The Navy treated the TBD as another multi-generation aircraft after already stretching the T4M across three cycles. A 1936-generation design should plausibly have had a successor flying by 1938 and entering service around 1939-40, yet the TBD remained on the front line in 1942. Skipping an interim type saved money because the immediate improvement might look modest on paper. Buying it would also have preserved design experience, production knowledge, aircrew training, and logistical familiarity with new technology. Without that practice, the eventual successor had to bridge a larger technical and institutional gap at the moment war made delay most dangerous.
Notable Point · 23:00-25:54
Skipping replacement cycles created aviation technology debt
Keeping one design through multiple three-year cycles saved money immediately but left designers, crews, and logistics farther behind.