New reports are detailing the woes of a half-billion-dollar plan the U.S. Army undertook in 2024, to respond to depleted stockpiles of artillery shells … one described as "high risk” that - let’s just say - didn’t exactly live up to expectations.
In 2024, after sending shells to Ukraine, the Army tasked an existing ammunition plant in Mesquite, Texas with producing 30,000 M795 High Explosive 155 mm shells each month by October 2025. But a 2026 report, recently issued by the DoD’s Inspector General, said that the plant hadn’t produced a single shell in two years of operation.
And there’s a reason. While the plant’s operator was not officially identified in the DoD report, Task & Purpose says it matches the description of a contract awarded to General Dynamics.
And while General Dynamics has a longstanding history of government work, this particular application was labeled high risk for a reason: the DoD says factory leaders attempted to create a production line by converting old machines that were used for previous artillery production – namely, those machines used for M107 shells, an older 155 mm round that the M795 replaced.
But according to Task & Purpose, there are key differences, including the fact that the M795 “can fire about 6 kilometers farther than the M107 carrying a more powerful explosive charge.”
Ultimately the contractor’s plan to adapt the M107 metal part production equipment failed and the plant was unable to produce acceptable parts, resulting in an order from the Army for the factory to cease operations.
It was offline from October 2025 until at least April 2026, according to the Pentagon watchdog.
The report, released July 9th, contends that the military’s goal was to produce 100,000 units of the 155mm rounds per month. But without the Mesquite plant, the Army is meeting only 71% of the production objectives.
The report went on to add that "the Army's expenditure of $469 million to establish the Mesquite facility could have been used to address other Army or [Department of Defense] priorities."
It recommended the Army review whether the contract was appropriately issued and, also, whether the Department could recoup any funds.
