On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 22:24:47 GMT, "Brett" wrote:

"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.

I really do not know. On ships all of the guns are GFE, on aircraft I do not know.
I do know that the selection of weapons is a Govt decision, not the
contractors.

Al Minyard