieged country so far — a US Patriot air-defense system will be sent to Ukraine, along with over 200,000 rounds of artillery, rockets, and tank rounds.
In fulfilling those promises, The New York Times reported the US has sent Ukraine so many stockpiled Stinger missiles that it would take 13 years of production at recent capacity levels to replace them. The Times added that Raytheon, the company that helps make Javeline missile systems, said it would take five years at last year's production rates to replace the number of missiles sent to Ukraine in the last ten months.
Currently, the US produces just over 14,000 rounds of 155mm ammunition every month — and Ukrainian forces have previously fired that many rounds in the span of 48 hours, The Washington Post reported last month. US officials in January proposed a production increase up to 90,000 rounds of 155mm ammunition each month to keep up with demand.
"Ammunition availability might be the single most important factor that determines the course of the war in 2023," US defense experts Michael Kofman and Rob Lee wrote in December for the Foreign Policy Research Institute, adding that Ukraine will depend on international stockpiles and production for access to the ammunition it needs.
The United States has rarely seen production shortages in ammunition and missiles to the degree the country currently faces. While there was a brief precision missile shortage in 2016 following fights in Libya and Iraq, The Times reported, the US has largely been engaged in short-term, high-intensity fights such as the Persian Gulf War, or prolonged, lower-intensity missions like the war in Afghanistan, which allowed for the stockpile to be rebuilt as needed.
Now, as tensions rise among global superpowers, production and munition limitations in the US — caused by supply chain shortages, as well as Cold War-era reductions in capacity, The Times reported — have become of grave concern among defense professionals.
"This could become a crisis. With the front line now mostly stationary, artillery has become the most important combat arm," according to a report by The Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Ukraine will never run out of 155 mm ammunition―there will always be some flowing in―but artillery units might have to ration shells and fire at only the highest priority targets. This would have an adverse battlefield effect. The more constrained the ammunition supply, the more severe the effect."
Earlier this month, the Biden administration proposed a record-breaking $842 billion budget for the Department of Defense. In an effort to address the munitions shortage, the proposed budget includes $19.2 billion for modernizing facilities "that support readiness improvements," as well as increasing production of naval and anti-strike missiles, in an aim to support the country and its allies through this "decisive decade."
While improvements to production facilities have been budgeted for going forward, the US is currently pushing suppliers to capacity to meet current wartime demands in Ukraine and keep pace with China's production.
"When it comes to munitions, make no mistake," Kathleen Hicks, the deputy defense secretary, said during a briefing earlier this month on the 2024 budget proposal: "We are buying to the limits of the industrial base even as we are expanding those limits, and we're continuing to cut through red tape and accelerate timelines."
Representatives for the Department of Defense did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.
Tags
Who is online
550 visitors
Not to worry. Biden will just write another blank check and everything will be fine.
I'm sure that tens of millions of "patriots" with hundreds or thousands of rounds of ammunition in their houses would donate some to the national defense.
I'm sure every last Democrat flying the Ukrainian flag and demanding their complete border integrity will hop on the next planes out to Poland and enlist immediately in their army. They are taking all volunteers.
We all know how much the left hates Putin! Head out and kill some Russians!
Also, you obviously don't know shit about ammunition/munitions if you think what gun owners have will do any good replacing missiles, mortars, tank shells, or artillery shells; which is what this article is about.
Would love to see an M1 Abrams tank or one of the mobile automated artillery pieces we have "donated" to Ukraine fire any round that an AR15 uses; instead of the appropriate shell.
Do you have any idea what sarcasm is? It sure doesnt seem like it.
Given your take on gun owners in the US; you need to include the /S.
Don't walk it back claiming it was sarcasm. It's nothing more than your own ignorance coming out.
Using civilian ammunition would be a war crime under the Geneva conventions.
I'm sure there is a lot of the Geneva Conventions that would go out the window if Russia tried to come at the US on US soil.
You know as well as I do that they are only virtue signaling. It's what they do. When it comes time to put in the work, they'll be nowhere to be found.
LMAO, i think they would get sidelined if ANYONE tried , one i keep hearing and have heard for decades is those powder blue helmeted schmucks ......
Do you have any idea what a sarc tag is so people won't take you seriously? It sure doesn't seem like it.
LOL , well if your talking about ammunition commonly used for hunting , ammo that expands , yeah , that could become an issue , IF one gets caught .
If its life and death and survival , and its all you have , screw the conventions . think i am going to use only geneva convention approved munitions if some one kicks in my door in a home invasion ? or do you think im going to use a good old fashioned load of hunting double or triple aught buck , or maybe a good load of steel goose shot ?
Yeah, that's a problem with brush wars. National militaries are constrained by the Geneva conventions or the national government faces charges of war crimes. Civilian fighters didn't agree to the Geneva conventions.
The objective of the Geneva conventions was to increase chances of surviving a wound. The military goal is to remove enemy fighters from the battlefield; occupying a hospital bed achieves the same goal as occupying a body bag.
How would we defend against a Russian invasion without millions of 'patriots'? Biden has certainly shown he can't or won't secure the border. And the military doesn't have the stockpiles to defend the country.
keep dreaming ....
Planning on our soldiers using a lot of that in the near future are ya?
In Ukraine we have seen a degrading of the Russian military without any US soldiers lives put at risk. Its better to give Ukraine ammunition rather than be in a situation where we have to use all that ourselves.
Apparently you don't know how military training and operations are carried out. But don't let that stop the nonsense.
We should cut the defense department budget in half.
We spend more money on the military than many other nations combined.
Why? To protect business interests. If they want a huge military let them pay for it through targeted corporate taxes.
You just pissed off every NATO country. How the hell are they supposed to keep themselves afloat if they actually have to spend on a real military to defend themselves?
So stop getting involved in stupid shit like nation building in Afghanistan and Iraq. Then throw in moronic military actions (can't call them wars) in Syria and Libya. Then proxy wars- again Syria; and Ukraine. Then protecting our oil interests in Saudi Arabia- or do you think letting Iran blow them to kingdom come will improve the prices of oil and gas in the US? Brandon deployed troops to Poland and other NATO countries bordering Ukraine- think that doesn't suck down resources? You can throw in all of those extra judicial drone strikes across the globe that Bush Jr, Obama (he really, really, really, love them), Trump, and Brandon used.
Speaking of which- when is your flight out to serve in the Ukraine military? You want to cut military spending- best way to do that is to end the Ukraine war. They can't do that without a hell of a lot more people for the meat grinder.
Doing that would mean cutting all the money Biden is dumping in NATO. Can't have that now can we.
And we have the strongest force in the world. Well, right up to the point politicians get involved and restrict military operations or the Bumbling Fuck Up Machine starts giving it all to countries we have nothing to do with. You know, countries like Ukraine.
So you are running with the "pay their fair share" bullshit.
Then Russia would win. Isn't that what we've been told by military brass?
They are federal workers so overpaid and over benefited.
How will the military blow Chinese balloons out of the air without stinger missiles? Depletion of ammunition stockpiles will seriously impact politicians beating war drums and the military's public relations programs.
Way Brandon is heading with Iran he may not have much of a choice. Unless you are ok with Iran blowing up our people in Syria and Iraq?
Mission accomplished. Russian's military is no longer a threat to the US or NATO- not that it was in the first place. Time to end the Ukraine spending spree. Since we aren't willing to give them what is needed to win; and we can't fund them forever.
Think China doesn't know how short we are on military supplies? Is the US in any position to defend Taiwan from China? The US may have screwed Taiwan in favor of of pro Fascist Ukraine.
Do you think America gets to decide when its military stockpiles will be used? Is there a scheduling committee where enemies meet and decide when would be the best time to wage war?
Xi has to be looking at our current situation and telling Putin- "Just hold out for a little damn longer! Then the US will have a two front war; and there is no way in hell they can fight that."
Just to be sure Xi is planning on tapping Kim in N Korea to give him the OK for another go at South Korea. A three front war for the US would be even better for China.
China is moving into the Middle East. Xi is using Russia's OPEC connections to expand his belt & road policies. Eventually that will extend into South America; probably through Venezuela.
How will NATO use military threats to counteract Chinese diplomacy and trade?
Historically , that's usually the case , BUT the US so far is the only country ( granted with help) that has successfully fought AND won a 2 front war (WW2) it was involved with.
Now could they do so today ? That remains to be seen and depends on just how far down the rabbit hole they have the determination to follow through with .
personally i dont think the nation now, today could .
How many two front wars have been fought since Hiroshima?
You mean , actual hot shooting wars? None that amounted to much that changed the status quo.
Now some could count the old "cold war " as one since it took place on many different fronts , and had many different "proxy " confrontations that ended up really hot .
But as you mentioned , "since Hiroshima", i dont think anyone since then has really wanted to let that particular genie out of its bottle again , but one never knows now do they ?
As one of the last of the Cold War warriors from the end of the cold war , i can say i dont think the idiots in charge today , really want to be "tickling " this particular dragons balls ( Nuke capability or not) to get a reaction, they might end up crunchy , and taste good with ketchup......
It's not as if wars haven't been started on a false pretense before - like Iraq.
Or crossing the Yalu into Korea.
That did not start the Korean war. The North Koreans crossing the 38th parallel started the Korean War. The Chinese crossing the Yalu 4 months later was to support the North Koreans and prevent the USA from advancing and crossing the Yalu river into China. I think of China crossing the Yalu not much different than the USA supporting Ukraine.
Oh, so many parallels. Maybe that's the problem; Ukraine is longitudinal.
In Nam though not a two-front war in the WWII sense we did fight the VC, Chinese, and Russians at the same time. Meanwhile, we were in a way fighting a two-front war, Vietnam and in the US which most all know ripped the US apart.
For those of you that don't believe that there were Chinese troops fighting against US troops, trust me, they were there fighting the US which they finally admitted.