What's new

Watching Ukraine burn through ammo fighting Russia has the US Army rethinking how much it really needs for when war breaks out

beijingwalker

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
65,191
Reaction score
-55
Country
China
Location
China

Watching Ukraine burn through ammo fighting Russia has the US Army rethinking how much it really needs for when war breaks out​

Chris Panella
Nov 19, 2023, 7:30 PM GMT+8

Ukraine artillery soldiers troops Bakhmut

A Ukrainian artillery unit firing toward Russian positions on the outskirts of Bakhmut, Ukraine, in December of last year. SAMEER AL-DOUMY/AFP via Getty Images

  • Both sides of the war in Ukraine have burned through a lot of ammo, straining stockpiles globally.
  • The war appears to have prompted the US Army to rethink how much it's producing and stockpiling.
  • A US official told Business Insider the Army was ramping up production and modernizing its process.
With both sides of the war in Ukraine burning through ammo at astonishing rates, the US Army says it's rethinking what it needs for a potential large-scale future fight.

But with production, particularly of 155mm artillery shells, ramping up, the Army appears also to be looking at how to modernize its ongoing manufacturing and stockpiles — both to continue supporting allies such as Ukraine and Israel and to have enough ammo should the US find itself in a high-intensity conflict of its own, especially against a major military power.

"The Army is looking very closely at the war in Ukraine and how munitions are used to inform our decisions regarding munitions requirements," Douglas R. Bush, the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisition, logistics, and technology, explained to Business Insider. "Recognizing the use of large quantities of artillery on both sides of the conflict, the Army is investing to better prepare for potential conflict and to support Ukraine as they continue to fight for their freedom."

Part of those efforts are ambitious short-term goals, such as upping 155mm production from just shy of 30,000 shells a month right now to a massive 100,000 shells a month by the end of 2025. But another larger, more long-term effort appears to be securing a stronger supply chain and more constant manufacturing of munitions both domestically and with the support of US partners.

"The Army began making investments over a year ago in our organic and commercial industrial base to accelerate production and improve capacity for 155mm and other munitions in order to meet demands for Ukraine, allied partners, and US stockpile requirements," Bush said.

Looking at the timeline, those investments appear to have come after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine and after both sides began expending tremendous amounts of ammunition attempting to batter the opposing army, launching enough artillery shells to severely strain stockpiles worldwide and even push partners to send over controversial weapons such as cluster munitions to slow the ammo consumption.

Ukrainian artillery fires towards the frontline during heavy fighting amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, near Bakhmut, Ukraine, April 13, 2023.

Ukrainian artillery firing toward the frontline during heavy fighting amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, near Bakhmut in April. REUTERS/Kai Pfaffenbach

Many weapons and systems, such as Storm Shadow/SCALP long-range cruise missiles, first-person-view drones, Russian Kinzhal ballistic missiles, and Western tanks such as Leopard and Challenger, have, at some point or another, had their moment in the war thus far. But this conflict seems to be marked most by artillery and has offered a strong case for its role in future conflicts.

Ukraine relies heavily on systems such as towed 155mm and 105mm howitzers and rocket-artillery assets such as the High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System, pummeling Russian forces miles away and devastating advancing troops and vehicles, as well as command, control, and logistics. It's heavily relied on the US and NATO allies for its supply of ammo, and many Western nations have had their stockpiles stressed by the provision of this vital aid.

And Russia has often expended ammunition at even higher rates than the Ukrainians, who often speak of rationing their ammo consumption. Even in the face of heavy Western sanctions and a pariah status that have severely limited its ammo production, it's still been able to bolster its stockpiles.

Like Ukraine, Russia has also sought out foreign partners for munitions. Back in September, Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted North Korean leader Kim Kong Un for a meeting on North Korean artillery. The result was an arms deal of sorts — Russia got ammo, while North Korea probably got food and petroleum products. The exact details of that deal are unclear, but there are indications North Korean ammunition has already arrived in Ukraine.

For the US, Ukraine's biggest single-nation donor, the constant bombardment from both sides has apparently been eye-opening, offering insights into not only how much artillery ammunition Ukraine needs to sustain its war effort but also how much ammo the US may need in a future fight. It has also offered lessons in production.

"This conflict has allowed the Army to recognize that challenge of implementing multiple initiatives to expand industrial capacity without disrupting current production," Bush told BI.


The remains of artillery shells and missiles including cluster munitions are stored on December 18, 2022 in Toretsk, Ukraine.

The remains of artillery shells and missiles including cluster munitions being stored in Toretsk, Ukraine, in December of last year. Photo by Pierre Crom/Getty Images

At a roundtable earlier this month, Bush told journalists the US was expanding and modernizing its ammo capacity, making a variety of new munitions to bolster its stockpiles, "all critical investments that" were "part of the supplemental requests that builds additional capacity in our industrial base."

The primary focus appears to be on 155mm shells, which Ukraine has burned through in artillery duels with the Russians, and the US has had to find "creative ways" to get to Kyiv.

Bush said the US was at 14,000 shells a month at the beginning of the war and had ramped up to its current rate of 28,000 a month. He said it was looking to make 36,000 monthly by early 2024 and then skyrocket production to 60,000 by the end of the fiscal year.

Bush said that the Army was projecting 100,000 a month by the end of 2025.

It's a staggering number, but a lot has to come together to make those numbers a reality. For one, the Army says it plans to increase manufacturing abilities at existing government facilities while building new domestic sites with commercial partners.

But for the Army, any increase is a net positive. "Getting to those higher production rates is kind of a win-win," Bush said. "You can support Ukraine or Israel more, but it also means that we can rebuild our stocks much faster than if we don't make those investments."

With production still ramping up and both Ukraine and Israel in conflicts, the US may find supporting them both increasingly challenging. On Friday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the supply of artillery to Ukraine had slowed down since Israel began its war on Hamas after the group's multi-front surprise terrorist attacks last month. But in the roundtable earlier this month, Bush denied that any shells intended for Ukraine had been given to Israel instead.

"Nothing that was being shipped to Ukraine got redirected," Bush said. Instead, he said, munitions had been moved out of US stocks in Israel and given directly to them. He said the US had sent ammo from its own stockpile to Israel as well but did not give an exact number.

 

The US Military Is Almost Completely Dependent On China For Key Mineral Used In Ammunition: REPORT​

2011-06-08T000000Z_1179879189_LM1E7680Z8F01_RTRMADP_3_BRITAIN-scaled-e1654783260844.jpg


The U.S. military depends almost completely on China for a mineral essential to the production of ammunition and other defense products, Defense News reported Wednesday.

The House Armed Services Committee released draft legislation on Wednesday, which would require a briefing on the antimony supply by October and a five-year outlook on supply chain vulnerabilities, Defense News reported. The U.S. has no domestic mine for the mineral antimony, which is reportedly used in the production of night vision goggles, armor-piercing bullets, explosives and nuclear weapons.

“China in particular does a remarkably good job of hoarding these materials,” Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, told Defense News. “China clearly has a comprehensive global strategy to corner the market on these materials and we’re behind and we’re playing catch-up.”

In 2020, approximately half of the antimony mined originated in China, Russia and Tajikistan, according to Britannica.

Moulton and seven Republicans wrote to the defense appropriations subcommittee in April asking for an additional $264 million in funding for the National Defense Stockpile (NDS), a reserve of critical materials used in national emergencies. The letter claimed that in the last 30 years Congress had “authorized the sell-off” of the majority of the stockpiled materials.

“The current stockpile is inadequate to meet the requirements of great power competition,” the letter stated. “The NDS is no longer capable of covering the Department of Defense’s needs for the vast majority of identified materials in the event of a supply chain disruption.”

The House Armed Services Committee draft legislation follows years of widespread supply chain disruptions initially caused by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine further strained the supply chain, leading to a serious breakdown in the distribution of oil, grain and other goods.

The House Armed Services Committee, Moulton and the Department of Defense did not respond immediately to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

 
even the north korean can make more artilery shells , drones and rockets than ALL NATO countries combined ..

the reason that NATO countries lost ability to manufacture even simple shell is due to the exorbitant cost and the missing know how.

the west already lost , their weapons shown to be crap in real war as proven in ukraine SMO where russian weapons routinely destroy overrated 'best tank' in the world
 
even the north korean can make more artilery shells , drones and rockets than ALL NATO countries combined ..

the reason that NATO countries lost ability to manufacture even simple shell is due to the exorbitant cost and the missing know how.

the west already lost , their weapons shown to be crap in real war as proven in ukraine SMO where russian weapons routinely destroy overrated 'best tank' in the world
First of all, if Ukraine "best tanks" are routinely destroyed, the Russia would have been in Kyiv right now, instead of getting stuck on day 10 target like Mykolaiv even Day 1 Target like Kherson has rolled back to Ukraine in the day 638 of this 3 days operation.

Second, NATO out produce North Korea or even China in term of artillery shell production. China at around 900,000-1.2 mil a year, US alone is between 380,000-420,000 a year (28,000-36,000 a month), Canada is somewhere around 50,000, France is close to 100,000 and Germany have the capacity to produce up to 450,000 a year, BAe in the UK have the capacity of 150,000 a year. That is before Major NATO allies such as South Korea, Australia, Japan, and other European non NATO allied (such as Austria, Sweden and so on) and Middle Eastern country put their number in.

