Cronkite school of journalism at
Arizona state university.
Geoff: Since the start of
Russia's full-scale invasion,
the United States and its allies
have supplied Ukraine with tens
of billions of dollars of
weapons systems and ammunition.
But keeping the material flowing
for the largest conflict since
the second World War is proving
a challenge for arms
manufacturers.
Nick schifrin has the story.
Nick: The poets call war the
ultimate of man.
It has been eight years since a
wart of logistics on this
industrial scale.
Ukraine fires as many as 155
milimeter rounds in five
days as the U.S. Produces in a
month.
Many of them are forged,
finished at 1500 degrees, and
painted here in Scranton,
Pennsylvania.
The machinery is decades-old,
but until now, it has suited
U.S. Needs.
Iraq and Afghanistan were not
dueling artillery battles.
But today, the 20,000 artillery
shells the plant creates every
30 days is a fraction of
Ukraine's needs.
Ukraine's defense minister
recently wrote to the European
union in a letter described to
pbs newshour that Ukraine can
only fire 1/5 of what it could
because of munition shortages.
We saw that ourselves on the
outskirts of eastern Ukraine.
This team told us they did not
have enough artillery to fire
constantly.
He commands an artillery
unit.
You have what you need in order
to complete this fight?
>> We do have equipment but we
need more and we need more and
more and more because they won't
stop until we stop them.
>> The current rate of Ukraine's
ammunition makes miniature is
many times higher than our
current rate of production.
Nick: Last month, the nato
secretary-general said defense
industry cannot deliver fast
enough and had to expand
quickly.
>> This is not becoming a
grinding war of attrition and it
is a war of logistics.
>> The u.s.'s defense industrial
base is not fully prepared to
conduct an industrial style war
odeter that kind of war.
Nick: Seth Jones from the center
for strategic and international
studies recently wrote a report
bout a shortage of material,
empty bins in a wartime
environment.
The U.S. Has had operational
plans for major war but what
hasn't happened is to tie those
plans directly to acquisitions
needs right now.
Nick: The U.S. Has sent from its
stockpiles more than $32 billion
worth of weapons, including more
than one million 155-millimeters
shells, 1600 shoulder fire
stinger antiaircraft missiles,
8500 javelin antitank weapons,
1800 Phoenix ghost drums, and 38
high mobility rocket systems.
>> What the U.S. Has been able
to do is use a range of
stockpiles of weapons.
The challenge is a number of
those stockpiles are now
decreasing and the production
lines are not rising to levels
that we need them for future
contingency.
Nick: It is not only about
Ukraine.
The plans for contingencies
include a war in the pacific
with China
now the defense department is
spending billions to increase
production, including
modernizing the Scranton plant,
as seen in these before and
after photos.
Production has already increased
over 50%.
The army hopes to increase
artillery production 500% in the
next two years.
The largest production expansion
since the Korean war.
Bill leplante is the
under secretary of defense.
I asked him whether the west
could meet Ukraine's needs for
artillery.
>> We have been doing our best
to meet the demand as it comes
in.
The devils in the details as to
which caliber.
The 155 millimeter, we have
already funded the factory at
significant amounts to get that
production rate hopefully at
five times that amount which is
almost unprecedented.
And it's not just producing, but
what we're also buying and
getting from around the world in
different stocks to supply what
the Ukrainians need.
Every day, we try to move
something to the left, whether
it's finding equipment in
another country we can ship in
or anything we can do to find
stocks.
Nick: As we just saw, Ukrainian
soldiers just a few weeks ago
outside of bakhmut told me they
didn't have enough.
That was an artillery piece, an
older artillery, soviet era.
I was with another mortar unit.
They said they didn't have
enough mortars, also firing
soviet-era mortars.
This isn't only about American
European weapons.
It's also about getting Ukraine
older weapons, which many other
units still use.
Right?
>> That's exactly right.
It's a constant challenge of do
we find or produce the old
soviet or Russian equipment or
do we give them the new
equipment?
We go through that every day.
Nick: But on air defense
specifically, I've been told
they're running out of parts
and weapons all over the world.
And so therefore, they have to
go to west.
>> I think for air defenses and
frankly, for ground forces, what
you're seeing is having to go
from the old soviet systems to
almost certainly western systems
for the reasons you said.
Nick: And this is all, of
course, before we get to Ukraine
spring offensive.
You are trying to figure out how
to get all these armored
vehicles and their parts into
Ukraine.
