[unkated]

I think that on average, it would take 6 months to ramp up production to double it's normal production rate for aircraft and ground vehicles. It's not just a question of simply running more shifts - the components (and the components for the components) need to ramp up their production, too.

Ship production you can more or less forget about; while you might get construction started, you won't get a completed, outfitted frigate that starts after 1995 by the end of 1998.

For example, M1s need body sections, engines, track, drive wheels, cannon, etc. These components, constructed elsewhere, need to have their production ramped up - contracts agreed to, materials (steel, castings, chips, boards, seats, etc) supplied. And this is just to improve one production line; setting up another factory will be a year or so.

Recall for WW2, the US spent most of 1940/41/42 building or converting the additional factories & ship yards it would need before the massive production started. Today's more complex factories would take longer to set up. Again, starting in mid-1996, new production lines for large items (armored vehicles) would hardly have started production before TDM, 1998.

(Dumb) ammo production might be better than doubled in that time frame, because there are fewer supporting requirements. Ammo sent to China (I thought we had talked about that as limited) would be ramped up production, and probably not added production lines. Smart bombs and missiles have the same issues with getting production for components to ramp up before their completed item can ramp up.

As for rebuilds in a major war - I could see more effort (turret, engine, drive train replacement) being made to repair in theatre, as sending tanks home for rebuild would be a long trip, as well as taking a chance on surviving the trip home.