- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I'm speechless...
Yeah! Think of having to do that under fire.
I'm speechless...
You would have thought they would have learned their lesson with the M4-DD.The swim barrier on the Bradley that was supposed to make it amphibious. See the soldiers riding in top the hull? yeah, they're up there because the vehicle was liable to sink. Also, the main gun couldn't be fired with the swim barrier erected. It was basically a joke.
You would have thought they would have learned their lesson with the M4-DD.
It doesn't and I never said it did.
My point, again, is that if Trijicon loses the contract and it's re-awarded to another maker, it's possible that the second contractor could turn out a substandard unit, causing out soldiers to lose their edge on the battlefield.
no need to award the contract to another vendor/manufacturer
but a huge need to assess liquidated damages for the ones already supplied
I just ain't seein' the need for that.
it's federal procurement 101
when the contractor supplies something that is defective, as is the case with the scopes bearing religious inscriptions that may be harmful to the buyer, then that contractor is subject to liquidated damages to cover the costs the military will bear to remove/conceal the inscriptions. which inscriptions could be found deleterious to those IDF and afghani and iraqi soldiers who may object to having to use a weapon with such religious symbolism attached. which inscriptions could prove detrimental to the military by serving as a propaganda mechanism to be used against us by our enemy. in this case "confirmation" that what they have been spreading, that the USA is engaged ina religious war against islam, is provable by those inscriptions on the armaments
That doesn't make the scopes defective.
I'm sorry, but I'm finding it hard to wrap my mind around the idea that something is really wrong here.
it's federal procurement 101
when the contractor supplies something that is defective, as is the case with the scopes bearing religious inscriptions that may be harmful to the buyer, then that contractor is subject to liquidated damages to cover the costs the military will bear to remove/conceal the inscriptions. which inscriptions could be found deleterious to those IDF and afghani and iraqi soldiers who may object to having to use a weapon with such religious symbolism attached. which inscriptions could prove detrimental to the military by serving as a propaganda mechanism to be used against us by our enemy. in this case "confirmation" that what they have been spreading, that the USA is engaged ina religious war against islam, is provable by those inscriptions on the armaments
the military did not order the scopes with religious inscriptions
the military does not want scopes with religious inscriptions
therefore, the contractor will now be responsible for the costs required to eliminate the religious inscriptions
the military did not order the scopes with religious inscriptions
the military does not want scopes with religious inscriptions
therefore, the contractor will now be responsible for the costs required to eliminate the religious inscriptions
I think you are grossly over-estimating the cost of adding a couple of numbers and letters to a serial number. If these codes weren't there, they would probably be replaced by normal serial numbers.
read the Federal Acquisition Regulations. the contractor does not get to modify the specifications of the products it makes without the buyer's expressed agreementIt has no bearing on it's effectiveness in the field.....FAIL!...
which begs the point, then why was it added ...When on the business end of a rifle, one generally does not look at the inscription on the gun sight.....
but that does not mean the inscription is not there, and available to be used against us in a propaganda war by our enemy as well as to potentially trouble soldiers who would object to having to use something which is now a religious artifact, by virtue of the unneeded, unspecified Biblical inscriptionOne cannot see the inscription while using the gun sight either.....
Are these being used in the same way as serial numbers or are they random? I really do not know. If they are just being used to put a bible verse on their I'm totally against the expendeture. If thay are some kind of tracking system I'm fine with it.
Let's say it costs .05 cents per stamp that there is 40 k per 80 unit.
read the Federal Acquisition Regulations. the contractor does not get to modify the specifications of the products it makes without the buyer's expressed agreement
doesn't matter that this does not affect the usefulness of the scope
if they signed the contract requiring them to furnish scopes made of pot metal and instead - at their own cost - upgraded to gold alloy without the buyer's approval, the contractor would still be subject to liquidated damages
which begs the point, then why was it added ...
it was not specified
it was added unilaterally by the stupid contractor
that stupidity will cost it dearly
but that does not mean the inscription is not there, and available to be used against us in a propaganda war by our enemy as well as to potentially trouble soldiers who would object to having to use something which is now a religious artifact, by virtue of the unneeded, unspecified Biblical inscription
So, we're supposed to force I don't know how many soldiers to remove, from their rifles, a fully functional, high-quality optic sighting device, because of a TINY (minescule!) inscription that references a chapter/verse of scripture... and force them to wait and make do with iron sights while new sights are made/obtained... oh yeah that sounds like a very rational reaction that will go over well with the soldiers that are in harm's way. :doh
a latent defect ... something found after initial acceptance, which is later found to be defective, makes the contractor suceptible to liquidated damages to cure the defectThe military accepted shipment & they have proved effective in the field, therefore they are not defective.....
if the enemy is able to use the weapon in the propaganda war against us, to show that their presentation that we are fighting a religious crusade against islam, then it definately matters what someone feels about themHow someone 'feels' about them is irrelevant as long as they perform the task they are designed for......
and if the sheriff had purchased those pink jumpsuits and the contractor unilaterally added a legend on them stating 'joe is a schmuck', then the contractor would be subject to liquidated damages. this assumes the goods would have been purchased with federal monies and thus the contract made subject to the FARThe Sherriff Joe/pink underwear rule applies here.....:rofl :rofl :rofl
If it does not affect the performance, it cannot be labeled a 'modification'....
it would be found to have been built out of spec and unacceptable
It does not affect it's performance, therefore it can not be called defective....a latent defect ... something found after initial acceptance, which is later found to be defective, makes the contractor suceptible to liquidated damages to cure the defect
Who cares what the enemy thinks?......:roll:if the enemy is able to use the weapon in the propaganda war against us, to show that their presentation that we are fighting a religious crusade against islam, then it definately matters what someone feels about them
if the allied islamic and IDF forces find the weapon unacceptable because it bears a Christian legend, then that they feel that way adversely affects the utility of the weapon
__________________and if the sheriff had purchased those pink jumpsuits and the contractor unilaterally added a legend on them stating 'joe is a schmuck', then the contractor would be subject to liquidated damages. this assumes the goods would have been purchased with federal monies and thus the contract made subject to the FAR
the contractorThe scopes were produced with religious inscriptions.
What happens when the scopes are damaged and rendered unreliable during the process to remove the numbers? Who pays for that?
i agree it is stupid. something unnecessary and not requested was added unilaterally by the contractor. now the contractor has to pony up to make it good. to compound the stupidity, the contractor has already admitted that these are Bible verses. otherwise, they could insist that it was intentionally added nomenclature so that batches could be identified separately ... and possibly gotten away without liquidated damages ... by presenting that the writing was not affixed as a religious reference but that the labeling was necessary in the fabrication and identification of the product for quality control purposesThese are serial numbers, too, BTW. Can you imagine the confusion that changing all of them will cause and how much it will end up costing...all over nothing?