View Single Post
Old 06-15-2008, 09:45   #21
CDRODA396
Quiet Professional
 
CDRODA396's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 459
The SCAR was originally a SEAL requirement, specifically they wanted a weapon that would fire immediately upon breaking the surface of water, as stated above it can do.

The main impetus behind the SCAR has not been USASOC, which they have not helped, but the main push has been SOCOM all along. Specifically an Infantry COL who is the PM down at Tampa. More recently, the Dpty G8, USASOC (18A) has been pushing it, going so far as to making the statement, "We are ready to accept the SCAR right now, and turn in our M-4's to get it," at the last SOCOM Weapons Integrated Product Team (IPT) meeting.

This is NOT the position held at USASFC, which is more fix its problems, prove it works and then we'll move forward. MG Csrnko, CG, USASFC was briefed on the SCAR about two weeks ago. The VTC included all the Groups, USASFC, USASOC and USSOCOM, mainly represented by the O-6 PM.

At that meeting the recurring problems, like the butt-stock breaking, identified over three years ago as an issue, and again found most recently in April (I think it was April, maybe May) at the last User Assement, were highlighted.

MG Csrnko asked some good questions, including, and probably most importantly, has the thing really been tested in anything other than a "sterile range" enviornment, which the answer was no.

So, it has been requested by USASFC that the current "issues" get addressed, for good, and it get tested in a FTX, CTC type enviornment, being used, "like we are going to use it." Until then, we are keeping the M-4A1.

And that's what I know about that.
__________________
"Excellence is its own punishment..."
CDRODA396 is offline   Reply With Quote