Good article posted here:
https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php?topic=586212.msg3337603#msg3337603
Excerpt:
The Replacement Math Does Not Add UpConsider Tomahawk. At the legacy production rate of approximately 90 missiles per year, replacing an expenditure of 850 missiles, a plausible figure in any significant naval engagement, would require 9.5 years of uninterrupted production. Even at the ambitious new target of 1,000-plus per year, replacing that same stockpile takes nearly a full year. And each Tomahawk costs approximately $3.5 million, carries a 24-month lead time from order to delivery, and requires components sourced from dozens of specialized suppliers.
THAAD tells an even more sobering story. The system has received no new interceptor deliveries since July 2023. A backlog of approximately 100 interceptors is not expected to begin arriving until April 2027, nearly four years without new production reaching the force. Each THAAD interceptor costs between $12.7 million and $15.5 million, making it one of the most expensive conventional missiles in the inventory. At $15 million per round, a single THAAD battery's full load of 48 interceptors represents over $700 million in missiles alone.
The production-versus-consumption gap becomes even more stark when you look at historical expenditure rates. During the opening phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, the U.S. and U.K. fired over 800 Tomahawks in the first month. That was against a regional adversary with limited air defenses and no capacity to threaten American production facilities. A conflict against a near-peer adversary would demand not just more missiles, but more categories of missiles, anti-ship, air defense, land attack, ballistic missile defense, all simultaneously.
Production Rates vs. Targets| Missile System | Current Rate (per year) | Target Rate (per year) | Unit Cost | Time to Replace 1,000 Units at Target Rate |
| PrSM | 45–152 | 550 | $1.8–3.5M | ~22 months |
| THAAD Interceptor | 96 | 400 | $12.7–15.5M | ~30 months |
| Tomahawk | ~90 | 1,000+ | ~$3.5M | ~12 months |
| Patriot PAC-3 MSE | 600 | 2000 | $3.7–4.7M | ~6 months |
| SM-6 | Undisclosed | 500+ | $4–5M (est.) | ~24 months |
| SM-3 Block IIA | Limited | TBD | $24–28M | N/A |
The table reveals a pattern: even at quadrupled production rates, replacing a serious expenditure of any single system takes one to three years. Replacing expenditures across multiple systems simultaneously, the realistic scenario in a major conflict, would take longer still, because many of these missiles share subsystem suppliers, production facilities, and the same constrained pool of skilled labor. . . .
https://militarymachine.com/pentagon-missile-production-surge-2026
To compare, Ukraine first developed its FP-5 Flamingo cruise missile one year ago. They currently are producing over 50 missiles per month with a manufacturing target of 200 missiles per month by year's end. Cost per missile? Less than $600k. Compare that to the cost that the US is paying.
Sure, US quality is much better and more accurate. It works great when fighting a sterile war when you need to hit one house in a neighborhood. But we need quantity over quality right now.
Ukraine did all this on its own. No technological help from anyone. Maybe we should be investing in their military industrial complex instead of making people like Lloyd Austin rich.
