View Single Post
  #8  
Old 05-09-2022, 06:58 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 1,481
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
Good points, guys.

re Cold War-era stockpiles, I wonder how much relatively high tech weaponry would still be functional/effective after many years in storage. I wish I'd linked it when I first saw it, but I recall seeing an article about how stock of old, former WTO MANPADs being sent to Ukraine in the first couple of weeks of the war might not be effective because of age-related degradation of seeker heads and rocket engines.

Re increasing production of high-tech weapons, this article might provide some helpful insights.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-almost-double

From the piece:

"Speaking to CBS News yesterday, James Taiclet, the chairman, president, and CEO of Lockheed Martin Corporation, said that the company aims to boost production of the Javelin from the current 2,100 missiles per year to 4,000 per year, a process that could take up to “a couple of years” to achieve. One of the sites where the missiles are manufactured is in Troy, Alabama. Overall, production is shared as a collaboration between Lockheed and Raytheon Technologies."

So, doubling production rates could take "a couple of years". That seems to suggest that expenditure would quickly outstrip production in a full-blown WWIII scenario.

In a couple of ways, the situation today with NATO and Ukraine could apply to the T2k situation between the West and the PRC. Like what we're seeing today in Ukraine, the West would initially send older and/or obsolescent weapon systems to the Chinese (e.g. Dragon ATGMs and Redeye MANPADs), whilst ramping up production of current gen systems to replace depleted stockpiles.

In a v1 timeline, the Soviet adventure in China would probably prompt an increase in weapons production, both to supply China and to the strengthen the US military for the contingency of a wider war. However, this uptick in production would likely fall well short of "total war" levels.

Lastly, the more advanced the tech, the longer, I reckon, it would take to increase/expand its production. In WW2, one of my grandfathers worked as a salesman for a regional cannery. The US government asked the company to produce torpedoes instead of canned food. It took some doing to convert production lines for the task, but they did it. I'm not sure that sort of conversion would, by the 1990s, be possible on the scale it was in the 1940s. It's one thing to switch from tin cans to torpedoes, but it seems like quite another to switch from making clock radios to making laser-guided missiles. Also, by the 1990s, a lot of our electronics components were imported from abroad. A war in China would likely prove disruptive to that particular pipeline.

-
This is EXACTLY why my war history is stated as being a "come as you are war." My war starts as a "police action" against Russian-backed separatist groups in Poland by the UK, US, & Germany at the request of the Polish government (once they learn those rebels have a lot of Spetnaz in their ranks) in 1997. A major conflict erupts from that police action in 1998 and things ramp up too quickly for the participating nations to get their economies on a "war footing." I have The Exchange occurring in 1999. As a result, the participating nations are forced to dig into their mothballs and the darkest recesses of their armories to fill the urgent need for weapons (much like Ukraine did) as units activate. The hurried nature of the conflict also leaves both military and civilian leaders scrambling which only adds to the chaos. It is that chaos which triggers the Exchange in my timeline.
Reply With Quote