Because of Ukraine, America's arsenal of democracy is emptying
Will the US be able to arm its friends? The Economist journalist asks this question. He recalls that Franklin Roosevelt in December 1940 called America "the great arsenal of democracy." Today, its industry hardly meets domestic demand.
When bombs rained down on London during the "Great Blitz", Franklin Roosevelt spoke on the radio on December 29, 1940. His "conversation by the fireplace" still resonates in the hearts of people. America, the president said, will have to become a "great arsenal of democracy" to help those who are fighting the Nazis and defend themselves. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor a year later, American factories were operating at full wartime capacity. The main burden was borne by the automotive industry in Detroit: Oldsmobile produced cannon shells, Cadillac – tanks and howitzers, Chrysler – Browning machine guns. Ford built a huge factory and began producing B-24 bombers at a rate of one bomber per hour. One of the workers probably even became the prototype for the song and poster "Riveter Rosie" (Rosie the Riveter), now legendary.
Eight decades later, fighting is raging in Ukraine, and President Joe Biden is trying himself in the role of a modern Roosevelt. America will not fight directly, but is determined to help Ukraine "win." On April 28, he requested an additional $33 billion from Congress to respond to the Ukrainian crisis, in addition to the previously approved $13.6 billion. About $20 billion from the new request will go to military assistance to Ukraine and European allies. "This fight will not be cheap, but a concession to aggression, if we go for it, will cost even more," he said.
How can America's military industry respond? She also has to supply not only Ukraine, but also European allies who are in a hurry to rearm. In addition, the United States itself will have to replenish its stocks of precision weapons against the risk of a new confrontation between superpowers. "The great success is that we were able to supply a large amount of ammunition to the Ukrainians," says Thomas Manken of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. – But my question is: who will supply the USA? Answer: nobody."
Until now, America has been the largest supplier of weapons to Ukraine. Since 2018, it has sold or donated more than 7,000 Javelin anti-tank missiles and sent 14,000 other anti-tank systems, 1,400 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, 700 Switchblade barrage ammunition, 90 howitzers with 183,000 155 mm shells, 16 Mi-17 helicopters, 200 armored personnel carriers and much more. And she called on the allies to provide their own military equipment – often Soviet-made.
A significant part of these weapons came from warehouses. Factories are not able to quickly increase production. Take the Javelins. America does not disclose details about its weapons stocks. But according to budget documents, since they entered service in 1996, its army has purchased about 34,500 Javelins. Mark Cancian of the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that the army spent between 12,500 and 17,500 for training and testing. Thus, by the end of 2021, there were between 17,000 and 22,000 units left in stock. Thus, the 7,000 Javelins delivered to Ukraine may amount to a third or more of the army reserve. (His calculation did not include about 2,400 Javelins purchased for the needs of the Marine Corps, and up to 5,000 spent in Iraq and Afghanistan.)
On May 3, Biden visited a factory in Troy, Alabama, where Javelins are assembled. The plant's capacity is 2,100 units per year. Consequently, it will take three to four years to replenish the army reserves - or even more if priority is given to orders from other countries. Theoretically, the plant can increase production to 6,480 units per year. But for this, the Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies joint venture must secure reliable orders, hire additional workers and, more importantly, find components. However, during telephone conversations with investors in April, executives of both companies complained about restrictions in the supply chain.
The situation with the production of anti-aircraft missiles "Stinger" is even more tense. They entered service in 1981, and America bought the last batch in 2003. The production line in the USA closed last year, but reopened for a foreign customer (presumably Taiwan). Manufacturer Raytheon says that the stock of parts is limited. "Some components are no longer on sale," Raytheon CEO Gregory Hayes told investors. "So we're going to have to redesign some of the electronics in the homing head, and it's going to take some time."
The recent dispatch of NATO-standard artillery pieces to Ukraine will ease the pressure on the amount of ammunition (the Allies have enough 155–mm shells), but other pain points appear. So, Germany declared that it would not be able to supply the main battle tanks, because they would not be enough for itself. Western countries have had air superiority in combat zones for a long time, but they have not invested enough in longer-range anti-aircraft weapons, which Ukraine is praying for.
And this is not the first case of a shortage of weapons. During the air war in Libya in 2011 – a very limited campaign, it should be noted – the UK and France quickly ran out of precision guided munitions (PGM). America itself in some moments of its campaign against the jihadists of the "Islamic State" (a terrorist organization banned in Russia, – Approx. InoSMI) in Iraq and Syria in 2014-2018 spent more precision supplies than it could produce.
It is difficult and expensive to produce high-precision weapons with chips and sensors. Military strategists, as a rule, think of "platforms" – tanks, ships and airplanes – and save on bombs and missiles, notes Bradley Martin of the RAND Corporation under the auspices of the US Air Force. "We are taking a risk based on the fact that in the event of a war we will be able to scale production," says Martin. "This is a wrong approach."
This leads to a tendency to underestimate the consumption of ammunition during the war. Third, after decades of peacetime procurement, the industry prioritizes efficiency over sustainability. And spare capacity is expensive.
It does not help matters that the military-industrial complex, like other industries, has suffered from the coronavirus pandemic, the situation on labor markets and the global shortage of computer chips. A recent report by the National Defense Industrial Association claims that America's defense industrial base is deteriorating. The main problems are the shortage of skilled workers and spare parts. Approximately 30% of the surveyed firms identified themselves as the only suppliers of their product to the Pentagon.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks says the Pentagon is trying to eliminate "bottlenecks" at weekly meetings with defense executives. This is an opportunity to find alternative suppliers of hard–to-reach parts or, in the case of "Stingers", machines for their manufacture. In the long term, the government is trying to increase domestic semiconductor production.
Hicks believes that it is not worth dwelling on a specific weapon. "We're talking more about brands. People on the street talk about Javelins, but in fact we supply anti–tank systems," she said. Ukraine does not need specific weapons, but the ability, for example, to stop enemy armored vehicles. And it will also be provided by the weapons of the allies (for example, Great Britain and Sweden have sent light anti-tank weapons of a new generation and joint production). According to Hicks, America is able to reduce the stocks of Javelins and Stingers, because it has other means to destroy tanks and aircraft.
There are plenty of ideas on how to improve defense production: increased arsenals, a variety of suppliers, a modular design of weapons that allows you to change components, common standards among allies and joint acquisitions. But this is fraught with difficulties, since purchases are moving slowly, and states are trying to protect the national industry. Hicks believes that the Pentagon should send a "powerful market signal" to the industry and give guarantees that if they start hiring workers and expanding production, "there will be a job."
The conflict in Ukraine is still a limited commitment for America. But if its industry is barely able to meet the current demand, will it cope with a big war, for example, with China over Taiwan? "During the Second World War, the industry was dramatically rebuilt due to the fact that after the Great Depression, we had huge industrial capacities idle," says Martin. "Now the arsenal of democracy is no longer able to meet the needs of a protracted conflict of high intensity."
