You beat me to it, Stevely
Agree on all counts. We are nowhere near a crisis and to make it seem so is likely to be seen as caterwauling "canis lupus."
Best I can do with impenetrable terminology this time of day... :D
Unprepared is not incapable
Quote:
I am talking about the fact that we were not ready overall when hostilities kicked off... agree that in WWII we were attempting to get there, but bottom line we started with a sub-standard Army and AAF, and probably Navy as well. Doesn't really matter in what respect you're unprepared - you're unprepared.
Yes, you are unprepared. However, you are also not beholden to an extant structure of personnel, weapons, tactics, and doctrines -- in sum, you don't try to make the war fit what you have to iffy results, but you build what you need to the exact specifications required. I would much rather start off unprepared but able to build to suit rather than the other way around. It is what makes me take the maverick position of thinking that the American penchant for massive post-war demobilization is not the bad thing people assume it to be -- of thinking that it's actually a rather good thing.
I know, miliary heresy, but as a civilian that's my perogative.
Cheers,
Jill
No heresy, That's quite sound militarily -- archaic thought
heretical, possibly -- but that's not a bad thing. Not at all.
I'd add that many believe the
10 to 20 year procurement cycle is a permanent fixture. It is not. That length of time results from Congressional ambivalence and on again-off again funding, new administrations with different priorities, low volume peacetime production runs and several other impactors. Given a significant threat, that'll go. The F35, for instance, will almost certainly be produced in two variants, a US only and an all others. I'd bet big money that the 'all others' variant can be rapidly ramped up and produced in plants aside from Fort Worth. It might take a year to hit full volume but I suspect multiples per day would be rolling off the line.
Bombardier could make some... ;)
Huh? How do you get that year? Why, from today's all volunteer force -- just like we did in 1917, 1942, 1950, 1965 and will again. That's why that force exists, to buy that year. We all stuck up our hands and agreed to do that...
Opportunity costs time ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tom Odom
But it would be made of composites and would cost 10X as much...kind of a reverse multiplication table engineering...:wry:
I caught a bit of a military channel program on P47s last night--the true macho fighter of WWII. Just an incredible A/C, heavy, durable, powerful, and at wars end long range. Just not as sexy as a Mustang...
I wonder who would have won then had we followed today's practices...
With modern design tools, techniques and technologies, we can design aircraft with capabilities that were impossible in the WW II era. As an example, the big trade off for fighters is manueverability vs. stability. Todays fighters are inherently unstable, but have maneuverability unheard in the past.
With respect to the Mustang, "The prototype NA-73X [which became the P-51] was rolled out just 117 days after the order was placed, and first flew on 26 October 1940, just 178 days after the order had been placed..." The A10 was 5 years from RFP to production.
Still, I understand the point, and I agree we could probably shorten the design cycle. I wonder how quickly we could do it if our backs were to the wall.
Since you brought up fencing, another riposte
:D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Touché.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Been my observation that many over the years have made the usually fatal mistake of misjudging what can be done to the US and / or what the US can or will do. I do not expect that to change in the near term.
I think that the first lesson that was beaten into my head about foreign (and not-so-foreign) relations, is that most actions are taken based on perceptions, rather on a good understanding, of reality. So, I agree we need to be on our guard as to the misjudgements that might dispose other national/quasi-national/nation-state-wannabe actors to do something that would probably be really stupid for a lot of folks around the globe in the long term. The more America can do to dissuade others from acting on their perceptions of reality, the better for all concerned.
Seems to me that Americans tend to be pretty stubborn when it comes to making sure that what they think is right comes to pass. The good news is, the judgement of history has shown more often than not that Americans end up being correct about what is the right end result. :) Too bad we have to fumble around for so long figuring out the right way to achieve it. :(