4 ms·
You think the expense of a missile is holding the navy back from sinking more ships? Huh?
by EpicEng 12y ago
You think the expense of a missile is holding the navy back from sinking more ships? Huh?
- aidenn0 12y agoI don't see how it's disputable that the less expensive it is for the navy to sink ships, the greater the capability there is for sinking ships.
- EpicEng 12y agoBecause price is almost certainly a non-factor. If the Navy intends on sinking a ship, they're going to do it. They're quite well funded. I can almost promise you that the price of a missile is not coming up in the discussions which take place in the war room.
- aidenn0 12y agoAh, I see the confusion; I'm not talking about the Navy sinking a ship today. I agree with that. However, as we get better at sinking ships, the Navy's total capability for sinking ships increases. This weapon, due partly to decreased per-shot cost, is likely to result in either smaller ships or larger destructive capacity per-ship. In the event that the USN is capable of sinking every single civilian ship on the planet right now, in which case that doesn't matter much, but if we haven't reached that point yet, then it does make a difference.
- dragonwriter 12y agoI promise you that aggregate logistics, including munitions costs, are important in war planning, operations, and strategy, even if they aren't important considerations in individual tactical decisions.