Australia, insurance, car, home, live, holidays

A victory sign and a thumbs-up from Ukrainian personnel,but the country’s will to fight is not matched by its supply of weapons and ammunition.Credit:AP

Ukraine fires up to 5000 artillery rounds each day (the Russiansfire many more). With the US producing just 14,000 shells per month (European figures are not available,but they are probably similar),there is a drastic shortfall in this vital ammunition type.

Despite aramping up of US production,quantities won’t increase until 2024. And,as a NATO officialquoted inThe New York Times describes it,20 of NATO’s 30 members are “tapped out” in regards to supplying ammunition to Ukraine. The situation for air defence missiles and precision weapons is also trending towards shortages in 2023 if the fighting continues and production doesn’t increase.

Huge ammunition consumption rates were thought to be a relic of the past. Scarcely a single Western government since the end of the Cold War has imagined that large-scale production of weapons and ammunition would be required again. The past 30 years have seen a consolidation in the number of firms that can build military equipment,and with smaller government orders,production batches are more expensive with longer wait times.

Weapons are produced too slowly,and in smaller quantities,than what will be required in this new era of industrial-scale warfare. As a recent article from the prestigious Royal United Service Institution in Englandnotes,“the war in Ukraine demonstrates that war between peer or near-peer adversaries demands the existence of a technically advanced,mass-scale,industrial-age production capability”.

At least the Europeans and Americans have an industrial base that can be expanded to produce (eventually) the quantity and quality of munitions required for modern combat. Not so in Australia,where a fascination with expensive American naval and aerial platforms has distracted the bureaucracy in the Department of Defence from a strategic approach to resilient ammunition and precision weapon supply.

Our precision weapons and heavy-calibre ammunition are all manufactured overseas and imported. In short,if we don’t already stock it or build it,once a war begins,Australia is on its own. And our current war stocks are tiny.

The capacity to manufacture even basic artillery shells and fuses is complicated by complex supply chains for the many components. The situation is worse for precision weapons. For example,the Saab Next Generation Light Anti-Tank Weapon relies on suppliers in 14 nations.

Therefore,it takes careful,advanced planning to prioritise which munitions and weapons might be needed,and which should be produced here. It is not a manufacturing capability that can be turned on and off like a light switch. Australia’s official history of World War II,when our nation fully mobilised for the war effort,records that it tookfrom 1939 until 1943 to build or transition industry to military production. Throughout,it required a balancing act to ensure appropriate numbers of qualified workers were available for the war industries.

Such challenges are only magnified today. An outcome of the Defence Strategic Review should be a focus on indigenous production of munitions and other modern weapons. This doesn’t mean Australia has to invest in building fighter aircraft. But,with creative thinking,we could imagine an Australian defence industry able to produce small,medium and heavy calibre ammunition as well as a variety drones for ground,air and maritime operations that have both military and civil applications.

This industrial capacity should be underpinned by increased government investment and incentives for research and development. Australia should – by itself or in partnership with others – invest in developing a new generation of precision weapons that are cheaper and quicker to manufacture. Imagine what Australia inventiveness might produce if we invested in development and production of the physical and cyber weapons of deterrence and war. Nations such as Sweden,Israel and Taiwan already do this. Why can’t we?

The latest fad among a small cabal of Canberra platform junkies is advocating for stealth bombers. Unless Australia is looking to fight,without our American friends,against China or Russia,these are an extraordinary waste of money. It would also have an opportunity cost;there are many military systems with greater utility and adaptability. We should instead be thinking about sustainable,networked and survivable weapons. What wins wars is the will of people,an adaptive approach to strategy and weapons development – and effective,mass production of weapons.

It is not a cheap undertaking. But we havedone it before. Achanging and more dangerous strategic environment at home,and the lessons of Ukraine,shows we need such a capacity – if the government can explain the case to the Australian people.

Mick Ryan is a retired major-general who served in the ADF for more than 35 years and was commander of the Australia Defence College. He is the author ofWar Transformed:The Future of 21st Century Great Power Competition and Conflict.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge,champion and inform your own.Sign up here.

More from our award-winning columnists

Sky-high cost-cutting:Do we really needtwo pilots in the cockpit? With advances in technology,won’t one pilot on a flight do? Here’s what QF32 hero and ‘Sully’ Sullenberger think -Peter FitzSimons

The tea: With 61 bills passed since the Albanese government came into power in May 2022,who – or what – wins the prize for the biggeststorm in a teacup? -Ross Gittins

Behind the power: When you write a book aboutScott Morrison,and are more than familiar with the ways the former PM has justified his behaviour,surely you shouldn’t feel sorry for him? -Sean Kelly

License this article