If you’re a defense contractor, we have a very merry Christmas present for you: at least 18 years worth of weapons stock you need to rebuild in order to regain the stores the U.S. military had before we started shipping it to Ukraine.
For the rest of us who prefer that we defend, you know, our own country, that’s a heck of a lump of coal in America’s stocking.
According to a study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies published in January 2023 — before many other weapons transfers to Kyiv — “there may be a crisis brewing over artillery ammunition” due to the U.S. supply of weapons to Ukraine.
The biggest crisis involves the FIM-92 Stinger missile system, described by manufacturer Raytheon as “a lightweight, self-contained air defense system that can be rapidly deployed by ground troops.”
Eastern Ukraine, Ukrainian forces with a Stinger and Piorun MANPADS pic.twitter.com/YWFJCj5D0O
— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) May 2, 2022
According to the CSIS’ data, as of January 2023, 1,600 Stinger systems had been deployed to Ukraine as part of the war effort. Given the recent rate of production, that means it would take 18 years for the U.S. to replenish its stocks of the surface-to-air system.
Even if it were produced at a higher historical rate, it would still take Raytheon 6.5 years to replenish our stocks of Stingers. And this was 2023, mind you; as Reuters noted in August, Stingers were a major part of a $125 million military aid package that was announced by the Pentagon.
“The military assistance would be the tenth tranche of equipment for Ukraine since President Joe Biden signed a national security supplemental in April, White House national security spokesperson John Kirby told reporters in a telephonic briefing,” the wire service reported.
Should Trump immediately suspend military aid to Ukraine?
Yes: 100% (5 Votes)
No: 0% (0 Votes)
Overall, the CSIS data looked at six different artillery systems that had been transferred to Ukraine as part of their war with Russia and how long it would take to replace our inventory of them.
The analysis took into account both the recent rate of production of these systems and the “surge” or “historical” rate of production — which is to say, how quickly they could be replenished if the inventory replacement rate was increased.
Of the six systems, only one — the M142 HIMARS system, a rocket launcher manufactured by Lockheed Martin — was likely to be replaced “within five years at low risk.”
At its recent rate, it would take 37 months for the HIMARS stock to be replenished, whereas a surge rate would reduce it to 30 months.
The Stinger, meanwhile, would take the longest: 18 years at the recent rate, 6.5 years at a historical rate. Either way, the system requires at least 24 months lead time for manufacturing, tied with the Javelin anti-tank system for longest production lead time.
Only one other system — Lockheed Martin’s GMLRS — might be able to be replenished within five years, although this is because it’s unclear how many were transferred to Ukraine and how much production time it would take to replace it.
The rest of the systems — 155 mm ammunition, 155mm Excalibur precision ammunition, Javelin anti-tank systems, and Stinger missiles — were unlikely to see inventories replenished within five years.
Now, the good news is this, according to CSIS: “Most inventories are OK.”
“These six systems do not represent the full spectrum of U.S. inventories. Most items provided to Ukraine have been in small numbers, or from areas that have large inventories or production capacities,” the analysis concluded. “For example, the United States has provided 108 million rounds of small arms ammunition, but U.S. production is about 8.6 billion rounds per year, so this transfer is easy to accommodate.”
However, the problem is the lack of data and transparency when it comes to crucial weapons systems: “Replacement times for several important systems cannot be calculated because not enough data is publicly available. For example, DOD cites sending Ukraine over 46,000 ‘other anti-armor systems’ (not Javelin but types not specified), over 50 counter-artillery radars (various kinds), laser-guided rocket systems, unmanned aerial systems, and unmanned coastal defense vessels. It might be that some of these systems have inventory challenges, but the data are insufficient to make a judgment.”
The biggest challenge might be in 155mm ammunition, because of “Ukraine’s high shell usage.”
“This could become a crisis. With the front line now mostly stationary, artillery has become the most important combat arm,” CSIS noted. “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.”
And, the conclusions the CSIS drew weren’t exactly causes for celebration, either. Given the situation, we might need to substitute less effective systems in the future or start purchasing from foreign sources, making us dependent on foreign defense contractors as opposed to the other way around.
That being said, one thing is clear: As the war has dragged on, so have weapons procurements. Not only are those procurements costly, they deplete our own stocks of important defense systems. At some point, enough will have to be enough — and NATO must seek peace in order to preserve global security. We cannot continue to sell out our own national security to the point where critical systems might take nearly two decades to replace in order to keep fueling a war that, at best, can only remain in a meat-grinding stalemate.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
