# Canadian Army Prohibits Purchase of Commercial Kit



## Farmboy (10 Jun 2010)

Taken from www.soldiersystems.net


Quote:


> Canadian Army Prohibits Purchase of Commercial Kit
> 
> On Monday, LGEN A.B. LESLIE, Chief of the Land Staff for Canada, released a message entitled, “Prohibition on Acquisition of Soldier Personal Equipment, Clothing and Camp Stores.” The point of the message was to remind units that they cannot use Operations and Maintenance monies to procure Soldier Systems items. Specifically, guidance was issued that, “THE LF CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT REMAIN WORLD CLASS. AS SUCH LOCAL PURCHASE OF CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT WITH O AND M FUNDS BY LF UNITS IS PROHIBITED.” The list of equipment units CANNOT use O&M to purchase is pretty extensive and includes basically everything that is covered on SSD. What killjoys. From the message:
> 
> ...



Very interesting.


LGen A.B. Leslie, why do you think it is that units are spending O and M funds on local purchase of clothing and equipment?

Could it be that the "world class" equipment the troops get issued if far from world class?

Could it be that the CF is issuing equipment that doesn't work for the task at hand?

The very fact that the issue TV only holds four C7/C8 magazines while our troops get issued ten to fifteen, speaks volumes about how incapable the issue TV really is.

The fact that the CF is now procuring new "Modular Fighting Rigs" is just more proof that our "world class" kit really isn't!

The MFR went out for a "competitive" tender, which really wasn't, since the tender specified a specific attachment system only found on SORD products from Australlia. So suddenly the competitive tender became sole source, without actually have to sole source the product.

Because of a handfull of soldiers who wore SORD gear overseas on a tour, it has now become the new MFR for Canada. Not a Canadian made product nor even a US made product, which in my opinion is far superior, but an product that got sole source because of the attachment system for the pouches, even though no other company or army uses it.

So what is the warranty the CF gets for this "even more world class" gear?

Quote:


> Products are guaranteed for life against all faults in materials or manufacture.
> Exclusions from the guarantee: Normal wear and tear, modifications or alterations, incorrect storage, damage caused by accidents, by negligence or by use for which the product is not intended.


"Damage caused by accidents" "Normal wear and tear" WOW hopefully our CF members look after their gear that is suppose to survive combat!

You are even trying to prohibit the purchase of slings. Yes, the CF issues two slings for the C7/C8 and both are unfit for combat. The two point "parade" sling and the three point "patrol" sling. The parade sling is meant for just that, parades while the three point patrol sling was obsolete many years ago. Never mind the fact that it's obsolete, I have yet to see one that isn't held together by duct tape and paracord.

Why do I care?

Well my company has been supplying CF Units and individuals with quite a bit of product since the issue gear isn't all that great.

Two lines we carry, Tactical Assault Gear and Blue Force Gear, come with "Unlimited Lifetime Warranties".

The key word in that is Unlimited. Meaning wear and tear, and damage caused by accidents, to the product, is covered under the warranty.

Both product lines were excluded from the competitive tender though, and aren't included on the approved purchase list that was already put out, even though the quality far exceeds a number of companies on the list.

Two companies on the list don't even do individual or unit sales. Another only makes medical related products, and we already covered the warranties of some of the other lines.

The Blue Force Gear Vickers sling has been purchased and used by multiple CF Units, hundreds of individual CF soldiers, issued to RCMP, used by multiple LE Tac Teams, multiple US military forces including all elite forces, multiple US government agencies and is now being procured by the Dutch for their weapons upgrade program. It's seems however that for the CF officially the parade sling works just fine.

So while the Airforce as a whole gets new aircraft, our Army makes due with "world class" gear that doesn't work, is held together with duct tape, is being replaced with gear that isn't warrantied against "wear and tear" and is now prohibited from procuring gear that actually works for the job they are doing.

If the issue gear really was "world class" there would be no reason to prohibit the purchase of aftermarket gear.

Darren Cole
President
One Shot Tactical Inc.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jun 2010)

Darren,

Here's the key phrase 





> The point of the message was to remind units that they cannot use Operations and Maintenance monies to procure Soldier Systems items.



