It's a symptom of the US itself having no intention nor need of fighting a very protracted war in the style of WW1 utilizing artillery.
The US only has a shortage of Javelins because they have sent so many into Ukraine. In the past half a century the US hasn't had to supply a military conflict as it has with Ukraine v Russia, and almost nobody in a position of power (including across Europe) on the planet was predicting Russia's invasion. The notion of literally planning for every possibility is absurd, and if the US military tries to do that regarding a budget, it'll just get that much more flak for spending policies.
Armchair Internet users will proclaim the US military should know all and see all and know exactly how many Javelins it will need based on knowing every single conflict that will happen before it happens. And if they make a mistake, and spend a lot of money on weapons they don't need, then they must be attacked for the ridiculous spending. The armchair crowd can't have it both ways.
> almost nobody in a position of power (including across Europe) on the planet was predicting Russia's invasion
I’m surprised by this. There were articles and discussions on it for years. The water supply to Crimea was sore point. In the immediate lead up to war the troop build ups were in the news.
I don’t disagree that it shows these issues, but identifying these empirically is one of the reasons the US likes to constantly inject itself into international conflict.
https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1168725028/manufacturing-pric...
https://www.ausa.org/news/csis-warns-ammunition-shortages
this whole situation shows deep issues in how the US military does procurement and also basic forecasting/planning