Replacing the weapons systems from the 90'... (viable alternatives)

#1
A rather oblivious question has crossed my mind about how the procurement head sheds keep getting it wrong in this country with regards to poor cost to benefit ratio projects like the SA80...

SA80A1 - Fail from the start - £470m

If you had your choice as a cost effective replacement to the weapons systems available around at the time of the early 90's which are both superior, and perhaps cost effective, well lets have it!

SLR to M16A2 (has to be a standard NATO calibre of 5.56mm)
GPMG - Let's face it, it doesn't need replacing its good at what it does, both in the light and sustained fire role
51mm - This has been basically replaced by the UGL but obviously the M16 series has the option of the M203 grenade launcher

I'm sure that alot of people including the old and bold will be kicking up and saying "well, the SLR was fine as it was!" but it wasn't an option
 
#3
SLR in .280 British. Do I win?
Lighter and intermediate, certainly a good option, costs of rechambering internal mechanisms, working parts as well as other bits (I have feck all knowledge of how it would be adapted to another calibre however or even if it would work???
 
#5
My aologies, misread the question.

As above, something in .280 might have been fine although the trend at the time was bullpup, in which case we could have just gone with off the shelf AUG's in 5.56.
 
Last edited:
#9
Lighter and intermediate, certainly a good option, costs of rechambering internal mechanisms, working parts as well as other bits (I have feck all knowledge of how it would be adapted to another calibre however or even if it would work???
It was actually designed for .280 in the first place. IIRC we (the Crown) were given license free rights for the original design as well as for the subsequent 7.62mm version of the FAL (FN were desperate for us to be launch customer and development partner).
 
#14
A rather oblivious question has crossed my mind about how the procurement head sheds keep getting it wrong in this country with regards to poor cost to benefit ratio projects like the SA80...

SA80A1 - Fail from the start - £470m

If you had your choice as a cost effective replacement to the weapons systems available around at the time of the early 90's which are both superior, and perhaps cost effective, well lets have it!
Thing is, whatever we went with would've been sent to BAE to make a cows-arse of it in the name of 'preserving British jobs' and 'providing money to the economy.'
 
#15
Have I got déjà vu or is this similar to the 890000000 other SA80/L85 is crap what should we have bought threads...
 
#16
I was in with an armourer a few weeks back who reckoned that the A3 is pretty much "fit for purpose" (his words) but that earleier versions left something to be desired.

My preference for the AUG is that it seems to have had few reliability issues from day 1 and the latest iterations look pretty good. Can't comment on the price, but it's typical German / Austrian engineering.
 
#18
I was in with an armourer a few weeks back who reckoned that the A3 is pretty much "fit for purpose" (his words) but that earleier versions left something to be desired.

My preference for the AUG is that it seems to have had few reliability issues from day 1 and the latest iterations look pretty good. Can't comment on the price, but it's typical German / Austrian engineering.
apart from having to take the barrel off to check the chamber is clear, it was a proper WTF moment the first time I saw an Aussie do it in Baghdad
 
#19
Think that's just Oz nsp. The usual pull back the working parts and have a gander does work.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top