US Artillery Ammunition Production

[standardparts]

Except the army just awarded the contract for the Blackhawk replacement to Bell in Texas, where it will be built in a non-union shop. The Boeing-Sikorsky proposal would have been built at a union shop, covered by Senators from PA, NJ, DE and CT. This is likely to be the Army’s largest ever acquisition program.

Well there you go....
Sikorsky is part of Lockheed Martin(?) so I'm sure either they will continue to supply Blackhawks under the U.S. give-a-way program or maybe the real estate Sikorsky its on has great value.

 

[Ries]

Well there you go....
Sikorsky is part of Lockheed Martin(?) so I'm sure either they will continue to supply Blackhawks under the U.S. give-a-way program or maybe the real estate Sikorsky its on has great value.

Sikorsky has 4 different helicopter model production lines in Ct- they still make Black Hawks for a variety of other countries, they make Seahawks for the Navy, and the combat rescue HH60 Jolly Greens- both Black Hawk variants, and they make the new CH53 King Stallions.
No problems with them going out of business.
They just didnt get the potential $80 Billion dollar contract for the next generation to replace the Blackhawks, which Bell got. And Bell is building a tilt rotor aircraft, not a convential type. Its more like an Osprey, in concept. And for most of its development, Lockheed was also involved. Not sure if Lockheed was actually competing against itself, or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_V-280_Valor

 

[cyanidekid]

The Scranton plant is likely a real tribute to a legacy union represented workforce that no doubt has contract provision limiting the introduction of technology/automation that might replace even one person in the workforce, so no wonder the place looks like back to 1951.
"AFGE Local 1647"
"AFGE - Protecting Government Workers"
A quick trip to the union website shows the union works real hard with Democrat Administrations to protect jobs--no surprise and great for an aging workforce.
Other searches show the U.S. is sourcing artillery rounds from South Korea and various NATO member nations as well as an announcement for a new artillery round plant in Texas.


And so it goes....might as well manufacture the machines close to where the product is manufactured.

agree we should make way more in this country, in the '00s I railed against outsourcing publicly (call into live radio), and I totally agree unions CAN be more about the "game" of getting the most for the least, like no sho jobs and nepotism, but..... are unions really responsible for the LCS debacle, the 20 year ridiculous multi-billion "slow-roll" of the F35, the misguided inadequate armor on the first gen Stryker, or the neglect of basic ammo production?

.. or is it defense industry corruption, revolving door procurement officials, congressional funding problems, and just pure pork much more at fault? the level of waste and abuse is absolutely staggering. oh and add the G.R. Ford..

 

[adammil1]

The article linked above is unfortunately behind a paywall and I'll be damned if I give the NYT any money so unfortunately I can't see it. The lack of production capability for making artillery shells is interesting issue. However as I see it the only conflict we could probably get into that would need that quantity of artillery would likely be the US versus China. I think if the US winds up fighting China we are screwed!


We make large industrial equipment including machines used that the DOD uses to maintain fighter jets, and right now just to get any PLC components the lead times can be upwards of a year. How many of those PLC components all have chips and parts made in China? I doubt they would be willing to supply us to help make weapons to fight them.

Even for the parts that go into my machine that come from the USA, how many of them have little sub components made places we would likely be fighting against?

History tells us that the most advanced industrial economy with the greatest production capabilities will always win a large scale war. Right now sadly that is not the USA.

As for the M1 Abrams I think sending it to Ukraine is a really bad idea. That piglet uses about three to four gallons per mile traveled. The Ukrainians effectively showed the world that the best way to fight a tank is to blow up the fuel trucks and then take the tank when it runs out of gas! The same thing would work for the other side I assume too. How the hell are they going to keep that thing fed on the front lines when one has to consider that most of the fuel infrastructure has probably been destroyed months ago in the areas that they will be fighting in. Seems like a really silly idea to send that thing but who am I to say.

 

[Comatose]

I'm not sure how true the "ukraine needs hundreds of thousands of artillery shells, therefore the USA needs hundreds of thousands of artillery shells" logic is.

Our warfighting doctrine, tactics and equipment are simply different, and a lot of that is based on either geography or economics. If you have a belligerent, somewhat competently armed neighbor that you worry about invading, yeah, artillery makes a lot of sense. Nobody is worried about fortifying the border with Canada, and as much as people like to make political noise about it, the country would cease to function without immigrant labor coming through the southern border, too, so we don't need artillery there.

