With how expensive modern equipment is, especially stealth fighter jets there is no way any country could ramp up production of modern high tech equip...

With how expensive modern equipment is, especially stealth fighter jets there is no way any country could ramp up production of modern high tech equipment like we could in WW2?

Like we couldn’t ramp up production of F-35s to tens of thousands of units a year could we? The Russians can’t even build a dozen su-57s

Warfare can’t possibly be on the scale it was in WW2 which I assume is a good thing. I’m just worried a conflict with a near peer would be so stagnant for both sides

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The whole point of the F-35 costing tens of millions of dollars per unit is that each plane can do the work of what you needed a dozen for 80 years ago. Case in point is bombers: you know why we don't do carpet bombing with flights of 300 B-52s at a time anymore? It's because bombs got better and more accurate.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    High intensity conflict such as WW3 will be high-tech for about 8 months before it inevitably becomes a quagmire of M113s and BTRs and tanks with less tech on them because these things are easier to produce. It's also why Russia has the shitter military personnel but smarter idea of spamming artillery.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      that is, unless those high-tech weapons prove to be insurmountable and remain in effect until that side has won

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Problem is that it will actually be high-tech for 2 months before it quickly becomes Bradleys facing ladas and then suddenly it's not a high-intensity conflict anymore.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We wouldn't need gazillions of F-35s. Just a handful to clear the skies, then we can do whatever we need to with (potentially) mass produced F-16s and F-15EXs. We could ramp them up pretty easily, relatively speaking.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I thought the F-35 was meant to be the F-16's replacement.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It is. The F-15EX is going to be in relatively limited numbers compared to the F-35, so the F-22 (whatever ones are left) will probably be the high in the high-low mix until NGAD comes online. F-16 squadrons are currently converting to other aircraft types or switching to the F-35.

        It's also possible the USAF may procure something like Loyal Wingman, kinda changing the high-low concept to a sacrificial/manned one. In other words using Loyal Wingman as a replacement for the F-22 by just being far more aggressive with them than the F-15/F-22 would be.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      F35 is a lot cheaper than F15.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >With how expensive modern equipment is, especially stealth fighter jets there is no way any country could ramp up production of modern high tech equipment like we could in WW2?
    In a scenario where a total war that is both conventional and protracted, wartime production of expensive gear would continue in arms factories but at an accelerated pace. Most converted industry however would focus on cheaper things. Armored vehicles and 20-40ton range. Cheaper aircraft and small drones. Small arms, mortars, ammunition and the like.
    Whenever I hear something like the US Army could save money by making cheaper X, they know that they can only recruit X many people and keep them in uniform so they want them to have the absolute best, they will spend that extra 10mil. When war starts, that is when you see the "cheaper" shit come in to play because that can be created by any vaguely similar civilian industry once converted to making murder machines.
    Picrel but add missiles on to it... yes I know that already existed, that but again and a thousand of them.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Sir I don't understand, who needs industrial scale warfare in a nuke fight anyway?

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nope. For the U.S. it will be just like rosey the riveter. Except she'll be building mass drones and cheap unguided ordnance.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ~100 million cars are produced a year
    1.5 billion smartphones are sold every year
    countries could definitely mass produce high-tech equipment if they had to

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Aircraft are the battleships of the modern era. Big impressive damage dealers, the very peak of technological advancement, but because they're so precious nobody is going to want to risk them. Modern air combat will consist of flying at the edge of each other's range, lobbing missiles at maximum distance, then speeding off before the enemy missiles can hit them. The main difference is that there are more planes than there ever was battleships, so it may make a difference, at first, on a commander's choice to throw them into battle. Though all that's predicated on the assumption of numerical and technological parity.

    We're sort of seeing a lesser version of this in Ukraine, where both sides are keeping air operations outside of drones to a minimum since fighters are so precious because they're nigh irreplaceable.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Not at all. The VKS isn't committing planes to Ukrainian airspace because Ukraine has intact air defense (which they failed to, and have failed to, destroy) and enough fighters to intercept them whenever they enter Ukrainian air space. They have repeatedly lost jets doing high altitude attack runs in Ukraine to the point they've decided potentially losing the pilots isn't worth it.

      The Ukrainian air force on the other hand lacks the munitions, expertise, pilots and aircraft to attempt SEAD against the Russian air defense network.

      Literally none of these problems would exist in a peer war with say, the US vs China. The US alone can recall some reservist pilots from the airlines, train them on boneyard F-16s and raise at least 6 squadrons within as many months.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Aircraft are the battleships of the modern era. Big impressive damage dealers, the very peak of technological advancement, but because they're so precious nobody is going to want to risk them. Modern air combat will consist of flying at the edge of each other's range, lobbing missiles at maximum distance, then speeding off before the enemy missiles can hit them. The main difference is that there are more planes than there ever was battleships, so it may make a difference, at first, on a commander's choice to throw them into battle. Though all that's predicated on the assumption of numerical and technological parity.

      Any Great Power war is going to involve mass air battles, that's all there is. You're trying to normalize Russia's predicatment where their air force is irrelevant/nearly so. The US or Japan won't be following that path haha

      It must suck to be russian or chinese or indian, and think that eveyrone is going to play nice with you. Instead you're going to get shock and awe until you give up or go nuke or starve or directly die. India needs a cleansing anyway.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        "x are obsolete"/"x is the modern battleships/steamship/trench warfare" is the classic cope used by people who don't want to think imaginatively about how war works.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Like we couldn’t ramp up production of F-35s to tens of thousands of units a year could we?
    Why would we? Our air forces already kick the shit out of any potential enemies. We have thousands of aircraft. Some of these shithole countries have maybe a dozen fighter jets.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Like we couldn’t ramp up production of F-35s to tens of thousands of units a year could we?
    Yes.

    It wouldn't be easy, but the military coordinates with auto manufacturers and others regularly to make sure this can happen. You would be surprised how quickly we can build things if we absolutely, positively need to.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/24/we-went-inside-the-gm-plant-making-coronavirus-face-masks-heres-what-it-looked-like.html

    Admittedly, masks aren't airplanes, but production isn't all that different when you get into the grand scheme of things; it's sourcing the components that's hard. Incidentally, that's why automakers used to build the entire car themselves.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Those things are infinitely simpler than advanced military equipment, which have a lead time measured in years for parts because they are so narrow use and the suppliers who make them relatively small.

      Using the AIM-54 Phoenix as an example, this was a missile the navy projected to have extremely high usage in war time, but also found to be basically impossible to ramp up in production in case of war. Lead time for the AIM-54 was 2 years, meaning that if you wanted to shift the AIM-54 production line to 3 shifts, you need to have told the suppliers to go to 3 shifts 2 years ago. There are very few part substitutions that can be made. So the only way was to run the line at a moderate pace and stockpile large amount of missiles, to the tune of ~2000 missiles at a rate of ~150 per year.

      One army general casually stated that an Abrams refurbishment ramp up needs at least 18 months parts lead time, because that was the lead time for the CITV and gunner primary sight. The only way around this is for a military to intentionally design equipment made from commercial civilian hardware.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I didn't say it could be done overnight, I said it could be done. Production in 1942 was different from 1945.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *