Artillery issues in the Russian-Ukrainian War

Last week I posted on how supporting the Ukrainians has depleted both our supplies of Stinger air defense missiles and Javelin anti-tank missiles. Now another interesting point has been brought up.

Friend, mentor, and fellow officer Colonel Sam Pearson, US Army (Retired) started life in a fun branch, Field Artillery. He got to shoot big guns which make a lot of noise and blew up stuff. But like most officers in the service, he had to grow up and become something that's not fun, just critical. Logistics. It's been a while since he's handled a howitzer, but he's still an expert in both. 

Last week COL Pearson had an excellent post on his Facebook page on the shortcomings of artillery ammunition in the Russian army, also reflecting issues with Iranian and North Korean shells. Reprinted with permission, emphases mine:

An artilleryman’s strategic view of what is happening in the Ukraine/ Russia conflict. 

In the last few months Ukrainian troops have noticed reduced use of artillery by the Russians. Better yet, more of the Russian shells and rockets are duds and don’t explode when they hit the ground. Ukrainian troops learned how to use their artillery ammo carefully because NATO nations did not have as much to provide as Russia already had. That’s because the Russians maintained larger stockpiles of munitions and had a lot older stuff that could be used somewhat safely by Russian artillerymen, but were more likely to fail to explode to land where aimed.

For the first six months of the war Russia was able to fire a lot more shells and rockets at the Ukrainians than the Ukrainian were capable of. That changed because Russia, like the NATO nations supplying Ukraine, is running out of artillery ammunition. Existing inventories are largely gone and munitions firms worldwide have all the business they can handle. Russia does not have as much capacity for manufacturing enough munitions to replace what has been expended or destroyed by the Ukrainians, who carefully attacked all Russian ammo stocks they could find and hit. Plus they captured a lot and promptly used those on the Russians, notably after their breakout from Kharkhiv this fall. Russia has few foreign sources of munitions and those sources have encountered problems. For example, North Korea sold Russia large quantities of shells, much of it near its “use by” date. These munitions were moved to Ukraine via the Trans-Siberian railroad. Russia has had problems lately with that rail line and that has delayed some of the North Korea munitions shipments. Another source was Iran, which didn’t have as much to spare as North Korea but was able to get it to the Russians quickly.

That left neighboring Belarus, which Russia has pressured to enter the war to assist Russian forces in Ukraine. The Belarussian leader is pro-Russia but most Belarussians are not and support Ukraine. Because of that, Belarus cannot send troops into Ukraine but Belarussian ammo stocks and manufacturing capabilities are available. As with Iran and North Korea, Belarus has to be paid

One of the problems Russia has is that the shelf life of most munitions varies from 5-20 years, depending on the component (shell, fuze, electronics, batteries or propellant.) Artillery shells and rockets use various types of explosives, notably as propellants, that degrade over time. Western nations spend a lot of money to remove elderly munitions by recycling them. This is expensive but it is a major reason why Western munitions are more reliable and less dangerous for users.

When the Cold War ended in 1991 Western nations were able to safely dispose of munitions that were too old to be safe and reliable. Russia had more of these munitions and little cash or sense of urgency in safely disposing of their elderly artillery shells and rockets. Storage facilities containing these expired munitions eventually began to randomly explode in a spectacular fashion. Russia then sought to dispose of the oldest and most unstable munitions in controlled explosions that did not destroy structures and kill or injure nearby military or civilian personnel. This disposal process is still underway and Russia keeps track of how old munitions are and knows which munitions recently passed their use-by date and can be safely delivered to artillery units for use. This is one reason why Ukrainians experience many Russian shells and rockets fired at them that are very inaccurate and often do not detonate when they land. For Russian artillerymen, a few of these shells and rockets explode when fired, often killing or injuring members of the gun crew.

Blow up when you pull the lanyard? Hate it when that happens. Then again the Russian Army is hurting for manpower right now, likely one of the reasons here.

As artillery is a major weapon on both sides of this war, the Ukrainians are making efficient use of their assets. The Russians reportedly are burning through stockpiles faster than can be refurbished. From The Telegraph:

While forces had previously used 60,000 artillery shells per day, they now only use 19,000 to 20,000 shells. Ukraine’s military intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov said that troops will have to scale back.

I've often wondered if Putin really considered what would happen if he crossed the border with Ukraine. Perhaps his generals believed this would be a pushover attack, or maybe  Putin believed it. I can only speculate. But something Vlad would have been wise to remember, the three word question General of the Army and later President Dwight Eisenhower would always ask his staff when looking at an operation: "And then what?" Ike wanted ideas though though. Putin either didn't think, or didn't think it thorough. 

