Sidevalve
“To show the Procurement mindset, when the UK team went out to Seattle to negotiate the buy of E-3s, after establishing the cost of a standard fit E-3 (with 9 consoles) the question was asked of Boeing - "and how much would one be with 6 consoles?"
The final question was, "..and how much would one be with 3 consoles..?"”
I agree with what you say, but I’d prefer the above to acknowledge the difference between “procurement” and “acquisition”. The latter is inclusive of all involved, the former are those who must actually buy and deliver, to a Customer/Sponsor endorsed requirement which is usually underfunded. “I want at least 20, @ £1M VAT Ex each – here’s £5M VAT Inc and I’ll let you know the final total sometime in the future. Spend it quick as the budget’s getting cut next week”. (Real example).
I do not doubt the example you speak of, as I know many involved, but I think the questions entirely valid. The Customer presumably wanted 9 consoles. Any experienced procurer (and they were handpicked in 1986 for AWACS after the AEW debacle – a good policy I believe, but seldom used) knows that the beancounters, who wouldn’t know an aircraft if it landed on them, ask daft questions like this when the “Procurement Strategy” is up for approval. They want to see options, which always includes (a) do nothing and (b) buy/spend less. So, the procurer pre-empts them by asking for options, and the Contractor knows very well that the answer must never be less. In this case, I’d be surprised if 6 or 3 consoles were cheaper, due to re-development costs and loss of read across to the US programme. You’d also miss the ISD. It’s part of the game you have to play.
Bean counters are peripheral in procurement, but play God in acquisition. They have inordinate authority and rank/grade, but no commensurate responsibility (as it is the PM who manages his budget, not the BCs). They are invariably hostile to what the PM, Sponsors and Users are trying to achieve.