Monday, August 31, 2026

Weapons Shortage

Newsmax/Reuters has reported that the US Army has used up most of its inventory of long range, precision missiles.
 
The U.S. Army has used up much of its stockpile of highly accurate long-range missiles during its five-month war with Iran, according to three people familiar with the data, raising concerns about the military's readiness for future conflicts.[1]
 
The missiles are principally the Army's surface-to-surface weapons, known as Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM). The U.S. has used "virtually all" of these weapons, according to two of the sources.[1]

Bear in mind that this is not authoritative and I have no way of verifying this.  That said, it is certainly plausible and I have no reason to doubt it.  We’ve discussed this issue for the last few years so it should not be a surprise to readers or the military and yet, as we have noted, the military has made no great effort to drastically ramp up weapons production until just very recently and even that has been half-hearted.  Every flag officer in every service should be fired for this state of affairs, if for no other reason (and there are plenty of other reasons).
 
Dereliction of duty aside, this also reinforces ComNavOps long time call for a movement away from expensive, difficult to produce, smart weapons in favor of massive quantities of “dumber” weapons that can be produced faster and cheaper.  That doesn’t mean we abandon smart weapons.  They’re useful, without a doubt, but they should not be the foundation of our weapons, as is currently the case because it’s simply not possible to produce them in sufficient quantity for an affordable price.  The handful of hypersonic missiles we can produce in a year (if we actually had a deployable hypersonic missile!) simply can’t match the effect of tens of thousands of 16” battleship shells (if we actually had a battleship!).
 
Less smart, more dumb!
 
 
 
________________________________
 
[1]Newsmax website, “US Has Used 'Virtually All' of Its Long-Range Precision Missiles During Iran War”, 4-Aug-2026,
https://www.newsmax.com/world/globaltalk/us-missile-stockpile-iran/2026/08/04/id/1264981/
Posted by at
Labels:

14 comments:

  1. NICOAugust 31, 2026 at 7:23 AM

    Sad to saw it and really no comfort about it BUT let's face it, this was so in cards for years and the few of us here and one or 2 other places have said that so much was wrong with US DoD FOR YEARS! and now suddenly, some, not enough, are starting to wake up to what we have been saying for years that this was a dead end....

    ReplyDelete
  2. greywolfAugust 31, 2026 at 8:42 AM

    Some weeks ago I came across an article that stated that the biggest hindrance to a higher production rate of the Prsm is the fact that the Atacms occupies the same facilities. The Atacmsproduction line is to be dismantled and rebuilt in Germany where Rheinmetall will produce the missiles starting next year. The same article stated that the inventory of the Prsm was so low before the Iran war that the whole inventory was used up in a matter of days. On Warzone there was article some months ago that stated that Prsm inventory along JSSAM was the the meast concerning as the annual propduction rate could replenish inventories in less than a year. Thesituation is much worse regarding air defence missiles, both for the Army and the Navy

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousAugust 31, 2026 at 4:01 PM

    LM has produced about 4,000 ATACMS, 1,200 were purchased by foreign nations. Some have been fired in Ukraine (50 from US by president Biden). Fewer than 200 PrSM have been made so far. US Army is phasing out ATACMS in favor of PrSM. PrSM has a much smaller warhead than ATACMS but can fly further. If you are interesting to find why Army sending such a small warhead 500 km away, google the web. China's Fire Dragon 480 precision rocket has a similar 500km range but carry 480kg warhead.

    US has ~4,000 Tomahawks before the war. ~1,000 fired so there are still plenty. Trump can continue firing Tomahawks by transferring stocks from Europe and Asia.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousAugust 31, 2026 at 6:10 PM

    Your point that we should emphasize cheaper weapons is well taken, however, I dislike how much this article has been the center of discourse.

    I don't like these two specific examples. PrSM is a new weapon only just entering inventory, firing zero of the missiles would have left stockpiles "dangerously low" because there aren't any of the fuckin missiles yet. At least this way, some units on the ground have real combat experience with them, even if very limited. ATACMS is an old missile being replaced, and any current stockpiles are in very proximal danger of being disarmed without being fired. No sense in keeping them any longer.

    There are better examples of this point. Like how TLAM was procured at a rate of dozens per year, then fired by the hundreds, with apparently no thought beforehand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AnonymousSeptember 1, 2026 at 1:21 AM

      Every cheaper weapon program starts with wishful thinking. On the way, price tag keeps increasing until another program to make a cheaper version of it.

      Delete
  5. AnonymousSeptember 1, 2026 at 6:21 AM

    COMNAVOPS, I am not sure if links are allowed here, and Im sure your readers are familiar with this, but this USNI article on the Shell Crisis of 1915 might be interesting to some.

    https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history/2024/december/shell-crisis-lesson-first-world-war

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsSeptember 1, 2026 at 9:47 AM

      I don't mind links if you also provide some sort of value-added analysis to go along with it. In this case, what is it that you feel is of interest in the article or what point do you wish to make that you think the article supports. Offer some value over and above the article itself!

