- Reaction score
- 9,772
- Points
- 1,160
Further to Ferguson's, and the CIA's and most intelligence agencies's, sense that the window of vulnerability is the next two to three years, and, in my opinion we should start acting like its 1938 all over again, should we start pivoting on production?
It is my belief that there is much we can do with the innovative and the novel. But there is stuff that we can't replace that relies on "ancient" technologies that are being pushed out of service. Facilities like steel foundries.
We need steel for ships and submarines. We also need it for locks, stocks and barrels.
If we have a limited supply of native steel where is that steel best utilized?
In a 100 m AOPS that weighs 6600 tonnes when you can build a 100 m OPV in steel that displaces 3750 tonnes full load and 1500 to 2000 tonnes light (OPV Holland).
In a submarine that won't be available until 2032, after the crisis has been resolved one way or another?
Or in building trucks and guns, particularly medium calibre autocannons and small arms which will be useful in two years time?
Or supplying armour plate? Armour plate that can be "diluted" while still remaining effective, with plastics, and ceramics and explosives?
If we are limited in raw materials should we be spending that raw material on 155mm cannons for depth fires or should we be more reliant on missiles and drones that can be fabricated from composite materials readily available?
In my opinion building Icebreakers in a time of crisis, assuming this is a time of crisis, would be a folly A vanity project. That steel could be put to much better use.
Those two polar icebreakers displace 26,000 tonnes each. How much of that is steel?
How many 60 kg M230 Bushmasters could be manufactured from that steel?
How many 60 tonne Abrams or Leos? Or 30 tonne CV90s?
And which are going to be ready to use in two years?
So, in addition to 3D printed subs
3D printed aircraft
3D printed rockets