"Tony Williams" wrote:
| Chad Irby wrote in message
m...
| (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."
|
| Thanks for that link. I had to smile at: "GD had initially offered its
| GAU-12 25mm gatling cannon for the JSF in July 1999, but withdrew its
| proposal in February 2000." since that was only after L-M had selected
| the BK 27 - in the UK, we call that 'spin'

The comment in the article was "Lockheed Martin originally selected the
BK 27 27mm cannon offered by Boeing [BA] and Mauser in July 2000" which
would have been 5 months after GD had withdrawn its proposal in February
of that year. If that comment is true Lockheed Martin, by default,
selected the only weapon left in the competition.