F-35 shown obsolete on previous posts
One of the biggest drains on U.S. defense spending is that the congress members use it as a jobs program. There is a constant proliferation of defense plants to supposedly create local jobs. This guarantees that all production is low rate and inefficient.
Everyone would be better off in the long run if the defense plants were consolidated in a rather small geographic area by type; the armor vehicle production in one area, the ships in one ship yard complex,aircraft in a cluster of plants. The employees would move from one plant to another as needed. This might require the rewriting of anti-trust legislation.
Equipment would be built in pulses; one type of aircraft would be built for one year and then the production line would be mothballed until production restarts. There would only be enough employees left to perform maintenance. All the other employees would then move to another plant within a few miles and produce a different product for another year. They would produce fighter planes for one year and then tanker aircraft the next and then possibly helicopters in the third year before returning to fighters.
Buiolding larger numbers in one year tends to lower costs. It also allows for design changes to be incorporated in one type and that type produced in useful quantities.
The employees would move potentially from one employer to another, but that can be arranged if everyone acts like adults. Each employer would contribute by time employed into pension funds.
For ship building, instead of building one ship at a time, destroyers would be built in clusters of four. Modern shipbuilding involves building ships in sub-units and then assembling them. If a destroyer is built in twelve sections, four section 6s would be built, then four section 5s which would be assembled. This saves money. It would mean having only one shipyard for government contracts. Aircraft carriers would be built in pairs, again, to save money and increase efficiency.
No comments:
Post a Comment