4 ms·
> I think the military could benefit from part standardization and longer lifetimes on component production. Years ago in a history class it was asserted that
by abeppu 3y ago
> I think the military could benefit from part standardization and longer lifetimes on component production.
Years ago in a history class it was asserted that in WWII, because the US had a greater degree of part standardization (I think they were talking about stuff that could be used across multiple tanks and truck models) than the Germans, the US supply lines for keeping everything running could be more effective. A German vehicle was more likely to be out of commission for want of a part.
I'm not sure if that's true, or how difficult part standardization is in complex modern equipment. But when the Russians are possibly harvesting chips from home appliances, and when we're all acutely aware of how tangled global supply chains are, I wonder if there will be a push for greater standardization from a strategic motivation rather than a cost one?
- giantrobot 3y ago> I'm not sure if that's true, or how difficult part standardization is in complex modern equipment. Part standardization isn't just bolts and major assemblies but also things like test stands, jigs, and everything else needed to repair something. Every repair bay needs for example a shop crane. Every division will have X number of shop cranes all their maintenance units. If there's a particular model shop crane that works with every engine for every vehicle in the division that's awesome. They just need X shop cranes. But then they get assigned a new type of truck. Its engine is bigger and better than the old model. Unfortunately the existing shop cranes are too small to handle lifting this new engine. Now the division needs a mix of shop cranes and enough where every motor pool has every shop crane necessary to fix any vehicle that comes in.