We can afford to do things the expensive way, and we have to get whatever we're fighting with to wherever we're fighting, because it isn't here. So we're flying or floating whatever we need wherever we need it. Our flying and floating are unmatched in the world.

US doctrine is predicated on air superiority. If you can fly over and bomb the enemy howitzers untouched, you don't really need to get into an artillery battle with them. We CAN do that. Whatever propaganda about S-400 surface to air missile systems Russia put out has been pretty much shown to be a lie given the fact that the Ukrainian air force is still flying, daily, at the front, after a year. We undoubtedly have the air power to win an artillery battle against Russia while firing exactly zero artillery shells.

Ukraine can't, because Ukraine doesn't have 5000 combat aircraft, 5000 pilots, or 50,000 maintainers.

Do we need production solutions for cheap drones that don't involve China? Good God, yes, ten times as many as anyone is possibly imagining. The Ukraine war has shown quite clearly that that is the way of the future.

Do we need to prepare to fight world war 1 again, because that is the best Russia can manage to put together offensively? I'm not convinced.

 

[SeymourDumore]

In addition to Comatose's comment, let's also agree that beyond the projectile itself, the targeting and launching system plays an even larger part in what and how much ammo is actually needed to take out a specific target.
So far ( in Ukraine and Syria ) it is estimated that Russia's technology requires a 5:1 ratio for success.
IOW Russia must fire off 5 times as many rockets as it's western counterparts for the same ( similar ) result.
Add to it that the range of their weapons is approx 1/3 less than what the West is sending ...
I don't think the actual need is anywhere as high as it is estimated. From what I've been hearing, even at the very height of the Russian assault the number of rockets fired were somewhere in the 'hood of 6000 - 8000/day, against some 1000 or so Ukranian in the same period.

Anyhow, interesting article about the Abrams and it's powerplant: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...esel-engine-that-replaces-its-thirsty-turbine

 

[cyanidekid]

I'm not sure how true the "ukraine needs hundreds of thousands of artillery shells, therefore the USA needs hundreds of thousands of artillery shells" logic is.

Our warfighting doctrine, tactics and equipment are simply different, and a lot of that is based on either geography or economics. If you have a belligerent, somewhat competently armed neighbor that you worry about invading, yeah, artillery makes a lot of sense. Nobody is worried about fortifying the border with Canada, and as much as people like to make political noise about it, the country would cease to function without immigrant labor coming through the southern border, too, so we don't need artillery there.

We can afford to do things the expensive way, and we have to get whatever we're fighting with to wherever we're fighting, because it isn't here. So we're flying or floating whatever we need wherever we need it. Our flying and floating are unmatched in the world.

US doctrine is predicated on air superiority. If you can fly over and bomb the enemy howitzers untouched, you don't really need to get into an artillery battle with them. We CAN do that. Whatever propaganda about S-400 surface to air missile systems Russia put out has been pretty much shown to be a lie given the fact that the Ukrainian air force is still flying, daily, at the front, after a year. We undoubtedly have the air power to win an artillery battle against Russia while firing exactly zero artillery shells.

Ukraine can't, because Ukraine doesn't have 5000 combat aircraft, 5000 pilots, or 50,000 maintainers.

Do we need production solutions for cheap drones that don't involve China? Good God, yes, ten times as many as anyone is possibly imagining. The Ukraine war has shown quite clearly that that is the way of the future.

Do we need to prepare to fight world war 1 again, because that is the best Russia can manage to put together offensively? I'm not convinced.

yes, mostly true, but two points;
"we can afford to do things the expensive way" well, there is a limit to that. only so many trillions to waste.

#2, there is a middle ground between "fighting WW1 again" and "arty is irrelevant to US war doctrine". I think we can see a problem here, we have neglected some basics in our "quest for the best" and the complacent and vastly wasteful military procurement that has become the norm.
whatever the number of rounds per month we should be producing, our current physical infrastructure is decrepit and a reflection of the neglect of basic manufacturing in this country.

 

[Comatose]

yes, mostly true, but two points;
"we can afford to do things the expensive way" well, there is a limit to that. only so many trillions to waste.

#2, there is a middle ground between "fighting WW1 again" and "arty is irrelevant to US war doctrine". I think we can see a problem here, we have neglected some basics in our "quest for the best" and the complacent and vastly wasteful military procurement that has become the norm.
whatever the number of rounds per month we should be producing, our current physical infrastructure is decrepit and a reflection of the neglect of basic manufacturing in this country.

On point #1, defense is a jobs program in every congressional district in this great country. Military spending will NEVER go down. Waste is rather the point in many cases.

100% with you on "quest for the best" but the problem is, artillery has been recently shown to be obsolete. It used to be the cheapest way to reach out and touch your enemy at some distance. It isn't anymore. The thing that kills it isn't some whiz-bang million dollar round. It's this ridiculous piece of crap:

That's a pile of lithium ion batteries (that we don't make here) a pile of neodymium magnets (that we don't mine here or make here) and about $50 worth of electronics and circuit boards (that, you guessed it, we don't really make here.) Total cost including the RPG warhead is less than an artillery shell. The ukranians are regularly killing russian armored vehicles with these things. To say nothing of the ubiquity of drones as spotters and bomb droppers, the "loitering munitions" on both sides and the "barely an ultralight with a $50 picopilot controlling it" shahad drones.

Lots of super cheap, medium-high tech shit, that leverages consumer electronics efficiencies of scale. We don't make consumer electronics here anymore in meaningful quantities. We can't play this game against the one potential opponent we ought care about. Russia ain't it.

THAT's the major problem, IMHO, not artillery shells.

 

[Ries]

My big problem with only relying on the expensive way is that it assumes that any given opponent will not choose to take out satellites by strewing shrapnel from a few destroyed sats in orbit. Without GPS, you are back to, well, artillery. Generally speaking, the biggest lessons from Ukraine have been how cheap modern weapons like drones, and shoulder fired anti air and anti tank missiles can have a huge impact on very expensive high tech systems. I still think, however, that 300 shells a day production capacity is not enough.

 

[BT Fabrication]

"

According to the 'net the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant is operated by General Dynamics so no doubt contracts for ammunition is a real boon to employment in Scranton. General Dynamics also operates the Lima Tank Plant where the Abrams is manufactured along with the F16 fighter both of which the current Administration wants to send to Ukraine.
As far as the equipment goes it's a good thing that they kept the old stuff operational as it's unlikely any U.S. companies have survived to produce the machinery.
Russians have been reported as firing as many as 30,000 rounds a day and I'm sure Ukraine's usage is up there as well so no doubt it's good to be in the artillery ammo business---or most any defense related business for that matter. "War Is A Racket" (Smedley Butler)

General Dynamics also bought a factory here in Ontario a few years ago, that is producing armored personnel carriers. They have also sent some of those to Ukraine.

 

[standardparts]

General Dynamics also bought a factory here in Ontario a few years ago, that is producing armored personnel carriers. They have also sent some of those to Ukraine.

Ontario factory is listed as receiving contracts for projectile cases. U.S. DOD says they are sourcing from multiple locations.

• $68 million in Canada for a new metal parts line for the M795 155 mm projectile, which is the Army’s and Marine Corps’ standard high-explosive projectile for howitzers

US Puts $2 Billion Into Plants Making Ammo Vital to Ukraine (1) | Bloomberg Government

The US Army is investing about $2 billion to expand and boost production of the munitions that have played a crucial role in the war in Ukraine.

about.bgov.com

 

[Ries]

Ontario factory is listed as receiving contracts for projectile cases. U.S. DOD says they are sourcing from multiple locations.

• $68 million in Canada for a new metal parts line for the M795 155 mm projectile, which is the Army’s and Marine Corps’ standard high-explosive projectile for howitzers

US Puts $2 Billion Into Plants Making Ammo Vital to Ukraine (1) | Bloomberg Government

The US Army is investing about $2 billion to expand and boost production of the munitions that have played a crucial role in the war in Ukraine.

about.bgov.com

my guess is that somebody at the Pentagon felt the same way I did about the vulnerability of depending on one 70 year old factory that makes 300 shells a day...
Still, I liked the pictures- funky old machines that in any other industry, would be completely obsolete.

 

[Scottl]

My big problem with only relying on the expensive way is that it assumes that any given opponent will not choose to take out satellites by strewing shrapnel from a few destroyed sats in orbit. Without GPS, you are back to, well, artillery. Generally speaking, the biggest lessons from Ukraine have been how cheap modern weapons like drones, and shoulder fired anti air and anti tank missiles can have a huge impact on very expensive high tech systems. I still think, however, that 300 shells a day production capacity is not enough.

