3 ms·

An interesting example, in my opinion: In the US, we keep on manufacturing Abrahams tanks. We're not at war. We have no use for these tanks. So to make things

An interesting example, in my opinion: In the US, we keep on manufacturing Abrahams tanks. We're not at war. We have no use for these tanks. So to make things make sense, we give money to some countries with the explicit restriction that they must spend that money on these tanks. Why do we keep making them? Because you need people who, on day one of war, know how to build that tank. You can't spend months and months getting people up to speed - they need to be ready to go. So, in peacetime, we just have a bunch of people making tanks for "no reason".

XorNot 1y ago
This is also why US shipbuilding is a dumpster fire: lack of a consistent order book for warships means they're more expensive to produce and the process is chaotic. It's one of the great reasons to cultivate a collection of close allies who you support: it keeps your production lines warm and your workforce active and developing.
- aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
  It would help if there was a active civilian shipbuilding industry. Easier to pivot than building up something from nothing. But that industry has been taken over by asia.
  - bluedino 1y ago
    > But that industry has been taken over by asia. There aren't many that haven't been.
- kulahan 1y ago
  I hadn’t considered this - it must be a nightmare to try and find experienced aircraft carrier engineers. We have like 14 of em, right? Probably like 70% the same crew on each one, but I don’t remember the last time we built one. I wonder if the expertise is still there, and maybe I’m just missing these stories.
  - renewiltord 1y ago
    The last time we built aircraft carriers in the US? Has there ever been a one year period when we haven't been building aircraft carriers (or ships which other nations would consider carriers)? Certainly there are many we're currently building and many we will build after that. Biggest in the world kind of stuff. Gerald R Ford class.
    - hollerith 1y ago
      Ditto destroyers, which the US has been building continuously going back at least to 1988 according the dates in this table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arleigh_Burke-class_de...
    - kulahan 1y ago
      TIL! I guess I just haven't been following this stuff. Now I've got something to read about all night, thanks!
paulpauper 1y ago
Why do we keep making them? Didn't you answer your question in the above sentence? They are used to protect US foreign interests by sending them to allies. It's not because people will somehow forget how to make them. It's based off of an assembly line and blueprints. I don't see how this would be forgotten, any more than it would be possible for society to forget how to build a CRT TV just because they are not used anymore.
- renewiltord 1y ago
  I wonder how much we've learned from the Saturn V project where the majority of the crucial knowledge (including for the machines that build the parts for the machines that build the parts) was undocumented. Hopefully a lot but maybe we just forward evolve instead. I'm always impressed that America's moribund manufacturing industry nonetheless makes prodigious amounts of expensive vehicles. It feels like one year I was hearing about the terrible failure that the F-35 was and the next year I looked up and we've got more than a thousand of them - enough to dwarf any other conventional air force.
  - cwillu 1y ago
    The whining about F-35 was always transparently nonsense, and happened more or less with every generation of attack and fighter jet.
    - nradov 1y ago
      The whining wasn't completely nonsense: the JSF / F-35 program is a prime example of procurement malpractice where the government set flawed initial requirements which made the final product later, more expensive, and less capable than it should have been. Congress and the Department of Defense repeated the same errors from the debacle of the TFX / F-111 program and then compounded the problem with additional unforced errors like trying to do concurrent testing and production. But in the end the F-35 really does work pretty well by all credible accounts. It could have been a lot worse.
- nradov 1y ago
nitwit005 1y ago
I wish it was that logical, but the tanks aren't going to make sense in future wars either. They're just too heavy. They previously had to re-enforce bridges in Europe so that the tanks could act as a defense if Russia invaded. We sold some of them to Australia, and they struggled to get them off of the docks as the trains and bridges couldn't handle the weight. Unsurprisingly, the military has asked for lighter tanks.
- kulahan 1y ago
  Eh, until we have drone-bots that can perform at nearly a human level, we'll still need to have a physical presence, and there's roughly nothing as dangerous or safe (for the users) as a brand-new tank. They're heavy because of the shielding - if it weren't necessary, they'd just be lighter. As it is, we do also have lighter military vehicles - basically retrofitted F250/350s with a shitload of steel bolted on. They're great in many instances, but sometimes a tank is just what you want.
  - nitwit005 1y ago
    How will a tank that you can't get to the battlefield help? That truly is not a joke or exaggeration. They are above the weight limit of many bridges, without any other vehicles on the bridge. They are just that heavy.
    - kulahan 1y ago
      C5s can also transport them easily. I... don't know if C17s can, but I assume not? Maybe though. If so, they're not a problem at all, if you really want 'em. But also remember tanks are tanks - they're meant to drive over all kinds of nonsense. It might be something of a technical roadblock if there's an impassable ravine, but there are still many, many instances where they'll be useful. IMO we'll see them fall out of favor heavily if we start doing more mountainous island warfare. Edit: I was curious so I looked it up, and there are a number of options: 1. Shore up/reinforce the bridge you want to cross with temporary structures 2. Just fill the damn terrain if it's a narrow ravine 3. Build a quick ferry 4. There are apparently literal armored vehicle-launched bridges (AVLBs)