Individual soldiers can still purchase gear on their own dime. They don't want Unit funds, that are supposed to be used for other spending, used to buy gear. There is a finite number of dollars per Unit. Buying aftermarket gear robs another Unit resource of it's funding.

Again, soldiers are still able to purchase with their own funds.

Most Units I'm familiar with are pretty savvy about raising external funds when needed, without touching that particular O&M budget, which was the only one specified as off limits. There are other options available to imaginative Unit COs.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Jun 2010)

... and some bosses are living in a fool's paradise:

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/06/some_bosses_live_in_a_fools_pa.html


----------



## captloadie (10 Jun 2010)

I can't comment on the validity of the OP's comments, so I won't.

However, when did this site allow, what is in my opinion, the blatant lobbying of a defense contractor?


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Jun 2010)

Group orders from say a PL for example, yes at private purchase, usually generates a bulk discount. How the money is raised, or could be rasied is up for debate. 

A group of soldiers, acting as one, too may also go in for the group buy. Seen this done here many times, and I was also part of that. One's uniform allowance or service allowance can be used, reciepts given out and here this can be used for one's tax return

OWDU


----------



## willy (10 Jun 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Most Units I'm familiar with are pretty savvy about raising external funds when needed, without touching that particular O&M budget, which was the only one specified as off limits. There are other options available to imaginative Unit COs.



Why should anyone have to get creative in order to acquire essential field stores?  

If the system can't provide generators, power distribution systems, tentage, lighting kits or heaters (as it apparently can't- look at the amount of such stuff that we have to lease from contractors every time the Reg F has a major exercise, and look at the number of Res units that have SFA for field stores other than a couple of sections of mod) then there needs to be an alternate source.  It's well and good to say that we have the best kit in the world, but when the system is perpetually fresh out of all that nice, fantastic kit then the guys on the ground have to make do somehow.  

I would guess that the only reason this has become an issue is the fact that so many units are finding themselves in a position whereby they feel that they have no option but to buy their own field stores from commercial sources.  That says a lot in and of itself.


----------



## GAP (10 Jun 2010)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I can't comment on the validity of the OP's comments, so I won't.
> 
> However, when did this site allow, what is in my opinion, the blatant lobbying of a defense contractor?



As far as I know, Farmboy, is a paid advertiser on this site. More importantly, he has a valuable opinion on a site like this, as he adds another, normally unavailable, facet to equipment arguments. 

He does not hide the fact that he is a contractor, and is stating his opinion, from his point of view. His arguments are clear, concise and well informed. He has a bias, and that's fine, we all do.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jun 2010)

willy said:
			
		

> Why should anyone have to get creative in order to acquire essential field stores?
> 
> If the system can't provide generators, power distribution systems, tentage, lighting kits or heaters (as it apparently can't- look at the amount of such stuff that we have to lease from contractors every time the Reg F has a major exercise, and look at the number of Res units that have SFA for field stores other than a couple of sections of mod) then there needs to be an alternate source.  It's well and good to say that we have the best kit in the world, but when the system is perpetually fresh out of all that nice, fantastic kit then the guys on the ground have to make do somehow.
> 
> I would guess that the only reason this has become an issue is the fact that so many units are finding themselves in a position whereby they feel that they have no option but to buy their own field stores from commercial sources.  That says a lot in and of itself.



We're not talking about MSA stores.

Apples and turnips


----------



## willy (10 Jun 2010)

Para C of the message quoted seems to indicate that we are indeed talking about those kinds of stores.  I know of a lot of units that have been spending money on just those sorts of things lately.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jun 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> He does not hide the fact that he is a contractor, and is stating his opinion, from his point of view. His arguments are clear, concise and well informed. He has a bias, and that's fine, we all do.


And anyone can (while sticking to the site's rules) comment in response.


----------



## 57Chevy (10 Jun 2010)

Pretty neat "Do Everything Folding Chinese Shovel" video on the link.  op:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jun 2010)

willy said:
			
		

> Para C of the message quoted seems to indicate that we are indeed talking about those kinds of stores.  I know of a lot of units that have been spending money on just those sorts of things lately.



The OP deals more with personal gear. That was the point being made.

When MSA is available through the system there shouldn't be a need. Coleman lanterns and two burner stoves shouldn't be tossed and unit funds used for some gucci stove to carry in your pocket. 

Don't paint all Units with the same brush either. Mine has plenty of MSA. We just choose to take care of it and maintain it. The system works, if you know how to work the system. My RQ does.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jun 2010)

willy said:
			
		

> Para C of the message quoted seems to indicate that we are indeed talking about those kinds of stores.  I know of a lot of units that have been spending money on just those sorts of things lately.



O&M budgets are not meant to be spent on those things. This is done at the expense of, well, operations and maintenance ( ya know....O&M). The prohibition applies to using O&M for anything else that O&M.


----------



## willy (10 Jun 2010)

Fair enough, I'm outside my lanes when discussing budgets.  Not my forte.

However I do see significant shortages of the types of kit I've discussed, and the method I've seen used to rectify those shortages has been local purchase.  An example would be CPDS (power distribution equipment).  I am not aware of any Res F unit that has an entitlement to that equipment.  Large generators are pretty much useless without a means of distributing the power (and running 9 million household extension cords is not the preferred solution).  The work around that was arrived at in at least one case I'm familiar with was the purchase of a civilian pattern equivalent.  What specific budget was used to fund the purchase, again, I guess I don't know.  

Not being an expert on budgets, I don't want to put my foot in my mouth.  But again, I don't know why a message would be issued on the subject if it weren't the case that units have been doing this.  I don't know why they'd do it if they didn't feel there was a pressing need for them to do so.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jun 2010)

willy said:
			
		

> I don't know why they'd do it if they didn't feel there was a pressing need for them to do so.



Imagine if my Sqn spent its TD budget (meant to pay for TD expenses incured on training deployments) to buy new boots because the issued ones are no good, then turns around and says to the Wing and Division that we are not combat ready because we havent been able to train. Do you think that would go over well ?

Units have other avenues to adress equipment shortfalls (its not because they are a PITA that they dont exist) and using money meant for training and maintenace is not one of them ( as expedient as it may be).


----------



## willy (10 Jun 2010)

Your argument makes perfect sense.

I guess all I'm saying is that there are obviously some significant problems with getting various different types of kit to the various units that need them.  I think it's a bit of a sad commentary on our current state of affairs that the LPO of everyday field stores has become an issue on which the CLS has to weigh in.


----------



## McG (10 Jun 2010)

willy said:
			
		

> I think it's a bit of a sad commentary on our current state of affairs that the LPO of everyday field stores has become an issue on which the CLS has to weigh in.


He wouldn't if people used the proper channels to get what they want.  If something is available in the supply system, that is where units must go to get it.



			
				willy said:
			
		

> An example would be CPDS (power distribution equipment).  I am not aware of any Res F unit that has an entitlement to that equipment.  Large generators are pretty much useless without a means of distributing the power (and running 9 million household extension cords is not the preferred solution).  The work around that was arrived at in at least one case I'm familiar with was the purchase of a civilian pattern equivalent.


Instead of working around the system, why didn't somebody staff a request for the entitlement?



			
				willy said:
			
		

> If the system can't provide generators, power distribution systems, tentage, lighting kits or heaters then there needs to be an alternate source.


And when this stuff breaks (as it inevitably does), users and techs turn to the supply system for spare and replacement parts - but there are none because the LPO equipment is not centrally supported.  Now the unit is spending more money replacing the whole equipment or buying parts that would have been centrally funded for centrally supplied equipment.

There have been plenty of cases where such LPOed equipment ends up deployed in an operational theatre - a lack of central support means even longer unavailability when the equipment fails (because the supply system is right in theatre, while Husqvarna is not).

A lot of times, where deployed ops or formations decide thier LPOed equipment is special, they fight and unfortunately win getting it centrally supported.  I say "unfortunately" because now the LCMM and SM have just had some of thier time and money stolen to support a system that is unique to one or two users - surely the solution, to things you want not being available, is not to throw more distractions on the plates of the people who are supposed to get these things onto depot and warehouse shelves.



			
				willy said:
			
		

> Not being an expert on budgets ...


