Australian General Ryan is shocked by the level of ammunition equipment of Western armiesThe high rate of ammunition consumption is not a relic of the past, Major General of the Australian Armed Forces Mick Ryan told The Sydney Morning Herald.
In his opinion, since the end of the cold war, no Western government could even imagine that it might again need mass production of weapons and ammunition.
Mick RyanIn 1915, a scandal broke out in Great Britain over the shortage of high-explosive shells for the Western Front.
Although the reason was the inability of defense enterprises to quickly increase capacity to fully meet the needs of the front, this crisis also became a symptom of the failure of the defense institute, which failed to predict the challenges of modern war.
Now we are not in the same difficult situation yet. But in 2023, the Ukrainian army may run out of ammunition before it can put an end to the fighting. Given the current rate of ammunition consumption, the volume of their production is increasingly lagging behind the needs on the battlefield. Most of those NATO 155-millimeter artillery shells that Ukraine uses were taken from weapons depots, and not from production lines at all. But the stocks in the warehouses will eventually run out.
Ukraine produces up to 5,000 artillery shells daily (the Russians produce much more). Since the United States produces only 14,000 shells per month (data for Europe is not available, but they are probably similar), there is an acute shortage of this vital type of ammunition.
Despite the efforts of the United States to increase production, output will not increase until 2024. And, according to a NATO official quoted by The New York Times, 20 out of 30 NATO members have already "exhausted their resources" in terms of ammunition supplies to Ukraine. In 2023, if the fighting continues and production volumes do not increase, air defense missiles and precision weapons will also be in short supply.
It was believed that the high rate of ammunition consumption was a relic of the past. Since the end of the cold war, no Western government could even imagine that it might again need mass production of weapons and ammunition. Over the past 30 years, a limited number of companies producing military equipment have gained a foothold in the market, the volume of government orders has decreased, batches of products have become more expensive, and waiting times have increased.
Weapons are produced too slowly and in smaller quantities than is necessary in our new era of industrial-scale wars. As noted in a recent article by the prestigious British defense think tank, "the conflict in Ukraine demonstrates that a war between equal or almost equal opponents requires technically advanced production facilities capable of mass production of weapons and ammunition."
Europeans and Americans have an industrial base that can be expanded to produce ammunition in the quality and quantity needed to wage wars in the modern world. But in Australia, things are different: the obsession with expensive American-made naval and air platforms distracts officials at the Ministry of Defense from the need to adhere to a strategic approach to ensuring sustainable supplies of ammunition and precision weapons.
Our precision weapons and large-caliber ammunition are manufactured abroad and imported. In short, if a war suddenly breaks out, and by that time we will not have stocks of such weapons, we will have to rely only on our own strength. And our current reserves are very small.
The ability to produce even basic artillery shells and fuses depends on a complex supply chain of many components. The situation with precision weapons is even worse. For example, components supplied from 14 countries are used in the production of Saab's new generation of light anti-tank weapons.
In this regard, it is necessary to conduct a thorough analysis in advance of what kind of ammunition and weapons systems may be needed and which of them we can produce in our country. We are not talking about such capacities that can be easily stopped or restarted with a single switch. According to official data from the Second World War, when our country was fully mobilized to participate in military operations, it took almost four years, from 1939 to 1943, to build new and transfer existing industrial capacities to military rails. All this time, we had to constantly balance so that the right number of qualified specialists always worked at military enterprises.
Today, such challenges are only getting worse. The result of the Strategic Defense Review should be a focus on the domestic production of ammunition and other modern weapons. This does not mean that Australia needs to invest huge amounts of money in the construction of fighter jets. But we can well imagine the Australian defense industry capable of producing small, medium and large caliber ammunition, as well as various drones for ground, air and sea operations that have both military and civilian purposes.
Such industrial potential should be based on an increase in public investment, as well as new incentives for the implementation of R&D projects. Australia should – independently or in cooperation with other countries – invest in the development of next-generation precision weapons that would be cheaper and take less time to produce. Just imagine where our Australian ingenuity could lead us if the government invested more in the development and production of physical and cyber weapons. Countries like Sweden, Israel and Taiwan are already doing this. Why can't we follow their example?
Another whim of a small group of fans of newfangled weapons in Canberra was the promotion of the idea of the need to acquire inconspicuous bombers. Unless Australia is going to fight against China or Russia – without the support of our American friends – it will be an incredibly reckless waste of money. The implementation of this idea also implies a certain amount of missed opportunities: there are many weapons systems characterized by greater versatility and adaptability. Now we should think about weapons that can be combined into a single structure and that can withstand blows. Victory in the war can be won thanks to the will of the people, an adaptive approach to strategy and development of weapons, as well as effective and mass production of weapons.
This is not a cheap enterprise. But we've done it before. The changing strategic situation in our region, where it is becoming more dangerous, as well as the lessons of the Ukrainian conflict prove that we really need such a military potential – of course, if the government is able to explain its point of view to the Australian people.
Mick Ryan is a retired Major General who served in the Australian Defence Force for more than 35 years and headed the Australian Defence College.
