I know we haven’t given those items you’ve described to Ukraine. I was only questioning our ability to manufacture high tech munitions in a timely manner to replace those that would be lost in a major conflict? Apparently we’re short on sufficient supplies of Stingers, artillery shells and who knows what else right now. As you’ve pointed out, a China/Taiwan conflict would involve Naval and air assets. Hopefully, we’re not short on cruise and other missiles and can replace the many used in a timely manner during a major conflict. I guess my point is the munitions should be available in sufficient quantities BEFORE we’re engaged in a conflict and not trying to figure out how we’re going to replace them during the conflict?
I am sorry, I completely misunderstood your post. Yes, weapons development and manufacture, whether missiles, artillery rounds, tanks or planes is a relatively low rate production process.
For instance, we have a single assembly line capable of building a tank. Strategically that is not a good thing. But the demand for new tanks is obviously essentially nonexistent until it isn’t. No company could invest in that capability without a contract. Moreover, unlike the Sherman of WWII, the complexity of a modern tank means a company like Ford can’t suddenly switch from cars and trucks to armored vehicle production. It is a major reason we have been incrementally modernizing the same design since the Reagan administration.
Munitions, particularly missile munitions, represent a similar challenge. The Air Force and Navy can only afford so many in a given budget cycle. That means a fairly low rate of production which makes them even more expensive. It also means the product line, supply chain, and trained workers capable of building such a weapon is relatively small.
Secondly, neither service wants the production line to go cold. Let’s say the two services decided to purchase ten thousand Tomahawk cruise missiles over a five year period that would fulfill their likely contingency needs for a decade. That would be great for that five- year period for the manufacturer and the services. But then that production line would close and the human capital investment would be lost. It would be extremely difficult perhaps impossible to restart a decade later. This is also why military assistance programs (selling or giving stuff away) are so important as a way of maintaining production capacity.
Third, the technology changes constantly and often dramatically. Though the form factor is unchanged, the Tomahawk missiles that penetrated to Baghdad in Desert Shield or very different than those being used now. Smaller production lots allow the gradual incorporation of those changes and prevents sudden obsolescence of a whole stockpile.
Finally, missiles and rockets in particular have a shelf life. An air breather like a cruise missile requires maintenance and periodic replacement of rocket booster motors. Solid fuel missiles and rockets eventually become unstable for use.
All this means that without knowing the exact start date of the next major war it is impossible to have the maximum necessary requirements in place to fight it. So the services plan against the minimum requirement for its various missions, and pray for the funding is there for that.
So yes, in an all out conventional exchange with China, we would fight it with what we have on the board and currently in stockpile. Replacement of platforms and expended munitions with new production would be very slow. China, of course, would face the same challenges.
