XP-65/F7F Development

[swampyankee]

I believe the M-16 rifle was one of the few modern weapons to be built in multiple factories (although the M-14 was also),
strange as politics and government contracts are the Government (army) wanted more than one source during the vietnam war, which is understandable.
However Colt had to turn over not only blueprints of the rifle but information on tools, jigs, manufacturing procedures/techniques and so on. The two other companies that built the M-16 at the time (everybody with lathe in the garage seems to be building them now) both charged more per rifle than Colt. One company charged almost double what Colt was getting per rifle in contract at the same time.
The strange part (and politics) comes in when at least one senator wanted to investigate Colt for excessive profits but not the other companies.

Where was that senator from?

During the F-18 production, I believe in the Reagan Administration, somehow, Pratt & Whitney got the DoD to open them up as a second source. I don't know why this was decided, but I'm 99% sure that lobbying was involved, although I don't know if it was lobbying congress or lobbying the executive branch.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

It is weird that you don't have many contractors building one plane though... that seemed to have ended at some point in the 1950's...

What's weird about it? The weird thing is aircraft companies building their competitors designs. Nobody wants to devote precious production capacity to build their competitors airplane instead of their own. That's the quick way to "also ran" status in the highly competitive aircraft industry.

 

[Zipper730]

In this case, no. I think the Army was using it more as a threat during contract negotiations.

It's funny how the Army & Navy have a legendary rivalry, but they'll team together gladly to stick it to the Air Force...

During the F-18 production, I believe in the Reagan Administration, somehow, Pratt & Whitney got the DoD to open them up as a second source.

Interesting...

I don't know why this was decided, but I'm 99% sure that lobbying was involved, although I don't know if it was lobbying congress or lobbying the executive branch.

I usually assume it's lobbyists -- follow the money right? However, it's hard to tell honestly...

I believe the M-16 rifle was one of the few modern weapons to be built in multiple factories (although the M-14 was also), strange as politics and government contracts are the Government (army) wanted more than one source during the vietnam war, which is understandable.

So it was a matter of need and redundancy, and the US Army thought differently than the USAF?

However Colt had to turn over not only blueprints of the rifle but information on tools, jigs, manufacturing procedures/techniques and so on.

Was this the intellectual property issue Lockheed managed to raise a whole stink on?

 

[Zipper730]

What's weird about it?

It was a common practice that continued for some time, then *pfft* disapeared.

The weird thing is aircraft companies building their competitors designs. Nobody wants to devote precious production capacity to build their competitors airplane instead of their own.

Of course, but I'd figure it would homogenize the knowledge base: Effectively, everybody is kept knowledgeable.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

It was a common practice that continued for some time, then *pfft* disapeared.
Of course, but I'd figure it would homogenize the knowledge base: Effectively, everybody is kept knowledgeable.

It was never a natural or comfortable practice in an industry that had traditionally been cutthroat competitive. It was imposed by the government due to the national emergency of the war. Yes it did "homogenize the knowledge base", but that was of benefit only to the government, as aircraft companies viewed the "knowledge base" as proprietary property. New information that companies were given to enable them to manufacture their competitors plane was usable only for that purpose. They were not allowed to use it in their own designs.
Cheers
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

It was never a natural or comfortable practice in an industry that had traditionally been cutthroat competitive.

Of course, but they were supposed to serve their country in time of war...

It was imposed by the government due to the national emergency of the war. Yes it did "homogenize the knowledge base", but that was of benefit only to the government, as aircraft companies viewed the "knowledge base" as proprietary property.

True enough, ironically the requirements might very well have provided a balancing force. It's dangerous if either government (USSR from 1917-1991) or business (Italy from 1919 to 1943, Germany from 1933 to 1945) get too powerful.

New information that companies were given to enable them to manufacture their competitors plane was usable only for that purpose. They were not allowed to use it in their own designs.

You're telling me that defense contractors *never* used this knowledge for their own projects officially/unofficially?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

You're telling me that defense contractors *never* used this knowledge for their own projects officially/unofficially?

