Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

Page 1270 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,124
45,147
136
Current systems require specialized components, especially semiconductors. So, you just can't take a Ford plant and convert it over to military production as was the case in WWII. In addition, we are no longer the industrial giant that we were back then.

Anyway, all these figure on conventional army weapons belies the fact that our strategy is to achieve total air dominance, bomb the hell out important target with fighters and then send in the army, if need be. If we are just looking to degrade a countries military - and maybe bag some HVTs, the Airforce and Navy + SOCOM forces can get that done. For instance - why would we want to put boots on the ground in Iran. Why would we want to be stuck there for years?

Yeah the depth of our missile magazines and having the components on hand to surge production of some items is going to be way more important than making more planes. This applies to offensive munitions and defensive ones as well.

This is why there is a lot of pressure to move missiles into multi-year procurements to secure stocks and keep expanded manufacturing lines warm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brovane

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,124
45,147
136
How many of these ammo types would the U.S. want to replenish? Seems like the complex would be chasing new shinies.

Most of them. We are tapping wartime reserves. Though iterative upgrades that were already happening are part of what the Pentagon will be buying to replace what we've sent (new 155mm shells for ERCA, ER GMLRS, PrSM, etc).

That chart doesn't seem accurate anyway. For example we've funded 155mm ammo production expansion that will reach a maximum of 1.2M shells per year in FY25. We've already exceeded the "surge" rate listed. Stinger also isn't 350yr max, they're going to 720yr in FY25 too and working on a replacement system.
 
Last edited:

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
17,273
16,494
146
I asked this before in this thread somewhere. Does the US have the capacity and will to go into 40s type defense production should it become necessary? Do we still have the manufacturing facilities to start pumping out tanks, artillery, ships, planes and other munitions monthly?
I bet we could get 80% of WW2 manufacturing of WW2 things in a year or so. The problem is, we don't use 40's style equipment anymore. If you tried to start cranking out 10k tanks/mo or whatever you're going to hit a brick wall with advanced components on everything. Those fuckers are expensive to build new lines for, so we don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,113
136
Its that old horses and bayonets argument again.

Drones. You want to build drones. Not tanks.
Well, tanks still have a role. But yes, we need *a lot* more drones. We are working on it, and this war will drill the point home.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,113
136
This is why there is a lot of pressure to move missiles into multi-year procurements to secure stocks and keep expanded manufacturing lines warm.
That is smart, so long as the capacity of a given plant far exceeds the annual procurement rate (surge capacity). FYI - I recall a budget line (many years ago) for 24 F-14s @ $1B. The next year it was 12 F-14s @ $1B. Costs a lot just to keep factories 'warm' and maintain a skilled workforce.

Oh, and no JIT. US military needs to ante-up so that manufactures can stockpile key components with long lead times.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: hal2kilo

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
40,529
10,011
136
Not at anywhere near WW2 levels, no.

And I too wonder if we'd be able to agree on that type of path if the need ever arose and we were faced with such a similar situation.
I don't think another world war can happen. We've moved beyond that era, which was the first 1/2 of the 20th century. Nuclear weapons have made all out war impossible. This has an upside and a downside. Upside is you don't have your economies going full throttle feeding the war machine. Downside is the threat of nuclear destruction, in particular M.A.D. Also, the threats associated with nuclear proliferation are major problems.
 
Last edited:

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,679
8,223
136
All it will take is for some megalomaniacal fascist like Donald Trump to seize the gov't like his supporters and enablers want him to and convincing him that if we strike against Russia and China first he and his cohorts will rule the world. A not much worse version of what Georgie "I am the decider" Bush and his neocon henchmen put together back in the 90's as it were.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
40,529
10,011
136
All it will take is for some megalomaniacal fascist like Donald Trump to seize the gov't like his supporters and enablers want him to and convincing him that if we strike against Russia and China first he and his cohorts will rule the world. A not much worse version of what Georgie "I am the decider" Bush and his neocon henchmen put together back in the 90's as it were.
I think Trump's legacy if he were to come into power again would be the dismantling of the government. He'd leave it in a complete shambles if he could. He's Putin's wet dream.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,124
45,147
136
Pics of the expended engine sections appeared on Telegram which they said were intercepted. However neither was damaged and the payload/guidance segments were strangely missing…almost as if they deployed on target lol.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
25,773
12,093
136
That is smart, so long as the capacity of a given plant far exceeds the annual procurement rate (surge capacity). FYI - I recall a budget line (many years ago) for 24 F-14s @ $1B. The next year it was 12 F-14s @ $1B. Costs a lot just to keep factories 'warm' and maintain a skilled workforce.

Oh, and no JIT. US military needs to ante-up so that manufactures can stockpile key components with long lead times.
JIT was a curse word to me. They tried to make me throw away old stuff just because it was old. Yea, and it was obsolete, but still needed. Programs delayed by years due to ridiculous lead times for product because nobody keeps any surplus on hand because the giant brain people know better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pcgeek11 and Ajay