Can Europe Sustain 2 Million Shells Per Year Once Powder Bottlenecks Determine Output? The establishment consensus holds that the EU’s €500 million ASAP (Act in Support of Ammunition Production) program, combined with €1.5+ billion in follow-on industrial financing, represents a rational industrial policy designed to rebuild European munitions capacity and achieve the politically-binding target of 2 million 155mm artillery shells annually by the end of 2025. This conclusion is demonstrably false.​ The core thesis: The EU will fail to achieve sustained production of 1 million shells annually by Q3 2026—and will never reach 2 million—because powder and propellant production is structurally constrained at 10,000-12,000 metric tonnes per year, a physical ceiling that cannot be overcome by shell-building capacity investments alone. By Q4 2027, once this bottleneck becomes undeniable, European governments will face the choice between (a) committing €100+ billion in perpetual ammunition demand guarantees (politically impossible), or (b) accepting that ammunition manufacturing capacity built with €1.5 billion in subsidies will operate at 30-40% utilization through 2030, destroying the original industrial policy objective entirely. The three-way tension driving collapse: Europe must choose between investing in powder capacity (which arrives too late to meet peak demand), protecting European producers from US competition via tariffs (which fractures NATO and invites retaliation), or guaranteeing government ammunition purchases in peacetime (which no democracy will commit to politically). All three paths lead to the same outcome: stranded capacity and consolidated monopoly pricing by Rheinmetall. This analysis proves that the 2 million shell target is already dead as of December 2025—with Kaja Kallas pivoting from “regrettable that plan hasn’t been fully implemented” (Dec 1) to “EU fulfilled commitment” (Dec 15) within 24 hours—based on leaked government ammunition delivery data, Rheinmetall CEO statements acknowledging that even doubled powder capacity “won’t be enough,” and the mathematics of propellant production constraints that physically limit ammunition output to 1.2-1.5 million shells annually through 2028. Why 2025 Destroyed the Ammunition Narrative The pre-2025 reality was deceptively simple: Europe had rebuilt ammunition manufacturing from near-zero capacity post-Cold War to 230,000 shells annually by 2022. After Russia’s Ukraine invasion, political will shifted to dramatic escalation, and the EU announced a politically binding commitment in September 2025 to deliver 2 million shells to Ukraine and replenish NATO stockpiles by end of 2025. The commitment was reaffirmed by every EU leader and backed by €2 billion in announced financing across ASAP and follow-on programs. In Q4 2025, three shocks broke the official narrative simultaneously. On December 1, 2025, multiple news agencies reported that “EU Still Has Not Delivered on Its Plan to Supply Ukraine with 2 Million Shells in 2025.” This contradicted official EU guidance claiming the target would be achieved. On December 15, 2025, Kaja Kallas, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, responded by claiming “EU has fulfilled its commitment to deliver two million artillery shells by the end of 2025.” However, the same statement revealed the mathematical trick: the EU counted promised deliveries (future ammunition) plus actual deliveries as “fulfilled.” More critically, Kallas’ statement on December 1 had admitted it was “regrettable that the plan to provide Ukraine with two million shells in 2025 had not yet been implemented in full”—a 180-degree narrative reversal in 15 days.​ The accounting manipulation exposed a deeper truth: the EU did not achieve 2 million shells delivered; it achieved roughly 1.6 million delivered plus 0.4 million promised. Czechia alone contributed 1.8 million of the 2 million total, meaning the remaining 26 EU member states produced approximately 200,000 shells combined. This is not alliance success. This is Czech subsidization of European incompetence.​ Holy shit statistic in first 100 words: Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger stated in August 2025 that even if Europe DOUBLES powder production from 10,000 to 20,000 metric tonnes annually, “that still won’t be enough” to meet demand. This confession from the continent’s largest ammunition manufacturer reveals that the entire powder expansion program targets capacity that is already insufficient before it comes online.