Started with 600 for a bn, what was it for 380?mr.fred wrote:something like a 50% increase in unit cost
This 280 will be (?) 1.5 bn... or be cut
- MTBF will tell
Started with 600 for a bn, what was it for 380?mr.fred wrote:something like a 50% increase in unit cost
This one is interesting as upgrade trials (5? yrs back) showed that doing the Joint Fires job properly, each team would need two Warriors.ArmChairCivvy wrote:one FV524 Warrior artillery observation post vehicle
- yes, the approach was abandoned; hence I was surprised to see that designation reappear (in one vehicle instance, for the trials)Gabriele wrote:the 2-vehicle approach was abandoned because it led to much increased radio traffic between the vehicles, with obvious correlate issues. The prototype fit eventually trialed was for a single vehicle solution.
The British Army's Warrior armoured vehicle first entered service in 1988. Eight years ago, manufacturer Lockheed Martin was contracted to upgrade the vehicle's turret. That design is now being road-tested, which the Ministry of Defence will use to decide whether to upgrade the entire fleet.
Delivered operationally I mean to say, which is a criticism of the Army/MoD, not BAEdmereifield wrote:8 years ago they received a contract, and thus far none have been delivered....
What about Lockheed Martin?dmereifield wrote:Delivered operationally I mean to say, which is a criticism of the Army/MoD, not BAEdmereifield wrote:8 years ago they received a contract, and thus far none have been delivered....
Yeah, not LM either!mr.fred wrote:What about Lockheed Martin?dmereifield wrote:Delivered operationally I mean to say, which is a criticism of the Army/MoD, not BAEdmereifield wrote:8 years ago they received a contract, and thus far none have been delivered....
As per, raked with inaccurate information that will be quoted as fact by some. But, as an opinion piece and a brief history it's reasonable.
Seriously?mr.fred wrote:The comment on cost vs technical capability always strikes me as odd. If the various acquired BAE AFV companies were all so much more skilled, how could they be outbid?
Yes. Explain to me how it can happen without the decision makers being literal potatoes.Ron5 wrote:Seriously?mr.fred wrote:The comment on cost vs technical capability always strikes me as odd. If the various acquired BAE AFV companies were all so much more skilled, how could they be outbid?
They did refurb Marders on the way, but only as a stopgapmr.fred wrote: which would make the programme that eventually led to Puma twenty years at least.
Score a Bull's Eye there!mr.fred wrote:explaining 13 marks of Centurion and 12 marks of Chieftain is tricky?
Four elements of any procurement:mr.fred wrote:Yes. Explain to me how it can happen without the decision makers being literal potatoes.Ron5 wrote:Seriously?mr.fred wrote:The comment on cost vs technical capability always strikes me as odd. If the various acquired BAE AFV companies were all so much more skilled, how could they be outbid?
So your argument seems to be that the BAE bid team and the MoD assessment team were staffed by Maris Pipers?Ron5 wrote:
Four elements of any procurement:
Technical
Schedule
Cost
Politics
Got to get them all right to win the bid. Bae didn't. Lockheed did. Of course, Lockheed lied but honesty isn't required, just believability.