"Alan Minyard" wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:24:47 GMT, "Brett" wrote:

"Alan Minyard" wrote:
On 16 Dec 2003 01:11:08 -0800, (Tony
Williams) wrote:

...

I find it hard to imagine that GD would make such a mistake in
understanding the requirements (in my experience of tendering, it's
more usual for firms to submit non-compliant tenders then argue why
they should be accepted despite that!). Reading between the lines, it
seems most likely that the GAU-12/U did not meet the original
requirements, but when the costs of the BK 27 became an issue, L-M
revisted the requirements and "balanced" them to allow the GAU-12/U to
compete. Or am I just too cynical about the way things work?

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

The gun is selected by the USAF, not the contractor. (IIRC)

Is the cannon going to be GFE?
USAF I believe would approve/disapprove whatever cannon is selected by
the
prime contractor based on the requirements outlined in the contract that
was
awarded.

I really do not know. On ships all of the guns are GFE, on aircraft I do
not know.
I do know that the selection of weapons is a Govt decision, not the
contractors.

Approval of whatever selection is made by the prime contractor would be, but
according to the GD fact sheet on the JSF program the contract to design
produce and integrate the weapon for the JSF was awarded to GD by LMT, not
the US Government.

http://www.gdatp.com/products/lethality/jsf/JSF.pdf