Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: Andri Chadrin is a sergeant and a medic in Ukraine's
Speaker 2: armed forces. He's on the front lines in the Denetsk
Speaker 2: region in eastern Ukraine, and in that part of the
Speaker 2: country the fight against Russia is grinding on. He spoke
Speaker 2: to us from outside his base, and Andri says, that.
Speaker 3: Looks pretty much like World War One. Everything is covered
Speaker 3: with drenches. For sure. People are exhausted, it's not even tired.
Speaker 3: A lot of them are on their edge.
Speaker 2: When it comes to equipment and supplies, what are you
Speaker 2: running short of? What are the things that you're not
Speaker 2: able to get in the quantity that you need.
Speaker 3: You can never have enough equipment. You're like either shot
Speaker 3: on equipment or you're deadly shot on equipment.
Speaker 2: Andre is talking about armed vehicles and fuel, but also weapons,
Speaker 2: including some basic ones like one hundred and fifty five
Speaker 2: millimeters artillery shells, which looked like giant bullets. Each one
Speaker 2: weighs about one hundred pounds. Also black powder gunpowder needed
Speaker 2: to fire those shells. Ukraine has been running short, deadly
Speaker 2: short on these and part of the reason is that
Speaker 2: all of this was largely seen as obsolete. In an
Speaker 2: age of drones and high tech warfare, nobody thought there
Speaker 2: would be a need for such old school artillery and munitions.
Speaker 4: The issues of such things as black powder would come up,
Speaker 4: but mostly as a sportsman's type angle, or the need
Speaker 4: for Civil War enactors to have blackpowder that sort of thing.
Speaker 2: Bloomberg reporter Billy House says that for years, the Defense
Speaker 2: Department invested in new weapons systems, betting future conflicts would
Speaker 2: not play out the way this one has. The Pentagon
Speaker 2: wasn't predicting there'd be trench warfare in the twenty first century,
Speaker 2: but Russia has relied on tanks and artillery, and it's
Speaker 2: been able to defeat many newer battlefield technologies by hacking
Speaker 2: into those systems. So Ukraine has had to meet fire
Speaker 2: with fire, or in this case, tanks with tanks. Now
Speaker 2: the US is committing billions of dollars to make more
Speaker 2: shells and black powder, to refurbish and refashion munitions factories
Speaker 2: in Pennsylvania and Louisiana and Texas. But according to Bloomberg's
Speaker 2: Roxanna Tyrone, this is not an easy undertaking.
Speaker 1: A lot of these facilities, a lot of these plants
Speaker 1: are very very old Scranton, where I visited not long ago.
Speaker 1: It's basically a bunch of buildings from nineteen oh eight.
Speaker 2: Today on the show, new demand for old school ammunition.
Speaker 2: The fate of Ukraine could hinge on how fast the
Speaker 2: US can ramp up some of its oldest munitions plans
Speaker 2: and if Congress signs onto that plan. This is the
Speaker 2: big take from Blue News. I'm David Garrett. To understand
Speaker 2: why the US was caught off guard by Ukraine's demand
Speaker 2: for munitions, it helps to see the plants where they're made. Roxanne.
Speaker 2: You go to that factory in Scranton, Pennsylvania. What does
Speaker 2: it look like and what are they making their day
Speaker 2: in and day out.
Speaker 1: So they make mostly one hundred and fifty five millimeters
Speaker 1: projectiles and it's a very old, very dim building. It's
Speaker 1: basically a forge. It's very hot steel. They have to
Speaker 1: mold and melt into the projectiles. They have to make
Speaker 1: sure that they were forged to the right measurements. Then
Speaker 1: then they have to basically cool down the steel. And
Speaker 1: you'd be surprised to find out that they go on
Speaker 1: these very rudimentary cooling racks that were used before for
Speaker 1: different industries. I think it was they had steam locomotives.
Speaker 4: It's a very.
Speaker 1: Precise process that also it's kind of rudimentary because it's
Speaker 1: people in a basement that have to physically inspect tubes
Speaker 1: that come at eighteen hundred degrees fahrenheit.
Speaker 2: So Billy Roxanna was in Scranton, Pennsylvania. You went down
Speaker 2: to Minden, Louisiana, to another munitions factory there.
