Warranty returns?

---

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador

The nightmare of every company. Usually it is just a turn it off and back on issue.

"Hello, my Mother of All Bombs failed to detonate"

"Did you plug it in?"

"Yes"

"Did you turn it on?"

"Ah yes, that's the prob ..." <BOOM>

That sounds like me when I was in the Air Force. I started doing a post flight check on a KC-135R and the engines had only been shut down for a couple of minutes and I touched the exhaust on the #3 engine. I am the smartest!

Well, at least you probably only did it once.... You did only do it once right?

There is probably more money (profit) in research and development of new weapon systems, than is producing more of existing systems.

I suspect that is especially true of US companies, because we expect to lose fewer aircraft, tanks, etc.

Open war, might mean a higher demand for bullets, missiles, and bombs, but those are more of a commodity item, and probably have a lower profit margin.

We don't build a certain number of aircraft, tanks, and ships, and then only replace them if they crash (or are destroyed in a way). There is a schedule of upgrades and eventual replacement. The threat of war is great for weapons companies.

So the replacement of the cruise missiles shot at Syria cost the producer money?

No, they will make some profit on those missiles (assuming that they are replaced 1 for 1), but the profit margin on those is probably smaller than on producing another F-35, and the $5,900,000 (wild guess) that is spent replacing them, comes out of the same budget to buy more F-35's, or design the next generation fighter or missile. So, having to spend money replacing (lower profit) stuff in wartime, can mean lower total profits in the long term.

Ok, I see you there. A problem I am seeing you are thinking only about big budget items, aircraft and ships, and not looking at guns, bullets, butter, clothes, tents, fuel, small arms, artillery, transportation, civilian contracts, medical, housing, training, recruiting and the endless little things.

I don't think that makes sense.

Any data to back up that theory?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

What do you not understand?

Facts to back up the theory that weapons companies make money off of war? All the information. I can't find information saying that companies lose money during war.

I was asking efernand, who seems to be saying the opposite. I agree with you, defense manufacturers profit from war. I don't know what the profit margins are on cruise missiles versus developing a new stealth fighter. But development itself costs a LOT of money, and isn't always rewarded with a contract. Not only that, stealth fighters can be shot down and ships can sink, and if/when that happens, they need to be replaced, too. Also, development of new weapons systems doesn't necessarily stop during war. Etc and so on.

Basically, I'm pretty sure those who supply the weapons used and consumed in war profit quite well during war.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Sorry. I read it too quick and didn't see who you where responding to. My bad.

I suppose it depends on if the client is still around at the end of the conflict to pay the invoices.

---

Swim. Overbike. Walk.

For the case of being on the wrong side, it has always been good business practices in that field to COD or have insurance of some sort to cover potential losses.