This report uses an analysis of historical use of air-to-ground attacks during and since the Vietnam war to assess the economic wisdom of relying primarily on expendable weapons, such as cruise missiles. Such exclusive reliance only makes economic sense if all possible conflicts over the system lifetime can be ended in a total of less than about ten days.
Download
Download eBook for Free
Full Document
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 0.2 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
Summary Only
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 0.1 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
Purchase
Purchase Print Copy
| Format | List Price | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add to Cart | Paperback26 pages | $19.95 | $15.96 20% Web Discount |
Research Question
- Does relying primarily on expendable weapons, such as cruise missiles, make economic sense for the United States military?
This report evaluates the economic wisdom of relying primarily on expendable weapons, such as cruise missiles, to conduct air-to-ground strike missions. Focusing solely on cost, the author examined the U.S. historical use of air-to-ground attack during and since the Vietnam War, looking, among other things, at the length of each conflict and the weapons expended. Only if the United States is confident that all possible conflicts over the system lifetime can be ended in a total of less than about ten days is exclusive reliance on expendable assets prudent. Expendable weapons do have some important operational advantages, but if the United States wishes to maintain the capability to wage air war efficiently for more than a few days, reusable platforms are an important part of an efficient force mix.
Key Findings
- Exclusive reliance on expendable weapons makes economic sense only if future conflicts can be resolved in about ten days or less.
- All the recent major campaigns examined lasted longer than ten days.
- If the United States wishes to maintain the capability to wage air war efficiently for more than a few days, reusable platforms are an important part of an efficient force mix.
- Expendable weapons are necessary for some important missions but are simply too expensive to largely or entirely replace reusable penetrating aircraft in wars of even moderate duration.
Research conducted by
The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Air Force and conducted by RAND Project AIR FORCE.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Technical report series. RAND technical reports may include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope or intended for a narrow audience; present discussions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instruments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality and objectivity.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.