On 13 Dec 2003 22:16:54 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On 12 Dec 2003 12:51:59 -0800, (Tony Williams) wrote:

Chad Irby wrote in message . com...
In article ,
(Tony Williams) wrote:

We know the Mauser works, too - it's been in service in large numbers
for two decades. The initial assessments by the JSF team concluded
that the Mauser was the most cost-effective choice, and they knew all
about the GAU-12/U then.

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.

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

The Mouser was to be a completely new system, using linkless ammunition.
It has never been demonstrated, much less placed in service.

The linkless feed was developed years ago and is used in the
Eurofighter Typhoon installation, so is just about to enter service.

So what have we determined?

1. The German Mauser BK 27 was selected by both Boeing and
Lockheed-Martin over the GAU-12/U as the best and most cost-effective
gun for the JSF (documented fact).

No, it was dumped for NOT being cost effective.

2. The cost of the gun rose well over budget (documented fact)
probably because Mauser's US partners spent far too much on adapting
it to US use (reasonable assumption).

If it was "in service" why did it need such "adaption"


3. GD, in their position of gun armament integrator, took advantage of
the situation to slip in a lower bid for the GAU-12/U, which was
accepted by L-M (clear conclusion from press statement).

They (with approval from the Pentagon) selected the most
cost effective system

So to sum up, the F-35 will be getting the second-best gun because
Mauser's US partners couldn't keep their costs down.

The Mauser was clearly second-best.


Incidentally, you seem to equate preferring a non-US gun with an
'anti-American bias'. You should have words with the US armed forces.
The US Army's standard 5.56mm MG is the (Belgian) FN Minimi, its
standard 7.62mm GPMG is the (Belgian) FN MAG, and its standard 9mm
pistol is the (Italian) Beretta.

Adopted solely because NATO did not like the far more effective (and
more expensive) .45 Colt.

The M16 rifle family is expected to
be replaced soon by the XM8, based on the (German) Heckler & Koch G36.

"Expected" by whom ??

The advanced XM29 5.56+20mm weapon is also having its hardware
developed by HK. The M1A2 Abrams tank is armed with a (German) 120mm
gun, replacing the (British) 105mm in the M1A1.

No problem.

The USN has made
extensive use of the (Italian) 76mm OTO,

Only a few FFs are still in commission. That was the only y class
built with the OTO, and it was a maintenance hog.

and the US Coastguard has
selected the (Swedish) 57mm Bofors as the main gun for its new class
of ships.

Bofors is a US company. They are owned by United Defense.

The USMC has selected the (British) RO 155mm as its next
howitzer.

Of course, the USMC also operates the AV-8B aircraft, based
on the (British) BAe Harrier,

Now obsolete and being replaced with the F-35. It was, in its
time, a fine aircraft.

and the USN uses the T-45 Goshawk
trainer, a version of the (British) BAe Hawk.

The hawk was a political decision. It was not wanted by the USN, required
complete redesign, and took many years to get into service,

Evidently these services are riven with anti-American bias. Or perhaps
they're just sensible enough to buy the best weapons available from
the western world?

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

No, they are occasionally blind-sided by the politicians (Hawk, Beretta) and
occasionally make bad procurement decisions. But US corporations
own almost all of the companies that do significant business with the
Pentagon.

Al Minyard