The impact of costs on procurement decisions.

[Kevin J]

I would dispute that a wooden twin blade prop costs more than a contra rotating propeller. Considering the few numbers made a contra prop was also made by skilled craftsmen with a lot of precision machined parts and bearings but that is not really my actual point. An early Hurricane started life with dope covered wings and a twin blade prop and had metal skinned wings and a variable pitch prop fitted later, so it had both, and later metal ailerons. At no point was financial cost a factor in the decision.

Bomber Harris wanted to replace the Halifax with the Lancaster as it dropped 50% more bombs per service life of a plane. He couldn't because that would have affected the production lines, so less planes. Cost was considered but changes couldn't always be made. It only got dropped like the Typhoon when the war in Europe was over. Both Beaufighter and Hurricane were kept because they could still perform useful roles. So cost effectiveness is important.

 

[pbehn]

Bomber Harris wanted to replace the Halifax with the Lancaster as it dropped 50% more bombs per service life of a plane. He couldn't because that would have affected the production lines, so less planes. Cost was considered but changes couldn't always be made. It only got dropped when the war in Europe was over. Both Beaufighter and Hurricane were kept because they could still perform useful roles.

The main cost was production numbers of 4 engine bombers. He would have spent a long time with no Halifaxes and no extra Lancasters either. They wouldn't even reduce Lancaster production numbers to make escape easier.

 

[swampyankee]

If procurement was truly "cost is no object," neither the F-16 nor F-18 would have entered service.

All governments -- even dictatorships in time of war -- have finite resources. Money is a way of evaluating how many resources any purchasing decision requires. In peacetime, well governments have other priorities than military spending, like education, health care, law enforcement, tax collection (without which there wouldn't be a military budget), and infrastructure.

 

[pbehn]

If procurement was truly "cost is no object," neither the F-16 nor F-18 would have entered service.

All governments -- even dictatorships in time of war -- have finite resources. Money is a way of evaluating how many resources any purchasing decision requires. In peacetime, well governments have other priorities than military spending, like education, health care, law enforcement, tax collection (without which there wouldn't be a military budget), and infrastructure.

True but a cost to be considered in 1940s UK was if you don't keep 500 competitive planes and pilots in service your cities ports and industries will be systematically wrecked.

 

[Shortround6]

When you go from peacetime to bullets flying the cost of procurement moves a number of spaces on the priority list.

3rd rate aircraft (or ships or tanks) , no matter how cheap, wind up being rather expensive when used in combat. High losses for investment and little damage inflicted on the enemy for the investment.

But super deluxe, super expensive aircraft/weapons that cannot be procured/manufactured in the numbers needed are also a waste of design and manufacturing effort.

 

[swampyankee]

True but a cost to be considered in 1940s UK was if you don't keep 500 competitive planes and pilots in service your cities ports and industries will be systematically wrecked.

There's no arguing that a minimum level of performance is needed, putting a floor on price, hence the failure of WWII-era light-weight fighters, like the XP-77. On the other hand, the need to replace attrition when at war with a comparable power means that an upper limit is placed on unit cost. A more insidious problem is reliance in imported products, especially from places vulnerable to likely enemies. As an example, Czech armor plate was used on some RN warships. A less direct one could have been the reliance on Sweden for ball bearings.

 

[Reluctant Poster]

The attached excerpt from "AAF Statistical Charts 1940-1945" gives the total cost of a B-29 including government furnished equipment. I don't believe it includes the work done at the modification centers which added 30 to 50% to the airframe cost of a heavy bomber:

 

[Reluctant Poster]

Here is the report it was taken from. It contains a lot of interesting data

 

[fubar57]

Found this interesting. Don't know where its from or how accurate it is.

 

[michael rauls]

Just a thought about the ever increasing cost as new generations of aircraft are developed. With every new generation of aircraft the cost goes up, seems to about double on average give or take a bit.
Thus there is the ever present dynamic of you could have 2 p40s for the cost of a Thunderbolt, 2 Thunderbolts for the cost of a p80, two p80s for the cost of a F86 etc, etc. And at each incremental step along the way the two of the older/cheaper types may indeed be better but you've got to move forward regardless or eventually you end up flying p40s against Me262s or heck Brewster Buffalos against Mig21s for that matter.

