Jump to content

M1A2's for Poland?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, DB said:

I thought that methos' reply was quite clear - the IDF considers the system mature enough to be suitable for their use (implicitly given their threat profile). The German Army does not, given their own threat profile. These two positions are not incompatible, and the Germans' position does not represent any kind of statement about the fitness for purpose of the system in any other environment than their own.

"Maturity" has nothing to do with spiral development, unless "!reliability of safety related functions" is part of the incremental improvement process implied.

Typically, MOTS has a problem with proving itself safe during a procurement process because each purchaser has different criteria for what it considers acceptable evidence - and this is the case even if they say "follow this international standard". The manufacturer almost certainly has sufficient evidence in place to support the original customer, but that may be completely different to what another wants to see.

This can be as simple as a different risk matrix (how many dead people is "Intolerable"?), to the presentation of detailed process-based evidence on mitigations for software development mis-steps. 

Many of these barriers go away as soon as there is a war on, the threat profile changes and the level of acceptable risk goes much higher.

The spiral development includes adding features, then the alteration of software to accommodate them, then other features enabled by new software, and so on and so forth. This happens continuously throughout the life of a system until it finally retires after decades of use.

Adding protocols is part of a spiral development, because you first want to field it with the launch customer and then make time for the less important things.

What you two are talking here is qualification. If Australia buys Boxers, it's getting a product that has matured in operational service for over a decade. But it needs to qualify it because of laws.

Failure to qualify means the product works, just not to your standards.

Failure to pass maturity tests means the product doesn't work, i.e an earlier phase than qualification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I've spent a lot of time trying to craft an answer here, but it's not proving easy.

I suspect that we mainly have differences in terminology, rather than any major disagreements here. Suffice it to say that "maturity" of a system doesn't mean "passes its functional requirements" to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is price for that +230 secondhand Abrams


I found it :)


"The Polish Armed Forces are reportedly interested in acquiring up to 250 tanks in the M1A2 SEPv3 variant and a further dozen tracked vehicles for training under a deal estimated to be worth between 11 billion zloty (U.S. $2.9 billion) and 19 billion zloty (U.S. $5 billion)."


Edited by Perun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...