By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Pentagon is reporting increasing pressure on its missile stockpiles due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. A substantial request for over $3.5 billion in emergency funding has been made to replenish interceptors sent to Israel. This request highlights the urgent need to maintain adequate defense capabilities while supporting allies facing threats. The funding would replace interceptors used in defending against potential missile and rocket attacks.
Read the original article here
Missiles running low: US struggles to replenish interceptors depleted in aid to Israel, and it’s a situation that really seems to be raising some eyebrows. The immediate thought is that the production lines for these interceptors should have been revved up years ago. Now, there’s a distinct feeling that the slow pace of replenishment might be deliberate. It’s not about a shortage of missiles in general; it’s about a shortage of the ones specifically available to share.
The American stockpile might be plentiful, but the readily available surplus for others is shrinking. One wonders why there hasn’t been a unified push from all corners of the political spectrum to address this. Remember Ukraine? The minute missiles were requested for their defense, it was like the brakes were slammed on. The potential to ramp up production quickly is certainly there. From an aerospace perspective, the capability exists to run three shifts, seven days a week, a production model many companies already have in place.
If there’s a true need, the missiles can be built. A more direct question is why these nations can’t manufacture their own. Perhaps it’s time for them to take responsibility. The focus should be on Ukraine, perhaps even sending the bill to Israel. The government readily supports certain aid, but why the disparity in approach to this situation? Could this be part of a larger strategic plan?
Considering the decisions coming from those in power, it’s almost as if priorities are skewed. Sending every bullet to Israel could have been more beneficial to Ukraine instead. Why not let those involved handle their own weapons procurement? The conversation then becomes, should the US be keeping this shortfall a secret? This begs another question of what happened to the overinflated defense budget?
Perhaps there’s a need to explore developing smarter technologies, moving away from using million-dollar interceptors against cheap drones. The focus in past decades seems to have been on quick battles, not the kind of sustained conflicts we see today. And, let’s be honest, the planners probably didn’t anticipate the prevalence of drones. There’s also the question of why the Israeli flag seems to have a higher level of protection in this country than the US flag.
Israel’s reliance on the Arrow 3 system is a factor here. Those missiles cost a significant amount each, while the US-operated THAAD system is even more expensive. Reportedly, a substantial amount of the THAAD missile inventory was depleted in a short amount of time, meaning there wasn’t a huge number of those missiles available to begin with.
With the Iran/Israel conflict ongoing, and hundreds of ballistic missiles fired, the Arrow 3 system appears to have intercepted a large number of them. It’s no wonder other countries are eager to get their hands on Israeli missile defense technology. The US taxpayer funds the consequences of Israel’s actions with zero gain for US interests. It seems that this could be a lazy excuse by the state department. A better, more direct approach is required. It’s better to have a wake-up call now, rather than when Russia or China are deploying ballistic missiles.
The US is known for creating expensive products in low volumes. They’re also the primary supplier for the Western world. One solution is simple: stop giving Israel missiles, especially when the aid isn’t repaid. And of course, there’s the commonality between certain leaders.
This situation makes you question how humans create these problems. It’s almost laughable that replenishing missiles becomes the concern. Why the fixation on high-tech interceptors when drones are much more cost-effective? The war in Ukraine seems to have accelerated this shift. It’s time to reassess the system of interceptors. It’s not sensible to use expensive technology against cheap targets.
There are questions about how critical the need for these missiles really is. The US should definitely have a real plan to dramatically increase production. Russia can likely figure out ways to produce these missiles, and the US should be doing the same.
Conservatives haven’t made a huge fuss about this situation, but they had a lot to say when it came to Ukraine’s missile needs. We saw how the focus was redirected to other priorities. A better answer would be to build a better stockpile. The world has several ongoing conflicts, so the demand for these technologies will continue.
It’s a simple equation: war is big business. And it seems that ABM interceptors are exceptionally expensive. They’re produced in low numbers. The focus on the shiny objects, the F-35s, and the other high-ticket items seems to overshadow the need for ordnance stockpiles. The need for these missiles has increased over time.
The question is why production wasn’t already ramped up? When ballistic missiles were used in active conflicts and interceptors were needed. These weapons also have a shelf-life, and overproducing is wasteful. China no longer exports military-grade rare earths, which are crucial for making these missiles. It appears that this could be a false narrative. The manufacturer knew there would be demand, but the production didn’t scale up. The question is, who are we deliberately trying to hurt? Production should have been in high gear years ago.