A look at the Jones Act.

Fellow 377th Theater Support Command alumni, logistics absolute genius and long time friend and mentor, Colonel Sam Pearson, wrote this on this Facebook page earlier this week and it's great insight into the need for reform (i.e. repeal) of the Jones Act. Please read, digest and any feedback is greatly welcome.

Hurricane season has come with a vengeance this year. Harvey was followed by Irma and Jose, and now Maria is on its way.

The Administration recently issued a temporary waiver to the Jones Act, to make it easier for desperately needed fuel to reach emergency responders and the areas affected by the destruction of the hurricanes.

The law, also known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, requires goods shipped between American ports to use vessels built, crewed, flagged and owned in the United States or by U.S. citizens.
Congress should consider doing away with the Jones Act altogether.

Proponents claim the law protects American jobs and ensures the country will have an established fleet of vessels and shipbuilding capability. However, the Jones Act imposes substantial costs on American consumers, and these costs are concentrated in noncontiguous parts of the United States, such as Puerto Rico.

The law can also act as a hindrance to the speed and effectiveness of responses to disasters, because foreign ships have to wait for waivers. Sometimes waivers are not issued promptly, and in some emergencies not at all. These delays and uncertainty limit the full range of options and resources that could be leveraged to help the distressed areas in times of need.
The Jones Act has not even succeeded in one of its stated goals, namely bolstering the number of U.S.-flag ships. In 2000 there were 193 Jones Act-eligible ships in the U.S. fleet, declining to 91 by 2016. The law has not been able to forestall other developments that are more important for ship construction, such as the relative cost of building ships in the United States compared to other countries that have significantly increased their shipbuilding capacity. Building new ships in American shipyards can be up to five times as much as the cost of imported ships.

Areas hit by natural disasters and in need of supplies must deal with the dual constraints of limited Jones-eligible U.S. fleet and the exclusion of foreign-flagged vehicles unless a waiver is granted.

The temporary waiver was a positive step that made it easier for the places grappling with the damage from the hurricane. But the road to recovery will be long and arduous for many of the affected areas, and the waiver lasted only one week. While timeliness and bringing more resources to bear are an important part of the response, shipping costs will be an important component influencing the degree to which some of these places will be able to recover.

Unfortunately, the Jones Act also increases shipping costs. In addition to the differences in costs of constructing the ships themselves, the Jones Act has led to substantial differences in related labor costs. One report from United States Maritime Administration found that U.S. labor costs were 5.5 times greater than labor costs for foreign-flag vessels. Part of this is due to the difference in wages, as U.S. ship and wage crew salaries almost doubled in real terms from 2000 to 2013. Another component is crew size requirements, which for U.S.-flag vessels are dictated by a statute “dat[ing] back to 1915, when vessels were powered by steam boilers and turbines that required round-the-clock attention.”

Overall, the Maritime Administration found that the average cost of operating a U.S.-flag vessel was 2.7 times higher than the cost for foreign-flag equivalents. These higher costs are transmitted to higher rates for consumers.

The U.S. Virgin Islands are exempt from the law, and those people will be able to work with the full battery of ships willing and able to transport the goods needed to rebuild and recover from the effects of the hurricane. The other noncontiguous areas of the United States have all filed for exemptions from the Jones Act, but their efforts have been stymied thus far.

According to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, it cost more than $3,000 to ship a container of household and commercial goods from the east coast to Puerto Rico, while the same shipment cost only $1,504 to the Dominican Republic and $1,687 to Jamaica, which are not subject to the law.

Puerto Rico was already dealing with a fiscal crisis and economic stagnation. There are reports that the entire island is currently without power due to the storm. The higher shipping costs caused by the Jones Act will make it harder for the commonwealth to weather the effects of the storm.

Jones Act waivers make it easier for needed goods such as gasoline to make it to areas affected by the hurricanes. The law limits responsiveness in the period following emergencies and raises costs for consumers. To make it easier to rebuild, Congress should consider repealing the act permanently.

Most of this information was collected by my friend and fellow logistician Charles Hughes, he is a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute and can be folllowed @CharlesHHughes.

Colonel Sam Pearson, USAR, Retired, is a 33 year veteran with six combat deployments. He is currently working on a doctorate degree.

Good to hear the Jones Act was waived for Puerto Rican hurricane relief.