Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Army recalling 44,000 combat helmets

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • keith g
    replied
    unfortunately its happens all too often with mil contracts.......take the British SA80........i test fired the prototype,it was a good weapon,if a bit on the heavy side.......but the prototype was HAND MANUFACTURED and had mechanical tolerances that were just heaven,nothing shook,vibrated or rattled....it was a solid piece of kit..........the production weapon was made from stampings to save time and money.........it was terrible.

    also had genuine first hand experience of cost cutting when i was contracted as a quality control inspector for a company in UK making tactile keypads for australian SF......they had to work at 8000 ASL..........but also work 30 ft underwater.
    well the long and the short of it was i failed 4 out of 5 on the underwater leak tests as per the MilSpec..........week later they told me "my services were no longer required"........all the keypads i had binned were put back into service and sent to Oz as good kit.
    when they subsequently failed during use.....the Aussies tested them,found they were defective,returned them all to the company,told them they were in breach of contract,and to fix the prob.
    since then though the words been spread........that company will NEVER get another Mil contract........they only have themselves to blame

    Leave a comment:


  • Kraheera
    replied
    Oh totally! *grins* I was never in the Army, it's a sister force conspiracy!

    Leave a comment:


  • Vampiel
    replied
    Originally posted by Kraheera View Post
    who?
    You.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kraheera
    replied
    who?

    Leave a comment:


  • Vampiel
    replied
    Originally posted by Kraheera View Post
    Most likely. And I'm not saying the army doesn't have SOME blame, but as far as I know, most mobility equipment is not authorized to buy until it is... well, authorized. At which point mobility officers just order AS NEEDED.

    So it would fall on the heads of DOD, and not the mobility officers. That's my point. I'm more worried that if someone smacks the army, they'll point at mobility officers, when it truly isn't those officers' fault.
    I actually found out who is to blame.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kraheera
    replied
    Originally posted by Vampiel View Post
    That is what happened... the question is why did it pass initial tests but not further testing, and years later? Ballistic tests are pretty basic.

    I suppose an adjustment should be made in policy. I think the Army was so desperatly looking for new better equipment in recent years it fell through the cracks.
    Most likely. And I'm not saying the army doesn't have SOME blame, but as far as I know, most mobility equipment is not authorized to buy until it is... well, authorized. At which point mobility officers just order AS NEEDED.

    So it would fall on the heads of DOD, and not the mobility officers. That's my point. I'm more worried that if someone smacks the army, they'll point at mobility officers, when it truly isn't those officers' fault.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vampiel
    replied
    Originally posted by Kraheera View Post
    Yes, the army purchased them. BUT... they just purchased. That doesn't mean they knew they were defective.

    The army, and any other service, is only allowed to purchase equipment from contracted companies. I know this, I've done it.

    We have to look through the catalogs to find what we need. So it is entirely possible that the defective issue wasn't known by the mobility officers that were buying the equipment. It is also possible that the 100K units were bought BEFORE the defect became known.
    That is what happened... the question is why did it pass initial tests but not further testing, and years later? Ballistic tests are pretty basic.

    I suppose an adjustment should be made in policy. I think the Army was so desperatly looking for new better equipment in recent years it fell through the cracks.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kraheera
    replied
    Originally posted by Vampiel View Post
    They purchased almost 100,000 ACH's that where defective just not all of them where put into circulation (the rest are being destroyed). I don't foresee any charges filed and ultimately it was the Army that allowed itself to purchase defective equipment in the first place on such a mass scale.
    Yes, the army purchased them. BUT... they just purchased. That doesn't mean they knew they were defective.

    The army, and any other service, is only allowed to purchase equipment from contracted companies. I know this, I've done it.

    We have to look through the catalogs to find what we need. So it is entirely possible that the defective issue wasn't known by the mobility officers that were buying the equipment. It is also possible that the 100K units were bought BEFORE the defect became known.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vampiel
    replied
    Originally posted by BryonMorrigan View Post
    Let the free market sort it out, right?

    <----SMARTASS!

    :boing::boing::boing::boing::boing:
    I don't see how that's a smartass comment. The free market will sort it out seeing as to how it's primarily driven by profits and if any company where to want to make profits this will set an example to not make defective hardware or the Army will find out about it and cut your countract short. I'll also note that it was a socialist organization that enabled it to go on for so long, but this forum isn't for politics.

    I am somewhat perplexed that it took the Army so long to find the problem and that this company compromised it's integrity in the name of profit to put soldiers at risk. It' just a bad situation all around, however I do give the Army credit for eventually correcting the problem, it does speak of a concentrated effort on their part to continue to test for problems with equipment.

    Originally posted by Kraheera
    If it is proven that they did it on purpose... they should at least be charged with criminal negligence, 40,000 charges of it.
    They purchased almost 100,000 ACH's that where defective just not all of them where put into circulation (the rest are being destroyed). I don't foresee any charges filed and ultimately it was the Army that allowed itself to purchase defective equipment in the first place on such a mass scale.
    Last edited by Vampiel; May 20th, 2010, 11:06 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BryonMorrigan
    replied
    Originally posted by Vampiel View Post
    It is a possibility. The question becomes if it's shown that was the case - what if anything should be done to the people who made that decision?
    Let the free market sort it out, right?

    <----SMARTASS!

    :boing::boing::boing::boing::boing:

    Leave a comment:


  • H. NightStorm
    replied
    Originally posted by Vampiel View Post
    It is a possibility. The question becomes if it's shown that was the case - what if anything should be done to the people who made that decision?
    how could they not know what they were doing? I just don't see how something like that could be a mistake. That's just my opinion though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kraheera
    replied
    Originally posted by Vampiel View Post
    It is a possibility. The question becomes if it's shown that was the case - what if anything should be done to the people who made that decision?
    If it is proven that they did it on purpose... they should at least be charged with criminal negligence, 40,000 charges of it. :D

    Leave a comment:


  • Vampiel
    replied
    Originally posted by H. NightStorm
    wow, it's really sad to know that people care more about money than about other's safety anymore...I wonder if my husbands First SGT knows about this. Thanks for the heads up!
    It is a possibility. The question becomes if it's shown that was the case - what if anything should be done to the people who made that decision?

    Leave a comment:


  • H. NightStorm
    replied
    wow, it's really sad to know that people care more about money than about other's safety anymore...I wonder if my husbands First SGT knows about this. Thanks for the heads up!

    Leave a comment:


  • Infinite Grey
    replied
    Originally posted by Vampiel View Post
    http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/201...ombat-helmets/



    I have to wonder if this company was cutting costs purposely that compromised the protection of the ACH's.
    Probably to increase profits.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X