It was a great start for sure, and those numbers are still only a fraction of what was produced by 1944-1945. We really didn’t start rolling production lines hard until mid-late 1942. The amazing fact is that is just one service. The total combined/joint force production of mechanized vehicles, ships, munitions, weapons, transports, artillery pieces, and aircraft will probably never occur again in human history. Link below shows the Navy ships numbers in detail.
Ship force levels since 1886
The near peer conflict shortage will not be in tonnage or shear capacity, but in precious metals, electronics, and technical manpower. I would submit we are in a better place now for a near peer fight vice where we were when we started WWII. Especially when we include all of our mutual defense treaties and partners. However that will not be true in about 10-20 years if we’re specifically talking about the PLAN. So I agree that total capacity/capability needs to be increased. It’s also part of the reason we’re seeing a lot of rhetoric and posturing in the news by the CNO and CMC.
We won't have a shortage in conflict because, as has been pointed out by senior government officials not so tactfully, you go to war with the <Fleet> you have. And to the DOD's credit, we're probably generally capable of scrapping with the PRC now to achieve some objectives.
It's the post-conflict situation where we may have a problem...ie Round 2, or 3, or 4.
When you look at both development/upgrade cycles and production times, it's entirely possible we will enter the second fight worse off than the first, and so on.
That said, a large part of that has more to do with the fact that the PRC actually is, unlike what the USSR could ever achieve, an actual peer on the economic/industrial front.
Chill out man.
First off, the
devil's in the details of reporting. The 355 ship navy is a cap / target is on specifically manned warships that kill and blow up things. The 530 ship Navy includes support / logistics, command, and unmanned ships, which our current fleet sits at 490. This isn't really a big jump, and the study even recommends decommissioning some warships in our fleet including two carriers.
SECDEF hasn't asked Congress to fund this 530 ship Navy; he commissioned a study that recommended this force structure and the media got a hold of it. Surely you know that the final proposal won't look exactly like the study, just like the blended retirement plan stopped short of getting rid of Tricare standard, expanding MTFs, and establishing a healthcare BAH to get healthcare costs under control, which was the largest cost saving measure recommended in that study.
Surely you're not that sensitive over a few F-bombs.
You may be mixing up some of the details.
490 includes all of USNS and Ready Reserve/Reserve Fleet, even barracks barges, etc.
Command/Unmanned ships count towards battle force.
The decomm of the 2 CVNs is also made up in the same study by expanding numbers to incorporate CVLs.
The ability to design, build, and maintain a platform within its allocated budget is directly related to its 'cost effectiveness.'
I don't care if MUSV cost $30 instead of $30M. If it can't accomplish a relevant mission that money is better spent on something that can.
I don't disagree with either statement on its own necessarily, but you realize these 2 statements are directly contradictory right?
