The rate at which the U.S. military has used the Tomahawk missiles in the Iran war has reportedly prompted internal talks about increasing supplies

Some Pentagon officials are concerned about the “alarmingly low” supply of Tomahawk missiles remaining in the U.S. military’s arsenal after firing 850 of the weapons into Iran, according to a report.

The rate at which the U.S. military has used the Tomahawk missiles in President Donald Trump’s war in Iran, now in its fourth week, has prompted internal talks about increasing supplies, according to The Washington Post.

U.S. officials told the newspaper that the number of Tomahawks left in the Middle East was “alarmingly low.” Another official told the outlet that the U.S. supply of Tomahawks was closing in on “Winchester,” military slang that means almost out of ammunition.

  • some_designer_dude@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I cannot imagine there’s actually $1.3M of anything in these missiles. They’re probably a few grand and then about $1.3M of mark-up.

    • BillCheddar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 hours ago

      It’s a missile that you can fire from one country and hit a specific building in another country.

      Can’t just go out and put some Playstation parts and TNT into a tube and call it good. A million+ per missile makes sense.

    • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      24 hours ago

      It’s not just what’s inside them. It’s the entire process of making them. There are a lot of people involved that all want to be paid for their work.

      Ofc the price you sell them for is higher than the cost of making them. But they’re still very expensive to make.

    • Mantzy81@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      As a former Gov contractor who now works for gov, yes. Price always goes up for government contracts.

        • Mantzy81@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 hour ago

          Yes, and no. It can be great tech but it’ll cost an extra 30% on top because Big G is paying.

          Also true in government, if you don’t spend the entirety of your budget that’s been assigned to you, you clearly would never ever need it, so finance will take it away next year when you DID need it. So it’s easier to spend the entirety every year just in case you need that amount the next year. It’s dumb and annoying even as a government worker.