SCAR: Full-Rate Production Announcement

[af_tt]

it's always good to take things with a grain of salt - i do too. with regards to soldiersystems, the owner/writer is a former SOCOM officer. i've known him for years and definitely trust his knowledge/opinion when it comes to the military/govt gear/weapon selection process. he's never steered me wrong in the past.

Awesome, Thanks for the report. That's exactly what I was looking for.
For the record I was not questioning anyone's integrity. Just ensuring the source was reliable as I am relatively new here in comparison! Thanks!

[Gabe_Bailey]

That answers part of it then. Are they industry professionals for Colt or bushmaster? More food for thought, I have seen this stuff on other sites and it seems sometimes someone has a dog in the fight.

I would like to hear from the OP.
Thanks for clarifying.

Gentlemen,

If I have not already done so, please allow me to reintroduce myself. I have been working on the SCAR program since early '05 in many different capacities - from testing, briefing, manual writing, 'you-name-it' meetings, contract negotiations, etc. I have been in, at my last count, 7 of the 8 Program Management Reviews (PMRs). I have probably forgotten more things about the SCAR program than most people know.

I am not providing the above information to prove anyone wrong or tout my experience/knowledge; I am not here for the sake of arguing either. However, I offer this: unless you are in weekly (sometimes daily) conversations with the PM or PEO, sit in the same room as the component force mod reps during PMRs, or work at the PEO shop, information floating around on the internet should likely be taken for what it is worth...which is mainly opinion. We all know numerous 'green suiters' who have inside gouge but unless they fall into one of the aforementioned scenarios above I would personally take anything stated as conjecture with factual support (as opposed to fact). We as the 'contractor' do not even get all the information.

We make the weapons (MK 16, MK 17, MK 13 & MK 20) and have a contract based on winning a full and open competition. Our weapons have passed all requirements; otherwise, we would not have received MS C or FRP. The requirements, for those of you who don't know, are well above and beyond the capabilities of the weapons they are 'intended' to replace whether they replace them or not.

For the record, MS C is completely different from FRP. To put it into laymen terms, MS C states that the acquisition process is in place (user needs, material solutions analysis, technology development, engineering and manufacturing development, production/deployment, and operations/support) while the other prepares us (as the manufacturer) for production (i.e. ramping up) of larger than LRIP orders for delivery to the customer/end user; on our end this often includes and requires detailed resource planning of long-lead items, machine time, personnel adjustments, etc. MS C and FRP can be concurrent. In our case they were not, hence the newest press release.

In terms of order quantities for the future, we are unable to release that information at the present time; we have a contract with our customer and a part of that contract includes adherence to SOFARS 5652.204-9003, Disclosure of (Controlled) Unclassified Information. We are held strictly accountable to the terms of our contract and the 'acquisitions' that are a result of it. A company who has something 'procured' (primarily bought without entering the acquisition process) often has a much easier time 'relaying' information to the public via press releases, internet blogs, and independent writers. Our information is consciously and honorably vetted so as not to put our end user at risk.

Finally, to address the MK 16 being included in the FRP decision...the contract is, at the end of the day, a DoD contract. If any DoD customer and for that matter Federal USG customer (with an MOA and appropriate i's dotted, t's crossed) wants to purchase strictly a 5.56mm platform, there is a contractual vehicle for them to do so now.

Again, I am not here to ruffle anyone's feathers or make anyone 'happy'...I am here to provide as much fact as possible. Thanks again to those who take what they 'hear' with a grain of salt.

Sincerely,
Gabe

[SRT-M4]

Thanks Gabe for taking the time to write this.
I have all of the respect in the world for the work that guys like you do in small arms development. You are part of kickass team for a kickass weapons platform!

[af_tt]

Thanks Gabe for taking the time to write this.
I have all of the respect in the world for the work that guys like you do in small arms development. You are part of kickass team for a kickass weapons platform!

+1 Thanks Gabe for the information!

[shep854]

Please note that the closest Gabe comes to commenting on SCAR-L procurement in his post is, "If any DoD customer and for that matter Federal USG customer (with an MOA and appropriate i's dotted, t's crossed) wants to purchase strictly a 5.56mm platform, there is a contractual vehicle for them to do so now." (Bolding mine)

He did not say that the SCAR-L is in full production for USSOCOM.

[Gabe_Bailey]

Please note that the closest Gabe comes to commenting on SCAR-L procurement in his post is, "If any DoD customer and for that matter Federal USG customer (with an MOA and appropriate i's dotted, t's crossed) wants to purchase strictly a 5.56mm platform, there is a contractual vehicle for them to do so now." (Bolding mine)

He did not say that the SCAR-L is in full production for USSOCOM.

Shep854,

You are correct and I am not hiding any facts. And, as the main customer has stated, they do not plan to buy the MK 16...in my humble opinion, this has nothing to do with performance but rather smartly-weighed budget decisions.

Performance fact: As I previously noted, the MK 16 (and MK17, MK 13) met all requirements. Those requirements ARE well above and beyond the weapon(s) it is intended to replace. Neither the MK 16 weapon nor the program were ever cancelled as we all have come to realize through factual evidence (MS C & FRP).

Thanks for participating.

Sincerely,
Gabe

[shep854]

Gabe, there is difference between "careful wording" and "misleading statements". Your statement is firmly in the "careful" category; unwise statements can come back to bite HARD.

[Jaws]

DOD procurement system. What a joke. They make a competition for a product, and get a product that wins the competition flat out.
They makes the winning company tweek and redesign the product a million damn times for five years, make them bend over backwards every time they change their mind about something, then, when the product is finally ready to go into production, when they cant find anything to nitpick on, they say " sorry, we changed our mind."

Some even have the disrespect to say things like " it does nothing the system is intended to replace can't do." Hello! You asked for a new product exactly because the old carabine couldn't do what it had to. The M4 simply didn't meat the needs. That was the whole idea about the SCAR competition.

What a bloody joke.

Well. Ive seen worse from this "System". Remember, M60 "won" the competition against FN MAG back in the fifties only to be replaced by the same machine gun decades later after DOD spent a chit load of money trying to get the M60 to work.

The problem with military procurement system is that this guys play around with somebody else's money. They just don't care.

[ForTehNguyen]

they also went and developed an anti tilt follower when one has been already proven and in the marketplace for many years by a private company. Great effective use of tax dollars, like reinventing the wheel.

[Moose-Knuckle]

they also went and developed an anti tilt follower when one has been already proven and in the marketplace for many years by a private company. Great effective use of tax dollars, like reinventing the wheel.

This is the Goverment we are talking about here, logic need not apply.