 |
04-07-2010, 09:47
|
 |
|
|
חבר מתאריך: 19.09.05
הודעות: 1,280
|
|
|
History of SCAR
From the thread I linked about (highly recommended - lots of insight into the US military industry
Historic summary of the SCAR program, by the former FN SCAR program manager
ציטוט:
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.
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
|
and this which might explain the real reasons they decided to stick with the M4 instead of the mk16 (556 SCAR
ציטוט:
.
Why can't SOCOM use the available pool of 'gun money' to buy the gun they want? It is the same money right?
QUOTE]
It's not the same money. USASOC will have to buy the MK16's out of their bugets. Sticking with the M-4 means they basicly get them FREE as PEMA funded weapons from the mother Army. Not exercising the MK-16 option freed up about $36,000,000 in direct costs to USASOC. Add to that the fact that MOTHER Army will Re-Set (service) their M-4's after every rotation at no cost vs. USASOC paying from thier budget and preety soon the dollar signs start adding up.
ODA's can also get repair parts from any unit they happen to be near if needed down range. And then we ave the some guys love them, some hate them so how do the bug budget guys chose?
Finaly, mother Army is thumping their chest that they are going to field an upgraded M-4 soon, and again budget folks have a realy hard time making a decision when yu can get something else for free. After all hat happens if you spend your $36,000,000 and then some one blows the doors off the SCAR with a M-4 upgrade kit in the Carbine Improvement RFP. Say, a kit based on the LMT MRP, a VLTOR A5 Conversion EMOD, Troy BUIS, BCM Gunfighter CH, PMAGs and a Fail Zero Treated BCG. It would be very hard to go back and ask fo your M-4's back
__________________
Owner Pro Patria, Inc.
www.pro-patria.us
|
_____________________________________
Sorry for the English... I was a bad student in Hebrew school
אבל אפשר לענות לי בעברית
|
|
ראשי
צ'אט
A nation is a society united by delusions about its ancestry and by common hatred of its neighbors - William Ralph
)
ארץ ישראל לעם ישראל - הציונות תנצח! 
מצב כלאיים
