Probably true in some automotive cases, but MILSPEC is still in use overall.
Every new piece of equipment must meet various MILSPEC to ensure that the
item or parts/fluids used in it won't fail at the very WORST of times (when
one is being shot at in a hostile climate). EMP and Saudi-like sand/heat,
for example, are especially tough standards.
Unfortunately, this adds to the cumbersome, "red-tape"-laden aquisition
process and costs.
How do I know? Because I work in a "battle lab" which has the edict of
finding "off-the-shelf" technologies so we can save all "you" tax-payers (we
pay taxes too) some money. But, as we in the military have figured out. This
isn't as easy as it sounds due to the infamous "MILSPEC" and the fact that
technology is moving so fast (i.e. - 10 years ago WHO had internet access in
their house?, the M1 tank took 12 years to produce...etc.). Now we're trying
to get ahead of the curve by experimenting with robots and other "stuff"
(don't ask), so we can test them virtually and build them to "SPEC"!
Dan
73 B
Ft. Knox
SNIP
I have put most of this in the past tense because use of many,
>if not most, mil specs in purchasing materiel has been discontinued.
>Much of the materiel purchased for the military now uses other national
>or intermational standards, i.e. ANSI, DIN, etc.
SNIP
>I believe that for a product to list mil specs it meets it must have
>been tested and proven to meet them at some point, if that makes a
>difference.
>
>Bill Henry
>'72 MGB-GT
|