It is bigger and more confusing than unit budgeting.  If several dozen COs independantly decide they have a need for newer tentage and independantly they purchase an aggregate total of $500k in tents, then there are folks at lofty hights in TB and PWGSC who would declare that DND was guilty of contract splitting, that higher approvals should have been required, and that a different parlaimentary vote of money should have been used.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2010)

willy said:
			
		

> Your argument makes perfect sense.
> 
> I guess all I'm saying is that there are obviously some significant problems with getting various different types of kit to the various units that need them.  I think it's a bit of a sad commentary on our current state of affairs that the LPO of everyday field stores has become an issue on which the CLS has to weigh in.



I can't say as I blame him. 

The clothing and eqpt this is applicable to is "Centrally Managed" & Centrally Funded" for the most part. IE: It is managed and paid for using national/central fin coding (ie generators) when brought into the system via a *contracted supplier*. Some clothing & eqpt is "Centrally managed", but "locally funded" (ie *2nd Line Supply * can LPO - which ensures the items are brought onto charge after they're purchased and actually issued onto accounts so that they are visible in the system. Items such as towells etc are like this. As for "non-entitlement" to this eqpt at 1st line level --- that is what the MACR process exists for and you should be submitting these to your supporting 2nd line supply activity.

When there is a national contract to supply items into the system, the contractor MUST be used; it really is that simple. There exists a risk of the CF/DND being found to be "in breach of contract" when these types of items are purchased with unauthorized monies and fin codes outside of the authorized national or second line level.

That all being said, when a requirement exists for an above item and a "nil national stock" is being experienced AND the contracted supplier can not provide (a fact which needs to be* certified as the case* by "central" [who manage it!!]), national fin coding can be requested by 2nd line Supply through the SM for the particular item. If substantiated, and supplier is confirmed not to be able to provide, central may provide the national fin coding for purchase due to the circumstances and the items are then "seen & known" by them. 2nd Line can then ensure the items are BOCd, then either loaned from MSA Command Pools to the 1st Line Units or issued to them as applicable.

Not so the case when 1st line Units are purchasing camel backs (for example) or chest rigs and giving them to Unit personnel without either using the proper fin coding, bringing them on charge to their Unit and/nor are they ensuring the item is issued to the clothing docs of the troops they give them to.  In any case, if the pers is not entitled to a camel back on the LFC Ops clothing & eqpt scale (ie he is not deploying on international operations) --- there also exists zero entitlement/authority to buy camel backs and give to him anyway by Unit COs even if there is nil national stock - he still isn't entitled to one. In cases like this, the national fin coding to purchase would be denied.


----------



## 57Chevy (10 Jun 2010)

We always worked on the notion, " If it's in the system, we'll get it ". And we usually found it.


----------



## rampage800 (10 Jun 2010)

Make no doubt about it, I'm not a huge advocate of some of the kit the CF issues. That being said, if half the people who bitched about the kit all the time put the same effort into completing UCRs we'd be miles ahead.

My 2 cents.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> We always worked on the notion, " If it's in the system, we'll get it ". And we usually found it.



And, even when there is no stock in the system, there is a process for these types of items. I'll give you "Touque, OD" as an example. Because it is clothing (a clothing doc and LFC Op Clothing & Eqpt scaled item) - it is "Centrally managed and centrally funded": IE: it is supplied to the CF by a contracted supplier. We were experiencing a "Nil National Stock" in the middle of the winter and the supplier was confirmed as being unable to supply (an EDD of 4 months - ie: June ~ the summer); we ergo requested the SM approve us to LPO 500each green toques and send us the "national fin code" to use for the purchase. This was approved as the troops needed something warm to wear in their heads in February, vice June. We recd the authority to buy and the fin code. We purchased the items and BOCd them at 2nd line supply (clothing stores) and we then issued them onto the troops clothing docs. Thus, these items were visible & known by central and were also visible and accountably issued onto the clothing docs of the pers who recd them.

