New tactical tomahawk

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


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Plus the existing design was woefully out-of-date from an electronics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?

I work in a different division, so was not privy to all the front end
information
on Tactom. It's possible that someone in DoD asked for an unsolicited
proposal, but what would be the point, when they could just solicit one?

What is the point? Well, for example, DoD chairwarmer realizes that they are
not going to be buying the number of CM's really needed due to both cost and
utility concerns. But said chairwarmer has no authorized funding to support
a RFP. Samesaid chairwarmer calls up his acquaintance at Raytheon and says,
"Hey, Bob, you remember we were talking about the problem we are having with
cost and utility of CM's? Well, I don't have any bucks authoorized right now
for any new R&D or procurement efforts in that line, but if you guys could
find a way to significantly cut the unit-cost of these critters, while at
the same time expanding their versatility and responsiveness, we might be
able to convince Congress it would be a wise program to support..."

Not saying that is the way it happened, but there is indeed the possibility
that something along those lines could have happened. Example from a much
lower level-- when we wanted a new computerized C3I system for use in
responding to domestic emergency situations, we found that our state level
HQ already had a contractor working on one. But said contractor was pretty
slow, and growing increasingly greedy. Some of us at the major subordinate
command level decided we'd rather have a good system available *now* as
opposed to (maybe) a better system available at some future time. Mentioned
this to one of our guys who was a fulltime programmer/systems developer
type; he turned around and provided us with a *more* capable system the
following month, and made a proposal to the state that they could field it
at very reasonable terms--presto, the old contractor found himself cut-off
from the teat, and our guy fielded his package statewide.

Anytime a program is successful there many claiming credit.
"Victory has a hundred fathers but defeat is an orphan"
-Galeazzo Ciano

Often true; but not necessarily an indictment in this case.

Brooks


--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur