That, and the future of naval combat is under the surface. The day of the carrier has come and gone long ago. Just like the battleship before it, it'll take a devastating naval battle or war to convince the admirals and government acquisition people.
Another consideration is just how much the US spends per missile. Each bit of ordnance in the US arsenal is vastly more expensive than any adversary, and, even though America spends a ludicrous amount on 'defense' each year, the inventory isn't very large simply due to cost. Sure, you could argue that the contractors would just make more, but they won't do it for free, and the industrial base to do it quickly for a near-peer/peer war just doesn't exist. A huge byproduct of the neoliberal policies of the late 20th century pushing manufacturing overseas is that America just doesn't have the capacity to fight a protracted war, especially if some of its bank-breaking toys start getting broken. For all of the antiballistic missile spending, the inventory of actual intercept vehicles likely isn't much larger than what is currently installed, and never will be. Sure, Boeing could convert its 747 factories to make warbirds, but how long would that take, and how many civilian airliner production facilities do they even have? Sure, the shipbuilders can crank out a couple of ships a year, but the shipyard jobs are mostly gone. If an adversary started sinking ships, there just wouldn't be any more (except the LCS, which is just garbage). The mothball fleet would take at least a year to start putting to sea, and with what ordnance? Of course, this is all ignoring the elephant in the room, nuclear annihilation, but it's fun to think about.
deleted by creator
That, and the future of naval combat is under the surface. The day of the carrier has come and gone long ago. Just like the battleship before it, it'll take a devastating naval battle or war to convince the admirals and government acquisition people.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Another consideration is just how much the US spends per missile. Each bit of ordnance in the US arsenal is vastly more expensive than any adversary, and, even though America spends a ludicrous amount on 'defense' each year, the inventory isn't very large simply due to cost. Sure, you could argue that the contractors would just make more, but they won't do it for free, and the industrial base to do it quickly for a near-peer/peer war just doesn't exist. A huge byproduct of the neoliberal policies of the late 20th century pushing manufacturing overseas is that America just doesn't have the capacity to fight a protracted war, especially if some of its bank-breaking toys start getting broken. For all of the antiballistic missile spending, the inventory of actual intercept vehicles likely isn't much larger than what is currently installed, and never will be. Sure, Boeing could convert its 747 factories to make warbirds, but how long would that take, and how many civilian airliner production facilities do they even have? Sure, the shipbuilders can crank out a couple of ships a year, but the shipyard jobs are mostly gone. If an adversary started sinking ships, there just wouldn't be any more (except the LCS, which is just garbage). The mothball fleet would take at least a year to start putting to sea, and with what ordnance? Of course, this is all ignoring the elephant in the room, nuclear annihilation, but it's fun to think about.