The impact of costs on procurement decisions.

XBe02Drvr · Nov 15, 2019

tomo pauk said:
What are those faster Soviet bombers in 1950s?

Beauty, Blinder, Backfire; still on the drawing board, but you don't design your defenses only for current threats, you have to plan for the future.
Cheers,
Wes

Kevin J · Nov 15, 2019

tomo pauk said:
Have the Soviets all of the sudden left without nuclear bombs in the 1950s?

What are those faster Soviet bombers in 1950s?

Javelin beats Tu-16 Badger, Lightning beats Tu-22 Blinder. Hunter beats Il-28.

Shortround6 · Jan 28, 2020

Kevin J said:
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.

Yep, if you took the Hamden's wing and threw away the rest, New fuselage, new engines, new landing gear, Ok maybe the tail can stay(maybe not), fit new and much heavier defensive armament (one or more power turrets). Oh yeah, Beef up the wing so it can handle an over 50% increase in gross weight.

At which point it is impossible to predict actual performance of the proposed aircraft based on what we know. We have no idea what the difference in drag for the fuselage would be or the change in the engine nacelles, etc.

swampyankee · Jan 29, 2020

pbehn said:
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.

Well, yes. But cost of procurement was still an object: you had to be able to get resources to build and keep those 500 planes in service and still perform all those other activities of government: roads, law enforcement, feeding people (those war widows and orphans, maimed soldiers, and civilians injured by bombing, ....), and so on.

pbehn · Jan 29, 2020

swampyankee said:
Well, yes. But cost of procurement was still an object: you had to be able to get resources to build and keep those 500 planes in service and still perform all those other activities of government: roads, law enforcement, feeding people (those war widows and orphans, maimed soldiers, and civilians injured by bombing, ....), and so on.

I was referring to changes from before that, from the penny packet purchases and standards of the mid 1930s suddenly factories were being built everywhere regardless of cost in comparison. Instead of limiting the weight of bombers they just employed a team of up to 60,000 people laying concrete runways everywhere

The impact of costs on procurement decisions.

More options

XBe02Drvr

2nd Lieutenant

Kevin J

Banned

Shortround6

Major General

swampyankee

Chief Master Sergeant

pbehn

Colonel

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads