This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 3:39 by gatnerd
Latest 3:25 by gatnerd
Latest 7-Dec by autogun
Latest 6-Dec by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 5-Dec by gatnerd
Latest 4-Dec by stancrist
Latest 4-Dec by gatnerd
Latest 2-Dec by smmheart1
Latest 1-Dec by EmericD
Latest 30-Nov by Refleks
Latest 26-Nov by stancrist
Latest 25-Nov by autogun
Latest 23-Nov by Farmplinker
Latest 23-Nov by Refleks
Latest 22-Nov by stancrist
Latest 17-Nov by PRM2
Latest 17-Nov by TonyDiG
Latest 16-Nov by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 16-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 15-Nov by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 15-Nov by TarheelYank
Latest 14-Nov by JPeelen
Latest 13-Nov by DavidPawley
Latest 10-Nov by Lorrybaker
Latest 9-Nov by gatnerd
Latest 9-Nov by gatnerd
Did the bbc mention that LM is closing the factory where the Ajax turret is made because of the WCSP cancellation?
GDLS has already declined to purchase the factory and maintain production. The turreted Ajax are de facto cancelled.
The NVH issues are due to the weight reduction demanded by MoD; the only fix is to redesign, adding the weight (~8 tonnes) back which can’t be done without breaching the contracted requirements.
The LAND400 project team was right to reject the Ajax proposal as unfit for purpose.
Was the the 8 tonne weight reduction demand due to either the design being over weight (Contractor Issue) or to a change in requirements from MoD (Customer Issue) ?
Oh boy. We are now well accustomed to defence projects running into difficulties involving long delays, large cost increases and capability reductions. But the interminable saga of the BA's AFVs seems to be well on the way to breaking all records.
It seems to be impossible simply to buy a proven vehicle and systems off the shelf (MOTS, I think it's called). They can't resist fiddling with the specification, and then look surprised as the project balloons out of control.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Boxer, since we have an unusual opportunity created by the fact that the UK withdrew from membership of the consortium years ago, and therefore had no opportunity to foul up its development. I'm not up to speed with how that project is going, but I hope that they are limited to just buying the thing.
Well - on one side, you get the MoD with its usual shenanigans. On the other, the fact that many companies these days are managed by accountants that expel the engineer corps because is too expensive, let's sub-contract for the cheapest price. also, QC is for losers (and expensive). just look at Boeing, for a good example.
When you add both cases (MoD and these types of companies) suddenly is easy to understand so many problems.
As far as I know, neither. The weight reduction was for Pizzaro to meet the Ajax requirement, i.e. the existing design had to be modified to meet the tender requirements.
COTS; Commercial Off The Shelf.
I have also seen MOTS, for Military Off The Shelf.
Another slightly ridiculous use of MOTS is for 'Modified Off The Shelf', although more specifically for software development - a good example of an oxymoron! It is also an example of an acronym meaning something different, dependent upon which project you are working on.