However, look at the L81A2 and its support mechanisms…
[size=2](by which I don’t mean that little bipod.)[/size]
For someone who is not massively into shooting, but has been involved in the MOD procurement system for sometime, it’s too late now questioning the tender process as in what’s included (or not), when will it be received, etc, etc; mere underlings such as CFAVs won’t get a look in.
The requirement will have assessed by committee, been passed from HQAC to the procurement guys in the MOD and it will be miles down the procument route by now; doubt if even HQAC could stop the jugganaut even if they wanted now.
Once awarded, it will cost mega bucks to amend, so we get what ever was originally asked for.
[quote=“incubus” post=21363]However, look at the L81A2 and its support mechanisms…
[size=2](by which I don’t mean that little bipod.)[/size][/quote]
Appreciated, but the L81s are held more ‘centrally’ than the No.8s. The logisitical effort in moving all the rifles to DSD Donington for servicing would be massive and probably not justified.
Did the introduction of the L98A2 cause a pause in shooting? Didn’t around here. Staff were converted from A1 to A2 in advance of the general roll out of the rifles. Cadets qualified were converted when the rifles hit the streets and then we just carried on as normal.[/quote]
I would imagine there are potentially more qualified to teach/instruct/conduct ranges for .22 as there is for L98. This will be a completely different weapon. The .22 is the basic weapon for a lot of cadets and staff, and if the staff training/conversion isn’t got right or allowances made, we are going to be in for one hell of a time.
There are so few opportunities as it is unless staff are prepared to travel for hours over several weekends, and I can’t see that the CTT/SATTs will be willing and or able to ratchet it up to cope with the potential demand.
Yes and no.
WHTs etc will obviously need to be updated a little and there may be changes to the cleaning process, but we will be using a weapon which all .22 qualified staff at the moment are already qualified to use.
In theory we could keep the No8s we have for testing only and exclusively shoot whatever they end up buying without any change to our regulations or qualifications. That would be silly though so we’d need a change of regs to migrate us onto the new rifle but I cannot see how, other than through utter incompetence, how that process would hinder us in any way 
Not necessarily - say 3 sources bid for the tender; by the very nature of the product, it is already limited to a smaller number of manufacturers than say a tender for clothing. As long as any proposed variations (e.g. cancel requirement for safety catch, make sights advanced only, include adjustable butt plate & cheek piece, etc, etc) are submitted as an amendment to all 3 manufacturers for re-tender, with a time element to re-bid on the revised (simpler, cheaper?) key requirements, the process is probably still valid.
An off-the-shelf version has to be (by far) the easiest option for known standards/quality, accurate profit margins already in existence so that bulk purchase calculations can easily be assessed, & with minimal lead time for introduction. Spares support also a known variable.
I think this has moved away from the OP. Any chance of seperating it Mods? Discussions on the HQAC Review of shooting and those about the no8 replacement?
It might have shifted but it still sits within the broad remit, because how the replacement of any weapon is instigated has a direct correlaton on shooting as an activity.
At the moment though the MOD hasn’t even start procuring the replacement system?
So we can sit here and speculate all we want. Until we see a fielding plan its pointless.
I have added a reply to the No 8 discussion:
http://aircadetcentral.net/acc/the-mess/1434-no-8-rifle-replacement#21618
At the moment though the MOD hasn’t even start procuring the replacement system?
So we can sit here and speculate all we want. Until we see a fielding plan its pointless.[/quote]
They haven’t decided, no, but the procurement process has been started.
At the moment though the MOD hasn’t even start procuring the replacement system?
So we can sit here and speculate all we want. Until we see a fielding plan its pointless.[/quote]
It’s this mindset that can means we sleepwalk into a situation where shooting becomes even more problematic than it currently is. Unfortunately it seems to be the HQAC way.
You can apply this to real life, people overlook / ignore the potential for problem and then go into headless chicken mode. I know you can’t plan for everything, but when you know something’s coming there has to be a Plan B / contingency, in case it doesn’t go as smoothly as we would like.
In ths instance the people in charge know a new weapon’s coming and we have moronic and mind numbingly crass rules and so on imposed on us, such that even getting the weapon’s and ammunition delivered could be a bigger problem than it really needs to be. This is ignoring training etc, so people are able to use them once they’ve got them.
I’ll do my best!
OK, should be sorted. Keep this thread for discussion of No.8 and its replacement please people.
I’ve removed posts about the no.8 replacement to a separate thread. If you’re missing a post, it’s probably there.
I know some of the posts didn’t fit either category so I’ve just done my best.
Further reply from Abbey Wood, a polite “poke off” message:
[quote]
The purpose of the advert in the Defence Contracts Bulletin was to gain Expressions of Interest in Tendering for this Contract from Industry. It is not a forum for this type of discussion/debate. It would therefore not be appropriate or productive to provide you with the Project Manager’s details.[/quote]
I have ignored that & asked again for the Project Manager’s details - to be given under FoI auspices if necessary. Bloomin’ civil serpents…
Well, that was the quickest ever “poke off” I’ve had with respect to information requests under FoI:
Exempt under Section 40, personal data.
Seems like a (big) cop-out to me.
Will look for a work round to progress further… Anyone in the upper loop who might have any pointers please? Or shall I go straight to TG5?
Not going to hold my breath…
…and we are still waiting for HQAC to ‘approve’ the pipe range - ACF use it with no issues
.
[quote=“ddr61” post=21736]Not going to hold my breath…
…and we are still waiting for HQAC to ‘approve’ the pipe range - ACF use it with no issues
.[/quote]
I think someone is mugging you offf here. If the range has a Land Range Authorisation Certificate (MOD Form 904), a valid Range Safety Certificate (MOD Form 905) and a land range log (MOD FOrm 906/906A/906B) then you can use it.
Do you think HQAC approve all the various gallery/etr/25m ranges on the defence training estate? Do they heck!
Get the range booked and get shooting!
[quote=“Leeroy” post=21809][quote=“ddr61” post=21736]Not going to hold my breath…
…and we are still waiting for HQAC to ‘approve’ the pipe range - ACF use it with no issues
.[/quote]
I think someone is mugging you offf here. If the range has a Land Range Authorisation Certificate (MOD Form 904), a valid Range Safety Certificate (MOD Form 905) and a land range log (MOD FOrm 906/906A/906B) then you can use it.
Do you think HQAC approve all the various gallery/etr/25m ranges on the defence training estate? Do they heck!
Get the range booked and get shooting![/quote]
…if only… 
alas those with lots of power say other otherwise… 