What I find quite amusing is the numbers that the OP article gives: the article states:
Nearly 100 of these missiles are used each year on average, meaning that the sharp cuts will cause the Tomahawk stock to be completely depleted by
The US Navy currently has a stock of around 4,000 of them right now, and will be buying them, abet at reduced numbers still until.
Even if they US Navy stopped buying them right now, at 100 used per year (a number that makes me raise my eye brows......since when the US Navy does
testing on it's systems, we shot our missiles very rarely. Why? Because they are FREAKING EXPENSIVE! That's why. Much cheaper to use gun rounds for
Still, even if the US Navy were to use 100 per year......with a stock of 4,000 it would take 40 years to deplete that stock.
Then the article says that the new system will not be ready for 10 years.
Hmmmmmm...... we have 40 years worth of missiles. We have to wait 10 years for a new system.
Exactly what is the problem?
There isn't one. It's simply an issue that is NOT an issue, except for certain members of congress and "Military Experts".
Notice that you do not see it's a problem for certain members of congress, "military experts", AND the US Navy.
Those of you that are screaming about this are acting like they are not only going to stop buying missiles, but like they are going to do it today,
and act like there is no stock of them that they US Navy has (they do, a LOT of them), and that they are going to march aboard each ship that has the
Tomahawk system and rip it out......
Sorry, again, I do not like Obama, but this is a non-issue. Having spent 10 years in the US Navy working on missile systems, I'll be one of your
"military experts" and tell you that y'all are making a mountain out of a mole hill.
The only reason to continue to buy a large amount of these missile is if the US Navy were planning on having to use a lot of them over the next 10
years, and that would concern me.