>The maximum rate of production is estimated to be 2,330 per year: Three contracts from Raytheon each have a capacity of 600 and a BAE has a contract to produce up to 530 missiles per year, according to a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which cites Pentagon budget documents.
>However, the actual procurement rate for the U.S. military is about 90 per year, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The Navy requested only 57 missiles for fiscal year 2026, according to Defense Department budget documents.
So the rate of production has been low because the procurement rate has been low.
The tomahawk entered service in 1983, in 2026 they only produced 57. DO THE MATH!
This means the military can only have (2025-1983) * 57 = 2394 Tomahawks.
But the military says they have approximately 3000-4000 tomahawks in inventory. Is it a conspiracy? How could they POSSIBLY have more than 2394 if they can ONLY MAKE 57 PER YEAR?!
prompt: rite me article about US only can make 57 tomohok missels a year but looks lik they have moar than that
"The burn rate is unsustainable: The US fired 850+ Tomahawk cruise missiles in 30 days but purchased only 57 in the FY2026 budget. That is 14.9 years of production consumed in a single month."
Does the author think the US can only make 57 missiles a year?
> Do you think the US has idle capacity that can be activated at a moment's notice?
I'm sure some very smart MBA increased profits by eliminating spare capacity or making cuts that would make it much harder to spin up. That's American business culture: focus on this quarter or this year, nothing else matters.
Does the US actually publish real numbers about weapons production? Color me skeptical, as strategically that would be very foolish*.
*Yes, the current administration is very foolish, but as far as I know they have not changed the policy in this area and if anything they would be more likely to lie than previous admins, right?
Yeah they do. At the end of the day the budgets are public, and when the US government wants more of something they don't make it in house. They put out a call for proposals for more of something, and private companies (e.g. general dynamics or raytheon) bid for the contract with very specifically defined requirements. I'm sure it is ripe information for foreign intelligence but it has been playing out like this for decades at this point.
There have been so many disclosures of secret things happening in past decades, decades after the fact. Did they stop doing that? This seems really naive to me.
That is stuff like cia shenanigans not 155mm shell production contracts though. Like they have to put those numbers out because its an order to fill and vendors have to be able to fulfill it...
Which should be a good waking up call to investigate the MIC about their abysmally low productivity. Iran is a good stress test for the airforce and logistics - and the lesson is that Taiwan is indefensible with current production rates.
If US stocks are so depleted after something that is barely a skirmish against 8th tier adversary - a lot of people that have been responsible for procurement in the last 20 years should lose their jobs.
A better article: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-tomahawks-iran-war-faster-t...
>The maximum rate of production is estimated to be 2,330 per year: Three contracts from Raytheon each have a capacity of 600 and a BAE has a contract to produce up to 530 missiles per year, according to a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which cites Pentagon budget documents.
>However, the actual procurement rate for the U.S. military is about 90 per year, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The Navy requested only 57 missiles for fiscal year 2026, according to Defense Department budget documents.
So the rate of production has been low because the procurement rate has been low.
[dead]
Very unreasonable to use the amount purchased last year as the only amount they could ever get in a fiscal year
I rewrote the article, it's even better now:
The tomahawk entered service in 1983, in 2026 they only produced 57. DO THE MATH!
This means the military can only have (2025-1983) * 57 = 2394 Tomahawks.
But the military says they have approximately 3000-4000 tomahawks in inventory. Is it a conspiracy? How could they POSSIBLY have more than 2394 if they can ONLY MAKE 57 PER YEAR?!
prompt: rite me article about US only can make 57 tomohok missels a year but looks lik they have moar than that
Interestingly, this leaves the US much less able to deal with a war with some other enemy.
That was the goal all along.
That article feels like I'm reading a prompt output
"The burn rate is unsustainable: The US fired 850+ Tomahawk cruise missiles in 30 days but purchased only 57 in the FY2026 budget. That is 14.9 years of production consumed in a single month."
Does the author think the US can only make 57 missiles a year?
Do you think the US has idle capacity that can be activated at a moment's notice?
> Do you think the US has idle capacity that can be activated at a moment's notice?
I'm sure some very smart MBA increased profits by eliminating spare capacity or making cuts that would make it much harder to spin up. That's American business culture: focus on this quarter or this year, nothing else matters.
We can just buy them off Alibaba
Does the US actually publish real numbers about weapons production? Color me skeptical, as strategically that would be very foolish*.
*Yes, the current administration is very foolish, but as far as I know they have not changed the policy in this area and if anything they would be more likely to lie than previous admins, right?
Yeah they do. At the end of the day the budgets are public, and when the US government wants more of something they don't make it in house. They put out a call for proposals for more of something, and private companies (e.g. general dynamics or raytheon) bid for the contract with very specifically defined requirements. I'm sure it is ripe information for foreign intelligence but it has been playing out like this for decades at this point.
https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4026238/fa...
> the budgets are public
LOL
There have been so many disclosures of secret things happening in past decades, decades after the fact. Did they stop doing that? This seems really naive to me.
That is stuff like cia shenanigans not 155mm shell production contracts though. Like they have to put those numbers out because its an order to fill and vendors have to be able to fulfill it...
Which should be a good waking up call to investigate the MIC about their abysmally low productivity. Iran is a good stress test for the airforce and logistics - and the lesson is that Taiwan is indefensible with current production rates.
If US stocks are so depleted after something that is barely a skirmish against 8th tier adversary - a lot of people that have been responsible for procurement in the last 20 years should lose their jobs.
>a lot of people that have been responsible for procurement in the last 20 years should lose their jobs.
If anything I would say this means procurement has been closer to "right sized" than not.
Why is this flagged? Everyone is being so well behaved.
[dead]
[flagged]
[dead]
The Xeno Databse game(?) on that site is beyond abstract in purpose. You also have to scroll to the end of the page, not article to “collect” it.