02773oam 2200517zu 450 991022014880332120220908161020.00-8330-8322-8(CKB)3360000000476953(SSID)ssj0000760710(PQKBManifestationID)12359738(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000760710(PQKBWorkID)10721168(PQKB)10331610(EXLCZ)99336000000047695320160829d2012 uh 0engtxtccrExpendable missiles vs. reusable platform costs and historical data /Thomas Hamilton [et al.]Santa Monica, CA :Rand ;20121 online resource (x, 15 pages) illustrationsTechnical report (Rand Corporation)Bibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph0-8330-7455-5 Expendable missiles versus reusable platform costs and historical data Appendix A: Model assumptions and methodology Appendix B: Data sources Appendix C: Additional cost excursionsThis 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.Air warfareEconomic aspectsUnited StatesAir-to-surface missilesCost effectivenessUnited StatesBombing, AerialUnited StatesPrecision guided munitionsUnited StatesUnited StatesArmed ForcesWeapons systemsCost effectivenessAir warfareEconomic aspectsAir-to-surface missilesCost effectivenessBombing, AerialPrecision guided munitions358.4/2820973Hamilton Thomas(Physical scientist)1007340Project Air Force (U.S.)Rand CorporationPQKBBOOK9910220148803321Expendable missiles vs. reusable platform costs and historical data2908513UNINA