As we’re all well aware, the US military has been
hemorrhaging weapons in the form of transfers to Ukraine. Inventories for many weapons are critically
low. It should, therefore, be safe to
conclude that next year’s (2024) weapons procurement quantities should be
massively increased over 2023, right?
On top of that, the Navy has publicly stated that China will
invade Taiwan within the next couple of years so that is, obviously, going to
trigger a massive increase in weapons procurement for 2024 as we gear up for a
peer war, right.
I’m guessing we’re going to be seeing many thousands of
additional missiles budgeted for 2024, right?
Let’s see just how big the procurement increases are for
some common weapons. The table below
shows the 2023 and 2024 procurement quantities.[1]
So, with a peer war looming and depleted inventories due to Ukraine, the Navy is ordering 218 fewer weapons than last year. Do I really need to add any more commentary to this post?
__________________________
So, with a peer war looming and depleted inventories due to Ukraine, the Navy is ordering 218 fewer weapons than last year. Do I really need to add any more commentary to this post?
Those quantities seem to me to more appropriate for the amounts used in testing and training during the year, not the massive amounts needed for war. Just incredibly disheartening. War will come, and we will lose,badly. A lot of sailors will suffer for it.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet our government and military leaders are pushing for such a war, WITHOUT pushing for any measures necessary to actually FIGHT IT, to say nothing of winning- no plans for a draft, rationing, raised taxes...
DeleteUntil winning war battles becomes more important than winning budget battles, we are in for a rough go.
ReplyDeleteAir Force at least seems interested in more missiles
ReplyDelete"The Air Force is looking to significantly expand procurement of key munitions and help defense contractors expand their production capacity for those weapons, to include:
$1 billion to initiate multi-year procurement of additional AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) cruise missiles, AGM-158C Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASM), and AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM).
The planned purchase of 550 JASSM-ERs represents the current maximum per-year production capacity for those missiles.
The proposed funding in this budget would help lay the groundwork to get that up to 810 missiles per year.
The 487 AMRAAMs request is 186 more than the service asked to buy last year, and is in part driven by a need to replenish stocks of older types transferred to Ukraine.
$161 million for 48 Joint Strike Missiles (JSM), a new start acquisition effort.
JSM, developed jointly by U.S. defense contractor Raytheon and Norwegian firm Kongsberg Defense, is a derivative of the increasingly popular Naval Strike Missile (NSM) that is now in service with the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.
Though the U.S. military has been involved in the development of the air-launched JSM cruise missile for years now, it has not moved to purchase any for its own use until now."
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/hundreds-of-aircraft-headed-to-the-boneyard-in-new-usaf-budget
To add it may be the Air Force simply got their contract in first. That they seem to funding increased production capacity is a good thing.
DeleteMissiles & Munitions: Budget
Delete2023 $24.8b
2024 $30.6b
From CNOs' chart, the Navy is losing money while the budget increases, the Army and AF once again defeat the Navy.
I'm sure there are lots of great excuses for why the production capacity can't be spun up.
ReplyDeleteImagine if it were possible to just bark "Message To Garcia time!" to program offices and industry!
"I'm sure there are lots of great excuses for why the production capacity can't be spun up."
DeleteActually there unless you plane to nationalize the industry and fund the cost of having the excess/expanded capacity.
We need to at least massively subsidize the shipyards manufacturing the ships to launch these missiles, lest they go bankrupt from lack of business- they certainly aren't selling enough civilian ships to do so, if the Merchant Marine is any indication- forcing the US to import warships instead.
Delete"We need to at least massively subsidize the shipyards"
DeleteHow do you envision that working? I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing, just curious. Do you propose just sending them money? Giving some sort of tax breaks? Supplying raw materials at no cost? Reducing current safety, diversity, and gender rules and regulations?
What, specifically, are you proposing?
You give us multi year contracts, then we'll make some more. 155mm production is going from 15k year to 90k year.
Delete"How do you envision that working?"
DeleteOrder a number of ships from each shipyard each year- if not a warship, then a tanker, freighter, or an ocean liner that can be converted for military use, should the need arise- and subsidize the "civilian" ships' operations during peacetime- literally pay people to use them.
We need the capability more than we need the money that would've been "saved" letting shipping companies operate foreign-built ships with foreign crews, and as a result, letting the shipyards go bankrupt, losing trained and experienced shipbuilders and merchant marines.
"subsidize the "civilian" ships' operations during peacetime-"
DeleteSo you believe that paying the ship's operating costs will suffice to increase our shipbuilding industry? That seems unlikely. In order to operate, a ship needs cargos and contracts that result in profits. Subsidizing operating costs wouldn't produce or assure that.
I'm asking you to explain your vision of subsidies because many people call for subsidies without actually considering what form they would take. It's not just a simple case of shoveling money into the ship owner's headquarters. Effective subsidizing is a complicated challenge.