      Delete
  6. AnonymousSeptember 1, 2026 at 10:49 PM

    The Russian ‘Geran-5’ seems to offer a good trade off between cost and capability which we maybe could learn from.
    Reported performance details are;
    Speed around 600 kph..
    Range up to 1,000 km.
    Altitude around 4,000 meters.
    Warhead 90 kgs.
    CEP approximately 10 meters.
    Ground and air launched variants.
    Reportedly has loitering and some ATS capability.
    Can reportedly carry 2 x air-air missiles.
    Simple and easy to produce in quantity.
    Unit cost estimated at around $100k.
    Most of this detail comes from Ukrainian sources, but I guess they probably have a pretty good understanding of what they’re being hit with.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AdmiralObviousSeptember 3, 2026 at 3:19 PM

    The Army had thousands of unguided but devastating MLRS missiles in storage but replaced them with GMLRS rockets in our Homer’s launchers. Two GMLRS precision missiles per launcher vs. 6 MLRS. Two specific targets with GMLRS instead of killing nearly every tank and soldier in a square kilometer. The President wants battle ships? In lieu of expensive and slow production tomahawks, We could have 4 or 5 navalized MLRS launchers take out 3 square miles of beachhead for the marines or disable most of a port. But we won’t because cluster munitions are something that are too cheap for kickbacks I guess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ComNavOpsSeptember 5, 2026 at 10:27 AM

      I think the military decided to go with precision weapons as a [misguided] budget measure rather than an accuracy issue. They figured that using fewer weapons would allow them to fight a war on a budget and save money. Unfortunately, they ignored the reality that precision weapons cost much more and require much more time to produce due to their inherent complexity.

      "navalized MLRS"

      People toss the idea of a naval MLRS around quite casually without considering the daunting requirements - and terrible success record! - to navalize a land weapon. In addition to requiring new materials of construction to withstand a salt environment, a naval MLRS would require a magazine storage, feed, and reload system as well as a fire control system since the launcher's point of origin is no longer a fixed point of reference. Also, a new stabilization system (ships tend to pitch and roll more than land does) would have to added unless purely guided rockets are used which would negate MLRS cost savings. The rockets themselves might have to be redesigned for maritime storage to prevent corrosion.

      All in all, a daunting task although technically doable, and one that should not be casually tossed about.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousSeptember 5, 2026 at 5:36 PM

      @AdmiralObvious: I think you're confusing GMLRS with ATACMS. GMLRS is just your MLRS rockets with GPS fins, it has the same mag depth. ATACMS is the one where we lose mag depth because it's a bigger wider missile.

      I don't mind too much the costs of guidance with GMLRS because it lets us extend the range and helps correct for wind and dispersion. Unguided 155 can't be effectively used past 24 miles because wind and dispersuon spread the rounds unevenly and unpredictably, even when doing an area bombardment.

      Delete
  8. AnonymousSeptember 6, 2026 at 8:14 PM

    Procuring missiles on a budget means production on a budget. Peace time industry only produces an average 100 missiles a year which 10% are consumed yearly on tests and various scattered brushfire events. A war or even protracted engagement can be exhaust in less 2 weeks.
    Missiles need be produced in automotive style assembly lines where production numbers 3000-5000 a year. 2 out of every 10 randomly picked from litter must be tested in live firing or diagnostics conditions for actual purpose either launcher system exactly as navy would use and by naval personnel. This would permit sailors to actually train even when not at sea. Aegis ashore in Nevada test range or simulated ship building on land, this USS Landship only thing landscape couldn't replicate is sea environment that naturally wreak havoc on ships.

    SM2 which normally cost 2-3 million dollars per unit would be reduced and amortized down to below 200,000. Small missiles like sea sparrow normally cost 700,000 would low 40,000. Even smaller missiles like Stinger for less 10,000. MORE point the missiles can be tested against ironically themselves. 1 thru 8 would be production batches 9 and 10 would be used in live firings one as adversary and other as defender. I'm sure automobile makers would love make disposebale target drones.

    2016 Houthi fired anti ship silkworm missiles at US navy, the destroyer fired SM2 and sea sparrows to destroy one target essentially 11 million dollars worth stuff to destroy surplus then did it again, twice. That needs change.

    missile longevity can be addressed with recycling programs. Once a missile is 2-3 years old it is removed from service and recycled, only warhead chemical longevity needs be destroyed or disposed of in live firings. Factory would essentially stay open 365 days a year. This would also create a surplus stockpile. We stockpile bullets and artillery shells.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousSeptember 7, 2026 at 8:42 AM

    We knew missile situation was dire when US gave it's Cold War surplus of Hawk and older Sparrows to Ukraine.

    Hand me downs are sign decline in good quality stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousSeptember 7, 2026 at 11:18 AM

    Every "Cheap" weapons program begins with following language
    - Modular
    - Low cost
    - Economic
    translation
    Modular: We haven't decided specifically what specifications/materials needed to accommodate the criteria so instead we pay attention to years of trends which drags on for years of re-designs. REAL modularity implies component can be swapped or utilized in different system. If a Humvee Replacement uses same tires as a Stryker or Stryker uses same Caterpillar engine as a truck for carrying water/gasoline then it's modular.

    Low Cost: Our initial estimates were to place missile "X" at a price 55,000 dollars a round. however upgrades and subsequent re-designs and limited manufacturing capacity will amortize to low but not LOWER price of 130,000 dollars.

    - Economic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcSdgoqKsWc

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated in order to reduce spam.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)