The cost of US Navy missiles and how they have changed over time

11 711 7
The cost of US Navy missiles and how they have changed over time
Start missiles short range RIM-116 RAM


The US Navy is armed with guided missiles of various classes and types, designed to solve certain problems. All these products are not simple in design and also have a high cost. As a result, the full ammunition load of one ship, depending on its composition, can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, and the Navy has to spend several billion annually on missile purchases.



Financial component


The Pentagon almost daily places orders for the supply of certain products, weapons and ammunition. By law, such information is published openly. In addition, the bulk of the military budget is available to the public, with the exception of some classified items. Open data allows you to determine the costs of various purchases, as well as track their dynamics.

Pentagon purchases and costs for various weapons invariably attract media attention and become a topic for publications. For example, in December 2020, the American publication The Drive, as part of its The War Zone project, studied the latest contracts and calculated the cost of purchasing all missiles in service with the US Navy. Almost three and a half years have passed since then, and The War Zone, which has already become an independent online publication, repeated this work. Current price weapons for fleet was published on May 21. In both cases, only the cost of production of mass-produced products was taken into account without taking into account development costs.

The data from The Drive/The War Zone is of great interest. They show the price of specific missiles at one time or another, and also show how it changes over time. Such dynamics of indicators indicate the presence of a number of factors influencing the cost of military products and changes in the Navy’s costs when purchasing them.

Anti-aircraft weapons


Since the middle of the last decade, the US Navy has been armed with the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile short-range anti-aircraft guided missile of the latest modification Block II (A). Contracts for the supply of such missiles from 2020 stipulated the cost of one product at the level of 905,3 thousand dollars. To date, such missiles have risen in price to 950 thousand dollars. The cost increase is approx. 5%.


Rocket launch Defense-PRO SM-3

The destruction of air targets at medium ranges is carried out using RIM-162 Evolved SeaSparrow Missile missiles. In 2020, the Navy ordered several batches of such missiles in Block I and Block II versions. The average cost of products of both modifications was $1,795 million. In the latest contracts currently being executed, the price of the ESSM Block II rocket dropped to $1,49 million—by about 17%.

The production of long-range missiles RIM-66 Standard Missile-2 of the latest modifications Block IIIC and Block IIIAZ continues. In 2020-21 The Navy received new production SM-2 Block IIIC missiles at a cost of $2,35 million apiece. Ammunition of the SM-2 Block IIIAZ type was produced by converting existing Block IIIA missiles, and this cost $1,2 million each. Over three years, the cost of SM-2 Block IIIC missiles increased by 7,6% to $2,53 million. At the same time, re-equipping missiles under the IIIAZ project fell in price to $770 thousand, i.e. by 36%.

The longest-range missiles in the US Navy are the RIM-161 Standard Missile-3 line of missiles, used in the air defense-missile defense system. In 2020 contracts, the SM-3 missile of the Block IB modification cost approx. $11,83 million. The more advanced and long-range Block IIA cost almost $36,4 million. Now their cost has dropped to 11,5 and 28,7 million, respectively. For Block IB, the savings were 3%, while the price for Block IIA fell by 22%. It is curious that the purchase of RIM-161 missiles is not paid for by the Navy, but by the Missile Defense Agency.

One of the Navy's newest anti-aircraft weapons is the RIM-174 Standard Extended Range Active Missile, or SM-6. In 2020, the purchase of such missiles cost $4,32 million each. Now the Pentagon is paying $4,27 million for them. The cost of the product has decreased by only 1,1%.


An SM-6 missile leaving a Mk 41 launcher

"Surface-surface"


The US Navy's primary weapon for attacking land/shore targets is the Tomahawk cruise missile. The Block V modification is relevant at the moment. In the recent past, each such product cost the Navy $1,54 million. Now the industry is asking 23% more for it - $1,89 million.

Over the past few years, Tomahawk Block V products have been converted into Block VA Maritime Strike Tomahawk anti-ship missiles. In 2020, such a conversion cost $890 thousand per missile, and now it costs $1,9 million. Apparently, in the latter case, The War Zone gives the cost of the Tomahawk MST product taking into account the price of the missile being reprocessed.

It should be noted that not all missile purchases from previous years continue to this day. Thus, the military budget for 2020 provided for the purchase of new production RGM-84 Harpoon Block II anti-ship missiles at $1,41 million apiece. Now such purchases are not carried out, and there is nothing to compare the old price with. In addition, the Navy last purchased AGM-2019 Griffin light guided missiles in 176. At that time they cost $127,3 thousand each.

The Navy is purchasing not only finished missiles, but also kits for their maintenance and repair. The cost of such equipment also changes over time. Thus, kits for servicing RUM-139 VLA anti-submarine missiles are regularly purchased. In the 2020 contract, such a kit cost $491 thousand. Now it costs $530 thousand, i.e. 8% more expensive.

Cost and expenses


Each order for the supply of certain missile weapons costs the US Navy hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. Such contracts usually provide for the delivery of tens to hundreds of products over a period of up to several years. During such processes, the fleet acquires new types of weapons, and also replenishes arsenals, compensating for the consumption of ammunition.


Launch of a Tomahawk missile from an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer

It is easy to see that all the main missile weapons of the US Navy are quite expensive. If products of old types, incl. with limited technical characteristics cost no more than 1-2 million dollars, then the latest developments with special capabilities cost tens of millions. However, the Pentagon considers this level of prices and costs acceptable - the resulting combat potential justifies it and allows for continued purchases.

A comparison of missile prices included in the 2020-21 and 2023-24 military budgets clearly shows several interesting trends. Thus, prices for older model rockets change minimally over time - in fact, within the limits of inflation over the past period. This indicates the presence of well-established mass production with optimization of all processes, due to which the cost of each product was reduced to a minimum.