How do you know that they'll
have enough of those munitions,
those parts, those modern
weapons, to be able to launch
some kind of counter offensive
in the coming weeks?
>> What we're doing is working
with the Germans, the poles and
the other countries.
When we have a shortfall in
parts, say, for a certain
version of leopards to scour and
find those parts, even to the
extent we can find advanced
manufacturing of 3D print.
So we're working on each one.
And the idea is to make sure
that there are enough parts to
sustain for each model.
Nick: Why not give Ukraine the
longer-range weapon known as the
atacm, which would fly 180 miles
that it's been requesting?
That so far the administration
has refused.
>> Yeah, it's been a policy
decision today to date that the
long range weapons which we have
been providing, which is about
an 80-kilometer precision guided
weapon, is sufficient in range
for the targets that they have.
I think for when you get into
types of capabilities are well
beyond it, you get into policy
issues and sustainment issues of
whether or not it's an
escalatory thing.
Nick: If I could, though,
intelligence officials tell me
that specifically the capacity
of the atacm and the range of
the atacm is a red line for the
Kremlin in terms of what Ukraine
would be able to hit if it were
to use that weapon in Russia.
But why is that a concern, given
that Ukraine has promised not to
use American weapons inside
Russia?
>> Well, I think it's one of the
concerns.
I think there's multiple
concerns.
And the other piece of it is
what to what extent it will make
a big difference in the battle.
And those are all part of the
calculation.
Nick: To what end are you trying
to procure weapons for Ukraine
to re-seize all of its territory
that it has lost since 2014?
>> We're providing everything we
can that we believe they need.
And I would say this, we are
going to be there with them
until it's over and as long as
we need to, and not for the
least of which is if we think
it's expensive now, if Putin
prevails, it'll be really
expensive.
And so this is really that
important.
And we're going to provide the
equipment they need.
Nick: Ukraine argues it won't be
over until it re-seizes crimea.
>> And that that may be their
view.
Nick: And that's Ukraine's
choice, basically.
>> This is their fight.
This is their fight.
Nick: You heard Seth Jones in
the package there saying that as
stockpiles in the U.S. Are being
drawn down, production lines
aren't expanding enough to meet
future requirements.
Do you agree, and if so, why?
>> I think that that's a
subjective comment.
I actually don't necessarily
agree.
We're going across the board and
putting billions of dollars in
investment across across and
these companies.
And it's going to be rapidly
ramping up.
And so really what's at stake
here is a time issue.
It's we will ramp up.
And we are ramping up right now.
And the question is arguably is
racing against time.
And that's where that's where we
are.
Nick: How does that translate,
though, into actual deliveries?
How long does that take?
>> Right.
This gets to something called
the long lead item, how long it
takes before you get the item,
when you actually award it.
And so, what that can be as long
as a year.
But it's every day we have teams
working on this, scouring the
Earth.
Nick: And finally, how do you
prioritize orders, especially
moving forward?
You've argued that the weapons
going to Ukraine do not affect
some of the weapons orders, for
example, that Taiwan is making.
But the fact is the U.S. Is
behind on some of the orders it
has promised to Taiwan.
So what is that priority?
And does one theater affect the
other?
>> It can affect.
But, you know, there's there's
less overlap, perhaps some
people believe.
I'll give you the example for
Taiwan.
There is a backlog for Taiwan.
It happens to be on items like
f-16 and production of f-16.
That's a lot of it, which to
date, even though there's been
discussions, hasn't been a
player in the Ukraine.
Where I will say that there is
something that we all have to
watch is the underlying
suppliers, the suppliers of
solid rocket motors, of
batteries, of energetics there.
Those are common across all
domains.
And that's where we've also been
putting our emphasis.
Nick: And what message does your
struggles to deal with the
procurement challenges right now
and also what you're doing to
overcome them -- what message
does that send to China when it
comes to Taiwan?
>> I'd like to think that what
we show China is, number one, we
can turn fast.
We can turn fast.
We are getting folks under
contract within a week and we
are getting things put together
and into theater that are
incredibly innovative, very,
very fast.
We will follow up and make sure
our industrial base is ready to
go.
And so I've often said that
industrial capacity is itself a
deterrent.
And so I think we have to remind
ourselves that as we look not
just to China, but what's beyond
Ukraine.
Nick: Bill Plante,
undersecretary of defense,
thanks very much.
>> Thank you, Nick.