I think we saw that as far back as Somalia (Blackhawk Down) where they bracketed helicopters with simple RPGs so there was no escape in any direction. Any effective force needs both just as rifles with optics need backup iron sights, field artillery needs ballistics computers as a fallback to satellite guidance.

What bothers me most about this is the idea of tooling up to create weapons for Ukraine after decades of having our own vulnerabilities ignored. And so much for quick victory if they are expecting the war to go on long enough for new factories to begin production.

 

[DDoug]

No need to shore up our military:

America once again turns the other butt cheek | Schiff Sovereign

When the infamous British smuggler Robert Jenkins sailed past Jamaica in April of 1731, he probably thought he was home free. Jenkins had a ship full of contraband which he had picked up in the West…

www.sovereignman.com

 

[cyanidekid]

On point #1, defense is a jobs program in every congressional district in this great country. Military spending will NEVER go down. Waste is rather the point in many cases.

100% with you on "quest for the best" but the problem is, artillery has been recently shown to be obsolete. It used to be the cheapest way to reach out and touch your enemy at some distance. It isn't anymore. The thing that kills it isn't some whiz-bang million dollar round. It's this ridiculous piece of crap:

That's a pile of lithium ion batteries (that we don't make here) a pile of neodymium magnets (that we don't mine here or make here) and about $50 worth of electronics and circuit boards (that, you guessed it, we don't really make here.) Total cost including the RPG warhead is less than an artillery shell. The ukranians are regularly killing russian armored vehicles with these things. To say nothing of the ubiquity of drones as spotters and bomb droppers, the "loitering munitions" on both sides and the "barely an ultralight with a $50 picopilot controlling it" shahad drones.

Lots of super cheap, medium-high tech shit, that leverages consumer electronics efficiencies of scale. We don't make consumer electronics here anymore in meaningful quantities. We can't play this game against the one potential opponent we ought care about. Russia ain't it.

THAT's the major problem, IMHO, not artillery shells.

recent experience proves drones AND arty are both essential. the war in Ukraine isn't the same as it would be with our real "near peer state" opponent, but it does absolutely prove artillery isn't irrelevant or obsolete.

quadcopter consumer drones as gravity mortar delivery do not work on low overcast, windy, snowy, rainy, foggy etc days, and extreme cold degrades battery performance . the sheer tonnage they are able to put down range is nonexistent VS that of 155mm gun tubes.
yes, in good conditions they work against a poorly prepared, poorly trained, poorly equipped and often drunk opponent. they absolutely provide some horrific videos.

extrapolating that to a future conflict with a well equipped, well trained, technologically advanced opponent who is specifically highly focused on drone swarm warfare is a mistake to say the least.

 

[cyanidekid]

I think we saw that as far back as Somalia (Blackhawk Down) where they bracketed helicopters with simple RPGs so there was no escape in any direction. Any effective force needs both just as rifles with optics need backup iron sights, field artillery needs ballistics computers as a fallback to satellite guidance.

What bothers me most about this is the idea of tooling up to create weapons for Ukraine after decades of having our own vulnerabilities ignored. And so much for quick victory if they are expecting the war to go on long enough for new factories to begin production.

well, it would bother me more if we didn't wake up to some deficiencies. would you rather we just continue to ignore vulnerabilities?
this "tooling up" is going to continue for years, hopefully. and benefit the USA and much if not more than anyone, so im ok with it.

 

[Comatose]

recent experience proves drones AND arty are both essential. the war in Ukraine isn't the same as it would be with our real "near peer state" opponent, but it does absolutely prove artillery isn't irrelevant or obsolete.

quadcopter consumer drones as gravity mortar delivery do not work on low overcast, windy, snowy, rainy, foggy etc days, and extreme cold degrades battery performance . the sheer tonnage they are able to put down range is nonexistent VS that of 155mm gun tubes.
yes, in good conditions they work against a poorly prepared, poorly trained, poorly equipped and often drunk opponent. they absolutely provide some horrific videos.

extrapolating that to a future conflict with a well equipped, well trained, technologically advanced opponent who is specifically highly focused on drone swarm warfare is a mistake to say the least.

