"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , "Ragnar"

wrote:



http://mae.pennnet.com/articles/arti... 05527&pc=enl

"The concept for Block IV arose from a challenge by the Pentagon
to
implement
the U.S. Navy's vision of a low-cost "Tactical" Tomahawk system
that
would
provide affordable, responsive fire power, affordable follow-on
production,
and significantly reduce life cycle cost. "

WattabunchaBS.

Missile Systems Group made an unsolicited proposal to USN for a
follow-on
program to legacy Tomahawk, and proposed making it 50% cheaper
by
re-designing some things and using procurement reform. It took
literally an act of congress to make it happen.

And you have cites for this?

Yes

Yet you fail to provide them when asked. That speaks volumes.

I work for the company. You? Do your own research.
(yes, I recognize that is Ragnar's ignorant comment, but it's easier to
answer in one post)

From what I have read, Raytheon did submit the original proposal for TT
without their being a RFP issued. But left unsaid was how "unsolicited"
that
was; did DoD say, "Hey, we can't justify buying more and more Tomahawks
at
the existing price and with the restrictions upon operational use they
are
burdened with, so can you come up with a cheaper option that increases
the
tactical usefullness of the system?" Who knows?

DoD was struggling with the price/performance and was not going to buy
more.
Plus the existing design was woefully out-of-date from an electronics
standpoint. By making the unsolicited proposal, Raytheon was illustrating
to the Navy just how good and cheap a modern design could be.
But you could only hit those cost targets if you used acquisition reform
techniques. I heard from someone involved that the Navy was not
ready to do an acq reform missile program and had to be dragged into it.
From the initial eye-opening exercise, the new program took shape.
You can read between the lines all the politics involved, and see who is
now claiming credit for the idea. Thus my disdain. Why is it so hard for
some people to give credit where it is due?
rhetorical question.

Harry, I have no problem giving such credit, and I can see that your
explanation is a very realistic one. But it is also likely that *somebody*
at DoD was championing this approach, too--whether the chicken or the egg
came first is the question. A quick web search indicated that it likely was
an unsolicited proposal, but no details seem to be readily available. Are
you claiming that noone at DoD could possibly have encouraged Raytheon to
submit such a proposal?

Brooks


--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur