Nice article, that got my gears turning. I think that producing casings with 3d printing is the wrong focus, given that 3d printers trade speed for flexibility. What about printing the presses or other tooling, or parts of it? Would it be possible to cut time and cost for a new production line?
I covered it for completeness, not really because I thought it would be a great idea. Notably, the machine tools are what DOD points to as the critical path, such that accelerating getting them in would allegedly accelerate the overall production schedule. However, I have interpreted that to mean the large, heavy equipment required to build a new factory. I didn't see many small, fine parts in the manufacturing line or final product BOM that lend themselves to modern 3D printing.
Not to disparage our industrial base issues (which we definitely have), it's worth noting that that it took YEARS to build up that industrial base for WW2.
Based on this, 2+ years to scale up production capacity seems right in track (esp. for a war we're not actually fighting, so less political oomph at home)
I don't think a liberal democracy will ever be able to be as nimble as an authoritarian state, but we can make moves when the needs arise. Agree that deterrence would be a hell of a lot cheaper!
A very fair point. The elephant in the room here is China, who far outpaces the US in manufacturing capacity. Most analysts say that the US doesn't need to outpace China, rather they can rely on other liberalized, democratic states to provide the manufacturing capacity that would outpace China alone. I believe that, but I worry a lot about what those years would look like and the possible loss of life. China is just at a different scale from Germany or Japan at the time, and they are working now on being wholly self-sufficient in establishing the machine tools and factories required to sustain that nightmarish conflict that never reaches the nuclear threshold. And while war may not be on our doorstep yet and we certainly should not go looking for it, I recognize this is a war of authoritarianism versus the free people of the world. I would have us give the arms needed to the countries that are willing to fight and die for the right to rule themselves, the only legitimate form of governance. We simply have to get out of our own way.
That is not an area I researched much, but I can offer a few thoughts that could guide your own research. For one, they had less or no permitting, you could put a steel mill wherever it was most economical. As a result, they had a much higher industrial base to begin with. Similarly, those sites were likely versatile. SCAAP started its life making train cars and re-tooled into shells. Many of those steel mills during WW1 could have re-tooled relatively quickly to meet the demand from the governments. Considering HF-1 wasn't invented until the 70s, they were using some less precise form of steel. Based on how Bethlehem Steel described the sophistication of HF-1, I would also assume earlier shell steel was far simpler to manufacture. So I would expect they had many more facilities with fewer rules producing many more shells that were slightly worse than what SCAAP produces today.
Very informative. Ukraine is a serious issue. If they win, the Russians and Chinese will back off.
If they lose, Russia will start taking over by force in Europe, China by force in Asia.
Just as Hitler and WWII could have been easily stopped in 1934, Now is the time and the Ukraine is the place to stop Russia and China.
"It treats time like it’s free. It does not respond quickly. It does not build or innovate around current problems"
This is also how the FDA behaves: https://jakeseliger.com/2024/01/29/the-dead-and-dying-at-the-gates-of-oncology-clinical-trials/. No one at the FDA seems to consider opportunity costs or what can be done with money apart from investing in pharmaceuticals. The result is the retarding of the pharma market and a lot of people, like me, dying prematurely.
Nice article, that got my gears turning. I think that producing casings with 3d printing is the wrong focus, given that 3d printers trade speed for flexibility. What about printing the presses or other tooling, or parts of it? Would it be possible to cut time and cost for a new production line?
I covered it for completeness, not really because I thought it would be a great idea. Notably, the machine tools are what DOD points to as the critical path, such that accelerating getting them in would allegedly accelerate the overall production schedule. However, I have interpreted that to mean the large, heavy equipment required to build a new factory. I didn't see many small, fine parts in the manufacturing line or final product BOM that lend themselves to modern 3D printing.
Not to disparage our industrial base issues (which we definitely have), it's worth noting that that it took YEARS to build up that industrial base for WW2.
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/BigL/img/BigL-p59.jpg
Based on this, 2+ years to scale up production capacity seems right in track (esp. for a war we're not actually fighting, so less political oomph at home)
I don't think a liberal democracy will ever be able to be as nimble as an authoritarian state, but we can make moves when the needs arise. Agree that deterrence would be a hell of a lot cheaper!
A very fair point. The elephant in the room here is China, who far outpaces the US in manufacturing capacity. Most analysts say that the US doesn't need to outpace China, rather they can rely on other liberalized, democratic states to provide the manufacturing capacity that would outpace China alone. I believe that, but I worry a lot about what those years would look like and the possible loss of life. China is just at a different scale from Germany or Japan at the time, and they are working now on being wholly self-sufficient in establishing the machine tools and factories required to sustain that nightmarish conflict that never reaches the nuclear threshold. And while war may not be on our doorstep yet and we certainly should not go looking for it, I recognize this is a war of authoritarianism versus the free people of the world. I would have us give the arms needed to the countries that are willing to fight and die for the right to rule themselves, the only legitimate form of governance. We simply have to get out of our own way.
Thank you. It is very informative.
My question is how all sides participated in WW1 succeded producing around 1.5 billions of shells in short period of time?
That is not an area I researched much, but I can offer a few thoughts that could guide your own research. For one, they had less or no permitting, you could put a steel mill wherever it was most economical. As a result, they had a much higher industrial base to begin with. Similarly, those sites were likely versatile. SCAAP started its life making train cars and re-tooled into shells. Many of those steel mills during WW1 could have re-tooled relatively quickly to meet the demand from the governments. Considering HF-1 wasn't invented until the 70s, they were using some less precise form of steel. Based on how Bethlehem Steel described the sophistication of HF-1, I would also assume earlier shell steel was far simpler to manufacture. So I would expect they had many more facilities with fewer rules producing many more shells that were slightly worse than what SCAAP produces today.