Are anti-tank weapons gifted to Ukraine going to leave Europeans short?

Correction 4/25/22 at 12:15 pm EST: The original version of this piece misattributed a quote from a Rheinmetall spokesman as being from the German government. That has been corrected. 

PARIS: The second International Defence Donor Conference for Ukraine, held in London on March 31, saw 35 countries committing to more military support for the embattled nation “including the provision of increasingly capable air and coastal defense systems, artillery and counter battery capabilities, armored vehicles and protected mobility as well as wider training and logistical support,” according to a British government statement.

But with all this materiel being shipped to Ukraine, taken from existing stocks, the question arises as to whether this is going to leave the donor countries short of weapons themselves — especially for anti-tank weapons.

James Black, a research leader at RAND Europe, told Breaking Defense in a telephone interview that the European anti-tank industrial base “not insignificant” but “even if production lines can be increased with effort and money there is an issue with people and skills because it takes time to grow that.”

He remarked that “anti-tank technology has not seen a huge amount of investment since the end of the Cold War” because it seemed unnecessary and therefore did not attract engineers. So “today there’s not a robust pipeline of people in the sector.”

RELATED: No easy answer for ramping up Stinger production, Pentagon No. 2 says

In addition the anti-tank weapons industry in Europe is more fragmented than its counterparts in the United States and Israel. Saab, MBDA, Thales and Instalaza all make them, but there have been no new developments for years. The more recent entrant into that marketspace is Euro-Spike, a joint venture between Germany’s Rheinmetall and Diehl Defence and Israel’s Rafael; with Israel needing to keep a political relationship with Russia in place, it may be reluctant for Euro-Spike to appear in Ukrainian hands anytime soon despite repeated requests for them from Ukraine.

It’s hard to tell exactly what has been sent to the fight against Russia, as the European nations differ in how much they reveal. Some provide precise amounts, while others give an overall value or weight of military equipment without further breakdowns. The French have actually classified their military aid to Ukraine as top secret, while other countries happily publish lists. Oryx, a website tracking the weapons being used both by Ukrainians and Russians by analyzing photos and videos, has not seen evidence of any French military equipment at all.

A French land armaments expert, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said it’s normal for countries to be cagey about equipment they’re sending “because that gives an indication of what they have in stock which they generally don’t want publicized.”

At a March 30 hearing of France’s National Assembly Defense Commission, Éric Trappier, CEO of Dassault Aviation and honorary president of GIFAS, the French federation of aerospace industries, said the “materiel that could potentially be sent to Ukraine is a confidential matter so I won’t tell you about it.” But added that “whatever does go is exclusively via the French Armed Forces so we deliver materiel to them and then they do with it whatever the political authorities have decided.”

With Trappier were the presidents of GICAN, the French federation of naval industries and of GICAT, the French federation of land and air-land industries, respectively Pierre Éric Pommellet, CEO of Naval Group, and Marc Darmon, deputy CEO of Thales. They talked about the necessity to be better prepared for high-intensity warfare, noting that in the aircraft and naval sectors it was impossible to ramp up production “at the drop of a hat” because specific tooling is necessary as well as physical space. This is not so much an issue in the land sector where production is concentrated on a lot of small equipment. Nevertheless, stocks of ammunition, missiles and spare parts should be reconstituted, Darmon suggested.

RELATED: Seven European nations have increased defense budgets in one month. Who will be next?

The French expert remarked that “industrial production lines are normally designed to meet the normal flow of orders. Industries are never over-dimensioned and if they were to get a large order it could take them a few years to build the buildings and acquire the competent personnel, the right machine tools and so on.” He added that in his view “the amount of [French] materials being sent to Ukraine might be a little more than the normal flow of orders but remains within the norm.”

Still, there are some clear signs that European-made anti-tank weapons are being sent to Ukraine.

Questioned as to what equipment Germany was sending to Ukraine, a Rheinmetall spokesperson said “due to the confidentiality of this topic” it could not give any details apart from confirming that it “could supply up to 50 Leopard 1s” to Ukraine “from old stocks from other armies” and that on condition it got approval from the German government it “would also be able to deliver 70 used Marder IFV to Ukraine.” The Marder Infantry Fighting Vehicle has been operated as the main weapon of the Panzergrenadiers since the 1970s. It has been regularly upgraded and the company has a history of supplying surplus vehicles to clients.

Amongst the show-and-tells, UK Defense Minister Ben Wallace told his NATO counterparts on March 16 that more than 4,000 NLAWs (Next-generation Light Anti-tank Weapon) had been sent to Ukraine and that Starstreak anti-aircraft missiles would be sent. According to respected British daily, the Guardian, David Williams, the permanent secretary of the UK’s Ministry of Defense, said Thales UK and other manufacturers had been asked to increase production to replace the materiel being sent to Ukraine.

Luxembourg has also publicly acknowledged that it had sent 100 NLAWs, as well as unspecified numbers of jeeps and 15 military tents.

Black, the RAND researcher, said that “if industry can be assured there is a longer term demand then it might be more willing to invest to scale up its production capacity.” He added that “NATO will be watching quite closely to see how effective Russian defense systems are against these anti-tank weapons and therefore indicating which to acquire in the future.” He added that “there is a body of learning being constituted” because tanks and anti-tank weapons “had not been seen in recent conflicts.”

NLAW, known in Sweden as Robot 57, was designed at the beginning of this century by Sweden’s Saab Bofors Dynamics to meet the requirements of both Swedish and British armies. Thales UK assembles and tests the man-portable, soft-launch and confined spaces system in Belfast for the British Army. But the warhead is made in Switzerland which has a strict military export law that only applied to complete weapons, not parts.

However, according to Swiss media, measures have been taken in the past few days to ensure that “from now on when exporting components for weapons to private companies, confirmation is needed that the war material from Switzerland or a product made with it is not re-exported to Russia or Ukraine.” This would only apply to NLAWS currently being manufactured and not to those that are already in service so should not have any effect on the numbers being sent to Ukraine.

The missile has a stock life of 20 years according to Saab. It is therefore likely that the UK sent Ukraine the first missiles it received in 2008, now approaching their use-by-date. The French expert corroborated this, saying “this kind of equipment is volatile and thus quite expensive to dismantle so it makes economic sense to send it to be used instead.”

Saab President and CEO Micael Johansson, presenting the company’s first quarter results on April 22, said, “We see lots of interest towards our systems and products from different countries to replenish systems that they have been supporting Ukraine with but also increasing capacity in their own countries.”

He later told media that to meet demand Saab needed to double production of NLAWS, AT4 man-portable and Carl-Gustaf multi-role weapon systems and Giraffe radars. As a result, the company plans to build new production lines at its Swedish facilities in Karlskoga and Linköping and at its US plants in Orlando, Fla., and Lillington, N.C, “as quickly as possible” to ramp up “within a year.”

As Black says “demand for anti-tank weapons has clearly increased with a large number of countries trying to buy them.” That demand is unlikely to drop off anytime soon.