(Tony Williams) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote:

Part of that "cost effectiveness" appeared to be a lowball pricing
structure that fell through on closer examination.

Do you have a source to support that? You may be right, but I like to
work on hard info rather than forum gossip.

This talks about the cost issue:

http://stage.defensedaily.com/VIP/ddi/previous/ddi0927.htm#A1

"We had a cost-growth problem that forced a recompetition," he said.
"Affordability is a prime concern of the program. Based on that we were
forced to recompete the gun system integration. We selected our
supplier on a best-value case."

A "cost-growth problem" for an established weapon like the Mauser means
"they tried to stick us for some more cash after they got the contract."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.