F.I.S.T.ing Acceptable in the Infantry?

#2
I thought they summed it up pretty well! After all why would HMG pay £1000 for something when they can get the same thing but heavier with less capabilities for £5000!

Think Bowman, BATES, SA80 the list goes on and on!
 
#3
A decent (ish) article, well, it makes some valid points.

"Interestingly, under current plans our soldier's basic pay will still be about £14k pa. This, despite the fact that he's doing a literally life and death, mission-critical job, personally carrying well over a hundred grand's worth of stuff and perhaps directing other things which cost tens of millions. His pension scheme is good, of course, but the sting in the tail is that the army can, and often does, throw you out after 22 years - so, in fact, most soldiers don't get the kind of pleasant retirement that, say, policemen or firefighters do. In the case of infantrymen, they're also significantly less likely to live that long."
 
#5
My flatmate works for an engineering firm that was submitting to build new tech kit for RE.
They didn't get it.
The MOD could not beleive that a company new to the defence industry arena could deliver a system at the price they were offering....and so went to another company who offered them an inferior system at about three or four times the price.
And they'll they pinch pennies on LOA/RILOR etc etc.
 
#6
Analysis Anyone who likes gadgets should give some thought to joining the infantry. Okay, the pay is peanuts, the work is grim, you'll have to live in a baking fortified camp in Southwest Asia, where you might easily get blown up, shot, or have to strip naked and fight your buddies with rollmats. But you will get some neat toys. Already the soldiery have thermal imagers, night sights, headset radios, and a military wireless network called Bowman.

Continues here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/05/army_tech_obsolete/
 
#7
worth keeping an eye on, but you'll never make initiative obselete (sp?) .
looked like some good kit, not sure how much is actually needed , does the Susat need replacing? monoical is allready in , LLM all ready in use, your gonna need an extra pouch for all the batteries mind you. intresting article tho.
 
#9
Interesting article. It follows in the mode of suggestions of 20-30 years ago, the military will spend vast sums on a ruggedising a piece of equipment that will survive fire, shock, being run over by a tank etc... BUT because of the cost only one piece of equipment can be supplied per platoon whereas if the item was produced to a lower spec EVERY man in the platoon could be issued with that piece of equipment and with lots of change to spare. It wouldn't matter if one was run over and destroyed by a tank cos everyone else has one. In military equipment costing terms the item is disposable.
 
#10
Only none military & sceptics dislike the L85A2, never heard an army chap degrade it.
I think the FIST program was flawed from the start, the reason being is that they asked too little of it and still the contractor expects it to be a limited issue system and it comes too late -- 2015 seems to be a little stupid for something that does less than the US version that comes out in 2013.

Technology and the world will also change by then.
 
#13
Yep...Bugger.
 
#14
Let's be honest.The L85 in all it's various forms took far too long to sort out and Not one single country has bought any of the damm things. Even the Falklands Islands Defence force bought something else. The only muppets using L85 are poor saps we offloaded a batch to for "free"

As for the general thrust of the article. He's completely and utterly correct in every single point. I seem to recall being told a figure that would pay for a small schools network for the price of one military hardened laptop via a well known and fully capable Government contract IT consultancy. Oddly enough you could pick up Hardened laptops for $1207 dollars.
 
#16
L85 A2 is the best weapon out there for your average bloke on the ground, combined with the Susat the individual ranging of 300m is conservative at the best, ive knocked targets down at 600m with it, its incredibly accurate! . it kicks the crap outta the plastic shite most other countries use, its the weight buyers dont like and the SF dont like it because you need 2 hands to operate it. plus doesnt the Diamarco(sp) fire US and nato rounds .
 
#17
BarSteward_III said:
L85 A2 is the best weapon out there for your average bloke on the ground, combined with the Susat the individual ranging of 300m is conservative at the best, ive knocked targets down at 600m with it, its incredibly accurate! . it kicks the crap outta the plastic shite most other countries use, its the weight buyers dont like and the SF dont like it because you need 2 hands to operate it. plus doesnt the Diamarco(sp) fire US and nato rounds .
I beg to differ whilst its an improvement on the original version its still fundamentally flawed in the fact its heavy, made cheaply and you can't fire it left handed!! The Susat and sling are the best parts of the weapon system!
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
rictic said:
Interesting article. It follows in the mode of suggestions of 20-30 years ago, the military will spend vast sums on a ruggedising a piece of equipment that will survive fire, shock, being run over by a tank etc... BUT because of the cost only one piece of equipment can be supplied per platoon whereas if the item was produced to a lower spec EVERY man in the platoon could be issued with that piece of equipment and with lots of change to spare. It wouldn't matter if one was run over and destroyed by a tank cos everyone else has one. In military equipment costing terms the item is disposable.
Always interesting to see what is, and isn't, included in costings. Generally (though not always) a procurement cost has to include not just the equipment itself, but the training costs to get the users up to speed and a spares & support package to cover at least part of the expected service life. If you expect to use the kit for a few years, then how many "disposable" items will you need to replace in that period?

It's a great way to confuse (if you do it by accident) or mislead (if you do it on purpose) to compare "how much it costs to buy 500 of Gizzit X" with "how much it costs to buy 500 Gizzit Ys with enough training, ammunition, spares and support to keep them useful for ten years".

Don't know what official FIST costings do, or don't, include - but I notice Page doesn't figure for anything beyond buying boxes. (Not even for batteries, which this lot sounds like it will eat like Smarties)
 

napier

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
#19
This is typical Page - just enough detail to appear plausible, but lacking any 2nd order thinking. The article is 'fantasy procurement' as occurs in every military bar where, lets face it, we have all solved the world's problems at a stroke many times over and still had time to build the perfect footie/rugby team before last orders.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top