Speaker 4: It was amazing. It was as if I had gone
Speaker 4: back decades to some barracks with rickety boards and corrugated
Speaker 4: aluminum roofs and even a tattered go X company flag
Speaker 4: flapping outside. It was remarkable that this is where we
Speaker 4: get our black powder, and also kind of makes you
Speaker 4: think back not much has probably changed in Civil War
Speaker 4: even before then when DuPont was the only producer of
Speaker 4: black powder. The go X plant in Minden is kind
Speaker 4: of the descendant of that same company. The products that
Speaker 4: go into making black powder themselves are unstable, so you
Speaker 4: have potential accidents, fires, even explosions. Just in storing the
Speaker 4: material and the shipping itself is dangerous. It's a process
Speaker 4: that is highly complicated yet not really advanced much beyond
Speaker 4: the Civil War.
Speaker 2: It's a throwback, but it's happening in response to what
Speaker 2: the situation on the ground calls for. And it's highlighted
Speaker 2: how much the US defense industry had moved on Roxanna.
Speaker 2: What was the state of the munitions industry in the
Speaker 2: US going into the war in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: To be honest, it was fairly abysmal. The US didn't
Speaker 1: spend very much money on their munitions industrial base at all.
Speaker 1: They were counting on high profile weapons like the F
Speaker 1: thirty five and other more advanced weaponry to fight future wars.
Speaker 1: And they also come out of the counterinsurgency fights in
Speaker 1: Iraq and Afghanistan where you know, the wars weren't fought
Speaker 1: with bullets. But really the war of the future that
Speaker 1: they envisioned was airpower. It's hypersonic flight, it's satellites, it's
Speaker 1: aircraft that can you know, fly fast and dog fight
Speaker 1: and drop bombs. So this is not it. None of
Speaker 1: this happens in Ukraine at the level that they thought
Speaker 1: a future war would be fought.
Speaker 4: It's been a rush to catch up with the old stuff.
Speaker 4: And now the question is whether you keep spending billions
Speaker 4: and billions on material and weaponry that you thought you
Speaker 4: were phasing out and Marxanda.
Speaker 2: When we talk about the equipment, the weapons, technology that's
Speaker 2: needed in Ukraine, what are we talking about exactly what
Speaker 2: cond ammunitions?
Speaker 1: We're talking about projectiles. We're talking about one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty five millimeters ammunition, sometimes even larger, but mostly it's
Speaker 1: an infantry war in Ukraine especially, and you've seen a
Speaker 1: lot of other technology, such as drones and counter drones,
Speaker 1: but a lot of it in fact is rudimentary. We're
Speaker 1: not talking about high technology here. We're talking about basically
Speaker 1: technology to get things done.
Speaker 2: Sergeant Andre Chadrin explains why those one hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: five millimeters shells have been and continue to be so
Speaker 2: important in Ukraine.
Speaker 3: One hundred and fifty five are more accurate, and we
Speaker 3: are able to reach the enemy and give a clear
Speaker 3: shot shot and destroy the target in not like fifteen
Speaker 3: artillery shells and in like three or five artillery shells.
Speaker 2: He also says he and his fellow soldiers have faced
Speaker 2: some difficult choices when supplies of those munitions ran low,
Speaker 2: most recently when US lawmakers spent months debating a military
Speaker 2: aid package.
Speaker 3: For a long time, we were unable to call for
Speaker 3: artillery support for our unit, because all the shells were
Speaker 3: for the infantry for us not to lose positions. You're
Speaker 3: unable to call for artillery support until you're an infantry
Speaker 3: guy whose positions is assaulted. The half of half a
Speaker 3: year of PAWS, when the Congress and then were not
Speaker 3: resupplied by the US military, that led to shortage of
Speaker 3: artillery supplies that we pretty painfully felt throughout this half
Speaker 3: a year.
Speaker 2: In April, Congress approved sixty one billion dollars of additional
Speaker 2: aid to Ukraine, about a fourth of which is designated
Speaker 2: for replenishing weapons stock piles. Sergeant Chatern welcomes that, but
Speaker 2: he acknowledges continued support from US lawmakers is not a
Speaker 2: sure thing. Congress is still conflicted not just about supporting
Speaker 2: Ukraine in its fight against Russia, but also about ramping
Speaker 2: up production in old weapons factories. How that uncertainty could
Speaker 2: shape Ukraine's military strategy after the break This spring, lawmakers
Speaker 2: allocated billions of dollars to the Pentagon so that it
Speaker 2: can replenish its supply of munitions it's been sending to
Speaker 2: Ukraine's armed forces. President Biden touted this in a speech
Speaker 2: after he signed that aid package into law.
Speaker 5: We're sending Ukraine equipment from our own stockpiles. Then we'll
Speaker 5: replace those stockpiles with new products made by American companies
Speaker 5: here in America. Patron missiles made in Arizona, javelins made
Speaker 5: in Alabama, artillery shows made in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
Speaker 2: The President says he sees this effort as part of
Speaker 2: a bigger push to jumpstart American manufacturing, but there is
Speaker 2: no guarantee that funding will continue. Billy House and Roxana
Speaker 2: Tirne covered the fight over military aid to Ukraine closely.
Speaker 2: How much attention is this getting from Congress? How politically
Speaker 2: popular is this ramp up.
Speaker 4: I'm not really seeing a wave of attention or urgency
Speaker 4: necessarily the predictions that Congress would need to provide another
Speaker 4: three point five billion a year to keep up the
Speaker 4: pace that's needed. Again, many of these lawmakers are living
Speaker 4: in a world where they thought or modern weapons would
Speaker 4: do the trick, and this has been kind of a
Speaker 4: back in time push to a more basic material, and
Speaker 4: it's hard to convince some of these lawmakers. So that's
Speaker 4: really what you want to pour billions into nineteen seventies
Speaker 4: eighties mentality type weapons.
Speaker 1: The camps are very split, right. You have very very
Speaker 1: strong supporters of Ukraine, and then you have, especially on
Speaker 1: the Republican side, those who did not want to give
Speaker 1: more money for the war in Ukraine. And you've seen
Speaker 1: in their own party the argument that if you build
Speaker 1: up to send munitions to Ukraine, you're actually building up
Speaker 1: the industry for the United States, and that Congress would
Speaker 1: be preparing the United States for a future conflict because
Speaker 1: they're making all of these changes to you know, the
Speaker 1: factory floors that would then benefit the US, you know,
Speaker 1: going forward. So you've seen this argument from the Minority
Speaker 1: leader Mitch McConnell in the Senate. You've seen it from
Speaker 1: you know, basically all the leaders of the defense congressional
Speaker 1: defense committees.
Speaker 2: Billy, I'm going to guess that in your career covering Congress,
Speaker 2: you've been to a number of hearings about some of
Speaker 2: that high tech weaponry, the F thirty five and the like.
Speaker 2: Was there a moment at which you noticed that lawmakers
Speaker 2: were waking up to the idea that the weapons that
Speaker 2: were needed for these two wars weren't aligned with what
Speaker 2: they've been prioritizing.
Speaker 4: Not really. Only recently and during the Ukraine War did
Speaker 4: you start to see people float proposed legislation to correct
Speaker 4: the inadequacies they've determined, and they.
Speaker 1: Realized that they couldn't produce the amounts that Ukraine was
Speaker 1: even expanding in one month. I mean they started out
Speaker 1: at fourteen thousand, one hundred and fifty five millimeters projectiles
Speaker 1: a month, and their aim is to get to one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand a month by the end of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 2: Roxande. As all of this work is underway, to replenish
Speaker 2: this stockpile takes time. As you've laid out what's happening
Speaker 2: on a more short term basis.
