Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jon Cave who wrote (41493)	4/1/1999 2:57:00 PM
From: Wowzer	Respond to of 95453

OT Cruise missiles: Wednesday March 31 1:40 AM ET Cruise Missile Supply at Issue By JOHN DIAMOND Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - A decade ago, defense analysts were telling Pentagon procurement planners to buy conventionally armed cruise missiles. Presidents, they said, would want a weapon that could inflict damage on a specific target without risking a U.S. pilot over hostile territory. Today the prediction of these analysts has come true. But because of inertia in developing cruise missiles as a conventional weapon, and problems in developing replacement designs, the Pentagon is worried its supply is running low. With nearly 400 Air Force and Navy cruise missiles used against Iraq in December and scores more fired against Yugoslavia over the past week, the Pentagon is now scrambling to avoid a shortage. Before the latest NATO strikes over Kosovo and Serbia, the Air Force was down to 150 cruise missiles carrying conventional warheads. At least 30 have been launched since then. The Navy has more than 2,000 but is using them up at a fast rate. No cruise missile production line is in operation. The dwindling of cruise missiles is ''something we do worry about,'' Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said Tuesday. ''We have a supply now but it won't last forever. But we certainly have enough to continue striking important targets.'' Air power analysts have been warning Pentagon planners for at least a decade to buy more conventional cruise missiles for use in limited conflicts in which presidents would want to project power without risking losing a pilot, said David Ochmanek, a Rand Corp. analyst. ''The good news is, as analysts, we've been vindicated on our position,'' Ochmanek said. ''The bad news is we didn't convince anybody.'' In the 1991 Persian Gulf War, perceptions changed as strike planners realized that cruise missile could be used against heavily defended targets without risking personnel directly. A single Air Force B-52, flying outside enemy territory - as far as 1,500 miles from its target - can launch eight conventional air-launched cruise missiles (CALCMs) from its bomb bay and a dozen more from pods under each wing. Each missile carries a 3,000-pound conventional warhead. Navy ships and submarines as far as 1,350 miles from a land target can launch Tomahawks carrying a 1,000-pound conventional warhead. But cruise missiles, which are satellite guided, are also expensive: The Tomahawks cost more than $1 million each. CALCMs, in current-year dollars, cost $1.9 million. The Air Force announced Tuesday that the Office of Management and Budget was permitting it to convert 92 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles into CALCMs. The $51 million program will require congressional approval. The last such nuclear-to-conventional conversions rolled off the line in 1993 and the last time a new air-launched cruise missile was delivered was 1986. The prime contractor was Boeing Co. The Navy, meanwhile, is seeking a $113 million emergency appropriation to convert 324 Tomahawks to the latest model with upgraded guidance and a conventional blast warhead. Raytheon Co. (NYSE:RTNa - news) closed its Tucson, Ariz., production line in January after delivering the last of the new Tomahawks to the Navy. ''We continue to manage the inventory very closely and we will meet all of our operational requirements,'' Navy Lt. Meghan Mariman said. The Pentagon was developing a successor to the conventional air-launched cruise missile - the Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile - but canceled it in December 1994 due to spiraling costs. Now it is rushing another air-launched cruise missile, the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile, for $3 billion, toward production by 2002. Prior to the problems that killed the TSSAM program, defense analysts said the Air Force was slow to recognize that a weapon designed to deliver nuclear warheads had great potential for conventional warfare. The service's pilot culture also made it difficult to embrace what is essentially a pilotless jet plane. The Navy was less resistant to the concept. Navy interest in cruise missiles was sparked by Egypt's use of a Soviet-made Styx cruise missile to sink the Israeli destroyer Elath during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, according to a Navy paper on the subject. The Navy developed a production assembly line for conventional Tomahawks, whereas the Air Force limited itself to converting nuclear-tipped weapons into conventional cruise missiles. During the 42-day air war over Iraq in the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Navy fired 288 Tomahawks. Last December, in only four days of air strikes on Iraq, the Navy launched more than 300 Tomahawks. The Air Forced fired off 90 in last December's ''Operation Desert Fox,'' using up nearly 40 percent of the Air Force inventory in one strike. For the longer term, the Navy is pushing to develop a new weapon called the ''Tactical Tomahawk,'' which will be entirely re-engineered and will cost about $750,000 each. The Navy wants to buy 1,353 over five years. But the weapon won't be ready until at least 2003. Raytheon is working on the design.

To: Jon Cave who wrote (41493)	4/1/1999 3:27:00 PM
From: VincentTH	Respond to of 95453

OT * Jon Cave wrote: I thought Raytheon made all the missle equipment for the US Raytheon makes the Patriot missiles (you know, those that shot down Scuds during the Gulf War), not to be confused with the Tomahawk missiles. //V