L119A2 – Colt Canada C8 Upgrade

2,443

In July 2013 the MoD issued a contract award notice that detailed a mid life upgrade for the whole fleet of Cold Canada C8 carbines in service with the UK armed forces as the L119A1.

I covered it here

The upgrade has now been listed on the Colt Canada website and is said to include

  • Custom integrated upper receiver
  • Custom flash compensator
  • Custom tan furniture
  • Ambidextrous controls
  • Custom buttstock

Custom everything it would seem!

Before

C8 SFW
C8 SFW (L119A1)

After

L119A2 C8 SFW
L119A2 C8 SFW

 

H/T Sinlesssorrow from the M4Carbine forum

 

 

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
steve taylor

Custom everything? I am not sure about the flash suppressor (there are a lot out there) but all those extras are off the shelf, Magpul by the looks of them. And an integrated upper receiver is just marketing talk, there are a surprising number of custom uppers out there that are not quite as Mr Stoner intended them to be and I don’t just mean different calibres.

Anyway as I said here,

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/06/open-thread-june-2014/comment-page-3/#comment-295830

all we need is 100,00 copies!

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy

100.000 x every niche weapon that SAS uses would make quite an arsenal (29 of them, this list is behind for the type of anti-personnel mine):
http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/british-sas-weapons.asp

The MoD really have fell out with BAE , surely the best in class for upgrades to the AR series is the HK416 / HK417.However that HK is Heckler and Koch a wholly owned subsidiary of BAE. And it is expensive too so they really must of not wanted to give them the order. I have heard that the Norwegian Army which use the 416 variant as their standard issue rifle have had some service problems,can anyone elaborate?

Observer
Observer

“Cold Canada” model? :)

Ian Skinner
Ian Skinner

BAE sold H&K in 2002, so that should not be an issue.

steve taylor

@ ACC

I don’t think the Danes. Cloggies, Norwegians, Canucks, Icelanders, or our RMP and Pathfinders see it as niche.

Radish 293
Radish 293

Looks like the MARS Modular Assault Rifle System procurement really is dead in the water.
http://www.government-online.net/supply-of-modular-assault-rifle-system/
I read recently that it had been put on hold. It was supposed to start delivering weapons this financial year but all went quiet.
I never been able to find who the contenders were.
The C8 upgrade was announced a long way ahead of the MARS project ending.
Interestingly MARS it was to deliver a 5.56 weapon as a standard for the Police as well. At the moment the most Popular is the HK MP5 but this doesn’t have the punch at longer ranges hence why there is a move to 5.56 but its a mixed bag with different forces buying different weapons.
I heard recently that the Sig MPX (https://www.sigsauer.com/Catalog/sig-mpx.aspx) is under evaluation with favourable reports. so perhaps the Police will be sticking with 9mm after all.

steve taylor

“Modular Assault Rifle System”

That’s where “we” go wrong though isn’t it? Whatever replaces L85A2 will be a DI AR. “We” can’t just go select 4 rifles and test them. No “we” have to call it a stupid name. Wrap it up in a load of doctrinal BS that nobody reads or understands because everybody knows what is wanted. How do we manage to make small purchases that work like C7/8? And then what about left field bonkers decisions like MoD Plod with MP7 (and 4.6mm) ?

Apparently the Germans are having problems with G36.

Slightly Agricultural
Slightly Agricultural

Seems a little “Trigger’s Broom” to me. Looks like the only bit of the original weapon left is the lower and bolt group!
Still I heard the fleet was shagged out, which makes this (dare I say it), a successful procurement?

Although I agree with X, when they say “Custom”, they just mean it comes from someone else’s catalogue. Frankly I think its a shame we don’t do this kind of work in-house; refurbing AR-15 platforms is hardly rocket science. But that’s just the way things are, HMG would rather pay industry to take all the risk and do it for us…

And I hear rumours that it’s HK we’ve fallen out with a little. Apparently they were a little over-confident of winning the sharpshooter contract so HMG decided to demonstrate that they wouldn’t *always* “Buy HK”. (That and some issues with the barrel). Though it is a somewhat similar position to BAE right now…

Radish293
Radish293

I understand the MP7 was a training cost saving exercise it was much cheaper to train a single weapon than to train for the MP5 the SA80 and the Browning.

Randomer
Randomer

Then MDP found out that they would require sidearms for a primary weapon if they wanted to meet ACPO standards for AFOs and that they needed sidearms when deployed to Afghanistan or Eufor etc.

Then they found out that the Met really didn’t want them carrying MP7 when guarding the MOD in London. So had to keep MP5 in service until they reached an agreement.

Then they found that the SEG needed a weapon not outranged by an AK or similar.

So ended up keeping sidearms, L85A2, MP5 and MP7 with increased training costs. All sorted now though apparently.

The Other Chris

@x

Note that you don’t seem to mention bullpup designs much, Tavor aside. Should the Army return to “standard” AR’s?

steve taylor

Slightly Agricultural said ” refurbing AR-15 platforms is hardly rocket science. But that’s just the way things are,”

That is very true and neither is building them but…………

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/SA-80_rifle_1996.jpg

:)

TOC said “Note that you don’t seem to mention bullpup designs much”

I like bullpups. The SA80 is just so point able and I don’t mind its weight though unlike some here I have never had to carry it very far, very long where it is very hot. If I was to give you £300 million pound to buy a replacement L85A2, tell you we had no time for testing, we wanted something proven, we wanted comparability with the majority of those with who the UK works, and so on what are you going to go out to buy? It will be a direct impingement AR, We won’t buy Tavor well because you know. FS2000? Expensive and has only be bought by in quantity by small nations one of whom being Saudi Arabia who as we know just buy anything. Steyr AUG? Seen one twice (!) and I don’t know about it beyond what I have read; a bit too plastic fantastic surely a safe option would be better? Proper barrel length, conventional layout, and bayonets…………

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_k07pirzBU34/S2WifD4tIQI/AAAAAAAADgU/IG8K_ewNiwY/s1600/Fallujah2.jpg

If I were in charge I would buy a piston platform preferably the ADCOR A-556.

Randomer said lots of interesting things.

ACPO standards? I sometimes think the CP in there stands for Common Purpose………. :) Parallel state and all that……..

Interesting how Home Office trumps MoD re Met and MP7; not that is news to me that’s how it works.

All Politicians are the Same
All Politicians are the Same

I think the L85-A2 sometimes gets bad press but it is quite heavy. Remeber getting a lift once from some guys in the NE Air National Guard (very illegally) and having to hide in their ready room till my ground transport arrived. They were all state troopers in civvy street and had the rifle and my Sig in bits instantly, they loved the P226 and agreed that the L85-A2 seemed more robust than an M4 but as one said”bugger carrying that”.

Slightly Agricultural
Slightly Agricultural

@ the L85 comments, the scuttlebutt (yes, I deal a lot in rumour, but I prefer to say so rather than pretend to know for sure) is that the design was thrown together from the EM2 prototypes in order to give Royal Ordnance a fat order book for privatisation. Whereafter the new owner moved the factory North to generate jobs and keep the government happy, sacking off the old factory. So an abortion of a design, made in a new factory by new people who had no clue, to a totally different quality than the prototypes. All for political reasons. No surprise at the result then!

Fortunately I’ve only ever been subjected to the A2 (spiteful bitch, my little finger still has scars) which wasn’t bad, and the new theatre-entry spec is leaps and bounds ahead of that. I’ve even seen trials reports for suppressors (including GPMG, I kid you not)!
L85 is going nowhere fast, there’s nothing out there right now that offers enough of a benefit to justify the replacement cost (The caseless trials the Americans are doing have potential). And someone, somewhere, is trying yet again to find a use for the L86 LSW; the ginger stepchild of the SA80 family.

I would also question the assumption we would go for a direct impingement AR by default. If we had to buy a new rifle tomorrow I would put money on the HK416 – we’ve too much corporate experience of gas piston and too many horror stories from the yanks.

The F2000 is a crock of shit. Very high tech, very shiny – completely unsuitable as a military rifle (you can’t even remove the gas parts without a special tool). Nor would I rule out bullpup. The troops don’t necessarily like it, and the Bootnecks have always had a massive sad-on about it, but the whole “horizon scanning” crystal ball gazing FCOC bollocks says odds are we’ll be fighting in urban areas, which means having a short gat will be a plus.

The Mod Plod I see regularly are rocking MP7s accessorised with a fetching Taser in a left-leg reverse holster, for what must be the most awkward cross-draw in the history of sidearms…

steve taylor

@ Slightly

The cost in modern numbers is nothing. Note that the ASCOD contract has gone up by £100 million with hardly anybody noticing. 100,000 copies at £3000 a piece (if that by a long chalk but that is Tavor money) is only £300,000,000 about 1% of one year’s “total budget” for a system life of what 20 years plus? Chicken feed.

wf
wf

@Slightly Agricultural. The SA80 is basically an AR18 in bullpup clothing. Both it and the EM2 are gas operated, but that’s about it :-)

Phil

Yes that’s a tedious story told by every SAA instructor I ever came across. There’s a video on YouTube about stripping an EM2 – easily to tell then that it has nothing to do with L85. I believe the 4.85mm IW that was around in the late 70s was linked though.

steve taylor

You mean cheap crapity-crap-crap pressed steel clothing? :)

I wonder what one would be like with a milled or forged receiver? Probably even heavier.

Apparently some AK variants work better because they are pressed steel because of the slacker tolerances.

Rocco
Rocco

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, the Steyr riles are due for replacement http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/new-rifles-nzdf

It will be interesting to see if they opt for refurbishment and upgrade rather than replacement.

Observer
Observer

Interesting. I wonder if they would consider going for a 7.62 NATO Rifle. Their (your) terrain is more open, and with your new SAW using 7.62 already, commonality isn’t an issue (not that belts and mags have anything in common), and it would suit your terrain. I know those tend to end up heavy, but I think with modern materials, we can cut the weight down to a manageable amount.

Rocco
Rocco

The DMW at section level is 7.62 also.

Not sure that ‘our’ terrain comes in to it that much. The most recent substantial overseas deployments have been to Afghanistan, Iraq, Tonga, Solomon Islands, Timor Leste and Bosnia! – a mix of open and complex terrain (urban and jungle).

For a small defence force is like to think that some flexibility in small arms taken on deployments would be possible, but that’s probably a bridge too far outside the SF community.

Observer
Observer

Good point :)

Difference in mindset I guess. I keep thinking defensively.

JohnHartley
JohnHartley

If the SA80 is a bullpup version of the AR18, then remember that the AR18 was evolved from the 7.62 AR16. So perhaps an AR16 based 7.62 bullpup could be viable.

Gareth Jones

Someone mention EM-2? :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_rifle

Gareth Jones

@ Slightly – Read in a document defining the battalion types roles and missions that they are testing to see if all the Light Role Infantry section weapons can be “suppressed” (and they’re getting a new combat knife).

“Firepower.
Weapon systems will be complemented by Future Integrated Soldier Technology surveillance and target acquisition equipment, allowing infantry soldiers to see, move and fight at night and detect enemy forces at increased ranges. The SA80 assault rifle will be upgraded and trials are being run to see if it is possible to fit suppressors to all section weapons”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/229645599/UK-Army-Combat-Capability-for-the-Future-an-overview-of-ARMY-2020-units

There would be quite a few benefits…

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/hush.html

RE: LSW. When tested the LSW actually did a better job suppressing than the Minimi:

https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Real_Role_of_Small_Arms_RDS_Summer_09.pdf

Slightly Agricultural
Slightly Agricultural

Re: EM2. Think I was wrong on that count – more likely one of the later unnamed prototypes. Definitely bodged into a 5.56mm design though. And a well-worn story too (sorry Phil!)

@Trunks – The fighting knife is news to me. I know there was a UOR for a lightweight bayonet (<500g with scabbard) but it was canned. Frankly we should just save the procurement costs and buy the USMC one – they put a LOT of time and money into it. Won't be allowed though. Sounds like we might be borrowing some of their training too.

L85 with all the new gubbins and a suppressor does look extremely cool though! Never underestimate the "Allyness factor" when it comes to introducing new kit…

@X I had a whole piece about the extra costs of replacing SA80 but managed to loose it (stupid backspace). In short, there are a lot of them – just think about replacing every weapon rack in every in-service vehicle for a start.
You're not wrong that it's small on the grand scale though, about what, half a dozen F35 at showroom price? Just don't think the Army has the funding to make it happen this decade though. And if rolling on the current rifle is possible, you're not really gaining a lot extra for your money either. The French are only changing because they decided doing that wasn't cost effective – we have HK for our spares, and they 'aint likely to go anywhere!

steve taylor

@ Slightly

Extra costs? Ooh never thought about those.

steve taylor

@ Swimming Trunks

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wdhN5_RpX4

and a bit more recent history…………..

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy

@slightly,
” if rolling on the current rifle is possible, you’re not really gaining a lot extra for your money either. The French are only changing because they decided doing that wasn’t cost effective ”
– wasn’t there an “extra” thing about ammo compatibility, not quite as in “R” for rimmed and not so, but related to the pulling mechanism anyway?

steve taylor

FAMAS can only feed steel cased ammunition, it tends to chew brass cases on extraction.

Slightly Agricultural
Slightly Agricultural

That’s to do with the fluted chamber, is it not? Quite right though, ammunition supply is apparently one of the key drivers.

And X, the web doesn’t convey much, can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic there…

The US Army is still trickle feeding the LSAT programme with a $2m over 2 years order last month to continue with the maturation of the MG , work up a carbine version using as many common parts from the MG (it seems this was the plan from the beginning amazingly) and also to complete the 7.62 versions (also it seems this was the plan from the beginning amazingly , like HK have done with the 416/417)
They will then have a 5.56 MG and Carbine and a 7.62 MG and carbine at ‘Technology Readiness Level 7’ (“System prototype demonstration in an operational environment.”)
As this small arms round is totally incompatible with any other AR it gives them the option of choosing some from of intermediate calibre with a long bullet to give that magic weight/terminal effectiveness that has consumed sooooo much web space (wait for bullets to fly – pun intended )
It seems if you starve a programme of cash and miracles happen , something we can learn from this ? How much again has FRES consumed on an existing proven vehicle ?

Kent
Kent

Ah, the ever popular “What rifle are we going to use in the future or when the old lot wears out?” game! The US Army is an expert participant in this one! It is a game replete with stodgy old Ordnance types, equally stodgy senior Infantry generals, and wild cards like the US Air Force, the Department of the Navy, the USMC, and the US Army’s own Special Forces. And, this game goes back to the very beginning of the country. Anyone one can play from Springfield Armory to Colt to Henry to Spencer to Krag-Jorgenson to Mauser to John C. Garand to Eugene Stoner!

After the problems the US Army had with the Krag and its single locking lug which lead to the Springfield blatant rip-off of the Mauser design in the M1903, the US Army tested and selected a number of new semiautomatic rifles. The clear winner was the 10-round clip-fed Garand T3E2 in .276 Pedersen, a lighter rifle with lighter ammunition than the .30 caliber Garand T1E2. The Garand T3E2, possibly a superior weapon than the .30 caliber version, was dropped due to the personal intervention of then Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur since there were roughly 2 billion rounds of .30 M1 ball ammunition in the ammunition bunkers of the US Army.

After WW2, the US Army conducted more tests, including a flirtation with the British .280 round, before going with a reinvented .30-06 round, the 7.62x51mm, and the M14 rifle. The M14 slowly entered service, even though the US had pretty much bullied its NATO allies into adopting the round as the 7.62×51 mm NATO round. Then, during Vietnam, the USAF adopted Eugene Stoner’s AR-15 as the M16, and the Army, desperate to find a lightweight “carbine” to replace the heavy M14s, Jumped on the bandwagon. Now up to about eight versions of the basic M16 rifle and M4 carbine and several versions of the 5.56×45 mm NATO ammunition*, the US Army has had complaints about the effectiveness of the newer “heavy bullet” rounds out of the M4 carbines at close ranges in Iraq. This led to the development of the 6.8×43 mm Remington SPC cartridge which has seen limited use in Special Forces. The longer ranges seen in Afghanistan showed that the 6.8 wasn’t as effective there. The failure of either of the smaller rounds to perform at longer ranges led to the reissue of restocked M14s as designated marksman rifles.

Only God knows where this is going to end, but don’t expect to see infantry-sized “rail guns” any time soon.

*(Again, the US bullied its NATO allies into adopting a “standard” cartridge.)

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy

MacArthur’s count sounds like a lot, but a good opportunity to change the caliber was missed when the old inventory was fired away:

“The military’s annual need increased from 733 million small arms rounds (.50 caliber or less) in 2000 to 1,790 million rounds in 2005, but training requirements were greatly increased, so it’s hard to figure out how much of the 1,057,000,000 bullets increase in annual demand goes to combat operations.”

Observer
Observer

Personally, I don’t see the LSAT going anywhere soon. There is too much momentum on the old brass system. You could even say that brass is universal since the whole planet is using it.

I see it as another soon to be cancelled American military project, like many of their old ones.

There was recent post on this site re 1m rounds per day production of our version of the 5.56mm and 7.62mm
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/04/million-rounds-day/
At the rate we consume ammunition surely any stocks we currently hold in NATO countries would be depleted a short time, a few years? This would give plenty of time to re-equip with the new ‘magic’ bullet designed weapons.
MacArthur’s stock of 2 Billion sounded a lot then along with the low usage rate for the small pre-war US forces but the decision makers should not let that stop them now ,retail you can buy 20rnds of 5.56 for $5.57 or 28c a round , at that price you can buy (retail remember) over half a billion rounds for the price of a F35. I am guessing we buy it in a bit cheaper than that ,so ammunition stocks are not really a significant factor when it comes to making the decision to field a new round which brings a better terminal performance.

Observer
Observer

monkey, and how many suppliers of these magic rounds are there in the world? Worse, how many manufacturers of machines needed to make these magic rounds? Your throughput is derived a lot from automation these days, and caseless rounds simply don’t have the infrastructure in place to make the rounds as quickly. Basically, you need to make the machines to make these rounds. And you can’t even cut corners with a simple rechamber, caseless is structurally different from brass.

This problem carries over into guns too. You need to make new machines that make new parts for the guns.

@Observer
The LSAT the US Army is pursuing is using a plastic cased round which has received the funding with the USMC pursuing caseless rounds separately but using the same gun technology.
In terms of manufactures there are as yet no production of a small calibre CT round , but several manufactures have experience Dynamit Nobel Defence (HK G11) , Steyr (ACR) , Textron Systems (LSAT) , Hughes Gun Systems, Benelli , Voere ,Hercules, Inc. with plastic cased/ caseless rounds rounds. When it comes to plastic cartridges for convention rounds there are numerous manufactures who make them PCP Ammunition ,NATEC amongst others.
With regard to manufacturing I have a degree in Mechanical and Production Engineering so have some small experience in mass production .With all new weapon systems that offer a step change in one form or an another investment is required and if the benefits are worth it and proven the money is put in place. Say for instance manufacturing a new plane , how many of the jigs and tooling from the previous plane come across to next plane? With regards to the machines to make the guns if in a simple back street workshop in Pakistan or Afghanistan can knock out replicas of any gun you choose to give them ,I sure we would manage it here in the West.
http://observers.france24.com/content/20080425-durra-illegal-firearms-market-pakistan

steve taylor

” You need to make new machines that make new parts for the guns.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_control

mrg
mrg

@ x
The problems experienced by the G36 users in Germany have been traced to the ammunition used.

My bad on my earlier LSAT MG/Carbine in 5.56/7.62 a two-year $5.7 million contract was awarded in May. Previously they had been using up a $1m a year contract so it seems they have ramped it up a bit to $2.85m per year.

Observer
Observer

x, yes I know. I live next to a weapons manufacturing plant…with windows (hey, it was cheap! :) ) They have been touting CNC built rifles for ages.

monkey, I believe the LSAT has a “turntable”? like feed system where the round is fed into the turntable, rotated 90 degrees to align with the barrel before being rammed into the chamber to be fired. Bit hard to describe, but good luck trying to build that. Normal rifles use spring loaded magazines where the bullets are loaded when the bolt travels back in a straight line. It’s rather simple. Turntables sound much more complicated.

Good luck to them, but LSAT is another project that I’ll believe in when they start producing the weapons en mass. Which I doubt they will.

as
as

@Observer
Is that plant making the SAR-21?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAR-21

Interesting Rifle and we have already bought equipment off ST Kinetics in the form of bronco so they have some contacts to do a deal.

Observer
Observer

as, yes that is the plant. It’s a combined facility, so they also produce Terrexes and Broncos there. SAR-21 is a possible buy but I’d advise against it. The SAR-21 was designed before P-rails came into fashion, in the 90s, so you could say it’s a bit dated, and personally, my opinion is that it has no distinct advantages over other similar rifles. Now the Ultimax is a slightly different story, it has a unique system that is not used on any other SAW that gives it a serious advantage, so it is worth a second (and third and forth look).

And don’t forget that ST also supplies the UK with 40mm ammo, though I am curious about their quality.

I should have gone into QC instead of medical. :)

@Observer
They use a reciprocating breech to facilitate misfires/jams by using a gas piston driven rammer to use the next round to push out the previous case or unfired round.
The big advantage of the LSAT is the weight saving with linked LMG belts , you can carry 2/3rds more for the same weight. ie 1000 instead of 600) .On another thread you stressed the importance of arriving in a fire fight situation when ammunition is at a paramount to give the combatants time to receive fire support or resupply. The ability to carry less weight (not going to happen) or to carry more ammo (will happen) could be critical to the mission profile and the survival of a team relying on the suppressive fire of LMG.
At present they are doing a like for like trial using standard 5.56 and 7.62 bullets delivering the same muzzle energy as an M4/M249 and M14/M240 .They have used the same formula of propellant as proven on the G11 developed by
Dynamit Nobel again to limit the variables.
If (a big if ) they can get the reliability in all conditions they have for conventional ammunition through its normal life cycle ,from manufacture ( now a 2 stage process) too long term storage both in an armoury and in the field through to use
in simulated combat they may get the go ahead. They may use the 5.56 option to have the weight savings I mentioned or go 7.62 for about the same weight as a convention brass cased round and have the heavier hitting bullet.
Alternatively they may (as it cannot be used with any other system) choose an another calibre which would be extended to a carbine, designated marksman weapon etc. They could go smaller than 5.56 like the G11 @ 4.7 for even grater weight savings or between like the 6.5 there has been so much discussion about(most critics of the Grendel are about the over stressing of the re-chambered M4/M16/AR15 but HK have overcome this with their rework of the original Stoner design with the HK416/417 series which are interchangeable. They offer a 7.62×54 and 5.45×39 kit for use by SF so they can use local ammunition as well as not worrying about policing up their rounds when operating in amongst the ‘locals’.
Its a very interesting programme.

Observer
Observer

monkey, I totally agree with the benefits. I just question the US’s ability, will and finances to deliver the goods. If you can get a multi-nation, multi-manufacturer consortium, I’d be very happy, but the problem is that there is a single country famous for cancelling projects in charge.

Lots of good US ideas that never came to in service hardware. Kent’s Dragon Fire was one of them. I find that one a pity too.

@Observer
Re the will thing , I couldn’t agree more the US seem to develop some very interesting kit as you said Dragon Fire II , as well as FCS in its most complex form the NLOS , the USMC Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle which could deliver 17 Marines from 120km out at sea at 45kmh! They were all brought up to a production level of development and then cancelled. I sometime suspect (call me paranoid) its deliberate, on the shelf they have the designs ready to go of some pretty advanced equipment which come a major war (GW1/GW2 not major wars) with a peer opponent may suddenly get the go ahead. It seems they periodically refresh the designs , you could say the FCS was spawned by the AAI Rapid Deployment / Force Light Tank Kent worked on. Very odd but there may be method in their madness.

Observer
Observer

monkey, you’re too optimistic. :)

I suspect it’s more likely that there may be bureaucrats in their madness.

The EFV isn’t one that I agree on though, that one was very ambitious, unfortunately they discovered that ambitious and amphibious also has ambitious costs.

So many ambitious projects canned, the ACR, the XM-29, XM-8, XM-25, XM-307/312 etc. All with zip to show for it. So much wastage.

steve taylor
Observer
Observer

x, genius! The Future Blanks Project! We’ll call it the FBP for short!

@Observer
It seems to happen everywhere , so many promising projects almost brought to fruition cancelled because of some shift in philosophy/politics , often without a good reason not to continue other than it seems at time ‘fashion’ if that’s the right word.

↓