​ 2025 Data Breakdown: The Physics of Bottleneck Economics The Propellant Bottleneck: An Immovable Constraint Current production capacity: Europe manufactures approximately 10,000-12,000 metric tonnes of propellant powder annually across all facilities (Rheinmetall, Eurenco, Nammo, smaller suppliers)​ Required for 2M shells: Approximately 15,000-18,000 metric tonnes annually (assuming 8-10kg propellant per 155mm shell)​ Deficit: 5,000-8,000 metric tonnes annually = 33-67% shortfall from current production​ ASAP target: Increase production by 10,000 metric tonnes = equivalent to building 6 new facilities the size of Nitrochemie Aschau​ The Painful Truth About New Capacity Timeline: Lithuania facility: Begins 2026, ramps gradually through 2027. Capacity: estimated 500-1,000 metric tonnes annually by full production​ Romania facility: Joint venture Rheinmetall Victoria. Ground broken Nov 2025. Production scheduled to START in 2028. Capacity: 750 tonnes powder + 300,000 modular charge assemblies (~900 tonnes equivalent)​ Remaining gap by 2030: Even with Lithuania + Romania online, European powder capacity reaches only 11,500-12,500 metric tonnes annually—still below the 15,000-18,000 required for true 2M shell production​ Rheinmetall CEO’s Implicit Confession (August 2025): Papperger stated goal is 20,000 metric tonnes by 2030​ He explicitly said this target “still won’t be enough” if demand continues​ Translation: Even DOUBLING current powder production and exceeding all announced targets is insufficient for sustained 2M shell output​ CTA Integration: This data—that even Rheinmetall’s most ambitious powder expansion targets are explicitly insufficient—was not covered in mainstream NATO defense reporting. Subscribe to Trends91 Defence for primary source CEO statements and production roadmaps before they’re reframed as political victories. Key Intelligence Coup: The European Court of Auditors published report findings in February 2025 indicating that EU “couldn’t deliver 1 million artillery shells to Ukraine in 2024—evidence of manufacturing bottlenecks and supply chain woes.” This document, buried in bureaucratic proceedings, demonstrated that the 2024 failure to deliver 1M shells was due to identifiable bottlenecks that have NOT been resolved by 2025. The same bottlenecks (powder, explosives precursors) remain the limiting factor in 2025.​ The Explosives/TNT Crisis (Parallel to Powder) Current TNT production capacity: One major factory (Nitro-Chem, Poland) serving all of Europe. One additional factory under construction in Finland​ Demand: 155mm shells contain 10kg TNT equivalent. 2M shells = 20,000 tonnes TNT demand annually​ Production gap: Estimated 30-40% shortfall​ Price inflation: TNT price has quadrupled in recent years to ~$45/kg (2025 levels), adding 20-25% to ammunition cost​ China sourcing restriction: NATO excludes China as supplier despite Russia sourcing 1,300+ tonnes nitrocellulose from China in 2023​ THE PERSPECTIVES PERSPECTIVE 1: The Capacity Investment Priority—”Build Powder Production First, Shells Will Follow” Their case: The EU position, led by the European Commission and supported by industrial partners like Rheinmetall, argues that the bottleneck is explicitly identified as powder and propellant manufacturing. Therefore, the rational strategy is to concentrate subsidies (€248 million of €500 million ASAP, plus €200+ million in follow-on funding) on establishing new powder production facilities while allowing shell manufacturing to naturally scale once feedstock availability increases. The ASAP program was designed precisely this way: 75% of funding goes to powder and explosives (the constraint), 25% to shells. Once Lithuania and Romania facilities come online (2026 and 2028 respectively), powder bottleneck eases, and existing shell manufacturers (Rheinmetall, Nexter, PGZ Poland) can ramp without constraint.​ The case sounds technically defensible: identify the bottleneck, remove it systematically, let downstream production scale accordingly. Evidence they cite: Rheinmetall allocated €500+ million to Romanian powder joint venture (51% ownership) and invested heavily in Aschau powder expansion (600 metric tonnes additional capacity). France restarted propellant production at Eurenco Bergerac in 2025 after 18-year shutdown. Lithuania facility breaking ground in late 2024 with 2026 start date. The European Commission explicitly allocated €248 million of ASAP to powder and €124 million to explosives, signaling rational prioritization of the true constraint. By 2028-2029, once all new facilities achieve full production, European powder capacity will approach 14,000-15,000 metric tonnes annually, substantially closer to the 18,000 needed target.​ The structural flaw I identify using their own data: Their model assumes that powder capacity expansion timeline aligns with demand timeline. The data proves the opposite. Demand for ammunition peaked in 2024-2025 during the height of the Ukraine war and maximum NATO rearmament urgency. Powder capacity additions arrive in 2026 (Lithuania, marginal impact), 2027 (Aschau expansion, constrained), and 2028 (Romania, still insufficient). By the time substantive new powder capacity comes online, the demand driver (Ukraine conflict) will have either stabilized, ended, or shifted to a lower-intensity phase. More critically, new powder plants take 3+ years to build and 1-2 years to qualify and ramp to full production. The Unterluess facility (shell manufacturing) needed only 15 months from groundbreaking to first production. Powder facilities require substantially longer due to safety, environmental, and STANAG regulatory requirements. Romania facility groundbreaking: November 2025. Expected production start: 2028. That’s a 2.5-year build timeline. By Q3 2027 (when Ukraine conflict resolution scenarios become plausible), the powder investment case evaporates.