 

[Dinger]

This thread has been dormant for a while but I just stumbled on a document that is a great source of data to anyone interested in WW2 aircraft production, and this thread is the obvious place to post it.

It's on the Aerosociety website and is entitled "On the planning of British Aircraft production for the Second World War" and can be found on the link (its a pdf file so easy to download for reference).
https://www.aerosociety.com/media/1...r-and-reference-to-james-connolly_2018-09.pdf
Most of the early part of the document will hold nothing of interest, it's just a basic history lesson on the run-up to WW2. It's when you get to the graphs and tables that it really gets interesting. For example, the graph on page 263 showing the cost of an individual aircraft decreases as the number produced increases (from a pre-war paper by Theodore Wright). And a very interesting graph (or would be if you could read the handwriting!) on page 286 showing the elapsed time from initial order to service delivery for various aircraft - I can make out "mosquito" and it shows just how good the Mossie was in this regard. The graph on page 291 shows the difference in man-hours to produce aircraft of increasing weight by different construction methods (only aircraft I could guess at was the Geodetic Wellington!). But the most remarkable thing to me is the table of planned aircraft production on page 281. It was drawn up in December 1939 - amongst other things it shows that even then they were only planning a limited production run of the Whirlwind and the Tornado . The Spitfire Mk III was hoped to be in production by September 1940, to be phased out in favour of a Griffon-engined variant in May 1941! The Hurricane was meant to go out of production in July 1941 and the Albemarle was seen as a major type with continuing production. Every time I look at the table something unexpected pops out - Why is there a row for "Hampden Mk II" - anyone aware of a projected Mk II Hampden? (it's not the Hereford, that has its own row). Fascinating stuff.

 

[fubar57]

Thank you

 

[fubar57]

There was speculation for a wider fuselage and Merlin XX or Hercules engines to carry a 2000lb bomb load and have an over-all weight of 21,000lbs and a top speed of 315mph. HP sought two subcontractors as they were getting ready for the Halifax. The Air Staff didn't want to wait for the 18 months it would take the subcontractors to be provided with jigs and tools so the project was cancelled. Later proposals by HP for Specification B.7/40 were also cancelled. (Paraphrased from Warpaint Series No.57 - Handley Page Hampden and Hereford)

 

[Dinger]

There was speculation for a wider fuselage and Merlin XX or Hercules engines to carry a 2000lb bomb load and have an over-all weight of 21,000lbs and a top speed of 315mph. HP sought two subcontractors as they were getting ready for the Halifax. The Air Staff didn't want to wait for the 18 months it would take the subcontractors to be provided with jigs and tools so the project was cancelled. Later proposals by HP for Specification B.7/40 were also cancelled. (Paraphrased from Warpaint Series No.57 - Handley Page Hampden and Hereford)

Thanks - Very interesting!

 

[Kevin J]

There was speculation for a wider fuselage and Merlin XX or Hercules engines to carry a 2000lb bomb load and have an over-all weight of 21,000lbs and a top speed of 315mph. HP sought two subcontractors as they were getting ready for the Halifax. The Air Staff didn't want to wait for the 18 months it would take the subcontractors to be provided with jigs and tools so the project was cancelled. Later proposals by HP for Specification B.7/40 were also cancelled. (Paraphrased from Warpaint Series No.57 - Handley Page Hampden and Hereford)

If you look at the original NAA Mitchell and compare it with the HP Hampden then there's no reason the Hampden couldn't have been as good as the actual Mitchell produced, and who loved it the most why Kenney's 5th Air Force in the SW Pacific and the Russians.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Britain made a lot of inefficient decisions post-war. When you're facing limited funding and forced into austerity, why not make one single aircraft in each generation, and then improve upon it? The USA and USSR might have the money to waste on parallel and concurrent aircraft types fulfilling the same role, but Britain should have been following France's model, choose one winning post-war firm, Dassault Aviation and have them build incrementally from the Ouragan and Mystere to the Mirage to the Rafale.