Now, if the SM had 10000 due in from the contractor in the next two weeks, our request would have been denied. If a 1st line Unit would have went out and bought 500 using O&M monies anyway ... that would have been money wasted. That is why the proper process needs to be used. That's just toques - imagine the funds expended (with no national visiblity of the item actually being in the CF somewhere) when you get into high dollar value items such as gennies being bought with O&M funds at 1st line level - that neither central nor 2nd line has no idea even exist because they are neither brought onto charge (ie held accountable for) nor visible to anyone on the supply system.


----------



## Fusaki (10 Jun 2010)

I understand that there are a number of good reasons why COs can not be allowed to circumvent the system to get the gear they want.  But that doesn't change the fact that lives depend on troops getting the gear they need.  

Take the SNAFU in trying to get new load carriage systems:  It took years for the big army to realize that the Tacvest wasn't good enough, and then years to figure out what to do about it.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the war will be over by the time new load carriage gets to the end user.

And the irony is that once we're out of Afghanistan, the current TV will probably be sufficient for the kinds of non-combat operations we'll have to look forward to over the next few years.  We _will_ eventually get new load carriage, but it will end up being a huge waste of money because by the time the next war rolls around it will all be outdated. At that point, we're going to have to do a new trial to figure out what the next best thing is, and the end user will see it _just after_ we pull out of our combat roll there too.

Do I sound cynical?  I must be a CPL...

I don't think it's right that troops should have to buy their own gear because the system is broken, and  I'm sympathetic to COs who are willing to cut through the bullshit to get guys what they need in a reasonable time.


----------



## armyvern (10 Jun 2010)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I understand that there are a number of good reasons why COs can not be allowed to circumvent the system to get the gear they want.  But that doesn't change the fact that lives depend on troops getting the gear they need.
> 
> Take the SNAFU in trying to get new load carriage systems:  It took years for the big army to realize that the Tacvest wasn't good enough, and then years to figure out what to do about it.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the war will be over by the time new load carriage gets to the end user.
> 
> ...



Effeciency in trials and follow up procurement is lacking; I'd agree with you on that. This needs to improve (& it is somewhat improving. Post TFA - ... whether that continues, remains to be seen).

BUT, a lot of that is outside of the CFs hands too ... enter other Fed depts/politics into the process. One day, someone will sort that out hopefully. I really do wish that I'd be around to see it happen.


----------



## 57Chevy (10 Jun 2010)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I don't think it's right that troops should have to buy their own gear because the system is broken, and  I'm sympathetic to COs who are willing to cut through the bullshit to get guys what they need in a reasonable time.



There was a time when you were not allowed to include any non-issue kit.
Except for maybe underwear.
I found that a non-issue hooded pullover bought at my own expense was ideal for winter ops.

There have been items of kit that were tossed as useless, but remained as part of issued kit.
Units simply did not use them. They sat in the barrack box untill the system got rid of them, or
replaced them with a new and improved version.

I'm sure CO's work their contacts in the supply system to get the needed equipment for the troops.

The system is not broken. It works quite well. Kitting deficiencies have to come from the first line users.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jun 2010)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I must be a CPL...




This is not a rank thing so dont make it one. I'm not far up the ladder myself.




> I don't think it's right that troops should have to buy their own gear because the system is broken,



I agree, dont get me wrong. But that doesnt make whats going on right either. Spending O&M money on equipment that is available through other means is just as wrong. That money is there to allow the unit to train, function and maintain its equipment. If you are spending it on stoves ( example) that are available in the system if people used that system, you shortchange the troops just as much.

"Cant train like we fight troops......we spent the training money on new gucci camping stoves"


----------



## Fusaki (10 Jun 2010)

> Spending O&M money on equipment that is available through other means is just as wrong. That money is there to allow the unit to train, function and maintain its equipment. If you are spending it on stoves ( example) that are available in the system if people used that system, you shortchange the troops just as much.



I don't think the issue here is CO's buying stuff with O&M money that they can get for free.  I think the issue is that CO's are buying stuff that they feel like, for some reason, they can not get any other way.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jun 2010)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I don't think the issue here is CO's buying stuff with O&M money that they can get for free.



