> the time to replace them would be a few years. I'm not sure how you can be certain of that. It is true that the last 3 annual procurements for Tomahawks were

> the time to replace them would be a few years. I'm not sure how you can be certain of that. It is true that the last 3 annual procurements for Tomahawks were 90, 122, 60 [1, page 23], but that's because the US is a nation at peace. Most procurement programs have to deal with the issue that at peace you don't need that many weapons, but at war you do. So the Department of Defense pays both for the actual weapons it buys, but also to insure the ongoing production capacity, just in case. You can see this is the case as the 3 annual costs for these missiles were essentially the same and not actually proportional to the number of missiles. If you think about it, it can't be any other way. The alternative to buy every single year of peace as if it were a year of war would be extraordinarily costly, and the defense budget is not really cheap as is. So, while currently we procure about 100 Tomahawks per year, the production could easily be ramped up to 1000 per year, and probably more. For example, in the 2010 budget, the statement about Tomahawks was: "Continues production at a minimum sustaining rate." [2, page 45]. At the time, that sustaining rate was judged to be 191. Just 2 years before it was 496. [1] https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/FY2022/FY2022_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudg... [2] https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2010/FY2010_Weapons.pdf https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudg...