SIG Sauer leaves bidding - Germany’s next Army Rifle cannot be American

SIG Sauer announced to leave the bidding process for the sucessor of the G36 rifle which is used by the German army.

The reason is that Germany does not accept any american made parts in its military equipment. SIG Sauer claims to be German but is German / american and also produces in the USA.

SIG Sauer did not even get the permission to see and test the ammo.

"
Die Welt (“The World”) is a German National daily newspaper, and according to their information the tender to replace the current Bundeswehr (Germany Army) HK G36 contains a peculiar detail that the replacement rifle must not contain any ITAR regulated parts.

Of course I could be doing it wrong, but I can’t find any information about the tender online so it’s difficult to verify this information. However, and especially from a German standpoint, this requirement sounds very logical.

The currently known entrants for the tender are very interesting, with the latest in German rifle-making like Heckler & Koch HK433, HK416, Steyr-Rheinmetall RS556, and SIG Sauer MCX.

The MCX just recently had some success with the German Police, grabbing a contract for a few hundred rifles. For sure this will boost SIG Sauer’s self-confidence, but it is enough to land one of the biggest contracts in the World? The question is, will the MCX get around the ITAR, or will it be ruled out?

Apart from these we might see some offers from CG Haenel, CZ and Beretta. Perhaps Poland wants a go as well?

They will clear the requirements for the ITAR, but in my honest opinion they have no hope of winning. Participating may only give them some feedback from the procurement process."

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017/10/12/germanys-next-army-rifle-cannot-american-due-itar/

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/...hren-fuer-g36-nachfolge-zurueck-15307926.html

 

It's the way things work in Germany. The Germans would NEVER approve a US made rifle even is you never had to reload it. H&K basically stole piston systems that were made here for years to "improve" upon the M 16. Why the powers that be want to persist with the 5.56 Nato round is beyond me.

 

I doubt your army would accept a German rifle. Remember when your airforce wanted new tanker aircraft and Airbus won? Your Air Force was forced to make the bidding again and then suddenly Boeing won.

In the end defense is a very sensitive part of politics. I think its understandable we dont want depend on american rifles while we produce very good weapons ourself.

 

Especially with your record of being at war with America. Wouldn't make much sense to depend on American weapons.

 

Purchasing here is political. One of my sons was an engineer in the aircraft industry. There's really no comparison between Airbus designs and Boeing with the latter airframes much tougher. An Airbus is just thrown away after it life cycles.
It's much like the choice of the US military using the Beretta 92/M9 vs other manufacturers. Glock got knocked out of the competition for having second strike features. In fact, the US could have used a third generation S&W that would have been cheaper and US made. They didn't because they wanted things from the Italians.
Don't get me wrong, the Germans produce excellent firearms, however they are Teutonic in a lot of ways. The hallmark features are reliability, but in other terms they're just not that good. H&K demands a premium price, but I'm not sure why. I carried an H&K after conversion from a 1911 and the pistol was just 100% reliable. In terms of ergonomics it was just OK, it was heavy and the trigger absolutely totally sucked. Now they're playing catch up in the striker fired game and they're still demanding premium pricing.

 

We fought less wars with you than you fought with Spain or the UK. So please spare me this rubbish.

 

You can't deny Germany has a history of starting some pretty big wars in this world and both have sucked the US in.

 

Absolute bullshit. Airbus has a higher quality and integrity. Airbus survive accidents that rips a Boeing apart. Remember when one A380 engine exploded and it landed safely? Its very own Pilot said a Boeing would have gone down. Also remeber when a Terrorist exploded a bomb last year in an A320? The aircraft survived while the only dead one was the terrorist who got sucked out.

Meanwhile Boeings tend to break apart mid air and the new 787 has massive battery and hull issues.

 

You're wrong and I have first hand knowledge. Boeing airframes are built to meet military standards. That's why so many of them are converted to military aircraft. Airbus are commercial throw away aircraft. It really is that simple. There is no comparison whatsoever. BTW a French Airbus broke over the Atlantic because of weather. It didn't need a bomb. A Boeing would have survived. BTW I observed the 787 landing and emergency breaking exercises. The design will revolutionize air travel and Airbus is way behind the curve.

 

I believe the current turret on the M1A1 Abrams is made by Rhinemettal in Germany....it's one helluva gun.

 

And it took both US and former SU to defeat....I can imagine had US not entered the European theater, Europe would've been New Germania...)).

 

Without the US Germany would definitely be all of Europe and probably all of everywhere else too and America would be a country under siege.

 

Only the gun. The US makes it's own ammo. Ordnance swapped the gun for the composite armor. The Germans were way behind in the armor game and trying to use perforated steel.

 

So far Boeings already broke apart because they are build weak. Like the JApan Airlines 747 which broke into two parts in mid flight. I also know the 737 which suddenly turned into a Cabrio at Hawaii.

Boeings also tend to fall into a cataclysmic malfunction line when something goes wrong it triggers a failure cascade. Airbus are known to ride out even extreme damages.

The french Airbus did not break over the Atlantic. It was flown into the water because instruments were iced and the pilots untrained. Thank you for proving to have no clue what you talk about.

I did fly with the 787 to Santiago de Chile. The flight was crap. The airplane smashed on the landing strip way to hard. The air inside is too dry. The entire aircraft is bad quality. Thats why the A350 has more orders now.

Or as Lufthansa our state airline said: More Airbus, less Boeings.

The A350 is superior in evry way to the 787.

Also you can see the "quality of Boeing" in the fact that Japan Airlines after its desaster with the 787 switched to Airbus. JAL did not like burining and wrongwired 787 and monthly groundings for security reasons.

So show me the "french Airbus" which broke apart because bad weather.

I make it easy for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

"The BEA's final report, released at a news conference on 5 July 2012, concluded that the aircraft crashed after temporary inconsistencies between the airspeed measurements – likely due to the aircraft's pitot tubes being obstructed by ice crystals – caused the autopilot to disconnect, after which the crew reacted incorrectly and ultimately caused the aircraft to enter an aerodynamic stall, from which it did not recover."

I´m German amigo. I fly in German build aircrafts and not in american screamliners.

 

Nonsense.

Beside that we are all of Europe. We rule the EU as hegemon. So what happaned? Why is it ok for you now that we rule Europe`?

 

Your mistake. Airbus figures are pie in the sky. SAA nearly went bankrupt because of its US to Joberg flights. The 747's easily made it but used a bit too much fuel. Airbus claimed their aircraft could make it non-stop and the converted over. They couldn't do the non-stop hop and were forced to refuel in Dakar, thereby doubling the aircraft landing cycles. Meanwhile Boeing happily made 777's.

 

Your mistake comrade.

Airbus sells more aircraft than Boeing

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...rders-tally-at-farnborough-show-idUSKCN0ZU17U

https://skift.com/2017/11/15/airbus...billion-deal-in-latest-aircraft-order-battle/

The difference is i bring prove and you just tell rubbish without facts.

Meanwhile Lufthansa, the greatest German Airline and most renomated in the world cancels 777 and switchs to A350.

And your post about US Johannesburg flights are rubbish since it is Airbus aircrafts that serve the longest flight routes in the world.

The A380 makes it from Dubai to Auckland

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35710969

Thats 14.200 km. And the A380 uses 20% less fuel than the 747 and is far bigger and more powerful than the 747. Its also slightly faster.

New York - Johannesburg is only 12.800 km. Thats almost 1400 km than what the A380 flys.

Again you got proved wrong.

Tell me how the A380 can be heavier, faster, has bigger capacity and still uses less fuel than the 747?

 

Wrong, the 777 rules for total long distance flights. BTW Airbus aircraft are model for model slower in real route speed. Without government subsidies Airbus wouldn't be competitive.
But your OP was about small arms, something of which I know a considerable amount.
H&K while excellent is over rated. The persistence with 5.56 chambering is also a mistake. Improvements in body armor will likely make it obsolescent with the 6.5 Grendel looming over the horizon. This makes bull pups very problematic.

 

No, the A380 flys currently longest flight avaivable for booking. Why does Emirates use the A380 for this service and not the 777? MAybe you should call them and tell them they are doing it wrong?

Airbus Aircrafts have higher speeds than Boeings. With Airbus we fly 950km/h. With Boeing often only 850.

Boeing gets heavy subsidies from the US government.

It was funny how Boeing tried to squeeze out the canadian Bombardier of the market with help of the corrupted Trump regime. It backfired. Airbus got Bombardier for free and now pushed Boeing against the wall again. While European nations cancel Boeing defense contracts.

You may know stuff about weapons but you have zero knowledge in aircrafts.

 

Pie in the sky airspeeds in reality. Airbus figures are best case. Boeing uses averages. 777-200 series aircraft beats the Airbus in range by over a thousand K. Better get back to the books.

 

Why is the longest bookable flight operated by an A380 and not by a 777? Emirates has both aircraft in its fleet. Why do they fly it with the A380?

And explain to me why we did fly with the 787 to Chile 850 km7H but with the A350 to Lima with 950 km/h

 

The A380 cruising speed is only a couple of mph faster than the 777 and the 777 has 4 Times the orders.

Both Boing and Airbus have great safety records.

 

And the A320 has 5 times as much orders as the 777 so what do you compare? The A380 is a premium aircraft and a totally different class than the 777.

 

And this is a virtue?

 

5 times? Really? The Airbus almost went out of production because of lack of orders. We'll see how many are completed. BTW you need new jetways with the Airbus.