Don't for example introduce over ten entirely different designs from five different manufacturers over a dozen years.

Introduced 1946
- Gloster Meteor F4 (Mk. IV)
- de Havilland Vampire
- Supermarine Attacker

Introduced 1949-1951
- Gloster Meteor F8
- de Havilland Venom
- Hawker Hunter

Introduced 1953-1954
- Supermarine Swift
- Hawker Sea Hawk

Introduced 1956-59
- Supermarine Scimitar
- Gloster Javelin
- de Havilland Sea Vixen
- English Electric Lightning

Instead of all this...… Britain should have expedited the introduction of the Hawker Hawk (first flown in 1947) and the development of Hawker P.1052 that first flew in 1948 (make it in time to serve in Korea). Then cancel everything else listed above. Focus on the incremental and evolutionary improvement of the Hawker aircraft to the supersonic P.1121, with same type for both FAA and RAF. Britain needed to prioritize its limited resources, and stop being a nation of shopkeepers and little workshops.

 

[Kevin J]

Britain made a lot of inefficient decisions post-war. When you're facing limited funding and forced into austerity, why not make one single aircraft in each generation, and then improve upon it? The USA and USSR might have the money to waste on parallel and concurrent aircraft types fulfilling the same role, but Britain should have been following France's model, choose one winning post-war first, Dassault Aviation and have them build incrementally from the Ouragan and Mystere to the Mirage to the Rafale.

Don't for example introduce over ten entirely different designs from five different manufacturers over a dozen years.

Introduced 1946
- Gloster Meteor F4 (Mk. IV)
- de Havilland Vampire
- Supermarine Attacker

Introduced 1949-1951
- Gloster Meteor F8
- de Havilland Venom
- Hawker Hunter

Introduced 1953-1954
- Supermarine Swift
- Hawker Sea Hawk

Introduced 1956-59
- Supermarine Scimitar
- Gloster Javelin
- de Havilland Sea Vixen
- English Electric Lightning

Instead of all this...… Britain should have expedited the introduction of the Hawker Hawk (first flown in 1947) and the development of Hawker P.1052 that first flew in 1948 (make it in time to serve in Korea). Then cancel everything else listed above. Focus on the incremental and evolutionary improvement of the Hawker aircraft, with same type for both FAA and RAF.

So you fly a Hunter on or off a carrier deck, the axial jet surges and your pilot is dead. The Sea Hawk is safer and does the job as it has a centrifugal jet. In the sixties dogfights never exceed Mach 1. Light the burner and you get a missile up your arse. The Sea Vixen is a good choice for the FAA.

 

[Admiral Beez]

So you fly a Hunter on or off a carrier deck, .

Not following my example you don't. Hunter has been canceled.

FAA goes as follows (with naval mods to the land-based designs): Attacker => Sea Vampire => Sea Hawk => P.1052 => P.1081 => P.1121

 

[Kevin J]

Not following my example you don't. Hunter has been canceled.

FAA goes as follows (with naval mods to the land-based designs): Attacker => Sea Vampire => Sea Hawk => P.1052 => P.1081 => P.1121

But I wouldn't go for the swept wing Sea Hawk as all they have to compete with is the Bear, or land based insurgencies. It does 630 mph, good enough.

The RAF needs fast interceptors to bring down shorter ranged but faster Soviet bombers. The requirements differ.

 

[tomo pauk]

But I wouldn't go for the swept wing Sea Hawk as all they have to compete with is the Bear, or land based insurgencies. It does 630 mph, good enough.

Have the Soviets all of the sudden left without nuclear bombs in the 1950s?

The RAF needs fast interceptors to bring down sorter ranged but faster Soviet bombers. The requirements differ.

What are those faster Soviet bombers in 1950s?