Best dogfight gun?

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

"Brett" wrote in message ...

__Burbage emphasized that both the BK 27 and GAU-12 were able to meet
JSF's lethality requirements, which include probability of kill and
accuracy. He said the GAU-12, which has a higher rate of fire than the
BK 27, was able to meet the requirement by putting more rounds on the
target.
"Performance and affordability are equally important in our selection
process," Burbage said. "If we have two candidates that are comparable
in technical performance, but have significant differences in terms of
affordability, we will pick the one that is more affordable."

Burbage also said there were more technical negatives against the BK 27
than the GAU-12. Cost in three areas, unit recurring fly-away cost,
ammunition, and operational support, tilted the decision in favor of the
GAU-12, he said.

"In all three areas, there was a benefit to the GAU-12," Burbage said.__

see: http://stage.defensedaily.com/VIP/dd...ddi1122.htm#A3

Having studied that article, a couple of interesting points emerge.
The first is that GD withdrew its proposal for the GAU-12/U in
February 2000 "in part due to a belief that the gun did not meet the
necessary requirements." The second is the comment from Burbage that
"We spent a lot of time balancing performance and cost, looking for
best value."

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)

Al Minyard

"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.

"Tony Williams" wrote in message

What makes you say that the original decision in favour of the BK 27
wasn't 'in open competition'? It was clear that when Boeing decided in
favour of the BK 27 in 1999, the GAU-12/U WAS in the frame, because GD
withdrew it from the JSF competition in 2000, just before L-M selected
the BK 27 as well (which looks very much like a case of 'resign before
you're sacked').

Tony, that almost never happens in US contracting. If you_do_withdraw an
already submitted proposal it will cost you a lot of goodwill with the
customer. Actually, companies commit to submitting a proposal when the RFP
comes out and reneging of that commitment is not done lightly. I don't know
why the GAU-12/U proposal was withdrawn but it was_not_to prevent the
embarassment of losing.

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message ...
"Tony Williams" wrote in message

What makes you say that the original decision in favour of the BK 27
wasn't 'in open competition'? It was clear that when Boeing decided in
favour of the BK 27 in 1999, the GAU-12/U WAS in the frame, because GD
withdrew it from the JSF competition in 2000, just before L-M selected
the BK 27 as well (which looks very much like a case of 'resign before
you're sacked').

Tony, that almost never happens in US contracting. If you_do_withdraw an
already submitted proposal it will cost you a lot of goodwill with the
customer. Actually, companies commit to submitting a proposal when the RFP
comes out and reneging of that commitment is not done lightly. I don't know
why the GAU-12/U proposal was withdrawn but it was_not_to prevent the
embarassment of losing.

Fascinating. I'd love to know why they pulled out, then. I vaguely
recall there were business manoeuverings going on at the time - was GD
trying to buy Mauser's US partner? If so, they might have regarded the
BK 27 as one of 'theirs' and decided that was the one to push.

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/