"Brett" wrote in message ...
"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would have been 5 months after GD had withdrawn its proposal in February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.

Sorry, I was mixing it up with Boeing. I have a print-off of an item
from 'Defence Systems Daily' dated April 29th, 1999, which says: "The
Boeing Company has selected the Advanced 27mm Aircraft Cannon for its
next-generation JSF combat aircraft...The gun is also a candidate for
the Lockheed-Martin version of the JSF."

Presumably GD saw the writing on the wall. Why else would they
withdraw their gun, which they seem more than happy to provide now?

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Discussion forum at: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/