For example, what you suggested wouldn't do anything to increase our ship BUILDING industry although it might help the OPERATING industry. We'd like to increase our ship building capacity, produce more skilled workers, increase ship construction rates, and make ship owning/operating more profitable/attractive.
With that in mind, maybe think a bit more about how you'd apply subsidies, what form they'd take, and how they would actually impact/improve the various aspects of ship building and operating. If you can come up with something interesting it might make for a worthwhile guest post. Give it some thought and maybe comment again.
"I'm sure there are lots of great excuses for why the production capacity can't be spun up."
DeleteThere actually are many reasons why production capacity can't be easily spun up! They include environmental rules, regulations, and limitations, lack of profit, manpower, military planning inconsistency, and cost of new facilities just to mention a few. These are perfectly valid reasons.
"Imagine if it were possible to just bark "Message To Garcia time!" to program offices and industry!"
In a sense, we can! What we 'bark' is, 'here's a well thought out acquisition plan that addresses both military and industry concerns and lays out a logical, fair and, most importantly, consistent approach that demonstrates to industry that they can invest in increased production facilities and capacities with an assured prospect of fair and steady profit. Do that and industry will jump at the opportunity. THAT'S the Message to Garcia.
Contrast that approach with our current reality where acquisition programs are proposed and then, almost inevitably, cut or greatly reduced, program requirements are constantly changed which makes it impossible for industry to accurately plan, funding is allocated and then cut, the military requests technically impossible products, etc. No wonder industry is hesitant to invest in increased production! I'm not absolving industry of all blame. They certainly have their share of problems but it all starts with the military. It is not the responsibility of industry to ensure our military needs. Industry's only responsibility is to make a profit. It is the responsibility of the military to ensure that industry's profit motive aligns with our military needs.
Think your list did not include Navy's No.1 top priority in weapon procurement, the hypersonic boost glide CPS land attack missile, PBFY2024 includes the first 8 for procurement, for a "massive" grand total budgeted buy of 64 over the next five years.
ReplyDeleteStill in development, if remember correctly another $1 billion in RDT&E for FY24, have as yet not seen any figures for cost of procurement, $60 million each? Navy have placed a possible $2 billion contract with Lockheed for the 12 CPS VLS cells for the three Zumwalt ships, to that you have add the shipyard costs of ripping out Zumwalts AGS 155mm main guns and automated magazines and installing the VLS cells.
PS CPS missiles will also be loaded on the future Virginia Blk 5 boats with the Virginia Payload Module.
How long will it take for US hypersonic weapons to be technically mature enough to use in combat? How long will it take to setup the production lines for the weapons, and how much longer to have it manufacture enough missiles to match wartime use and attrition? Will any components critical to production, need to be imported from Russia and China, e.g., rare earth elements critical to electronics production, tungsten for machine tools needed to actually make the weapons, titanium for the airframes, etc.?
DeleteDon't put the cart before th horse. Russia and China may feel the need to invest in technologically immature weapons, in order to overmatch US capabilities; but we need to remember what happened in Korea and Vietnam, and refrain from doing the same.
"Will any components critical to production, need to be imported from Russia and China, e.g., rare earth elements"
DeleteTHAT'S what we should be addressing. Our strategic raw materials situation is desperate and critical. Our enemies control some of our strategic raw materials. That's simply not acceptable. Trump had started to address the issue but after he left office I've heard of no further efforts.
Trump did how?
Delete"Trump did how?"
DeleteThis comment and one I've deleted suggest that you're looking to engage in an anti-Trump rant. We're not going to engage in political discussions. Trump did initiate strategic raw materials plans though he did not have time to bring it to completion. This is simple, documented fact. It doesn't matter whether you like or dislike Trump.
If you're sincerely asking for information and your own Internet search can't find the information, I'll be glad to help you. If you're looking to start some kind of anti-Trump rant - which I think you are - we're not going to do that.
“The behaviour of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies.” ― Robert Conquest
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, none of these munitions are those being expended to aid Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, various reports claim Hellfires, Sidewinders, Harpoons, AMRAAM, Naval Strike Missile (NSM), Small Diameter Bomb, and anti-radiation missiles (HARM? AARGM?) have all been sent to Ukraine either directly or indirectly via other countries. Of course, as with everything from the Ukraine conflict, reports are of questionable validity.
DeleteMore importantly, with a war with China looming, we need a massive increase in weapons procurement and we aren't seeing it. Hence, the point of the post.
What ever announcements are made the actions speak louder. The navy doesn't really think there will be a war with China.
ReplyDeleteHow many GMLRS ER-GMLRS rounds? How many JDAM wing kits? Lots missing here.
ReplyDeleteGMLRS is not a Navy system. Wing kits are not weapons.
