Trump's Wag the Dog Moment; Syrian chemical attack was a false flag!

greg nr said:
Those missiles cost more than $60M just to purchase. After you layer all the logistical costs associated with maintaining and supporting them, it's closer to $200M.

No significant damage.

The russians weren't upset. The syrians weren't upset.

Kind of tells you a lot right there.
Click to expand...
 
fdd2blk said:
They didn't buy those missiles yesterday. To say "We could have spent that money elsewhere" is just silly.
Click to expand...

Military electronics don't just sit on shelf. That is silly. They are constantly tested and maintained, and when a new model comes out they are either retired or upgraded.

Munitions are a different story, and can be stored for decades. But electronics need to be mission ready, and are maintained that way. The purchase cost is often dwarfed by the lifecycle costs. No doubt replacement orders have already been placed.

So yes, there is a real procurement cost.
 
fdd2blk said:
So the Navy just sucks. Got it.
Click to expand...

The nevy or air force just program the coordinates. Those come down from high up. If the goal was just to put on a show, the targets would be chosen to not inflict damage. They likely hit whatever target they were aimed at. How and why those locations were chosen was likely political, not military.
 
greg nr said:
Military electronics don't just sit on shelf. That is silly. They are constantly tested and maintained, and when a new model comes out they are either retired or upgraded.

Munitions are a different story, and can be stored for decades. But electronics need to be mission ready, and are maintained that way. The purchase cost is often dwarfed by the lifecycle costs. No doubt replacement orders have already been placed.

So yes, there is a real procurement cost.
Click to expand...


So the money will be spent regardless of whether the product is used or not.

That's basically the point I was attempting to make.
 
ttystikk said:
Wellllll.... Lots of reasons why missiles don't always hit their targets. Not all of them are technical.
Click to expand...

It's kind of like putting the wrong address into the gps of a self driving car. It gets to the wrong address, but it got to the one you told it go to.
 
fdd2blk said:
Those missiles weren't "purchased". They were built 40 years ago. They've been sitting on a shelf ever since. They don't have a missile store that you roll down to and pick out what you want. It doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...
please STFU you sound like a fool.The Block IV line of Tomahawks were produced in 2004 They have a shelf life of 30 years and are re-certified after 15
 
fdd2blk said:
So the money will be spent regardless of whether the product is used or not.

That's basically the point I was attempting to make.
Click to expand...


Hardly, new ones will be bought to replace these, and some will have to be shipped to the ships that fired them as replacements. It greatly increases costs to fire them. Even the firing systems on the ships will have to be refurbed after they fire a certain number of missiles.

It's a lot more expensive to fire them.
 
londonfog said:
please STFU you sound like a fool.The Block IV line of Tomahawks were produced in 2004 They have a shelf life of 30 years and are re-certified after 15
Click to expand...


I am referring to the fact the I have heard people say "Trump could have spent that money elsewhere".

The money was already spent.

It's a simple fact that really requires no debate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

squarepush3r
6 simple reasons why Trump is going to war in Syria
Replies
10
Views
687
Justin-case
Justin-case
Back
Top