XorNot 1y ago

This is also why US shipbuilding is a dumpster fire: lack of a consistent order book for warships means they're more expensive to produce and the process is chaotic. It's one of the great reasons to cultivate a collection of close allies who you support: it keeps your production lines warm and your workforce active and developing.

aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
It would help if there was a active civilian shipbuilding industry. Easier to pivot than building up something from nothing. But that industry has been taken over by asia.
- bluedino 1y ago
  > But that industry has been taken over by asia. There aren't many that haven't been.
kulahan 1y ago
I hadn’t considered this - it must be a nightmare to try and find experienced aircraft carrier engineers. We have like 14 of em, right? Probably like 70% the same crew on each one, but I don’t remember the last time we built one. I wonder if the expertise is still there, and maybe I’m just missing these stories.
- renewiltord 1y ago
  The last time we built aircraft carriers in the US? Has there ever been a one year period when we haven't been building aircraft carriers (or ships which other nations would consider carriers)? Certainly there are many we're currently building and many we will build after that. Biggest in the world kind of stuff. Gerald R Ford class.
  - hollerith 1y ago
    Ditto destroyers, which the US has been building continuously going back at least to 1988 according the dates in this table: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arleigh_Burke-class_destroyers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arleigh_Burke-class_de...
  - kulahan 1y ago
    TIL! I guess I just haven't been following this stuff. Now I've got something to read about all night, thanks!

paulpauper 1y ago

Why do we keep making them? Didn't you answer your question in the above sentence? They are used to protect US foreign interests by sending them to allies. It's not because people will somehow forget how to make them. It's based off of an assembly line and blueprints. I don't see how this would be forgotten, any more than it would be possible for society to forget how to build a CRT TV just because they are not used anymore.

renewiltord 1y ago
I wonder how much we've learned from the Saturn V project where the majority of the crucial knowledge (including for the machines that build the parts for the machines that build the parts) was undocumented. Hopefully a lot but maybe we just forward evolve instead. I'm always impressed that America's moribund manufacturing industry nonetheless makes prodigious amounts of expensive vehicles. It feels like one year I was hearing about the terrible failure that the F-35 was and the next year I looked up and we've got more than a thousand of them - enough to dwarf any other conventional air force.
- cwillu 1y ago
  The whining about F-35 was always transparently nonsense, and happened more or less with every generation of attack and fighter jet.
  - nradov 1y ago
    The whining wasn't completely nonsense: the JSF / F-35 program is a prime example of procurement malpractice where the government set flawed initial requirements which made the final product later, more expensive, and less capable than it should have been. Congress and the Department of Defense repeated the same errors from the debacle of the TFX / F-111 program and then compounded the problem with additional unforced errors like trying to do concurrent testing and production. But in the end the F-35 really does work pretty well by all credible accounts. It could have been a lot worse.
nradov 1y ago

nitwit005 1y ago

I wish it was that logical, but the tanks aren't going to make sense in future wars either. They're just too heavy. They previously had to re-enforce bridges in Europe so that the tanks could act as a defense if Russia invaded. We sold some of them to Australia, and they struggled to get them off of the docks as the trains and bridges couldn't handle the weight. Unsurprisingly, the military has asked for lighter tanks.

kulahan 1y ago
Eh, until we have drone-bots that can perform at nearly a human level, we'll still need to have a physical presence, and there's roughly nothing as dangerous or safe (for the users) as a brand-new tank. They're heavy because of the shielding - if it weren't necessary, they'd just be lighter. As it is, we do also have lighter military vehicles - basically retrofitted F250/350s with a shitload of steel bolted on. They're great in many instances, but sometimes a tank is just what you want.
- nitwit005 1y ago
  How will a tank that you can't get to the battlefield help? That truly is not a joke or exaggeration. They are above the weight limit of many bridges, without any other vehicles on the bridge. They are just that heavy.
  - kulahan 1y ago
    C5s can also transport them easily. I... don't know if C17s can, but I assume not? Maybe though. If so, they're not a problem at all, if you really want 'em. But also remember tanks are tanks - they're meant to drive over all kinds of nonsense. It might be something of a technical roadblock if there's an impassable ravine, but there are still many, many instances where they'll be useful. IMO we'll see them fall out of favor heavily if we start doing more mountainous island warfare. Edit: I was curious so I looked it up, and there are a number of options: 1. Shore up/reinforce the bridge you want to cross with temporary structures 2. Just fill the damn terrain if it's a narrow ravine 3. Build a quick ferry 4. There are apparently literal armored vehicle-launched bridges (AVLBs)