|
|
|
|
|
|
|
¤: Cain trollt auch gerne!
|
|
[Dieser Beitrag wurde 1 mal editiert; zum letzten Mal von [k44] Obi Wahn am 30.06.2010 18:57]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Würde sich sogar gut als Panoramadruck im begehbaren Waffenschrank machen 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kessel, schaffst du das auch ohne Bild? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kein .50 AE 
nichmal nach Größe ordnen können die 
|
|
[Dieser Beitrag wurde 2 mal editiert; zum letzten Mal von [GR] WarZeal am 30.06.2010 21:51]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taking a stand...
|
| |
Here are a few facts; 1) USSOCOM DOES NOT HAVE AN UNLIMITED BUDGET. Many items are SOF unique, and are not funded by mother Army, which leads to decisions that must be made on what is purchased on a priority list. This leads to another fact, 2) the M4 and MK 16 both use the same round (5.56), and when funds are to be spent, the capability and priority is weighted against how best to use resources (i.e. money). The SCAR MK16 has been DEFUNDED, not DIVESTED from. When a program is DEFUNDED, the money is moved to another item of priority, but the option to purchase the item remains. The MK17 offers an increased capability, as well as it will be the platform which the multi caliber is based on. 3) The SCAR SSR MK20 is a superior weapon when compared to the currently fielded competitors. 4) Yes, it is a fact that there are issues with the acquisitions process with both DA as well as with USSOCOM.
As of today, SOCOM’s response to this (as I have heard it from the people directly involved), the MK16 will not be funded going forward (and as I understand it Units can still buy them off the SCAR contract). The SCAR contract is still funded but the funding line with MK16 is not. HOWEVER (as I have stated), the focus is on the MK17 / Common Receiver with the 5.56mm Parts kit. The MK17, MK13 (40mm) and MK20 SSR are still being purchased. Also, as I understand it, the Full Rate production is going to be signed off soon, I think they are working on finals numbers and whatnot. I’m sure there will some sort of ‘Official” response from FNH USA (as Mr. Bailey stated) and most likely SOCOM will also, but I’m not sure. As I said in previous posts, I DID NOT say it was a lie or false, but until I heard officially (not through rumor mill) it was difficult to grasp and it’s pretty hard to swallow, especially after all the hard work that was put into it (as well as tax payers dollars).
I did want to address a comment made by soldiersystems in regards to SOCOM’s “He doesn't have to. SOCOM has officially been saying "no" to the Mk 16 internally for some time. This is just the first instance that they have admitted it to the public.” This statement can be taken in many ways, I believe this statement would come from the disconnect of information being fed up the chain of command, what the operators are saying to how their Senior leadership is relaying that information to the Staff level, and finally how that information is then given to the Admiral and the BOD. Although I’m not sure why you are trying to point out the information discrepancies between the Staff at Macdill and the Program Office, but most of what they say publicly and privately are probably 75% the same. The SOF community (whether contractors or operators) is filled with a lot of type A personalities and many different opinions, just because certain individuals express their opinion, does not mean they speak for the masses, but like tradition shows us, the naysayers and complainers are ALWAYS the ones heard the loudest and then get deemed the voice of the people, which most cases, is not the fact. It’s just like in school and in life you can do 1,000 great things, but if you make one mistake, that is how you will be remembered; the good always get forgotten….
To give a little bit more history behind why the SCAR requirement came along, this is how SCAR was started. On or about 2000 SOCOM went to Big Army and requested a number of changes to the M-4 citing a number of issues; Reliability, Safety, Accuracy and Ergonomics; (following from M4 case study)
• SOF used the M4 much more harshly than the regular Army did, in some cases going well beyond the design criteria of the weapon.
• Weapon support within the services was not adequate to support usage rates in SOF.
SOCOM’s request for these fix’s were ultimately shot down by Big Army. “The statement “No unsafe condition occurs other than the weapon quits firing” summarized the Army position on bolt failures. SOF took exception to this position.” (From M4 Study) And they would not ask or require Colt to make change to the M-4 to make it more suitable for US Special Operations Forces. After this, SOCOM took this and basically said, “If they won’t fix it, we get our own weapon” (something to that effect). For parts life and sustainment, look at the gas system alone, the MK16 offer setting to keep the rate of fire the same suppressed and unsuppressed, and every barrel is hand tuned to a certain rate of fire. “The current M4A1 fires at a rate of 847-903 rpm when the carbine is new. This rate increases to as high as 1,100 rpm as the weapon becomes worn. The use of the SOPMOD Suppressor adds another 100-150 rounds a minute to the rate of fire.” (From M4 study) This Decreases barrel life and increases wear on parts, therefore increasing the overall sustainment cost of the rifle. Again, the Money excuse is INVALID! And finally, over the beach (OTB), MK16 can and does pass all OTB requirements, do the same test to the M4 or even the 416, the receivers will have a catastrophic failure and in some cases could cause severe injury to an operator. It’s very simple, if you have a buffer tube with a spring, and water fills that weapon, it take too long to drain in order to fire a round and if fired there is nowhere for the water to go, and we all know, you can’t compress water! And a little hole in the rear of the tube DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM, it only helps, a little bit!
So taking that the above paragraph, think about this. They are buying and fielding MK17 because it fills a capability gap and it cost a little bit more than the MK16. The MK16 fills all the requirements and was unanimously chosen out of the competition. The cost of a SCAR initially bought by SOCOM is only a few hundred dollars more than the M4-A1 BUT it costs almost 1,500 less per year to sustain. So for the excuse that “The Mk-16 does not provide enough of a performance advantage over the M-4 to justify spending USSOCOM's limited … funds when competing priorities are taken into consideration” , it’s CRAP! It’s an excuse! If it is strictly a monetary decision, then the MK16 cost is much much less over the sustainment of the life of the rifle. Also, given its increased accuracy, durability, ease of maintenance and modularity there is no reason for this decision saying it offers no advantages. The data speaks for itself, I have seen, read and been a part of it all, the MK16 does have many advantages over the M4. I have read and seen the first hand feed back from the guys that were getting shot at with it and their opinion on what it offers over the current system is a far different opinion of that of SOCOM’s. This is very sad that the true opinion of the Operators has NOT been taken into account here, and certain individuals with their own agenda’s have silenced the true voice!
__________________
Brett W
Elite Defense
Vice President of Domestic Sales and Marketing
FN Senior Manager of Assault Weapons - SCAR Program 2006-2010
Former Troy Industries Inc Director of Operations 2003-2006 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Das HK416 besteht keinen "Over the Beach"-Test? War das HK-Video etwa gefaked?
Dinge die man außer Nummer 22 nicht braucht?
|
|
[Dieser Beitrag wurde 1 mal editiert; zum letzten Mal von EXactly am 01.07.2010 0:02]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Auch zu 9mm das Motto der Marines:
"Life is expensive, ammo is cheap: shoot twice."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jetz auf ARD "Deutschland unter Waffen"
Die pösen pösen aber auch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, mozambiquiert, ja?
Und Zwischenposter gehören ebenso erschossen.
Da ich zum Glück keinen fernseher in Reichweite habe werde ich jetzt schlafen und mich nicht über die bösen deutschen Militaristen mit ihren Gewaltfantasien und waffenstarrenden Arsenalen aufregen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Zitat von EXactly
Das HK416 besteht keinen "Over the Beach"-Test? War das HK-Video etwa gefaked?
| |
Ja, das war wohl nen Fake beim Test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Zitat von [GR] WarZeal
Ah, mozambiquiert, ja?
Und Zwischenposter gehören ebenso erschossen.
| |
Dich bekomm ich auch noch!
Moon war nur der Erste auf der Liste...!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Zitat von Netghost
Dangöö...im Prinzip keine schlechte idee nur das mit den Hängenbleiben is natürlich doof. aber hey WIE hätten sie es besser machen können OHNE Panzertape?
| |
Supermagnete! \o/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hat Deutschland eigentlich irgendwelche Kampfhelikopter?
Gestern flog hier (Mittelhessen) ein Heli mit so seitlichen Waffenhalterungen rum.
¤: Was willst du Nox??
|
|
[Dieser Beitrag wurde 1 mal editiert; zum letzten Mal von Moonflyer am 01.07.2010 9:35]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BO105 als Panzerabwehrhubschrauber, EC Tiger als, na ja, was auch immer, CH53 mit Doorguns...
|
|
[Dieser Beitrag wurde 1 mal editiert; zum letzten Mal von Absonoob am 01.07.2010 9:42]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dann wars wohl ein Tiger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Zitat von Moonflyer
Dann wars wohl ein Tiger.
| |
Nicht vielleicht eher ein 
Sind bei uns sehr häufig unterwegs. Ich weiß allerdings nicht wie es um die Stationierung von Tigern im Raum Mittelhessen aussieht.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Fritzlar sind doch welche?!
|
|
[Dieser Beitrag wurde 1 mal editiert; zum letzten Mal von Cal .50 BMG am 01.07.2010 10:16]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Und Fritzlar ist doch schon ziemlich mittelhessisch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hätten wir das auch geklärt 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | Zitat von Absonoob
Und Fritzlar ist doch schon ziemlich mittelhessisch
| |
In Hubschrauberflugminuten schon.
|
|
[Dieser Beitrag wurde 1 mal editiert; zum letzten Mal von Cal .50 BMG am 01.07.2010 10:18]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Und darauf kommts doch an
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Du bist es selbst! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Negative. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
private sammlung oder museum o.ä.?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Thema: Waffenthread 48 ( Karren und Knarren ) |
![AUP [GR] WarZeal 11.10.2010](./avatare/upload/U1097030--waidmann_klein.png)
![[BC]Alm](./avatare/[BC]ALM.gif)
![[ACPS]Turrican](./avatare/turrican2.gif)