DeleteThe weapons with dangerously low stockpiles could have long lead times to bring this number up to a good level and some will have long production times.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.defensenews.com/industry/2023/01/23/us-defense-industry-unprepared-for-a-china-fight-says-report/
"Do I really need to add any more commentary to this post?" Yes, because we do love when you rant on what is truly absurd. We are gearing up for a war with China, and supposedly holding off the Russian menace too, preparing again for 2 wars (but not really officially), and in the meanwhile we retire alot more ships than we build, and we are retiring 3.5x the amount of air force jets compared to what we are bringing in, and the Marines, why even bother to bring them in being they are pretending to be Imperial Japan on islands in WWII? We are sending all the wrong signals on every front. Let's spend another huge sum on R&D, let's not maintain what we have, let's remove our presence on Kadena AFB (oh, China will obliterate it, so let's say it's irrelevant and not do anything to actually upgrade base defense), let's ensure we don't find creative ways to use our retiring Tico's as floating missile barges or older jets sent to AMARG, let alone give to Ukraine what we will scrap for pennies rather than bring back in some use, or hell, to Taiwan for free. Amazing what we say is not worthy to float or fly they still manage to upgrade and give service life to past 40 years on that island, right? future navy will end up with less than 250 ships, Air Force with less than 220 air NGAD's, well under the 1700 f-35's, a bomber force shrunk most likely, and the Marines, whatever (but they will have cool little transport ships sunk in 30 seconds). Somebody better tell the Army that they need to remove combat brigades again, not just shrink overhead jobs.
ReplyDeleteSee? I didn't need to add any more commentary. You did it for me and quite succinctly, too! That's the easy way to run a blog! Well done!
DeleteGlad to help anytime!
DeleteThe services do not ask for what they need, they ask for what they want. This puts the blame on Congress if they do not get what they need. I want shiny new expensive failing things rather than boring existing ammunition. But if Congress does not appropriate, even though I didn't ask for it, money for4 necessary items then when I am short it is their fault. Remember all it takes for self serving to succeed is for professionals to say nothing.
ReplyDeleteJust for perspective, Id say the total "ship weapons" buy isnt enough for one battle...
ReplyDeleteI keep hearing that we are "gearing up for war with China", but the reality is, we arent... Not at all!!!
-JjAbatie
( take a 2 CVN battle group, with an appropriate number if escorts, and figure out how many of each weapon it takes to give the BG a full war loadout...)
DeleteMeanwhile Japan wants to buy 500 Tomahawks as part of their rearming efforts.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why we don't do more, but it's time to fire off messages to my Congressman and Senators...
I've read somewhere that Russia actually went deeper into Ukraine at China's request, in order to deplete US weapon stockpiles before China invades Formosa.
ReplyDeleteConspiracy theory or 3D chess?
Maybe a lil of both?? And of course this is where in the movies, the sly Americans have been shoveling out disinformation, and the weapons stocks are actually 20 times larger than reported, and the factories are already working 3 shifts churning out more...
DeleteHellfire procurement ends in in FY24, so I can see why the the difference is negative between FY23 and FY24. The difference in SBD procurement is a real head scratcher. The SBD is procured in conjunction with the Air Force which might have something to do with the reduction in the FY24 numbers.
ReplyDeleteThe other numbers seem alright. The government can only buy what industry can supply in a give year. Plus, we sell many of the same weapons to our allies. For example, we're suppling hundreds of Tomahawks to Japan and Austraila. Which should affect how many the US procures in the coming years.
The bump is torpedo procurement numbers is welcome surprise.
We can rationalize the decrease in weapons acquisition all we want but it doesn't change the fact that we're supposedly preparing for a war with China and our net procurement is negative instead of the massive increase it ought to be.
DeleteWe should not be sending a single weapon to an ally until we have our own inventories up to where they need to be.
"The bump is torpedo procurement numbers is welcome surprise."
DeleteA welcome surprise? Really? An increase of 50 torpedoes is just about one torpedo per submarine in the fleet. That barely qualifies as an increase and is virtually insignificant.
Not sending a single weapon to an ally until our own inventory is back to where it should be would effectively mean a complete halt to our arms exports for a significant period of time.
DeleteIf this were to happen we’d permanently lose our overseas markets to Chinese, Russian and European competitors, and cause some major self-inflicted damage to our economy, so not a good idea imo.
"We can rationalize the decrease in weapons acquisition all we want . . ."
DeleteIt would help to look at this in total as opposed to what one department of the military is procuring.
This is a Navy blog so that's my focus. That seems especially appropriate given that a war with China will be mainly a Navy and Air Force effort.
DeleteHowever, if you want to offer a 'total' view and how that might alter any conclusions, feel free. I'd be happy to see it.
Looks like someone saw your post. Navy now looking to double LRASM production (to 120?) and sextuple Tomahawk production.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sea-air-space-2023/2023/04/navy-looks-to-drastically-increase-missile-production/