# Leasing ballistic missiles **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 22, 2005, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leasing-ballistic-missiles/295685 "2005-03-22T04:55:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Grey\_Tama](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@Grey\_Tama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey_Tama)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leasing-ballistic-missiles/295685/1 "2005-03-22T04:55:32Z")
The other day I was reading a general book about submarines, “Run Silent” by Philip Kaplan. When the author was describing the modern nuclear submarines and the Trident ballistic missiles carried in the SSBNs, the following phrase caught my attention: > [@](#): > > In an interesting client/contractor arrangement that is informally referred to > as “you fly’em, you buy 'em”, the missiles are leased from the contractor and > are not actually purchased until the Navy fires them Is that for real? I tried to Google for more info, but only thing I found was that it is not only US Navy that leases the Tridents (from Lockheed Martin), but also the UK. What good does the contractor see in this? Practice shots aside, if nuclear warheads start flying for real, is the Navy (either UK or US) really going to care about paying for the missiles? (especially if the contractor’s offices and factories are a radioactive wasteland) Or is Lockheed counting on the probability that the missiles will not be used, and the lease payments/maintenance/upgrades/whatever will bring in more money than the actual sale of the missiles would have? ---
**Author:** ![CynicalGabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@CynicalGabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CynicalGabe)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leasing-ballistic-missiles/295685/2 "2005-03-22T06:02:47Z")
Remember the great deal the Air Force got by leasing KC-135 tankers? Paying for the conversion from airliner to tanker, leasing for 10 years, and paying for the reconversion. Significantly more expensive (and profitable for Boeing) than buying them outright. This would sooo not surprise me. But maybe I’m just Cynical? ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 9:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leasing-ballistic-missiles/295685/3 "2005-03-22T09:10:41Z")
Just a guess, but: The prime contractor who built the things is (usually) responsible for maintaining them as well. If they have to be taken out of service, or need propellent replacement, or otherwise have to be transferred to another authority, it is probably easier on the paperwork (and jeez, does the Pentagon have paperwork!) to have them owned by the prime rather than have to legally transfer ownership. I don’t know if the OP is correct on his assertion, but I’ve seen a lot of strange deals; much of it has to do with subverting the prohibitive bureaucracy and budgetary rules, but I wouldn’t rule out **CynicalGabe** ’s suspicions, either. Remember, in the military, your performance isn’t based so much on how well your projects come to completion or how successful you execute your responsibilities (and with strategic weapons we should be grateful), but rather on how effectively and completely you meet your budgets. If you have some excess at the end of the year, you’d better spend it, and the more you can request from Congress, the less total dollars the OMB is likely to recommend cutting from next year’s budget. It’s a funny business, to say the least, as Eisenhower all too astutely warned. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leasing-ballistic-missiles/295685/4 "2005-03-22T15:59:02Z")
When the missiles are retired, can they then be used by the contractor for something else? Aren’t a lot of satellite launch vehicles made from former ICBMs? ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leasing-ballistic-missiles/295685/5 "2005-03-22T17:27:47Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > When the missiles are retired, can they then be used by the contractor for something else? Aren’t a lot of satellite launch vehicles made from former ICBMs? The older liquid fueled designs like the Atlas and the Titan provided boost for the Gemini and Mercury space programs, respectively. The Titan (or variations thereof) is still in use today for commerical satellite launch capabilities. Note that these boosters were substantially more powerful than modern solid propellent boosters because they had a much larger payload. You couldn’t, for instance, even launch a Gemini capsule on top of a Peacekeeper (our largest solid booster), as it just doesn’t have the capacity and burn time, even though it carries twelve times the number of devices, all more potent, that the Titan carried. The MM and PK solid rocket boosters were never intended for orbital launch and don’t properly have the payload _and_ altitude capability to orbit large commercial or surveillance satellites, as they were designed to deliver RVs to a suborbital altitude on a ballistic trajectory. However, individual Stage I and Stage II motors from old Minuteman boosters are used in the Orbital Sciences Corp Pegasus and Minotaur boosters which can boost reasonable sized satellites into LEO. Old MM boosters are also often used as targets for ABM testingl and, occasionally, suborbital experiements (transpolar suborbital tracks), and with the advent of “microsatellites” could probably be used, basically unmodified, to loft these into a temporary terminal orbit. Basically, as long as the propellent isn’t cracked or desiccated and the safe-&-arm mechanism is operational, there’s no reason to dispose of a booster; it can always be put to some use. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leasing-ballistic-missiles/295685/6 "2005-03-22T18:47:17Z")
> [@CynicalGabe](#): > > Remember the great deal the Air Force got by leasing KC-135 tankers? Paying for the conversion from airliner to tanker, leasing for 10 years, and paying for the reconversion. Significantly more expensive (and profitable for Boeing) than buying them outright. Nitpick: this has not happened yet. The deal is stalled and an Air Force official went to jail over the whole thing. ---
**Author:** ![Grey\_Tama](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/49beb7/32.png) [@Grey\_Tama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey_Tama)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 9:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/leasing-ballistic-missiles/295685/7 "2005-03-23T09:40:42Z")
So it is all just politics. Should have guessed.