New tactical tomahawk

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Plus the existing design was woefully out-of-date from an electronics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?
Anytime a program is successful there many claiming credit.
"Victory has a hundred fathers but defeat is an orphan"
-Galeazzo Ciano

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur