Not really.
Britain produced and delivered about 12,500 heavy bombers by the end of 1944, not all went to BC of course, as many went to coastal, served overseas, etc.
That compares to about 45,000 fighters in the same period, which would have cost more than 12,500 heavies.
Britain produced about 14,000 medium bombers (inc Mosquitos), again many did not go to bomber command.
Britain also produced about 45,000 trainers, transports, liason aircraft, coastal aircraft, naval aircraft etc, which again are more expensive than the medium bombers.
In short, BC got considerably less than half of British aircraft production by cost. And Bomber Command had very few American aircraft, unlike the other commands, many of which had large numbers of US aircraft.
And then you have to add on tank production (and a tank typically cost somewhere between a fighter and bomber). Britain produced about 90,000 armoured fighting vehicles (which includes things other than tanks) during the first 5 years of war, along with over 1,500,000 tons of naval shipping, millions of tons of transport ships, etc.
As the first post in this thread said:
"In the UK alone over a million workers were tied up in bomber production / associated support industries."
That's true, but should be seen in the context of a civilian workforce of over 22 million, meaning less than 5% of the total workforce were producing equipment for BC. And Britain committed a larger proportion of it's economy to the war effort than any of the other major war economies, nearly 55%.
In military terms, Britain had over 4 million men in the army, just over 1 million in the RAF, just under 1 million in the RN. The RAF as a whole had less than 20% of British manpower, BC had far less than half RAF manpower (remember the RAF were based all over the world, BC just in the UK)
Sir John Slessor and Prof Richard Overy both give figures of 7 - 9% of British war effort going to Bomber Command, the figures back that up.