The U.S. military is at risk of running out of its most vital precision weapons within weeks if war breaks out with China, prompting calls for faster innovation and smarter production strategies.
In a high-stakes military conflict, speed matters — not just on the battlefield, but in the factories and software lines that keep the arsenal flowing. The U.S. is discovering that the hard way.
A growing chorus of national security voices, including defense experts and former officials, is sounding the alarm: the U.S. does not produce strike munitions — especially long-range missiles like Tomahawks — fast enough to match modern war’s brutal pace. A recent wargame simulating a Taiwan Strait conflict suggested American stockpiles could be bled dry in just three weeks.
Tomahawks Fired, Stockpiles Dwindling
In two short campaigns over the past 18 months, the U.S. Navy unleashed more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles: 80 in Yemen in early 2024, and another 30-plus against Iranian nuclear sites just weeks ago.
These weren’t year-long operations. They lasted days or weeks. And yet, they consumed more missiles than Congress authorized or the Pentagon ordered during the same timeframe.
That’s where the worry starts to snowball.
The Tomahawk, once the workhorse of America’s long-range strike arsenal, is now at the center of a troubling math problem: more are being used in minor engagements than the U.S. can afford to replace.
A Dangerous Imbalance in the Pacific Theater
Military strategists say this shortage isn’t hypothetical. It’s a clear and present threat.
In a potential clash with China — the scenario Pentagon planners lose sleep over — U.S. forces would need to hit thousands of targets across vast distances. Airbases, missile batteries, radar sites, ports. Most of those are out of reach for traditional jets flying from carriers or bases in Guam.
Missiles like Tomahawks would become the tip of the spear.
But here’s the issue: current production rates are way behind the projected needs. RAND, the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, and other think tanks have war-gamed it repeatedly. The conclusion is consistent:
-
U.S. strike missile inventory would be nearly gone after 20 days of combat in a full-scale China scenario.
-
Replenishment timelines for Tomahawks and similar weapons stretch to years, not months.
-
Commercial satellite imagery, cyber capabilities, and intelligence-sharing aren’t the bottleneck — it’s the munitions.
This mismatch between military plans and manufacturing capacity is being called one of the Pentagon’s most glaring blind spots.
Commercial Innovation May Hold the Key
Jeffrey Jeb Nadaner, a former senior defense official, argues in a recent report that the U.S. must rethink how it builds and scales its missile supply — and do it quickly.
He doesn’t mean just adding shifts at Raytheon or Northrop factories. He’s talking about adopting some of the same technology used to build smartphones and electric vehicles.
“We’re not saying the Pentagon should become Tesla,” a defense consultant in Washington quipped. “But there’s no reason they can’t learn from how Tesla handles supply chains.”
Nadaner and others are pushing for:
-
Software-defined assembly lines that can be adapted in real time.
-
Modular missile components to reduce bottlenecks from single suppliers.
-
Faster prototyping using 3D printing and additive manufacturing.
There’s also the potential to bring in non-traditional players — think SpaceX-style disruptors — to inject energy into an often sluggish defense ecosystem.
A Glance at the Numbers: Procurement vs. Use
To understand just how deep the gap is between current use and current production, take a look:
| Year | Tomahawks Used in Operations | Tomahawks Ordered by Pentagon | Missiles Delivered |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 110 | 50 | 40 |
| 2025 (YTD) | 32 | 60 | TBD |
Even accounting for classified stockpiles, the U.S. is barely breaking even — or worse, running negative.
And that’s in peacetime.
Congress, Budgets, and a Race Against Time
Of course, this isn’t all on the Pentagon. Congress sets the defense budget. Lawmakers decide how many Tomahawks to order. But for years, there’s been a reluctance to fund “excess” munitions — partly because they’re expensive, partly because they’re politically invisible.
“You don’t get a ribbon-cutting ceremony for 400 missiles in a warehouse,” one retired general said. “But you sure notice when you run out.”
Lawmakers are now reconsidering those choices. A bipartisan group has pushed for a “munition surge authority” in the 2026 NDAA, which would allow faster contracting and more flexible spending for missile procurement.
Still, without reforming how those weapons are actually built, many experts say the effort may fall short.
Will the Pentagon Break Its Own Mold?
There’s one more elephant in the room — the Pentagon’s own bureaucracy.
Even with more funding and commercial partnerships, defense procurement remains tangled in red tape. The approval process for a new missile can take years. Supply chains stretch across dozens of states and often rely on single-source parts.
In the face of a faster, tech-savvy adversary like China, that rigidity becomes a liability.
