Wartime production

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Would the Air Force get more aircaft? I can see upgrades, maybe even several dozen new planes added, but not much more than that.

One Twilight 2000 move that may be possible is the conversion of QF-4 Phantom II target drones back to combat aircraft. They are designed to remain man-flyable aircraft, they've just had most of their combat avionics removed -- and with parts from the Boneyard (or before the TDM, new parts), they might be able to carry men and women back into combat.

Today there are hardly any QF-4s left, but in the early 1990s, there were lots of them, and a lot of F-4s and RF-4s stored at the Boneyard. There was even limited production of parts for the foreign air forces still flying F-4s.

[Olefin]

There definitely would have been an increase in war production across the board - but there would have been a limit based on what the tooling and parts suppliers could handle based on what their pre-war capabilities would have been.

For instance look at the Lima Tank Plant - that plant in the 1980's was building 120 tanks per month - currently that plant is building 11 per month. However its suppliers tooled up to make 120 a month - meaning that very soon after the war started they could hit that number without having to build new tooling. Also in a war situation where you work two shifts instead of one you basically double your production - so that plant could have made as many as 240 a month very quickly - most likely within 3-4 months of the war start - i.e. long before the TDM

An example of this would have been the real world ramp-up that occurred when I was at BAE on the M88A2 and the Bradley. We had been producing four per month of the M88A2 and forty per month of the Bradley (keep mind we are talking rebuilds here not new production) when the Army had us ramp up production to eight per month and 120 per month - how did we do that?

Answer - we added a second shift and Saturday work and had suppliers ramp up as well - and hit that level within four months of go - with corresponding increases as we initially brought the lines up to full capacity and then implemented the second shift at both our plants and our suppliers

And it is mentioned in a couple of modules how workers were getting paid very well with overtime at war plants

And I dont see the US thinking they had it won and not ramping up production - for one they would have been using up bombs and tanks and shells at a prodigious rate - you see what it did to the Italians - that would have been the case everywhere else - look at how quickly the bomb stockpile, much of which was from WWII, was depleted from the rather short Gulf War

Now think what it would have been like after six months of conventional warfare

That is why the Soviets launched the nuclear attack - because the US was getting their war stocks replaced and increasing - and that they knew if they didnt stop that in the end they would be losing

And its not like the US wasnt taking enough losses to justify increasing production - between what raiders put at the bottom of the sea, the losses the Navy took, the need to replace what we sent China when it turned out we needed it ourselves and the pace of the war there were more than enough reasons to get more tanks and shells and APC's

a clue would be that the US grabbed the Stingray tanks that were supposed to go to Pakistan before the TDM - i.e. the units that got them in Europe were from one of the last convoys bringing over heavy equipment - that tells me that losses in tanks were bad enough that they grabbed anything they could find to fill the gaps

also keep in mind that they were deploying National Guard units as well - units that desperately needed better tanks if they were going to be able to survive against first line Soviet units (i.e. not the guys with T-55's)

given that the Lima plant had to have been shoved to full all out production long before the TDM - most likely by mid year at the latest

that is probably why the NATO forces were still capable of fighting by 2000 - i.e. that surge from mid-April to the TDM got enough stuff made that they made it thru 1998-2000 still able to field units that were capable of combat

because after the TDM with the power and fuel issues I dont see US production being much more than a shadow of itself - especially by late 1998 when fuel and coal stockpiles were probably getting very low to generate power

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

One Twilight 2000 move that may be possible is the conversion of QF-4 Phantom II target drones back to combat aircraft. They are designed to remain man-flyable aircraft, they've just had most of their combat avionics removed -- and with parts from the Boneyard (or before the TDM, new parts), they might be able to carry men and women back into combat.

Today there are hardly any QF-4s left, but in the early 1990s, there were lots of them, and a lot of F-4s and RF-4s stored at the Boneyard. There was even limited production of parts for the foreign air forces still flying F-4s.

I can see the boneyards being swept clean of every plane they could find that was still able to fly - that by the time the Mexicans overan it that there wasnt much left for them to have

same with the Navy and reserve ships - we know (canon) that they pulled USN ships out of reserve status and got as many as they could ready for war duty - but that those ships were far less capable than what they replaced

and there still had to be at least some munitions available for those ships that were still in commission that were newer - when Virginia fought her last battle she still had Tomahawks and Harpoons on board - i.e. she hadnt been reduced to just her guns

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by Olefin

I can see the boneyards being swept clean of every plane they could find that was still able to fly - that by the time the Mexicans overan it that there wasnt much left for them to have

same with the Navy and reserve ships - we know (canon) that they pulled USN ships out of reserve status and got as many as they could ready for war duty - but that those ships were far less capable than what they replaced

and there still had to be at least some munitions available for those ships that were still in commission that were newer - when Virginia fought her last battle she still had Tomahawks and Harpoons on board - i.e. she hadnt been reduced to just her guns

I would be surprised if they did not have munitions. When I went to EOD School in 05 during our demo training part some of the munitions we blew up were 8" artillery (as near as I can tell last ones were retired from US service in 1994), and 16" battleship shells (when was the last one made?). Now the Battleships are still kind of in reserve status, but the artillery had been retired for 11 years and they still had ammo for it. The higher the tech the less likely they would have many I think but who knows for sure.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by CDAT

I would be surprised if they did not have munitions. When I went to EOD School in 05 during our demo training part some of the munitions we blew up were 8" artillery (as near as I can tell last ones were retired from US service in 1994), and 16" battleship shells (when was the last one made?). Now the Battleships are still kind of in reserve status, but the artillery had been retired for 11 years and they still had ammo for it. The higher the tech the less likely they would have many I think but who knows for sure.

Unfortunately, the Iowas are all museum ships as of 2006 (never to be returned to the reserves). But yes, ammo is kept for DECADES. We were shooting 155mm shells made in the 1950's in 1991.

[Olefin]

If I remember right the Air Force finally used the stockpile of 500lb bombs they had left over from WWII sometime during the Afghanistan War

[Legbreaker]

I think I may have been a little unclear earlier.
Production would be ramped up, but new technology wouldn't be a high priority. The M1s, M2s, etc were obviously doing the job against the Soviets, and unless improvements where already in the pipeline, where's the benefit of a massive R&D expenditure? Sure, some further research would be done on captured equipment and weapon systems, but with a view to implement major, non-urgent upgrades at a later date and without the associated costs of a rushed development.

Compared to WWII, there weren't all that many new Divisions created for T2K. Most of the units already existed at least in cadre form, and the newer ones created through splitting and expansion of a handful of older units (yes, I know there are exceptions). The military as a whole basically only doubled in size, compared to the 26 fold in the period 1940-1945 (https://www.infoplease.com/us/milita...nel-1940-20111). Production would be increased to keep the units on the front lines supplied, and as we can see in the unit histories of later units, equipped with older AFVs (M60A4, M113, etc) and if they were lucky, any surplus newer machines. This tells us production of AFVs at least couldn't have been particularly great, not unless losses were proving to be utterly devastating.

As other have mentioned, ships and aircraft are unlikely to have been produced in any significant numbers, mainly due to cost, complexity, and particularly the scarcity of necessary electronics. Focus must surely have been on maintenance and repair of those existing ships and aircraft, with perhaps mothballed machines refurbished and brought back into service.

Also bear in mind that the Pact forces were in retreat until mid July 1997. It would seem inconceivable the government would be willing to spend more than was absolutely required in those circumstances. To do so would have been political suicide come the mid term elections in 1998, unless there was a concerted and effective public relations effort made to convince the voters the huge increase in national debt was to save as many US lives as possible by shortening the war (and even then there's always those who'd be demanding the US simply withdrew all troops and left Europe/Middle East/Korea/Africa/etc to fend for itself).

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I think I may have been a little unclear earlier.
Production would be ramped up, but new technology wouldn't be a high priority. The M1s, M2s, etc were obviously doing the job against the Soviets, and unless improvements where already in the pipeline, where's the benefit of a massive R&D expenditure? Sure, some further research would be done on captured equipment and weapon systems, but with a view to implement major, non-urgent upgrades at a later date and without the associated costs of a rushed development.


As other have mentioned, ships and aircraft are unlikely to have been produced in any significant numbers, mainly due to cost, complexity, and particularly the scarcity of necessary electronics. Focus must surely have been on maintenance and repair of those existing ships and aircraft, with perhaps mothballed machines refurbished and brought back into service.

With the Soviet use of their more modern systems against China, U.S. R&D efforts would most likely be focused ECM and ECCM upgrades (especially if it only required changing software).

For the Army, efforts to upgrade the M-1 and M-2 fleets with the IVIS system, or replacement of the older 105mms tank cannons with the 120mm, and installation of the DU armor inserts, upgrading the latest TWO missiles and a host of minor changes that will increase the effectiveness of our most modern armor.

For the Navy, retrofitting 25mms autocannons, .50 HMGs, even Phalanx to fleet auxiliaries and older warships would be very possible.

These are all short-term fixes, but it wouldn't be out of the question for new systems that are nearing their test and development would be pushed forward into production with an eye for deployment in 6-12 months.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Olefin

If I remember right the Air Force finally used the stockpile of 500lb bombs they had left over from WWII sometime during the Afghanistan War

A lot of them had JDAM kits strapped onto them, turning them into smart bombs.

[Olefin]

Leg - I dont agree on the US not going to full wartime production earlier that July of 1997 - given the scale of the fighting and the earlier orders from China I think that the US would have been on full scale wartime production by as early as January 1997-March 1997 - possibly even earlier - especially if China had placed large orders

I can see even selected companies having bought new tooling to expand production and getting it online in time for the war to expand to include the US - a perfect example would be Cadillac Gage - the Stingray I and II tank would have been perfect for Chinese use and could see them getting it to where they were building it at Cocoa Beach and in Louisiana as well even before the US got involved

I do agree with you on research and development in most cases not being able to get stuff to the battlefield in time except perhaps things like getting the LAV-75 up-gunned so it had an actual chance against a decent Soviet tank or rushing some ships by cutting corners or focusing on them to the detriment of others - i.e. if you have four destroyers on the ways in various stages concentrate on the ones you can get out the earliest and let the others go

or putting everything you have into getting Harry S Truman commissioned and into service by say mid to late 1997 due to the earlier fleet losses so instead of being nuked at Newport she is actually deployed and at sea for the TDM - given the war and the losses earlier in 1997 that I can see for sure - even if it means you pull resources off other ships to do it

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Olefin

If I remember right the Air Force finally used the stockpile of 500lb bombs they had left over from WWII sometime during the Afghanistan War

I don't think that happened or that storing bombs for that long is possible or if they would see work

Give this a read

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-tha...o-World-War-II

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

I don't think that happened or that storing bombs for that long is possible or if they would see work

Give this a read

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-tha...o-World-War-II

Not only the issue with fusings, but different explosives were used in WW2, stuff has a much lower flash point then modern bombs, something the order of as much as 100 degrees lower, RE the USS Forrestal fire in July 1967, this involved 1,000-pound bombs left over from the Korean War, these had been improperly stored and in some cases were leaking chemical residue.

Considering that this was ordnance that had laid around since 1953, one has to wonder the conditions ordnance left over from 1945 would have been in!