The U.S. and other Ukrainian allies are increasingly putting pressure on Europe to grow its arms production capabilities — and to do it quickly. The European Union has acknowledged that their manufacturing capabilities have dwindled in the aftermath of the Cold War, which has forced countries to pull from their own wartime stockpiles to aid Ukraine. But Kyiv has warned that if artillery shell production levels in Europe, for instance, stay at the same rate or even increase slightly, Ukrainian forces will run out of shells within the year. The Ukrainian Defense Ministry is asking for 250,000 shells per month from Europe alone. They believe they need at least 356,000 per month to succeed on the battlefield.
Europe is now examining several proposals to increase its defense production at all levels, whether that be artillery shells, howitzers, tanks, or small arms. As Russia has moved its economy to a war footing, European countries are beginning to debate whether they can or should match that effort. Leaders in the European Union have made it sound as though they support the idea of cutting competition and security regulations to ensure that the European defense industry can ramp up manufacturing swiftly.
Estonia is the smallest EU country that has long raised the alarm about Moscow, shares a border with Russia, and dedicated half its defense budget to aiding Ukraine. It has released the most ambitious proposal of spending €4 billion to address Ukraine’s ammunition needs. If fulfilled, Europe would produce Ukraine’s ammunition needs in six months, rather than the four years it would take at current production levels, says the Estonian proposal. It has received the endorsement of the Ukrainian defense ministry, but regulations remain the biggest obstacle.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely the Estonians’ plan will be followed. EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell has released a less ambitious proposal that would have the EU spend €1 billion over the next few months, which would partially reimburse member states for donating ammo. Groups of those states would then place joint orders to replenish their stocks. There will likely be a large debate about this in the latter half of March when EU leaders are set to meet in Brussels. Camps are already forming on the issue, as some states are pushing fellow EU member states to increase defense spending and others appear to support the plan but can’t fathom how to pay for it. Still, several countries’ defense ministers have endorsed the scheme.
Inevitably, however, the European defense industry is getting ready to see a huge boom. Perhaps most interesting are the 15 companies in 11 member states that currently manufacture 155 mm shells, (though Norway and the United Kingdom, non-EU countries, will also be ramping up production of the much-needed artillery munition, as it remains a critical munition to support the ongoing war effort. The U.K.’s BAE Systems, France’s Thales and Safran, Italy’s Leonardo and Germany’s Hensoldt will likely see large-scale investment in the coming months and years.
The U.S., meanwhile, has decided to increase its investment in the industrial base for the long term, as its defense industry base has also lagged behind in conventional munitions production. Washington’s investment in munition manufacturing has been historically episodic and deprioritized. The U.S. defense industry has only been willing to move forward with munition production because the government has committed to multi-year contracts, something they have not done in the past. In fact, the Pentagon will spend $1 billion annually for the next 15 years to modernize ordnance plants, increasing automation, improving worker safety, and speeding up munitions production. It is also asking Congress to approve bulk purchases of certain missiles the Defense Department said the U.S. needs if it were ever involved in a conflict with China.
The Pentagon has allocated roughly $3 billion alone this year to buy munitions overseas from allies and to ramp up production at home. Some of that money will go toward producing what has become a staple of the war – the aforementioned 155 mm artillery shells. The Army is planning a 500% increase in artillery shell production, from 15,000 a month to 70,000, according to Army acquisition chief Doug Bush. Much of that increase will be fulfilled by the General Dynamics plant in Scranton, Pennsylvania, which makes a large share of the country’s supply of artillery shells. Bush told reporters in January that the Army was also standing up a new plant in Garland, Texas, to make artillery shells, while an existing plant is being expanded in Middletown, Iowa. All these expansions are expected to take multiple years.
There are fewer defense producers in the U.S. than in Europe, but they are all seeing a boom as munitions factories are increasing production as fast as possible. A Lockheed Martin plant in Camden, Arkansas, is expanding production of a series of rockets and missiles, including the Army’s Patriot missile system – all of which are in high demand in Ukraine and across the world. Arms procurements have been a central agenda item for the Biden Administration since the war in Ukraine began. Unfortunately, conventional weapon production for items like howitzers, tanks, and ammo has not been a priority since the end of the Cold War. As a result, manufacturing lines have grown fallow requiring this swift, unprecedented investment. Still, Biden leaned on European allies during his visit to Poland for the one-year anniversary of the war and at the Munich Security Conference to invest further, but the U.S. and its allies are likely falling behind as Russia is moving to mobilize its economy toward a wartime posture.
“All NATO armaments directors are collectively looking at ways to increase production capacity,” an administration official said, according to reports. “Given the changing security environment, NATO allies have identified this as a need.”
That means Europe is likely poised to make some fairly quick and large investments. Despite NATO countries not fighting the war in a literal sense, some Western officials warn that countries supporting Ukraine need to be on a conventional war production footing for the long term. The need is there, not only to support Ukraine but to ensure that European countries maintain and update their respective wartime stocks, which have not always been consistent due to Europe’s reliance on the U.S. The question is whether the U.S. and Europe can make the necessary investments in time and if other priorities — China, aerial surveillance, nuclear modernization, etc. — could become obstructions to this needed effort
The biggest challenge is that Europe’s system is not fully integrated. Instead, it continues to see large-scale fragmentation across multiple countries with different weapons, ammunition, and spare parts. Ukrainians have even noticed increasingly that not all 155 mm ammunition works as well with its patchwork battery of howitzers.
There are some discussions about rationalizing defense production and procurement between NATO and EU countries. The U.K., Germany and France could bear the burden of making more complex items like tanks, artillery and jets while smaller countries focused on ammo production and other equipment. There is some basis for this type of effort: consider the joint European projects such as the Eurofighter, Typhoon, and the advanced missiles made by MBDA, a European missile developer. The EU decision to spend €1 billion on urgent ammunition needs through a series of joint procurement contracts produced by the European Defense Agency indicates there could be further efforts along these lines.
But it is impossible to ignore that national pride and security interests could get in the way of this type of communal effort, and this occurred during past attempts during the Cold War. Timelines are also a hurdle. A French, German, and Spanish effort on the Future Air Combat System won’t bring about a new jet until 2040, and the British-Italian effort is now going to merge with Japan’s F-X program that will see a finished product in 2035.
For now, the Europeans have that €1 billion purchase of ammo to consider as a potential blueprint for further joint orders, which would allow them to use their collective strength to aid Ukraine and impede Russia. As ever, the question is whether they’re willing to work together for the long term, which could lead to a more powerful Europe.
