New tactical tomahawk

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

Bob



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article , remove 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.

Now the spinmeisters are at work trying to re-define history.

Kudos to the Tucson crew for making it happen on-time and budget.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"Harry Andreas" wrote in message
...
In article , remove
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?

In article , "Ragnar" wrote:

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

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

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

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

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.

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

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

wrote:

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

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.

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?

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

"Ragnar" wrote in message
...

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

wrote:

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

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.

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?

Who knows? Apparently Harry thinks he does, yet he doesn't seem to be able
to present any proof.

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 Andreas
Engineering raconteur

"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

"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)

Yes, still no answer. Strange that the one guy with inside info refuses to
provide it. Makes me wonder what he really knows.