08-22-2011, 01:34 PM
Can't deny either of the two concerns - they both have merit. A joint venture would be a possible pathway, not a guarantee, and please note I did indicate Colt would have to believe an alternative was practicable. I'm less concerned that the end-state ammunition would have to be in place, however; this is a carbine competition, not an ammunition one. There is no military standard 6.5mm load, and the RFP invited alternative calibers.
Intense durability testing would not be difficult, given a few model examples and enough ammunition. It certainly wouldn't take the billions of dollars and years of production planning that aircraft and artillery require - initial testing with Colt could be brief, though not necessarily successful.
Still, I agree with the conclusions - it's not likely to happen. A long-time DOD contractor would already have emplaced their congressional delegation backing the move, negotiated teaming agreements, sought development grants, issued PR releases, and the whole gamut of what today passes for a development cycle.
Intense durability testing would not be difficult, given a few model examples and enough ammunition. It certainly wouldn't take the billions of dollars and years of production planning that aircraft and artillery require - initial testing with Colt could be brief, though not necessarily successful.
Still, I agree with the conclusions - it's not likely to happen. A long-time DOD contractor would already have emplaced their congressional delegation backing the move, negotiated teaming agreements, sought development grants, issued PR releases, and the whole gamut of what today passes for a development cycle.