Best dogfight gun?

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:39:51 +0000, Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:21:39 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:


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/

You have no idea. The Mauser was an inferior weapon.

Al Minyard


ROFLMAO! How did you draw that stunning conclusion.


greg


Well, if you signature is and indication, you are involved in the use
of serious drugs, not someone that I would assume could make
rational judgements. The fact that the US chose a different system pretty
much tells me that the Mauser was (and is) an inferior system.

Al, I'm as patriotic as any, but...

One of the illuminating moments in my engineering career was when I listened
to five companies worth of very imminent engineering teams bidding to the
same set of requirements, each proving catagorically that their wildly
different offerings were each the_only_solution to the customer's problem,
with utter sincerety and honesty. Then the customer elected to buld
internally rather than buy.

Most selections are_very_closely balanced and most of the offerings will do
the job. The difference between winner and also ran will turn on
features_other than_technical performance. In fact, it's the rare
procurement these days that offers any evaluation points at all for
performance above the "goal" level. Instead heaviest weighting is usually
given to Cost, delivery, cost and oh, yes cost. Did I mention cost?

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 12:47:55 -0500, "Paul F Austin" wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 20:39:51 +0000, Greg Hennessy wrote:

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 13:21:39 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:


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/

You have no idea. The Mauser was an inferior weapon.

Al Minyard


ROFLMAO! How did you draw that stunning conclusion.


greg


Well, if you signature is and indication, you are involved in the use
of serious drugs, not someone that I would assume could make
rational judgements. The fact that the US chose a different system pretty
much tells me that the Mauser was (and is) an inferior system.

Al, I'm as patriotic as any, but...

One of the illuminating moments in my engineering career was when I listened
to five companies worth of very imminent engineering teams bidding to the
same set of requirements, each proving catagorically that their wildly
different offerings were each the_only_solution to the customer's problem,
with utter sincerety and honesty. Then the customer elected to buld
internally rather than buy.

Most selections are_very_closely balanced and most of the offerings will do
the job. The difference between winner and also ran will turn on
features_other than_technical performance. In fact, it's the rare
procurement these days that offers any evaluation points at all for
performance above the "goal" level. Instead heaviest weighting is usually
given to Cost, delivery, cost and oh, yes cost. Did I mention cost?

I would certainly agree, however the Mauser offering was significantly
different from the M-61 derivative. Different design philosophy (revolver
vs "gatling" gun). The ammunition is also significantly different. If both
weapons were designed to a definitive solution (rate of fire, same
ammunition, etc) then your contention would be more accurate.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote:


Most selections are_very_closely balanced and most of the offerings will
do
the job. The difference between winner and also ran will turn on
features_other than_technical performance. In fact, it's the rare
procurement these days that offers any evaluation points at all for
performance above the "goal" level. Instead heaviest weighting is usually
given to Cost, delivery, cost and oh, yes cost. Did I mention cost?

I would certainly agree, however the Mauser offering was significantly
different from the M-61 derivative. Different design philosophy (revolver
vs "gatling" gun). The ammunition is also significantly different. If both
weapons were designed to a definitive solution (rate of fire, same
ammunition, etc) then your contention would be more accurate.

Lately, many procurements have had requirements based on end-effects rather
than e.g. specifying ROF and ammunition natures. In fact the whole JSF
procurement has been specified on a end effect basis.

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 21:19:04 -0500, "Paul F Austin" wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote
"Paul F Austin" wrote:


Most selections are_very_closely balanced and most of the offerings will
do
the job. The difference between winner and also ran will turn on
features_other than_technical performance. In fact, it's the rare
procurement these days that offers any evaluation points at all for
performance above the "goal" level. Instead heaviest weighting is usually
given to Cost, delivery, cost and oh, yes cost. Did I mention cost?

I would certainly agree, however the Mauser offering was significantly
different from the M-61 derivative. Different design philosophy (revolver
vs "gatling" gun). The ammunition is also significantly different. If both
weapons were designed to a definitive solution (rate of fire, same
ammunition, etc) then your contention would be more accurate.

Lately, many procurements have had requirements based on end-effects rather
than e.g. specifying ROF and ammunition natures. In fact the whole JSF
procurement has been specified on a end effect basis.

We tried that method with ships, ONCE. The LHA's were built on an "end
performance" contract. Unfortunately Ingals took this to mean "if it floats
its good enough". The PSAs for the LHAs were equivalent to major
overhauls, and the lawyers got rich.

I thought that we had learned from that experience, but perhaps not :-((

Al Minyard