Wartime production

[Olefin]

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]

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]

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).

[pmulcahy11b]

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

[dragoon500ly]

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.

[Olefin]

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.

I can definitely seeing the Navy doing what you are suggesting - even by salvaging systems off ships that will take too long to repair to give other ships a fighting chance - actually that is one way I said the US would have gotten equipment home during Omega

I.e. we have to be able to take some of our artillery, AA systems, 50 calibers etc.. to arm the ships you are sending us home in since they are defenseless civilian tubs

[Raellus]

Close But Not Quite

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

It really depends on what you consider "full wartime production". "Full" as in how we didn't produce a single automobile for consumers from 1942 to 1945 (because the automotive companies were too busy producing tanks and aircraft engines) If that's the benchmark, then I think the answer is quite clearly no. Has the U.S. ever gone to full wartime production just to aid an ally No, not even prior to its entry into WWI OR WWII did the U.S. do that. Only during its direct involvement in WWII (after Pearl Harbor) did the U.S. ramp military production up to its maximum capacity.

Yes, the U.S. would increase production significantly in the wake of the Sino-Soviet War, and this would help the U.S. further ramp up military production as soon as it enters the war, but I'm not sure full wartime production would have been achieved by the TDM. This is because modern weapon systems are so much more complex and time-consuming to produce than those in the early-to-mid 1940s. Compare the time (in man hours) it took to build a tank c. 1941 to the time it took to build an M1 Abrams, or a P-41 v. an F-16. I think a more realistic military production rate (by the TDM) would be between 80-90% of total capacity, if that high.

[Olefin]

Let me redefine - what I mean by full military production isnt a WWII all guns no butter production rate - what I mean is pushing the assembly lines/production facilities to their full maximum rate and putting a second shift on to increase production to their full maximum rate (meaning the most the lines/factory could make given the tooling/machinery/supplier base that they had)

i.e. as per my example the current M1 line makes 18 tanks a month - but when it kicked off in the 1980's it could make 120 a month - and most likely with a second shift might have been able to hit 180-200 a month

or what we did at BAE when we put on a second shift when I was there and got the Bradley rework/rebuild and the M88A2 line up to maximum production rate using our current tooling/machinery both that we had and our suppliers had

But I dont see any WWII style "hey lets convert the automobile plants to all making planes and tanks" kind of build up in any way - at least not pre-TDM

now post TDM probably any factory that still had power and employees was most likely converted to war work of some sort to whatever extent they could do so - i.e. as per the canon using machine shops to turn out mortars and mortar shells by 1999-2000 or bicycles for transporting men or small amounts of equipment (which dont need fuel to run)

now I could see individual plants that were working with the Chinese having time to possibly tool up to get either a new plant going or new assembly lines - i.e. Stingray tanks by Cadillac Gage at both the Louisiana and Cocoa Beach assembly lines instead of just at one if the Chinese ordered them big time - there would be just about enough time to get said second line up and running by about August or so of 1997

[Olefin]

hey do we have an actual thread where Leg, Raellus and I all agree - doesnt that mean the end times or something like that is here

[Legbreaker]

There's no way anyone can really look at this purely from a military viewpoint (or any one view point for that matter) and even come close to what the situation would likely have been. All factors, military, political (domestic and foreign), economic, social, etc must be considered before we have a hope of guessing what might have happened.

Only have to look at the Vietnam war period for an indication of how complex the issue is. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers deployed, social unrest at home in the latter years, an economy still recovering from the effects of WWII and Korea, the risk of widening the war, and so on.

For another example look at Iraq/Afghanistan over the last 15 or so years. Not a total mobilisation for sure, but still significant numbers of troops and equipment involved.

[RN7]

Let me redefine - what I mean by full military production isnt a WWII all guns no butter production rate - what I mean is pushing the assembly lines/production facilities to their full maximum rate and putting a second shift on to increase production to their full maximum rate (meaning the most the lines/factory could make given the tooling/machinery/supplier base that they had)

i.e. as per my example the current M1 line makes 18 tanks a month - but when it kicked off in the 1980's it could make 120 a month - and most likely with a second shift might have been able to hit 180-200 a month

America now has only one tank factory at Lima Ohio. They haven't build a new tank from scratch at Lima since the mid-1990's as all tanks are reconditioned. But the tanks are reconditioned to such a degree that they are practically new tanks. Although the Trump administration may start building new tanks even if the army doesn't need them.

M1 tank reconditioning at Lima averages half a tank per day (15 tanks a month). General Dynamics has stated that it can ramp that up to two and a half tanks a day (75 tanks a month). In wartime that figure could conceivably rise to over a 100 tanks a month. If we say that reconditioning takes the same amount of time as producing a new tank then that would be up to 1,200 tanks a year. Building another tank factory would not be that hard but it would probably take at least six months to either build from scratch or refit with the right machine tools and equipment. So with the right infrastructure it is possible that America could build up to 2,400 tanks a year.

[Olefin]

The plant was originally laid out to produce 120 new production tanks per month - but with a second shift and weekend production it could have made more - and given the V1 timeline it would have been still making new tanks right up to and including the war - V2 there would have been that time where they switched to just recondition and rebuilt but would have been easy to make new ones

There was a second tank plant in the US that was building the Stingray Light tank - Cadillac Gage built the Stingray Tank at Cocoa Beach FL and that plant was still there and still ready to build tanks as late as 1994 in our real timeline, with the machinery and tooling transferred to the Louisiana plant after that - thus in the V1 and V2 timeline they could have two tank plants if Cadillac Gage decided to put in a new line in Louisiana instead of transferring the line from Florida - which could have happened given the order for Pakistan in the canon - and if China ordered tanks from them as well

And in both timelines the M8 Armored Gun system - which is a light tank - would have been in production at York PA - all new production tanks

Also you have the V1 LAV-75 as a production vehicle - thus you have a light tank plant (AAI Corporation) in Maryland as well

Thus the US would have had a total of four tank plants for the Twilight War and possibly five - one at Lima making the M1's, one (and possibly two) in Florida and Louisiana making Stingray light tanks, one in York PA making M8 light tanks and one in Maryland making the LAV-75 light tank