Thoughts on the military and military activities of a diverse nature. Free-ranging and eclectic.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Manufacturers.

This is coolbert:

Here is a list of U.S. aircraft manufacturers that built combat aircraft during World War Two [WW2].

Grumman. [fighter]

Lockheed. [fighter]

Chance-Vought. [fighter]

Bell. [fighter]

Curtiss-Wright. [fighter]

Republic. [fighter]

North American. [fighter and bomber]

Northrup. [night fighter]

Douglas. [torpedo bomber]

Boeing. [bomber]

Martin. [bomber and seaplane]

Consolidated. [bomber]

At least twelve major manufacturers, undoubtedly with a myriad number of sub-contractors.

Today, the number of U.S. manufacturers building combat aircraft [fixed wing] is ONLY three. The three remaining firms are Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Northrup/Grumman.

[the latter making only the B-2 and nothing else??!!]

The dearth of airplane manufacturers in the U.S. is recognized as a problem for the military. Innovation is felt to be lacking and is a concern?!

"A healthy industrial base must have prolonged investment to maintain adequate diversity and thereby enable innovation and workforce renewal. Variety encourages competitiveness in an environment of changing technology, just as multiple firms facilitate efficient operations and adaptation. Additionally, industry needs a workforce large enough so that older, experienced workers train their eventual replacements. A recent decline in the number of firms and experienced workers suggests that the health of the American aircraft industry is deteriorating."

"The decline in aircraft production has contributed to industry consolidation because smaller procurement quantities and fewer aircraft programs can sustain only a few firms . . . resulting in lower variety, which may adversely affect technological innovation. Innovation does not occur in isolation."

See this graphic which illustrates how U.S. combat aircraft manufacturers have consolidated, merged, or gone out of business, leaving only three firms left.



[click on the image to see an enlarged version!]

Surprisingly, even the Soviet communists encouraged the free enterprise system when it came to aircraft design. A considerable number of "design bureaus" simultaneously developed combat aircraft, each seeking to come up with an innovative way to achieve the performance specifications. "Bureaus" such as Mikoyan-Guryevich [MiG], Tupelov, Antonov, Sukhoi, Yakolev, etc. Competitiveness leading to startling, innovative designs that fulfilled specs as laid out by the military.

coolbert.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Innovation, whether of a negative or positive, even breakthrough, kind,
is not valuable militarily, if it is swiftly sent out to China.
That is, unless, the US is always going to be fighting opponents who are technically backward;
but if that happens, we don't need innovation either, or at least, not except at long intervals.
Therefore security is more important than weapons invention, and changeover of personnel as the quote mentions, is not to be allowed to facilitate infiltration by say, engineers with most of their relatives living in a hostile country, where political prisoners by the hundreds of thousands, even perhaps, millions are making baskets.
Hopefully we still have some few patriotic Americans who can sound the alarm on the infiltration of defense contractors by those from hostile countries.
Pseudo-moral posturing of anti-discrimination must not be allowed to compromise national security.

12:55 AM

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home