Posted on 09/23/2014 6:37:23 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Edited on 09/23/2014 9:44:46 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Weapons procurement showed striking reductions from last year’s plans. Then, the Navy planned to buy 980 Tactical Tomahawks, the primary cruise missile in use throughout the fleet. The new plan shows only 100 missiles in 2015 and none thereafter.
The reduction reflects shifting investment to a new next-generation land attack weapon, said Lt. Caroline Hutcheson, a Navy spokeswoman at the Pentagon, who also noted that the current inventory of Block IV Tactical Tomahawks exceeds combat requirements. A recertification line for existing missiles will be established to retain effectiveness of current TacToms, she added.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
No argument.
I believe that Ike’s view was correct for it’s time when the welfare state was a very small percent of the U.S. economy and the budget was primarily focused on improving the U.S. and staying out of peoples lives.
Now, however any cuts in the military are just used to add to and increase the size of the give-away government programs in order to buy votes.
Strunk and White would have been proud! (Elements of Style...:)
Lacks range.
Payload is more appropriate to the targets though.
The supply chain issue cited in the article is right on point. The main contractor has bunches of subcontractors who have multiples of suppliers. That makes for a long tail that may not have any raw materials to even begin the process. Of course, there is also the contracting lead time to deal with unless the .gov already has an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract in place which would reduce the leadtime.
Any amount of missiles would be worth it to save such a tenacious defender of the Welfare State. /s
This is why everyone ever sent to gitmo or captured and released should have been implanted with a tiny gps locator, no wasted time or munitions when termination is desired. You know the same reason the socialists in this country want to do it to us.
Perhaps use it to deliver a Kaczynski-gram to Mr. Mohammed.
To quote GW Bush:
“We’re not going to send a million dollar missile into a ten dollar tent to hit a camel in the butt.”
They aren't measuring the effectiveness of the attack on how much damage it's doing to ISIS. They're measuring it by how effectively it's getting the border crisis, Benghazi, and the IRS scandals out of the news.
With things going the way we are better ramp up production as more may be needed should the final and last Crusade become reality. As Winston Churchill stated many years earlier, (i)slam is to humans what rabies is to dogs. Sooner or later it would be a wise decision and a step in to the right direction if mankind finally rejects and discard what proves to be harmful and doesn’t work such as a destructive religion and accept and maybe retain what does work. Well just a thought..
Given soetoro’s enemy islamist leanings and as a founder of the islamic State, I’d say yes.
President Obama makes a statement from the White House on Sept. 23, 2014, the morning after US officials confirmed airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria.
Obama attacks “ISIL and the ASSAD REGIME”—
here at 38:10 - 38:27:
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2014/09/23/live-stream-obama-statement-september-23-2014/
How many more $20,000 pick-up trucks did we kill with $1.5 million dollar missiles?
Boom!
Less than three months ago he was trying to give away 4,000 Hellfire missles.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/obama-sells-hellfire-white-house-hopes-send-4k-mis/
Now he is shooting up the inventory of Tomahawks.
I wonder if we will have much of anything left by the November elections.
.
At least our efforts were appreciated by Assad. Now, he likes us again!
Precisely.
and to think they wanted to decommission this most effective aircraft.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.