If the new line reaches full capacity while PATRIOT demand remains elevated, Lockheed will face a make-or-break choice: expand further (capital-intensive, 24+ month lead time) or ration capacity between the two programs. That arbitrage becomes leverage in 2027-28 contract negotiations.
The real test is whether other primes (RTX's Patriot interceptor, Raytheon's AMRAAM) face the same bottleneck — if so, the entire air-defense industrial base becomes a constraint on NATO resupply to Ukraine and allied rotational deployments.
Taiclet's confidence language ('know it's going to happen') suggests internal Pentagon guidance beyond public FYDP language, which means the strategy has political cover to survive a budget cycle.
This signals the Pentagon is moving from procurement rhetoric to industrial commitment — Lockheed is deploying capital before contracts are formally awarded, which means either long-lead contracts are already signed or the firm is betting the ramp is irreversible.
The constraint now shifts from design to fab capacity: if THAAD interceptor demand scales as the munitions strategy intends, Lockheed's new line must absorb PATRIOT and other air-defense demand simultaneously, or one program eats into the other's timeline.
Watch the FY27 FYDP markup in June for explicit THAAD production-rate language — if it commits to specific unit quantities by fiscal year, the facility investment becomes a binding floor on delivery schedules.
What is the facility's annual production capacity, and how does it map to the Pentagon's stated THAAD inventory targets? Does Lockheed have long-lead contracts already in place, or is this a speculative expansion?
Strategic intelligence, synthesized daily — with a public track record. Every call graded against what actually happened.