XPost: alt.current-events.ukraine, talk.politics.guns, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: sac.politics   
   From: zinn@reno.us   
      
   NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg held a special meeting of the   
   alliance’s arms directors to discuss ways to refill member nations’   
   weapons stockpiles.   
      
   But ramping up defense production is no quick or easy feat.   
      
   The U.S. has been by far the largest supplier of military aid to Ukraine   
   in its war with Russia, providing $15.2 billion in weapons packages to   
   date since Moscow invaded its neighbor in late February.   
      
   In the U.S. weapons industry, the normal production level for artillery   
   rounds for the 155 millimeter howitzer — a long-range heavy artillery   
   weapon currently used on the battlefields of Ukraine — is about 30,000   
   rounds per year in peacetime.   
      
   The Ukrainian soldiers fighting invading Russian forces go through that   
   amount in roughly two weeks.   
      
   That’s according to Dave Des Roches, an associate professor and senior   
   military fellow at the U.S. National Defense University. And he’s worried.   
      
   “I’m greatly concerned. Unless we have new production, which takes months   
   to ramp up, we’re not going to have the ability to supply the Ukrainians,”   
   Des Roches told CNBC.   
      
   Europe is running low too. “The military stocks of most [European NATO]   
   member states have been, I wouldn’t say exhausted, but depleted in a high   
   proportion, because we have been providing a lot of capacity to the   
   Ukrainians,” Josep Borrell, the EU’s high representative for foreign   
   affairs and security policy, said earlier this month.   
      
   NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg held a special meeting of the   
   alliance’s arms directors on Tuesday to discuss ways to refill member   
   nations’ weapons stockpiles.   
      
   Military analysts point to a root issue: Western nations have been   
   producing arms at much smaller volumes during peacetime, with governments   
   opting to slim down very expensive manufacturing and only producing   
   weapons as needed. Some of the weapons that are running low are no longer   
   being produced, and highly-skilled labor and experience are required for   
   their production — things that have been in short supply across the U.S.   
   manufacturing sector for years.   
      
   Indeed, Stoltenberg said during last week’s U.N. General Assembly that   
   NATO members need to re-invest in their industrial bases in the arms   
   sector.   
      
   “We are now working with industry to increase production of weapons and   
   ammunition,” Stoltenberg told the New York Times, adding that countries   
   needed to encourage arms makers to expand their capacity longer term by   
   putting in more weapons orders.   
      
   But ramping up defense production is no quick or easy feat.   
      
   Is the U.S.’s ability to defend itself at risk?   
   The short answer: no.   
      
   The U.S. has been by far the largest supplier of military aid to Ukraine   
   in its war with Russia, providing $15.2 billion in weapons packages to   
   date since Moscow invaded its neighbor in late February. Several of the   
   American-made weapons have been game changers for the Ukrainians;   
   particularly the 155 mm howitzers and long-range heavy artillery like the   
   Lockheed Martin-made HIMARS. And the Biden administration has said it will   
   support its ally Ukraine for “as long as it takes” to defeat Russia.   
      
   That means a whole lot more weapons.   
      
   The U.S. has essentially run out of the 155 mm howitzers to give to   
   Ukraine; to send any more, it would have to dip into its own stocks   
   reserved for U.S. military units that use them for training and readiness.   
   But that’s a no-go for the Pentagon, military analysts say, meaning the   
   supplies reserved for U.S. operations are highly unlikely to be affected.   
      
   “There are a number of systems where I think the Department of Defense has   
   reached the levels where it’s not willing to provide more of that   
   particular system to Ukraine,” said Mark Cancian, a former U.S. Marine   
   Corps Colonel and a senior advisor at the Center for Strategic and   
   International Studies.   
      
   That’s because “the United States needs to maintain stockpiles to support   
   war plans,” Cancian said. “For some munitions, the driving war plan would   
   be a conflict with China over Taiwan or in the South China Sea; for   
   others, particularly ground systems, the driving war plan would be North   
   Korea or Europe.”   
      
   Javelins, HIMARs and howitzers   
   What this means for Ukrainian forces is that some of their most crucial   
   battlefield equipment – like the 155 mm howitzer – is having to be   
   replaced with older and less optimum weaponry like the 105 mm howitzer,   
   which has a smaller payload and a shorter range.   
      
   “And that’s a problem for the Ukrainians,” Des Roches says, because “range   
   is critical in this war. This is an artillery war.”   
      
   Other weapons Ukraine relies on that are now classified as “limited” in   
   the U.S. inventory include HIMARS launchers, Javelin missiles, Stinger   
   missiles, the M777 Howitzer and 155 mm ammunition.   
      
   The Javelin, produced by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, has gained an   
   iconic role in Ukraine — the shoulder-fired, precision-guided anti-tank   
   missile has been indispensable in combating Russian tanks. But production   
   in the U.S. is low at a rate of around 800 per year, and Washington has   
   now sent some 8,500 to Ukraine, according to the CSIS — more than a   
   decades’ worth of production.   
      
   President Joe Biden visited a Javelin plant in Alabama in May, saying he   
   would “make sure the United States and our allies can replenish our own   
   stocks of weapons to replace what we’ve sent to Ukraine.” But, he added,   
   “this fight is not going to be cheap.”   
      
   The Pentagon has ordered hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of new   
   Javelins, but ramping up takes time — the numerous suppliers that provide   
   the chemicals and computer chips for each missile can’t all be   
   sufficiently sped up. And hiring, vetting and training people to build the   
   technology also takes time. It could take between one and four years for   
   the U.S. to boost overall weapons production significantly, Cancian said.   
      
   “We need to put our defense industrial base on a wartime footing,” Des   
   Roches said. “And I don’t see any indication that we have.”   
      
   A Lockheed Martin spokesman, when contacted for comment, referenced an   
   April interview during which Lockheed CEO Jim Taiclet told CNBC: “We’ve   
   got to get our supply chain ramped up, we’ve got to have some capacity,   
   which we’re already investing to do. And then the deliveries happen, say,   
   six, 12,18 months down the road.”   
      
   Raytheon and the U.S. Department of Defense did not respond to CNBC   
   requests for comment.   
      
   What are Ukraine’s options?   
   In the meantime, Ukraine can look elsewhere for suppliers — for instance   
   South Korea, which has a formidable weapons sector and in August inked a   
   sale to Poland for $5.7 billion worth of tanks and howitzers. Ukrainian   
   forces will also have to work with replacement weapons that are often less   
   optimal.   
      
   Jack Watling, an expert on land warfare at the Royal United Services   
   Institute in London, believes there is still ample scope for Ukraine to   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)