It is also clear that missiles and modernization kits of the latest models have fallen in price by tens of percent over several years. This reduction in cost shows that the production of these products is going through a stage of adjustment and growth, due to which it is possible to reduce the price of each missile and the total cost of batches of the required size.

However, despite all the efforts and measures, the cost of weapons for ships and submarines remains quite high. In this context, The War Zone considers the possible price of the ship's ammunition. As an example, the publication took an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer and “equipped” it with a mixed ammunition load of missiles for attacking ground and surface targets, as well as for air defense and anti-submarine defense. The launcher cells were conditionally loaded with 11 RIM-116 anti-aircraft missiles, 32 units. RIM-162, 40 units. SM-2, 12 units. SM-6 and 8 units. SM-3. The ammunition load also included 16 Tomahawks, 8 Harpoons and 6 units. VLA.


Launch of the Harpoon anti-ship missile system, one of the latest modifications

Such a set of 133 missiles of different types and different purposes at modern prices would cost approx. $420 million. For comparison, the estimated cost of the Arleigh Burke-class ship in the not yet adopted military budget for FY 2024. is $2,2 billion. In other words, the destroyer is only five times more expensive than its ammunition.

You can also calculate the total costs of the Navy for arming ships. Thus, missiles for destroyers of a typical aircraft carrier strike group will cost the Pentagon a total of 1-1,5 billion dollars. To arm the entire combat-ready surface fleet, weapons totaling tens of billions will be needed.

Within the budget


The Navy is a key component of the U.S. military, providing power projection around the world. For this reason, the Pentagon does not skimp on their development and strives to equip them with the most modern weapons. There is a continuous process of developing new missile systems for various purposes, which are then brought to production and purchased in the required quantities.

As production is launched, developed and continued, the cost of missiles may change significantly, which imposes additional restrictions or provides new opportunities. Despite the constant “battles” in Congress for funding, the Pentagon finds opportunities to purchase missiles and other military products for the Navy in the required quantities. Whether it will be possible to maintain this approach in the future and provide all the needs of the fleet, time will tell.
7 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +5
    26 May 2024 06: 34
    At least we don’t have such a problem. wink We don’t know how much anything costs, why spoil people’s mood! The money went into closed budget items and drank slowly.
    And from the article, many things become cheaper as they are produced. Do we have such a trend? what hi
    1. +5
      26 May 2024 14: 09
      The problem with all this math is that these comparisons of rocket costs in 2020 to costs in 2023 don't take into account US inflation over the same period
      For example, cumulative inflation in the United States for the period from 2020 to 2023 was approximately 18%.

      To this we can also add increased global demand for weapons, as an indirect factor in increasing prices for PKIs and finished products.

      As a result, we get this:
      1. Even rockets that have become more expensive have become generally cheaper or have maintained their cost in 2020 prices (which in fact makes them cheaper in 2023 prices), since the absolute cost in 2023, taking into account inflation, remained at the 2020 level or fell below.

      2. The cheaper missiles have become not only cheaper, they now cost even less in absolute 2023 prices WITHOUT taking into account inflation than in 2020.

      All this is due to the economy of scale, developed rocket science and total automation of production, which we talk a lot about but do little about, since this requires our own machine tool industry, which was killed.

      And even the Chinese are not eager to sell us their complex equipment and production lines; they barely asked for a couple of lines for shells, and then figs.
      1. -1
        10 August 2024 17: 55
        The analysis, which is generally understandable, smells a mile away of “economics” and the cheap theses of television propagandists...
        I would add to the list of factors for price changes the political situation and the size of the military budget of the United States, on which the prices for military-technical products supplied to the military-industrial complex directly depend. And all the fabrications about “inflation” are suitable to justify increasing the price of popcorn; popcorn eaters precisely believe in “inflation”)))

        All this due to economies of scale...

        Here you can laugh))) How naive and susceptible to the influence of propaganda even an educated person can be, if his education lies far from understanding the essence of the processes taking place in the economy...

        ...about which we talk a lot but do little, because for this we need our own machine tool industry, which was killed...

        But you can't argue with this...
  2. +2
    26 May 2024 07: 57
    Since the middle of the last decade, the US Navy has been armed with the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile short-range anti-aircraft guided missile of the latest modification Block II (A).

    The latest modification of this missile is Block 2B.
    Contracts for the supply of such missiles from 2020 stipulated the cost of one product at the level of 905,3 thousand dollars. To date, such missiles have risen in price to 950 thousand dollars. The cost increase is approx. 5%.

    Frankly, the comparison of spherical horses is in a vacuum, because by manipulating the numbers you can get directly opposite trends. For example, if you compare the price of 2014 ($998), when the missile entered service, and the price of 000 ($2024), you get a price reduction of 952 percent. And if you take the price set for 000 ($5), then by as much as 2025 percent, even taking into account modernization.
  3. -1
    26 May 2024 11: 54
    This reduction in cost shows that the production of these products is going through a stage of adjustment and growth, due to which it is possible to reduce the price of each missile and the total cost of batches of the required size.
    Or that the military bent the companies for money.
  4. +1
    26 May 2024 22: 24
    If you estimate the cost in seconds of the Fed's printing press, it will most likely turn out to have collapsed significantly. It's sad and sad that they don't have to sell non-renewable resources for such economically useless products :(
  5. +1
    11 July 2024 10: 30
    On the other hand, if rockets are produced 100 percent (or ~90%) from “our own” material, then the high cost is not such a problem: the money does not burn in the “stove”, the money goes along the chain to all participants in production, saturating the economy