The thing is, none of the nation in NATO are at war, which mean they can't send their entire stock to Ukraine. Nobody is that stupid to strip their entire supply for a war they did not fight, the issue here is NATO country would need their supply, and use their own supply, meanwhile supplying both Ukraine and Israeli their ammunition they use.
 
Nato is so determined to bleed Ukraine the last drop of blood.
Yes, and Russia is stupid enough to play the game, so......

If NATO wanted Ukraine to defeat the Russia with minimal casualty, they wouldn't be pussyfoot on military supply. NATO gave less than 1/10 to Ukraine then they had with Afghan and that's a well known fact.
 
Yes, and Russia is stupid enough to play the game, so......

If NATO wanted Ukraine to defeat the Russia with minimal casualty, they wouldn't be pussyfoot on military supply. NATO gave less than 1/10 to Ukraine then they had with Afghan and that's a well known fact.
loL, Are you still that confident that Ukraine will win the war as you claimed before?
 
loL, Are you still that confident that Ukraine will win the war as you claimed before?
Ukraine wins by staying independent as a sovereign nation, even losing Donbas (which they still hadn't) as long as a country name Ukraine exist, they won.

Russia wins by conquering the entire Ukraine or as per their term "Denazify and Demilitarize" Ukraine

638 days later, Ukraine is probably 10 times more Militarize than it was on Day 1, and Zelenskyy position went from 48% to over 80% in Ukraine, so you tell me the chance of Russia "Winning" this war?
 
Ukraine wins by staying independent as a sovereign nation, even losing Donbas (which they still hadn't) as long as a country name Ukraine exist, they won.

Russia wins by conquering the entire Ukraine or as per their term "Denazify and Demilitarize" Ukraine

638 days later, Ukraine is probably 10 times more Militarize than it was on Day 1, and Zelenskyy position went from 48% to over 80% in Ukraine, so you tell me the chance of Russia "Winning" this war?
lol, I don't care about you guys bleeding each other dry, keep it up.
 
lol, I don't care about you guys bleeding each other dry, keep it up.
Same here, Ukraine is not part of NATO. I don't really care if Ukraine bleed dry, I mean the only relationship I had with Ukraine is a former girlfriend, and it did not end up so well.

But can China risk losing Russia as a diversion? NATO with or without Ukraine is a chump change, China without Russia to have NATO something else to think about means US and its Asian allies is going to coverage on China. Can you really afford this to happened?? You should ask yourself that question

LOL
 
Same here, Ukraine is not part of NATO. I don't really care if Ukraine bleed dry, I mean the only relationship I had with Ukraine is a former girlfriend, and it did not end up so well.

But can China risk losing Russia as a diversion? NATO with or without Ukraine is a chump change, China without Russia to have NATO something else to think about means US and its Asian allies is going to coverage on China. Can you really afford this to happened?? You should ask yourself that question

LOL
Keep supply Ukraine with money and ammo until you have nothing left, and see how far Ukraine can hold on without bleeding you dry, lol, China is sitting pretty, watching you guys at each others throats with popcorns.
 
Keep supply Ukraine with money and ammo until you have nothing left, and see how far Ukraine can hold on without bleeding you dry, lol, China is sitting pretty, watching you guys at each others throats with popcorns.
Well, considering the last 2 years the US only dump 60 billion in Ukraine, there are more, that's not even 1/10 of the US defence budget, A LOT more of that to come from.

And lol, China is not sitting pretty as you say, how much you loses from Russia converting to RMB? You can't buy or sell Rouble in the world, which mean unless Russia is lying and such conversion does not exist, or China take paper that worth less than Toilet paper to exchange them with cold hard RMB. Either way, I am fine with that.
 
Nato is so determined to bleed Ukraine the last drop of blood.

IMG_3616.jpeg


This was you on February 23, 2022. 300K-400K Russians dead and wounded later, more than 13,000 equipment lost, lost the Battle of Kyiv, lost the Battle of Kharkiv, lost the Battle of Kherson. More than 50% of territory it had gained now lost. All with no end in sight :lol:
 
Well, considering the last 2 years the US only dump 60 billion in Ukraine, there are more, that's not even 1/10 of the US defence budget, A LOT more of that to come from.
Keep dumping your money in, the more the merrier.
 
Ukraine wins by staying independent as a sovereign nation, even losing Donbas (which they still hadn't) as long as a country name Ukraine exist, they won.

Russia wins by conquering the entire Ukraine or as per their term "Denazify and Demilitarize" Ukraine

638 days later, Ukraine is probably 10 times more Militarize than it was on Day 1, and Zelenskyy position went from 48% to over 80% in Ukraine, so you tell me the chance of Russia "Winning" this war?

Russia never said it would occupy all Ukraine

It wanted the Crimea and the Eastern russian speaking areas

It's virtually achieved it's objectives, war will continue for another few years, Russians will take more territory and then it will be a cold peace
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom