One point that seems to have been missed is that we are still spending money trying to make the SA80 work. Yes, it is true the M16 had teething problems, but these were largely sorted prior to the SA80 coming into service, hence no mid-life update had we have opted for that weapon in the first place.
Face it, we have neither the money nor the resources of the US arms industry to develop outstanding kit of our own, yet we insist on trying to go it alone, often to our expense (Nimrod AEW over AWACS, Bowman over just about anything on the market and so on).
The comments about field admin may well be appropriate to a training unit, ATR, RMAS et al, but 45 Cmdo? I think if they experience problems the kit is at fault not the user.
As anyone familiar with snagging projects will be aware, you build in a zero rate tolerance of failure. Many Japanese electronics firms actually produced deliberate failiures to "meet" the 2% tolerance many purchasers specified as to them the concept of allowing a single faulty part to leave the factory was enathema. If the Japanese electronic industry can manufacture 100% reliability, then we should also be able to accept that. it is only because it is ingrained in our psychie that the kit we use is crap that we accept it willingly as Thinking Soldier indicates. Statistical sampling and other such methods can quickly eradicate faults at source. It just costs R&D money to achieve.