Solarian warships/tech : "What is possible!"

Dilandu wrote:

Theemile wrote:Still, the overall fact is that to build and update all the military systems to counter the systems the US claimed to be working on in the late 80's, the USSR bankrupted itself.

So the problem wasn't so much of technology (while I agree, that USSR was behind in therms of electronic - largely because of moronic decision to just copy IBM computers in 1970, instead of developing further our own lines of computers), but the economy. And, of course, the absurd situation where the Soviet military have no actual ability to decide, what weapon they want to have...

It is near-always missed in all talks about the USS military, but thing is, that Soviet military was continious victim of different industrial lobbies in Politbureau. Each major military factory - like "Kirovsky Zavod" or "Kharkovsky Zavod" - have their own ambitions and connections in Politbureau. There were constant struggle between factories, to put exactly their design of tank, plane, missile into production. And when Politbureau decided that something must be adopted by military, the military could only curse and obey. They have very little influence about adopting new weaponry (of course, if there are no obvious deficiences...)

So, that's why the USSR in 1980s stuck with THREE DIFFERENT MODELS OF MAIN BATTLE TANK - T-64, T-72, and T-80 (not counting sub-models). They were designed and produced by three different tank factories, which have great influence in Politbureau, and all three sucsessfully persuaded Politbureau to adopt their tanks for mass production. The logistic effect you could easily imagine...

Dilandu wrote:

Theemile wrote:Still, the overall fact is that to build and update all the military systems to counter the systems the US claimed to be working on in the late 80's, the USSR bankrupted itself.

So the problem wasn't so much of technology (while I agree, that USSR was behind in therms of electronic - largely because of moronic decision to just copy IBM computers in 1970, instead of developing further our own lines of computers), but the economy. And, of course, the absurd situation where the Soviet military have no actual ability to decide, what weapon they want to have...

It is near-always missed in all talks about the USS military, but thing is, that Soviet military was continious victim of different industrial lobbies in Politbureau. Each major military factory - like "Kirovsky Zavod" or "Kharkovsky Zavod" - have their own ambitions and connections in Politbureau. There were constant struggle between factories, to put exactly their design of tank, plane, missile into production. And when Politbureau decided that something must be adopted by military, the military could only curse and obey. They have very little influence about adopting new weaponry (of course, if there are no obvious deficiences...)

So, that's why the USSR in 1980s stuck with THREE DIFFERENT MODELS OF MAIN BATTLE TANK - T-64, T-72, and T-80 (not counting sub-models). They were designed and produced by three different tank factories, which have great influence in Politbureau, and all three sucsessfully persuaded Politbureau to adopt their tanks for mass production. The logistic effect you could easily imagine...

saber964 wrote:
The three Soviet tanks you are talking about are generational advancements of the same basic design. Also during the 80's the U.S. Military was fielding four or five different tank models. IIRC several NG units had M-48, M-60A1/A2/A3/A6 The USMC had M-60A3 and A6 USA(R) had M-A5/A6 and M-1 M-1+/HA USA had M-1+ M-1HA+ and M-1A1 and a few NG units were in the process of transitioning to M-60's from M-46 and M-47.

Theemile wrote:

saber964 wrote:
The three Soviet tanks you are talking about are generational advancements of the same basic design. Also during the 80's the U.S. Military was fielding four or five different tank models. IIRC several NG units had M-48, M-60A1/A2/A3/A6 The USMC had M-60A3 and A6 USA(R) had M-A5/A6 and M-1 M-1+/HA USA had M-1+ M-1HA+ and M-1A1 and a few NG units were in the process of transitioning to M-60's from M-46 and M-47.

You forgot the airdroppable M551 Sheridan tank.

ldwechsler wrote:In electronics it's a huge way off. And that can be vital. What shattered the USSR was its attempt to develop anti-missile systems like the US was doing. Their most effective tool was using our media to decry the program, calling it "Star Wars."

However, it was functioning, if not wonderfully well, fifteen years later and really well 30 yeas later. But the Soviets could not build the key electronics needed. And they couldn't match things even with espionage.

Loren Pechtel wrote: Oops, we made it easy for them to steal a pipeline control system we knew they were after. It had a very subtle flaw engineered in that would cause pipeline ruptures. When they figured out how they had been had that called into question everything they had stolen--what other subtle flaws might we have planted? Nothing they stole could be counted on anymore. They suddenly lost most of their "research" capability.

cthia wrote:Trump caused Lockheed Martin's stock to fall 4 % over a tweet he made that the F-35 program and costs were 'out of control.' Boeing's stock quickly recovered.

I wonder just how invasive and strangling corruption in the SL is to its military tech and whether even the right companies are receiving the research grants and contracts. It also makes one wonder whether or not the SL could recover at an insane rate if given time and the choke hold of corruption and arrogance is removed.

phillies wrote:

cthia wrote:Trump caused Lockheed Martin's stock to fall 4 % over a tweet he made that the F-35 program and costs were 'out of control.' Boeing's stock quickly recovered.

I wonder just how invasive and strangling corruption in the SL is to its military tech and whether even the right companies are receiving the research grants and contracts. It also makes one wonder whether or not the SL could recover at an insane rate if given time and the choke hold of corruption and arrogance is removed.

We also copied the losing rather than the winning World War 2 engineering approach. The Germans made extremely sophisticated expensive designs, like the Tiger Tank adn the V-2 rocket, that barely worked and could be made in few copies. We and the Russians tended to make simpler designs that worked but could be made in large quantities. We won. The Germans lost.*

We now use the 'our tech is better' approach in answer to our opponents. After all, it worked so well last time.

*Readers may recall that the Italian 90mm AA/AT gun was even better than the German 88, not to mention that the Italians deployed the Axis's only four-engine heavy bomber. It was the Japanese who among the axis made important progress on making large quantities of aircraft.

phillies wrote:

cthia wrote:Trump caused Lockheed Martin's stock to fall 4 % over a tweet he made that the F-35 program and costs were 'out of control.' Boeing's stock quickly recovered.

I wonder just how invasive and strangling corruption in the SL is to its military tech and whether even the right companies are receiving the research grants and contracts. It also makes one wonder whether or not the SL could recover at an insane rate if given time and the choke hold of corruption and arrogance is removed.

We also copied the losing rather than the winning World War 2 engineering approach. The Germans made extremely sophisticated expensive designs, like the Tiger Tank adn the V-2 rocket, that barely worked and could be made in few copies. We and the Russians tended to make simpler designs that worked but could be made in large quantities. We won. The Germans lost.*

We now use the 'our tech is better' approach in answer to our opponents. After all, it worked so well last time.

*Readers may recall that the Italian 90mm AA/AT gun was even better than the German 88, not to mention that the Italians deployed the Axis's only four-engine heavy bomber. It was the Japanese who among the axis made important progress on making large quantities of aircraft.