Quote:
|
I guess flawed contracts with military laptops or stoves is OK, but I think with a 'weapon', that is going to be used in COMBAT, NOW, with reliability issues...it is a problem. Quite the 'field' to test a weapon..actual combat.
|
Ironing out flaws with weapons in service has happened with literally dozens of weapon systems. Fighter craft, firearms, land vehicles, the list goes on. It's pretty far from abnormal and has been this way since literally the beginning of weapon development.
Quote:
|
"Equal performance"? Donno, since the complete testing protocol was never carrried out.
|
The first phase was, and there was no significant difference found in that phase. Again, could the story have done a complete 180 at the end of that second phase? Maybe, and maybe they would have gone with Glocks as a result. And maybe we'd be reading then about issues with Glock instead and people would be saying that Glock paid the Army off and the contest was rigged. It happens with every procurement.
Quote:
|
Glock lodged its protest Feb. 24, citing three main reasons: U.S. Army Material Command did not properly evaluate its proposal; the second downselect phase of the testing program was not carried out; and finally, Sig Sauer’s XM17 entry was not properly evaluated. Glock also claimed Army evaluators were biased during evaluations.
|
Lol, right, and Glock a competitor in the program is surely an unbiased source in this instance. It's not like they have any financial motivation to complain, right? The GAO also responded to those complaints, btw.