Obviously the majors are listed in that paperwork, but the...

Obviously the majors are listed in that paperwork, but the partners (MST in seven or whatever cases) don't need to be spelled out. Unsurprisingly one other thing that came up informally (without specific details of course) at the Brisbane meeting is that in some Force Protection projects MST would be the minor partner, but in others MST is the major partner. That's pretty much as one would expect - accordingly MST's share of the funding will depend on which project one is talking about.

That seems to be an interesting question from Schiffhead as to whether participation in the Force Protection contracts effectively means "Metal Storm launchers, fire control and ammo are now seen by US defence as Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) equipment?" This seems logical in this context?

But if that is the case i.e. MST stuff is COTS stuff in this context- then how does that interact with the TRL levels that Adder raised earlier? Is this COTS success fundamentally 'deeming' an advanced TRL level for the MST components, so we can just get it into the field? Finally, if it is COTS stuff in this context - presumably it might be COTS stuff forever? Would appreciate your clarification if possible, Moosey? PS - just indulging from our previous notes - I've been more of a deer hunter than a fisherman in days past, but I could suffer either!