"Tony Williams" wrote in message
...
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).

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).

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).

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.

While your conclusion may or may not be accurate, it was certainly
sloppily arrived at.
If the most "cost-effective" gun goes up in cost that necessarily
impacts its cost effectiveness.