From the sub-committees all the way up to the Chief of the General Staff, all inventory planning is determined through many evaluations such as risk factors, troop structures, warfare scenarios etc. But, missile stockpile planning is a delicate balance. Many types of missiles and rockets have a certain shelf life, especially due to their propulsion and fuel systems. Although it sounds good to multiply the production cost, which can easily reach billions of dollars when a few of them come side by side, I don't think there is such a simple solution in terms of resource planning.
We have project plannings that have been waiting for years on a platform basis. For some of them, we are trying to mature enough on a subsystem basis, while for others, we have not even reached that stage yet. The point we have reached in the national defense industry is admirable, but considering that our goal is full independence, there is still a long way to go. One by one, we are trying to produce indigenous equivalents of systems that used to be easily outsourced. All this constitutes the most important item in resource (budget and human resources) planning.
If we think of it as a Ph scale, there is quality at one end of the scale and quantity at the other. My understanding is that the priority now is specialization and skill acquisition. But by the 2030s, the force structures will start to expand at a rate that far exceeds their limits according to a regional factor. If we are dissatisfied with this situation and expect a radical expansion of every factor with the same momentum, then we must first of all talk about and defend the war economy.