Speaker 1: The US is obviously ramped up production in Scranton. They
Speaker 1: have three shifts, you know, seven days a week, so
Speaker 1: they hired more people. You now have about three hundred
Speaker 1: people working in Scranton, which by the way, also has
Speaker 1: a minimum wage of seven to twenty five and general
Speaker 1: dynamics that planned they pay a lot more, so it
Speaker 1: is definitely a coveted place to work. They also opened
Speaker 1: up a new facility in Texas in Mesquite, Texas, the
Speaker 1: rodeo capital of the US, and they have another factory
Speaker 1: in Canada actually that would also make the steelcasings. In
Speaker 1: the meantime, they've also ramped up work in Iowa where
Speaker 1: they do the explosive fill, and they're also very soon
Speaker 1: will be opening more facilities, one in Arkansas and one
Speaker 1: in Kansas. And they have gotten to a point where
Speaker 1: now they are producing about thirty five thousand, one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty five millimeter projectiles a month, and they're ramping
Speaker 1: up quickly, and they're expecting to get about sixty eight
Speaker 1: thousand very early next year and then finally go up
Speaker 1: to one hundred thousand by the end of twenty twenty five.
Speaker 1: But what it takes, though, it takes a lot of
Speaker 1: Congressional attention, and it takes a lot of money. We're
Speaker 1: talking about at least five billion dollars to make all
Speaker 1: of these improvements to buy some of this munition. But
Speaker 1: in the long term they will still need a lot
Speaker 1: of congressional dedication and attention to be able to keep
Speaker 1: producing these munitions at a rapid pace and to keep
Speaker 1: buying them.
Speaker 2: If Congress doesn't keep approving the money for this, these
Speaker 2: weapons will dry up. Is it a challenge for USLS?
Speaker 1: It is definitely in Europe in particular, they're dealing with
Speaker 1: the same kind of problems that the US is dealing with,
Speaker 1: perhaps even more. Or they're trying to ramp up their
Speaker 1: production of one hundred and fifty five millimeters in other
Speaker 1: type of projectiles as well, and they're finding that, you know,
Speaker 1: they did not invest in defense infrastructure, and they're finding
Speaker 1: that building up is really difficult and it takes time.
Speaker 2: What does the Pentagon make of the way these wars
Speaker 2: are being waged and sort of what it might mean
Speaker 2: for warfare in the future.
Speaker 1: I think they realized that it does take a lot
Speaker 1: of bullets and it also this is not to say
Speaker 1: that they're completely turning away from high tech weaponry. That's
Speaker 1: absolutely not the case. But they're using Ukraine as a
Speaker 1: case study to build up the munition's industrial base not
Speaker 1: only to build these projectiles, but also to move faster
Speaker 1: when it comes to precision guide, a munitions, bunker busters,
Speaker 1: you know, the kinds of things that the US might
Speaker 1: use in a much larger conflict. So I think it's
Speaker 1: taught the United States a lesson that it kind of
Speaker 1: needs to be prepared for all instances, for all types
Speaker 1: of war, and not just react to the war in
Speaker 1: front of them.
Speaker 2: In the meantime, as the US grapples with this reality
Speaker 2: on the front lines in Ukraine, Sergeant Andre Chattern says
Speaker 2: the stakes of getting much needed munitions are high, not
Speaker 2: just for him and other troops, but also for all
Speaker 2: of Europe and arguably for the whole Western world.
Speaker 3: We are fighting the country that is three times larger
Speaker 3: than us by population. Their military budget is something like,
Speaker 3: I don't know, dozens of times larger than our was.
Speaker 3: If you're supporting the humanitarian ideas, if you want this
Speaker 3: war stopped, it's pretty easy to stop it. Give us
Speaker 3: the enough amount of instruments to stop, but to stop
Speaker 3: Russians to reclaim our territory. That is investment in a
Speaker 3: future piece on European content.
Speaker 2: This is the Big Take from Bloomberg News. I'm David Gura.
Speaker 2: This episode was produced by Jessica Beck and Alex Segura.
Speaker 2: It was edited by Stacy Vanick Smith, Tim Annette, and
Speaker 2: Megan Scully. It was mixed by Veronica Rodriguez. It was
Speaker 2: fact checked by Thomas lou Our senior producers are Naomi
Speaker 2: Shaven and Kim Gittleson. Our senior editor is Elizabeth Ponso.
Speaker 2: Nicole Beamster bor is our executive producer. Sage Bauman is
Speaker 2: Bloomberg's head of podcasts. If you liked this episode, make
Speaker 2: sure you subscribe and review The Big Take wherever you
Speaker 2: get your podcasts. It helps new listeners find the show.
Speaker 2: Thanks for listening.
Speaker 4: We'll be back next week.