Several dozen US towns, mostly in the middle of the country, are likely to experience benefits for some time, due to the size of the Russian army and the Ukrainian army’s skill at bombarding it.
October 4, 2023


Dramatic events unfolding in Washington DC have put the future of US aid to Ukraine in jeopardy, with hardline Republicans insisting their country simply can’t afford to keep funding Kyiv’s fight against Russia’s full-scale invasion.
But the argument that the US is simply writing “blank checks” and handing over bags of cash to Ukraine is both simplistic and incorrect.
As the German Marshall Fund (GMF), a US think tank, wrote recently: “US military support for Ukraine is helping put American industry back on track.”
GMF added: “The numbers suggest that sustained support is a win-win for Ukrainians and the American people. A large portion of the money designated for Ukraine is being reinvested at home, bolstering the defense industry and sustaining American manufacturing jobs.
“This translates to more business for US companies and sustained employment for rural communities in which they operate.”
Here’s why it’s a win-win
If past US aid to Ukraine was dominated by big-ticket items like HIMARS rocket launcher, Patriot missile batteries and Abrams tanks, the nature of future US arms deliveries to Ukraine is shifting. Now, it’s nearly all about ammo.
The latest announced batch of US security assistance to Ukraine, on Sept. 6, was a window onto the trend. In that tranche (the 46th so far) US taxpayers ponied up about $175 million to give Ukrainian soldiers an effective laundry list of modern munitions the Kremlin’s troops don’t have and have headaches dealing with – things like HIMARS guided artillery rockets, TOW and Javelin top attack anti-tank missiles, and depleted uranium anti-tank rounds.
That latest list of US arms transfers to Ukraine contained nary a tank, general officer’s limousine, high-end anti-aircraft system, fighter jet, HUMMV, tactical quad cycle, or Dodge or Ford pickup truck painted green.
Aside from comms systems, engineering materials and spare parts, last month American voters handed over to the Armed Forces of Ukraine (AFU) nothing but ammo to shoot at the Russian army.
Above all, Ukraine’s military future is all about quantities of NATO-standard 155mm howitzer shells, by far the AFU’s most preferred tool for hitting Moscow’s troops.
AFU gunners first received NATO-standard towed 155mm howitzers in May 2022, and massed fires from those guns – at some points Ukrainian gun crews were going through 10,000 shells a day – were decisive in stopping the Russian army’s last major mobile offensive, in the Donbas sector in a series of battles for crossings over the Siversky Donets River.
Fast-forward more than a year: the Russians are still in Ukraine, and the Ukrainians are still pounding them with 155mm shells. The Americans have delivered more than two million rounds, and other allies perhaps 300,00 more. But the problem is that’s still not enough. The Ukrainian army is saturated with commercial drones and the Russian military is mostly sitting still in hostile country, so Ukrainians are finding far more targets than they have shells to shoot. On an average day of war, the AFU fires 6,000 to 7,000 shells of all types.
The more slowly Russian bunkers and armored vehicles get blasted, the longer the war will last. Pentagon planners and logisticians are juggling the double-headed problem of finding enough ammunition to feed into the maw of the AFU, and at the same time refilling US artillery ammunition reserves long designed to be sufficient to fight an insurgency in Afghanistan or an opponent like the Iraqi army, but nothing close to a near-peer opponent in a conventional war.
The good news for the Ukrainians doing the fighting and the Americans doing the manufacturing, is that the dynamics of the Russo-Ukrainian War’s ammo bottleneck seems to be changing. The Americans are gearing up to deliver more ammo.
An economic boom – made in the USA
As of early September 2023, only a single factory, the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant in Pennsylvania, was actually machining the steel 155mm artillery shell bodies. A facility in Iowa that does assembly was putting together about 24,000 shells a month – roughly three times the volume at the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
The Scranton factory is currently operating at max capacity, 24/7, and employs 300 workers in jobs paying well compared to most other work in the region. By August 2024 new capacity will raise volumes to over 80,000 shells a month, Air Force Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder said in comments to War Zone.
Exploding artillery shells produced in mass date back to the 19th century, but the modern artillery round is a purpose-built tool, and in the hands of the AFU a deadly one. The Ukrainian military has received and used in combat practically every NATO-standard 155mm shell type – a gamut running from anti-personnel to anti-tank, and including bunker buster, smoke, incendiary, long-range, precision-guided and cluster munitions – and the feedback is universally excellent.
Cluster munitions are particularly favored. Reports of failures of any type are practically nil. All the shells are easy to handle, they work in all weather conditions, and they are murderously precise. The AFU usually estimates its guns will outrange Russian artillery by five to eight kilometers. The problem is too many targets and too few shells.
The Pentagon in December 2022 announced plans to expand production capacity in three 155mm shell plants – in Scranton, in Kingsport, Tennessee, and in Middletown, Iowa. At the time the plan was aiming for 40,000 shells a month capacity, but as of October 2023, the target was twice that. The plan called for upstream investment to increase capacity of generic sub-components like primer, propellant, projective and fuse, as well as more exotic supply chain monkey wrenches like the laser sensor on the end of the precision-guided shell, or the mini-rocket fitted into the base of the long-range shell.
None of this is cheap. The most basic 155mm shell probably costs the US taxpayer between $2,000 and $3,000, and the most sophisticated ones, the laser-guided M982 Excalibur, a munition accurate enough to strike the turret of a targeted tank at ranges in excess of 25 kilometers, costs about $120,000.
If and when the US hits its 80,000-shells-a-month 2024 target, the three companies operating the plants – General Dynamics, American Ordnance and IMT Defense respectively – will collectively receive $250 million a month from US taxpayers. Most of that money transfer will recirculate in those three communities as salaries and dividends. The rest will be passed on to another 200 to 300 American companies feeding the 155mm artillery shell logistics chain.
That kind of cash injection in places like Scranton, Kingsport, and Middletown could be roughly equivalent to the construction and staffing of a brand-new Amazon robotics fulfillment center near all three of those mid-sized towns, every six months. The economic effect of shifting from very little to massed 155mm shell production, in each of those communities, will probably go on as long as the Pentagon keeps on ordering 155mm artillery shells, Kyiv Post researchers have calculated.
Assuming American political will to help Ukrainians fight against the Russian invasion doesn’t reverse course (never a given), dozens and potentially hundreds of communities across the US could see their economies jump-started by Pentagon demand for US-manufactured war materials that get expended – not just artillery shells, but things like anti-aircraft missiles, replacement engines, and long- and short-range drones.
The 227mm rocket fired from the American HIMARS and M270 systems, called the M31, is able to sink a 22-91-kilogram warhead (depends on type and tactical mission) inside a 2-meter circle at ranges in excess of 80 kilometers. The weapons were decisive in Ukrainian offensives in September and October by obliterating Kremlin supply hubs and command posts thought by Russian forces to be out of range of attack. The AFU, according to Kyiv Post counts, operates about 60 launchers donated by the US, Germany, Britain and France, the last of which were delivered in summer 2022.
Lockheed Martin, the aerospace and defense corporation that manufacturers the HIMARS/M270 rockets, assembles both launch systems and rockets in Camden, Arkansas. The corporate plan is to double its launcher production capacity (from 48 to 96) by the end of 2025, and the cash knock-on effect is already hitting Rocket City, West Virginia, where Grumman manufactures the rocket engines.
The bonanza is a no-brainer
Theoretical demand for more rockets by this point is clearly bottomless. AFU gunners operating M270 and HIMARS could easily shoot off Lockheed’s entire rocket production for a month – for the entire US military and all foreign customers, Ukraine included – in a couple of hours.
US production capacity expansion plans of key munitions being used in Ukraine have been announced by Raytheon, which manufacturers the NASAMS anti-aircraft missile in Tewksbury, Massachusetts, and by Martin-Marietta, which makes Patriot anti-aircraft missile in Orlando, Florida. Global Times called the flood of orders to US arms manufacturers “a bonanza.”
Mykhailo Podolyak, an advisor to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in comments on US debates about supplying arms to Ukraine said: “It’s a cynical yet simple mathematical calculation of war. If you have the ability to destroy the military capabilities of your strategic adversary for only a small percent of your defense budget without using your own army, can this be considered a ‘good investment’? If this percentage of the defense budget stays mostly in your country, stimulating your defense companies, creating new jobs and increasing your military capabilities – what doubts can there be?”
Podolyak added: “And if this allows Ukraine to fundamentally defend freedom, democracy and destroy a key sponsor of global instability – isn’t this an investment in a just and secure future for you and us?”
https://www.kyivpost.com/analysis/22292

This is not the first article describing the advantages that our weapon and ammo deliveries to Ukraine are to our economy. The most important aspect would be the positive publicity that our weapons are having all over the world. Who ever heard of HIMARS, or ATACMS before this war? Every child knows what a Javelin is. Bradleys are now known to save soldiers’ lives. Our Excaliburs are renowned far and wide. Many countries want these and other weapons from us. Our defense industry is starting to experience a real boom.
We could reap more benefits by handing over to Ukraine many of our materiel that are only sitting around, costing us money … and, eventually, be scrapped.
Such facts are purposefully ignored, covered up, and not taken into consideration by the pro-mafia land faction, like Trump, Gaetz, Taylor-Greene, et al.
Kyiv Post seems to not understand economics. Defense spending is inherently inflationary which the US is already suffering from.
Say the US population has y amount in goods and services available in supply. And say it has $x to spend. Increased defense spending will increase $x in the form of salaries to workers, dividends from defense companies etc, but defense spending will not increase y (the amount of available goods and services).
This means that more dollars will be chasing the same good and services. This will result in higher prices. Maybe this wasn’t taught in Ukrainian schools before 1991, but it’s common knowledge.
If defense spending made a country rich, what explains North Korea? Their problem is they don’t produce enough y and spend too much on defense. It leaves them poor no matter how much they spend on defense.
I know the goal is to get Ukraine the aid it needs and deserves, but misrepresentation isn’t the way to do that.
The economic benefits to the US are that:
1) The US has allocated large resources to counter a Russian threat anyway. Much aid has already come from those previous expenditures. While there are additional costs now for ammunition, refurbishment, parts etc., there should be less in the future as a degraded Russian military isn’t as much a threat.
2) A stable world is one where US companies can operate and take best advantage of their competitive features. How can American companies really operate in Eastern Europe, Africa and the Middle East if Moscow is taking them over or influencing decisions with Wagner threats? More of a threat though would be Russia again trying to destabilize Central America. Refugees are expensive and we can see Russia trying to push them into Poland via Belarus to create crisis.
Americans really don’t grasp how a free world works in our economic benefit. In everyone’s benefit in fact …
s
The author of this article is Stefan Korshak. He is an American and educated in Yale. So, I wouldn’t completely repudiate his ideas.
As I pointed out in my comment, the actual benefit to our economy are the increased orders from other countries for our weapons, which is already happening, and getting rid of already produced materiel that is just sitting around in depots, causing a constant drain on our funds.
it seems to me that investing in weapons is burning money… unless it allows you to extend a zone of stability in which you can produce wealth and trade. one of the forms – the most obvious and brutal – is to use your weapons to carry out a territorial conquest which will allow you to have new resources (mining, energy, slaves).
globally but because of Russian fascism and Putin, we are witnessing a destruction of value, a reduction in the creation of wealth, well-being, emancipation, human progress, demography, security, we are witnessing an increase in danger and chaos but we must fight against contagion, because here as elsewhere prevention, or treating the disease at the root costs less than generalized disease…
Doing nothing always costs much more.
signed lorangebleue 😉
Thanks for touching the moral and political subject of spending money on arms. Although the article was merely one of economics, the need to eliminate evil is so important that giving it a price is downright stupid. No one talked about the horrendous costs, either, in fighting against the evils of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The wicked and criminal regime in moscow should be treated the same way.
So, you are lorangebleue? I wonder why some of you guys are having trouble with your nicks on here. I thought you were Bert.
@OFP
(from lorangebleue) I have the impression that this is a problem with my browser after an update (I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s another corrective update soon).
/one of the other fundamentals to remember:
if your house has a certain value it’s because its ownership is guaranteed. if anyone can take it over, rape your wife when she comes home, kill your children, your house will be worth nothing. So let’s be happy, through our taxes, to pay for the mechanisms that guarantee and increase security: the army, the police, the education that produces brains that choose effective social behaviour, to the mechanisms that collectively guarantee health, so that we have a foundation/base of stability on which we can devote ourselves to creating wealth, knowledge and exchanges, a base that moves us away from the animal condition, from its brutality, to make us Men.
What applies to Ukraine also applies to the climate:
Are we allowing chaos to grow and close in on us?
How much money are we prepared to spend on it now or how much money are we prepared to lose tomorrow (because, for example, rebuilding the same house 20 times because of chaos is not an increase in wealth but an impoverishment).
I’m afraid that we don’t have the right people in power to either combat climate change effectively or the rogue nations in this world.
Alas, I know about updates. They often mean nothing but trouble and sometimes slow down the system to boot.