Those are't gravity dropped. Those are a fully functional $500 loitering munition. If you want to make them look fancier, I could make Russia's Lancet system for under a grand a pop.

I'm not saying that we need those systems, exactly. I'm saying that our near peer adversary could make literally a million of those systems per month, on their existing infrastructure, and no amount of artillery counters THAT.

 

[Trboatworks]

Doesn’t artillery ‘earn its keep’ even now given the range and accuracy possible?
I would think at cost per delivery of munitions in addition to risk profile of forward aircraft would continue to make tubes deployed still useful far into the future.

 

[tdmidget]

The Scranton plant can make about 300 shells a day. The Ukranians are shooting 4000 rounds a day. The math seems a bit off to me. Basically, the entire world’s backstock of artillery ammo will be used up soon, as both sides draw down global reserves.
Nobody actually makes the forging presses, rotary heat treating ovens, or forges that are in that plant. They would be custom order, probably from either Anyang in China or SMS in Germany, with several year lead times. Increasing the capiacity by tenfold, enough to supply the small regional war in Ukraine, would be a huge project. Increasing production enough to match current russia consumption rates would be on the scale of building a tesla gigafactory, only Wall Street wouldnt pay for it.

There is something wrong with those numbers. From this document:

https://aec.army.mil/application/files/1614/9505/0982/ammo-storage02.pdf

WE have this:
5-21
technology to manage the facilities during active and layaway periods (Williams 1978:xii-xiii).
During the late 1970s, experts focused on ways to protect the plants’ technological and computer
systems during layaway and ways to shorten reactivation time for these systems (Williams 1978:12).
5.6.3 Need for New Facilities
The majority of the plants in the Cold War ammunition production base were constructed
just before or during World War II. Of 27 facilities extant in 1982 – 16 active and 11 inactive – only
two first began producing ammunition during the Korean conflict. Riverbank AAP originally was
built during World War I as an aluminum plant, but did not start producing ammunition until 1952.
Scranton AAP was established in 1952 from the remodeled Delaware, Lackawanna, & Western
Railroad shops, and produced shell metal parts (Department of the Army 1982:49-58).
By the 1980s, the Army identified age-related problems with the ammunition production
base. Eighty-seven percent of the base was more than 20 years old, with obsolete equipment that
received minimal maintenance and funding during periods when facilities were placed on standby
status (Department of the Army 1982:21). Plans for future construction included single- and multi-
base propellant plants (Williams 1978:xii).
In 1982, Mississippi AAP, the first ammunition plant built in more than 25 years, began
production. The facility was built in Bay St. Louis, on the northern portion of the NASA National
Space Technology Laboratories facility, and operated by Mason-Chamberlain, Inc. The facility’s
mission was “integrated production” of the M483A1 155-mm ICM projectile, consisting of
manufacture of the projectile metal part; the cargo metal parts; and loading, assembling, and packing
the finished ammunition. This was the first time that a single plant handled all aspects of finishing
ammunition rounds. Historically, the metal components were manufactured elsewhere and shipped
to the load, assemble, and pack installation. Concentrating all facets of large caliber ammunition
production at a single location reduced costs (primarily shipping) and increased efficiency. The
plant was divided into discrete areas to serve the three aspects of the mission. The plant incorporated
the most sophisticated methods and manufacturing technology of its day and was designed to
produce 120,000 rounds per month (Department of the Army 1982:49).

That was 1982 equipment and technology and it was a more complicated product, a cluster bomb munition.

 

[standardparts]

well, it would bother me more if we didn't wake up to some deficiencies. would you rather we just continue to ignore vulnerabilities?
this "tooling up" is going to continue for years, hopefully. and benefit the USA and much if not more than anyone, so im ok with it.

"this "tooling up" is going to continue for years"
We were involved in Afghanistan for 13 years and spent something like $2.3 Trillion dollars.

Since that defense contractor gravy train ended no doubt the Big Brains in D.C. had to come up with another location to justify defense spending.
Goodbye Afghanistan---Hello Ukraine.
This time the EU is getting a real piece of the action. Read where German is reallocating green/renewable energy money to defense spending.
Best guess is, based on past performance, the Administration is cutting open purchase orders that are good for years worth of defense production.

BTW---Had to laugh---google-- 'how long was the U.S. in' and you get quite a list.