Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Good entry.I would go for the Yak series of fighters. The changes were limited during the period of the war, it was simple yet effective and served Russia well from the begining to the end.
Define the metric for most 'cost effective"?
J, you know more about this than I will ever gain the opportunity to learn. Why don't you define the smartest metric and I'll just agree with you.Yep...
Cost per unit, cost to operate, total cost based on contract price, cost vs. life longevity with or without attrition rates applied
I think if you're talking real cost per unit you have to take the cost of the entire contract and divide that into the units built.J, you know more about this than I will ever gain the opportunity to learn. Why don't you define the smartest metric and I'll just agree with you.
And you have an example of that, then and now?!?!?!?It sounds like the USN had some shady cost accounting practices. Some things never change....
Surely the Me-109 has to be in this mix - even with issues over slave labour - it was clearly a masterpiece of mass production and evolution.
MM
Wasn't the cost effectiveness of the P-40 a major reason it stayed in production so long?
The Truman Commission hashed over this question after the war.