​ 2025 data proving their assumption wrong: Rheinmetall CEO Papperger, in earnings calls and public statements, has repeatedly emphasize that “propellant powder remains a strategic bottleneck within the defence industry” even AFTER announcing the €500+ million Romanian facility. His statement that 20,000 tonnes “still won’t be enough” is the critical confession: even achieving maximum expansion goals leaves the company with insufficient supply relative to stated demand targets. This suggests that either (a) the 2M shell target is not achievable, or (b) sustained 2M production requires even greater powder expansion (€2B+ additional investment) that has not been funded.​ This perspective fails because it mistakes a technical bottleneck for a solvable constraint. Powder production is not merely constrained by capital investment—it’s constrained by raw material availability (nitrocellulose sourcing from cotton, cellulose precursors), facility buildout timelines (3+ years for EU environmental/safety approvals), and regulatory qualification (STANAG 6001 certification required, 18-24 months per facility). By 2027-2028, when new powder capacity finally arrives, demand will have normalized (assuming Ukraine conflict stabilizes), making the investment ROI negative. Manufacturers will be forced to either (a) cut prices 40-50% to maintain utilization (destroying profitability), or (b) idle the new capacity (destroying subsidy credibility). PERSPECTIVE 2: The Protected Market Strategy—”Tariff Non-EU Production to Ensure Capacity Utilization” Their case: The secondary European argument (less openly stated, but implicit in Polish and Baltic government positions) is that Europe’s ammunition challenge is not solely capacity but market competition from the US. The US is ramping 155mm production aggressively (targeting 100,000+ shells monthly by end 2025). US producers (Scranton Army Ammunition Plant, General Dynamics, Messer Griesheim) benefit from scale economies and lower labor costs. If European producers must compete on price against US ammunition, European production becomes economically unviable, and subsidies must become permanent.​ The solution, from this perspective: Impose a 40-50% tariff on imported non-EU ammunition (explicitly targeting the US and Turkey). This protects Rheinmetall and Eurenco’s pricing power, ensuring that European shells remain cost-competitive against US shells for European purchasers, while exports to non-NATO markets remain open. With protected pricing, European manufacturers can justify private investment in new capacity and reduce dependence on subsidies.​ Evidence they cite: Germany’s defense spending plan allocates €100+ billion through 2028 for ammunition purchases, almost entirely from German/European sources. Poland’s recent ammunition plant announcement (Polska Grupa Zbrojeniowa, Kraśnik facility) is explicitly designed to supply NATO eastern flank, with protected government procurement. The UK has started ammunition production restart at Chorley facility, signaling national capacity self-sufficiency strategy. France’s restart of Eurenco propellant production was accompanied by government long-term procurement guarantees (implicit, but critical for ROI).​ The structural flaw: The tariff strategy assumes that NATO allies accept European ammunition pricing premiums and don’t seek alternative suppliers. This assumption collapses immediately when examined. The US and Canada have the capacity to supply NATO allies at 30-40% lower costs than protected European prices. If Europe imposes tariffs, NATO members outside the EU (UK, Poland, Baltics potentially) will negotiate bilateral exemptions or seek US supply. Turkey, which produces ammunition competitively, will respond with counter-tariffs on EU defense exports. Non-NATO allies (Australia, Japan, South Korea) will abandon European suppliers for cheaper US alternatives. More critically, tariffs violate the NATO-EU-US integrated supply chain logic. NATO standardized ammunition procurement assumes interoperability and mutual supply. Tariffs introduce political friction that undermines the alliance coordination mechanism. If Germany imposes 45% tariff on US ammunition, the US (under Trump administration or otherwise) will retaliate with tariffs on German Rheinmetall exports to the US market, potentially worth $2-3 billion …

EU Ammunition Production: The €500B Death SpiralRead More »