In a move that signals growing anxiety within the U.S. defense establishment, the Pentagon has launched an ambitious plan to double, and in some cases even quadruple, its missile and munitions production. This dramatic acceleration comes amid mounting concerns over the possibility of a future armed conflict with China and the realization that current American stockpiles may not be sufficient for such a scenario, as detailed by The Wall Street Journal and other major outlets.
On September 30, 2025, Pentagon officials confirmed that a sweeping initiative is underway to bolster U.S. military readiness in the Indo-Pacific region. The strategy is as much about catching up as it is about getting ahead: military leaders and major defense contractors are scrambling to expand manufacturing capacity, modernize aging factories, and overhaul supply chains to meet what they see as unprecedented demand.
"The Pentagon is pushing weapons manufacturers to quadruple missile production to counter China," The Telegraph reported, highlighting the sense of urgency among senior defense figures. The push has taken the form of high-level meetings between Pentagon leaders and the heads of America's largest weapons firms. According to The Wall Street Journal, Deputy Defense Secretary Steve Feinberg has taken a particularly hands-on role, personally calling company executives each week as part of the so-called Munitions Acceleration Council. The council, established to fast-track the ramp-up, is overseeing an accelerated schedule that would see a 2.5 times increase in output within 6, 18, and 24 months.
The Pentagon's focus is on a set of 12 critical weapons, including the much-vaunted Patriot surface-to-air missiles, Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASMs), Standard Missile-6 (SM-6), Precision Strike Missiles (PrSMs), and Joint Air-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSMs). The goal for the Patriot missile alone is staggering: nearly 2,000 units annually, which is about four times the current rate. Lockheed Martin, the primary manufacturer, has already received nearly $10 billion in contracts for PAC-3 missiles spanning fiscal years 2024 to 2026.
Lockheed, for its part, says it is "exploring future investments in missile production and expects to deliver Patriots above capacity for several years." Boeing, another key player, has just completed a 35,000-square-foot expansion of its Huntsville, Alabama factory to meet demand for seeker missiles.
But the Pentagon's ambitions face significant hurdles. According to The Telegraph, some defense industry experts doubt that the government’s aggressive timetable can be met without "tens of billions of dollars more in federal spending." The Trump administration has already earmarked an extra $25 billion in munitions funding over five years, yet manufacturers remain wary. Christopher Calio, CEO of defense giant RTX, told Pentagon officials in July that while his company was "ready to increase production," it needed binding commitments to buy munitions. "Signalling the demand strength of these critical munitions to the supply base with program of record extensions… and funding to support is required," Calio explained.
Tom Karako, a munitions expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, put it more bluntly: "Companies don’t build things on spec. You wait for the government to put them on contract. There needs to be an expression of support with money. It can’t just be words."
This scramble for more firepower is not happening in a vacuum. Recent global conflicts have left U.S. stockpiles depleted. Washington has sent Patriots, short-range ATACMS, and air-defense Stingers to Ukraine, while also firing hundreds of missiles to defend Israel during its 12-day war with Iran in June. These commitments have stretched America’s reserves thin, making the Pentagon’s current push all the more urgent.
Meanwhile, China’s growing military capabilities loom large in the background. While much of Beijing’s missile program remains shrouded in secrecy, Western experts agree that China is rapidly building a "sophisticated and modern missile arsenal" that could be used to target U.S. and allied assets throughout the Pacific. The sheer size of China’s navy—and its potential to deploy advanced missiles against American ships—has U.S. planners especially concerned. Doug Bandow, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, told The Telegraph that the new breed of U.S. precision strike missiles, recently tested in Australia, would pose a "substantial" risk to the Chinese fleet if deployed in sufficient numbers.
Yet a major, and somewhat ironic, obstacle to America’s preparations is its own reliance on Chinese supply chains. A 2025 report by Govini, cited by The Wall Street Journal, found that Chinese firms provide nearly 10% of critical components for key U.S. defense programs, including missile defense and nuclear systems. In some sectors, such as missile defense, the reliance is even higher—up to 11.1%. This deep integration of Chinese suppliers in America’s military-industrial complex has raised serious questions about whether the U.S. could sustain a prolonged conflict with China, given the risk of supply disruptions or embargoes.
To address these vulnerabilities, Pentagon officials are not only pushing for increased production but also calling for expedited licensing and a reduction of bureaucratic hurdles that have long plagued the U.S. defense industry. They acknowledge the risks involved, from balancing investment and ensuring supply reliability, to avoiding logistical bottlenecks that could undermine the entire effort.
The urgency of the situation was underscored at a major gathering of senior military officers in Virginia on September 30, 2025. President Trump, who attended the event, sought to reassure the assembled brass. “Let him [Secretary Hegseth] be friendly with the generals and admirals from all over the world,” Trump told NBC over the weekend. “Isn’t it nice that people are coming from all over the world to be with us?” The administration’s official line, as stated by a Pentagon spokesman, is that “this effort has been a collaboration between defense industry leaders and senior Pentagon officials.”
Still, not everyone is convinced that the Pentagon’s plan will work as intended. Some see the push as a necessary wake-up call, while others worry that it’s too little, too late—or simply not feasible without a radical overhaul of the entire defense procurement system. As the U.S. seeks to ramp up its arsenal and reduce its dependence on foreign suppliers, the stakes could hardly be higher. Whether America can rise to the challenge remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the race to rearm is on, and the outcome may shape the balance of power in the Pacific for years to come.
