By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukraine’s limited supply of U.S.-provided ATACMS missiles, estimated at around 50 before authorization for strikes on Russian territory, is dwindling rapidly after a series of attacks on Russian military infrastructure. This depletion, coupled with potential policy shifts under the incoming Trump administration, which opposes the missile transfers, suggests that Ukraine’s ability to conduct such long-range strikes is severely hampered. Replenishment is unlikely due to existing U.S. commitments elsewhere. Despite these strikes, significant escalation with Russia has not yet occurred.
Read the original article here
Kyiv’s dwindling supply of ATACMS missiles, as reported by the New York Times, has sparked a flurry of discussion and speculation. The initial low supply of these missiles was a point of contention even before their deployment, with concerns raised about the limited US stockpile. This shortage isn’t necessarily due to reluctance to provide them to Ukraine; it more likely reflects the constraints of current production capacity. The US military, prioritizing air superiority and precision-guided munitions dropped from aircraft, hasn’t historically placed a high emphasis on MLRS systems, of which ATACMS are a part. The sheer destructive power of these missiles means that they often only need to be deployed once to deliver a significant impact.
The debate surrounding further ATACMS shipments to Ukraine is heated. Some argue that the US should send at least 2000 more immediately, highlighting the possibility of ramping up production significantly given the relatively simple technology and the fact these missiles are already over 30 years old. Others point to the high unit cost—around $1.7 million per missile—and the fact that the US only possesses a limited number itself, possibly around 4000, with 600 already having been launched. There’s also discussion of whether the US has already provided cluster variants slated for retirement, suggesting a possible cost savings through repurposing.
The strategic implications are significant. Ukraine typically uses volleys of 5 to 20 missiles per target, and there are thousands of potential targets within Russia. The effectiveness of ATACMS is undeniable, yet questions remain about the sustainability of this approach. The rate of consumption, the selection of targets, and the overall strategic goals are crucial factors often overlooked in the debate. While the missiles might be effective, the long-term implications of relying heavily on this weapon system require consideration.
The argument for alternative solutions, such as Tomahawk missiles, is compelling. Tomahawks, however, require specific launch platforms that Ukraine currently lacks. While the US possesses sufficient capacity, the absence of suitable platforms in Ukraine significantly restricts their deployment. The inherent advantages of ballistic missiles, such as their speed and difficulty in interception, are acknowledged. Nevertheless, the high cost of these weapons and their limited impact without nuclear warheads raise questions regarding cost-effectiveness compared to alternative strategies.
The production capacity of ATACMS is also a critical factor. While increased production is possible, it’s not without its challenges. The production lines, designed for low-volume peacetime production, require significant investment and time to scale up. This translates to a considerable lag between increasing production and meeting the substantial demand. Even with increased production in recent months, the rate is approximately 20-25% of full capacity. Furthermore, the older ATACMS systems have a limited shelf life, with many expected to expire this year.
The information surrounding the exact number of ATACMS provided to Ukraine, the pricing within aid budgets, and the precise remaining US stockpile remains somewhat unclear. However, the overall consensus is that Ukraine’s needs greatly exceed the readily available supply. The complexities surrounding this issue, coupled with political considerations and differing military strategies, create a tangled web of factors influencing decision-making. While the effectiveness of ATACMS is not in doubt, whether continuing to send them is the optimal approach remains a point of heated discussion. The situation underscores the need for a comprehensive strategic assessment that balances short-term needs with long-term sustainability. The discussions highlight that there’s no simple solution and the decision to supply more ATACMS will involve many complex factors to consider.