Did you ever hear of a prohibition such as this being embraced and scrupulously adhered to? Of course not!. It has to be enforced just like enforcement of the original Prohibition (of alcohol) and with about the same lack of success. Do you wonder that companies hated being forced to share their hard-won techniques and technical data with their competitors? They had to expend a lot of effort in defending their intellectual property. As they saw it, their fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders was closer to their hearts than any extrapolated patriotic impulses.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

It's funny how the Army & Navy have a legendary rivalry, but they'll team together gladly to stick it to the Air Force...

Considering the high-handed way the infant Air Force treated the senior services, are you surprised? No sooner had they achieved Independence, than they started lobbying Congress to abolish the other two services as obsolete and make their remnants subsidiaries of the almighty USAF. Are you surprised the other two services had it in for the Air Force? The Air Force tried to take over Naval and Army aviation similar to the prewar RAF model. And they almost succeeded.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[swampyankee]

What's weird about it? The weird thing is aircraft companies building their competitors designs. Nobody wants to devote precious production capacity to build their competitors airplane instead of their own. That's the quick way to "also ran" status in the highly competitive aircraft industry.

On the other hand, it's guaranteed profits* (virtually all contracts with the US government are; this is a major reason why Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, and General Dynamics have essentially no non-government business). Pre-WWII, a company could win a design contract and lose the production contract which was, of course, a much larger prize.



* Although Brewster couldn't manage even that. It must take a particular bad of stupid for the executives of a company making military aircraft to fail during wartime.

 

[Zipper730]

Did you ever hear of a prohibition such as this being embraced and scrupulously adhered to? Of course not!

Thought so...

It has to be enforced

And the only way it'd ever work is if the odds of being caught were almost 100% and the penalties were fairly stiff.

Do you wonder that companies hated being forced to share their hard-won techniques and technical data with their competitors?

No, not at all: They did a lot of work to develop it.

As they saw it, their fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders was closer to their hearts than any extrapolated patriotic impulses.

Well, I figure most CEO's see it as a matter of benefiting themselves first, then stockholders, and if there's any time left, that whole patriotic thing (yeah, I know -- that's kind of cynical, but I should point out that many corporations during WWII did, indeed, knowingly and deliberately, engage in trade with the enemy).

Considering the high-handed way the infant Air Force treated the senior services, are you surprised? No sooner had they achieved Independence, than they started lobbying Congress to abolish the other two services as obsolete and make their remnants subsidiaries of the almighty USAF.

That's not too far off (and frankly, an excellent summary).

The Air Force tried to take over Naval and Army aviation similar to the prewar RAF model. And they almost succeeded.

Actually, the RAF at least let the Navy keep their carriers: The USAF wanted to sink every last one (as well as much of the surface fleet).

On the other hand, it's guaranteed profits* (virtually all contracts with the US government are; this is a major reason why Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, and General Dynamics have essentially no non-government business). Pre-WWII, a company could win a design contract and lose the production contract which was, of course, a much larger prize.

Even if the design doesn't live up

 

[tyrodtom]

Zipper730, you have a tendency to include little snipppets of information that often turn out to be bs when examined closer.

You need to expand on your claim that many corporations knowingly and deliberately engage with trade with the enemy.

 

[Shortround6]

And simply having factories in enemy/occupied countries doesn't really cut it.
How much communication was there between Ford of Germany and Ford of France with Ford In the US after Dec 10th 1941 for example.
And those factories could not simply close their doors and send all the workers home once Germany declared war on the US.

 

[Zipper730]

You need to expand on your claim that many corporations knowingly and deliberately engage with trade with the enemy.

Okay...

• IBM: Ran a subsidiary called "Dehomag" which was used for making punched-card machines. This was used to help facilitate taking census in occupied territories (as well as ones they already controlled), and was used to help facilitate the Holocaust. IBM was told that this technology was being used to facilitate the war-effort as of 1942. They did nothing.
  
• Ford: Build trucks for the German government. Henry Ford was an ardent supporter of the Nazi's, so even if he had the ability to stop things, he would not have.
  
• Coca-Cola: Well, they didn't do it directly, they created a company called "Fanta". Most people think of orange soda, or possibly grape soda. Originally Fanta was basically Coca Cola made with German ingredients in Germany. This was started in '33 but continued at least into 1942 or 1943 when the war was on.

 

[Shortround6]

OK, and how, pray tell, was IBM in America going to stop Dehomag in Germany from cooperating with the German government/nazis?

Same with Ford.

Same with Fanta.

Ford of Germany tells the German government "no we won't build any more trucks for you" German official sends 5-10 top managers to concentration camp and asks the remaining managers if they want to to reconsider. Workers are told make trucks or "join" the army.

The "Home" office has very little control of what a plant in a foreign country does or does not do once war is declared between the two countries.
Blaming the home office or claiming they "traded" with the enemy it a pretty bogus position.
IF old Henry loaded a freighter with American made (or even Brazilian made Fords) and sailed them to Germany to help the German war effort that would be a different story. Or even if they sent a courier with blue prints of latest improvements to basic engine.

Many French companies made parts/equipment for the Germans after being occupied, does that mean they " knowingly and deliberately engage with trade with the enemy." in a negative sense?
Yes they knowingly and deliberately engaged in trade with the occupiers of their country but the alternative was death or exile for both management and workers and looting/destruction of the factories.

Gnome Rhone was a rather classic example. They built a lot of engines for the Germans but it was estimated that they built only about 25% of their potential capacity (or what the Germans thought they could make) which was just enough to keep the Germans from ordering "reprisals" or looting the Factory and sending the machine tools elsewhere. It also kept the workers in France and not drafted into auxiliary labor battalions.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Actually, the RAF at least let the Navy keep their carriers: The USAF wanted to sink every last one (as well as much of the surface fleet).

Who needs carriers and a surface fleet when you can have Peacemakers, Stratojets, and THE BOMB instead? It's a no-brainer, right? With "giv'em hell Harry" carrying "the football" and Curt Lemay managing the team, we can keep the entire world too terrified to give us a hard time anywhere any time.
Isn't that our manifest destiny?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[XBe02Drvr]

And the only way it'd ever work is if the odds of being caught were almost

My dad (4F, unfit for combat) worked as a DCAS (Defense Contract Assurance Service) inspector at Bell in Niagara, NY during the changeover from P39 to P63 production. Part of his job was monitoring the inclusion of technologies that were Intellectual Property of other companies in Bell products. This was a job that needed an engineer, not an English teacher, but engineers were not to be had for what the government would pay, especially since the job didn't come with a draft deferment. He wound up mostly just patrolling for deliberate wastage to up the cost of production (cost-plus contract). He said some of the Soviet liason officers (decorated combat pilots to a man) were mighty colorful characters. They would randomly pick a new plane out of production flight test and go out terrorizing the countryside. (Especially Curtiss production test at nearby Buffalo International!) Naturally they would choose one that didn't have red stars on it yet.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[GregP]

Interesting as it might be, what has any of this to do with XP-65 / F7F Development?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Sorry Greg, dratted crosswind, drifted off course again! No excuse, sir.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[Zipper730]

Who needs carriers and a surface fleet when you can have Peacemakers, Stratojets, and THE BOMB instead?

Firstly, nuclear bombs are a weapon only to be used in total war. Wars have various sizes from minor conflicts to world-scale conflicts.

Carriers come into their own in wars that are small/moderate scale where nuclear bombs are not really all that practical: Regardless, the carriers were able to launch aircraft (P2V's and AJ's) off their decks which could carry nuclear bombs (the AJ could be recovered) in a total-war setting, and could carry large numbers of aircraft with conventional ordinance off the coast of an enemy nation. At the start of a war, the carriers are useful because most bombers required some form of escort unless they operated at night, and nearby air-bases might very well be under another nations control and require some negotiation for agreed upon terms of use (a carrier presents no such restriction as long as it stays in international waters).

There is also a general reluctance among politicians to use nuclear weapons unless faced with the imminent threat of attack, or while already embroiled in a war of substantial size: This basically means that when bombers are to be used, they will be carrying conventional ordinance, and because of this, they will need to be employed in massed raids, in large numbers.
Because large aircraft burn up more fuel than small aircraft, and large numbers of large aircraft burn up even more fuel yet, the carrier is actually fairly fuel economical as well: Firstly, because the aircraft are quite small, fly relatively short durations, and require quite a number of missions to equal the fuel consumption of one bomber flying one mission; Secondly, compared to aircraft, ships are fuel efficient for the amount of fuel they burn relative to mass over range: An entire task force might very well use less fuel than a protracted series of city-busting raids carried out over and over again.

The only question remaining is can a carrier defend against a bomber-attack? The Russians WWII vintage bombers weren't all that capable in performance, even if in range; the Tu-4 could get into the 30,000 foot range presumably, where we could still take them out; the B-36 was not really a valid comparison, though they'd end up fielding jet-powered aircraft.

It's a no-brainer, right? With "giv'em hell Harry" carrying "the football" and Curt Lemay managing the team, we can keep the entire world too terrified to give us a hard time anywhere any time.

Keeping the world terrified of you motivates them to figure out how to counter the threat you pose; this in turn requires you to develop ever more advanced and destructive weapons to carry out the threat, as well as defend against enemy developments.

While it might work out in theory, but it's economically ruinous (basically we won the Cold War because the Soviet Union could not take the economical abuse), and crazy dangerous: As weapons systems become more capable, faster responding, and overall faster, it just takes one wrong move to basically wipe out entire nations worth of real-estate and irradiate much of the Northern Hemisphere.

Isn't that our manifest destiny?

Manifest Destiny was the belief that it was God's will for America to expand all the way to the Pacific Ocean. This would be expanding the position to conquer the world. Manifest Destiny as it was wasn't well liked by Native Americans and Mexicans, and inserting our noses into the affairs of other nations has created all sorts of problems that are plaguing us to this day.

OK, and how, pray tell, was IBM in America going to stop Dehomag in Germany from cooperating with the German government/nazis?

They could cut off financial aid

Same with Ford. Same with Fanta.

The same rule applies

Ford of Germany tells the German government "no we won't build any more trucks for you" German official sends 5-10 top managers to concentration camp and asks the remaining managers if they want to to reconsider.

Well, that's their choice if they wish to reconsider: Under threat of death, I wouldn't necessarily hold it against them if they did; I would hold it against a corporation who continued to supply aid.

Many French companies made parts/equipment for the Germans after being occupied, does that mean they " knowingly and deliberately engage with trade with the enemy." in a negative sense?

Their whole country is under direct occupation -- they are in a situation where they are forced to comply or risk death. We weren't occupied, and could have cut aid.

Interesting as it might be, what has any of this to do with XP-65 / F7F Development?

That's a good point

 

[swampyankee]

I suspect that the defense contractors rarely traded directly with the enemy, at least during declared war, but US companies were likely to have knowingly sold military and dual-use products to intermediaries who were trading with the USSR during the Cold War, Iran during the Hostage Crisis, and other places.

Holding foreign-based subsidiaries to the same standards as domestic companies is difficult, if not impossible: Ford of Germany, Opel (owned by GM), Simca (owned by Chrysler), and whatever others there were under the laws of the countries they were in, not US laws, and can't be held entirely responsible for their actions during wartime. On the other hand, if a company like IBM supplied equipment to Germany during the war (and there is some evidence that they did so), that is an entirely different matter.

This is also a sidetrack to the current discussion, and to the discussion of military hardware being built by second sources. Most military hardware is developed at public expense, and the rights to the design are owned by the organization paying for the development, i.e.the US government by means of money from taxpayers and the creditors of the US government.