Hosted by gatnerd
This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 7-Dec by autogun
Latest 9:44 by graylion
Latest 9:38 by schnuersi
Latest 8:56 by graylion
Latest 8:01 by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 7:55 by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 4:19 by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 26-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 26-Jan by graylion
Latest 26-Jan by graylion
Latest 26-Jan by autogun
Latest 26-Jan by smg762
Latest 25-Jan by schnuersi
Latest 24-Jan by ZailC
Latest 24-Jan by stancrist
Latest 24-Jan by renatohm
Latest 23-Jan by Apsyda
Latest 23-Jan by BruhMomento
Latest 22-Jan by schnuersi
Latest 21-Jan by graylion
Latest 21-Jan by Farmplinker
Latest 20-Jan by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 18-Jan by nincomp
Latest 17-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 15-Jan by gatnerd
Latest 14-Jan by roguetechie
Latest 14-Jan by Refleks
Latest 13-Jan by EmericD
Latest 12-Jan by APFSDST
Latest 12-Jan by APFSDST
Latest 11-Jan by RovingPedant
Latest 8-Jan by wiggy556
Latest 7-Jan by roguetechie
Latest 6-Jan by roguetechie
Latest 6-Jan by autogun
Latest 5-Jan by autogun
Latest 3-Jan by stancrist
Latest 3-Jan by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 30-Dec by Refleks
Latest 27-Dec by graylion
4/6/21
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.
4/6/21
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.
4/6/21
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.
5/6/21
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.
5/6/21
The software design syllabus I teach refers to MOTS as modified off the shelf which bugs me no end.
Worse is that it refers to COTS as customised off the shelf. FFS people.
6/6/21
Believe me, I understand the frustration. Years ago I worked in a building that housed numerous US Government agencies. Each had its own set of acronyms, many of which used the same letters meaning different things (DOD seemed particularly popular, for some reason). I could almost swear that the motto was "All acronyms, all the time." At least it provided some entertainment since my coworkers and I spent a fair amount of time coming up with entertaining or off-color phrases to match the acronyms' letters.
1/7/21
No further progress, it seems: https://www.overtdefense.com/2021/07/01/impacts-of-noise-result-in-suspension-of-ajax-vehicle-trials/