Paragraph C of the message would indicate that this is indeed at the heart of the problem



> C. CAMP STORES. TENTAGE, COTS, SLEEPING SYSTEMS, AIR MATRESSES OR SLEEPING PADS, GENERATORS / HEATERS OR THEIR ANCILLARY EQUIPMENT, STOVES, POWER DISTIRBUTION, LIGHTING KITS AND VCP KITS



This is all supplied by the system as described by Armyvern earlier. If money is being spent by COs from the O&M budgets, this is blatantly wrong as she further explained.


----------



## Fusaki (10 Jun 2010)

I don't think guys who spend money on stuff they could have for free typically make it to CO.  It kind of makes me think that there is more to this story.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jun 2010)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> I don't think guys who spend money on stuff they could have for free typically make it to CO.



I've seen enough over the years to make me think differently.




> It kind of makes me think that there is more to this story.



Thats very possible.


----------



## 57Chevy (10 Jun 2010)

Wonderbread and Cdn Aviator

   If you and others in your unit have sling problems and seems to be widespread, then you should
pass that information back into the system. (Supply) They are more than willing to bring the issue
to dept heads and contractors where the problem can be fixed or altered. That's how the system is supposed to work. If the user units do nothing to remedy the problem then the contractor makes 
more of the same crap. Another words.........nobody flippin knows about the sling problem. And you
end up getting a new crap sling.
So, just where is the system broke?.............The first line user
I think there is a form to fill out regarding equipment deficiencies, but I don't recall the number.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Jun 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> Wonderbread and Cdn Aviator
> 
> If you and others in your unit have sling problems and seems to be widespread, then you should
> pass that information back into the system.



My unit does not have an issue with O&M going to things like this and equipment problems are being handled the way they should be.

We have had a multitude of flashlights issued that were unsuitable and this is being adressed by the system. Other stuff is taking longer but its being worked on......


----------



## 211RadOp (11 Jun 2010)

57Chevy said:
			
		

> I think there is a form to fill out regarding equipment deficiencies, but I don't recall the number.



CF 777 Unsatisfactory Condition Report

http://www.cfsuo.forces.gc.ca/ts-st/sup-app/ucr-rens-cf777-eng.asp


----------



## Fusaki (11 Jun 2010)

57Chevy,

After a years of first line users submitting UCRs, the army eventually conceded that the current issued Tactical Vest was not sufficient for current operations in Afghanistan.  Among other shortfalls, the TV only holds 4 of the 9 rifle mags deemed necessary for carry in that high threat environment.  After extensive trials, the army eventually chose a new load carriage system that supposedly remedied these shortfalls.  While the soldiers of TF 1-10 were initially told that they would be issued this new load carriage system, they were told later that the program had been held up and that they would continue to have to make due overseas with the currently issued TacVest.

As an interim measure, soldiers were authorized to purchase and wear load bearing gear offered by a handful of authorized civilian manufacturers.  I'm no longer in the Reg Force, but my former unit is currently deployed with TF 1-10.  Looking at the photos my friends have sent home, it looks like at least half of the guys have gone this route.

The problem with what you've described above is that the system is SLOW.  By the time that the army receives enough UCRs to recognise a problem, conduct trials, buy the equipment, and issue it out to the end user, the war will be over.  That's not an exaggeration.  It's exactly what is happening with the new load carriage system.  Personally, I don't think it's right that young soldiers should have to buy their own gear because the army bureaucracy is too slow to provide them with what they need.

It seems to me that COs are being caught between a rock and a hard place.  On one hand, they have Generals who don't want them to circumvent the system.  On the other hand, they have a mission that they judge would have a higher chance of success if they "re-allocated" O&M money into new equipment.  The system is obviously broken, and I find it hard to blame the unit commanders for trying to cut through the bureaucratic bullshit in order to get the job done.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jun 2010)

Side note


			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> The MFR went out for a "competitive" tender, which really wasn't, since the tender specified a specific attachment system only found on SORD products from Australlia. So suddenly the competitive tender became sole source, without actually have to sole source the product.
> 
> Because of a handfull of soldiers who wore SORD gear overseas on a tour, it has now become the new MFR for Canada. Not a Canadian made product nor even a US made product, which in my opinion is far superior, but an product that got sole source because of the attachment system for the pouches, even though no other company or army uses it.


this is retarded.


----------



## McG (11 Jun 2010)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> After a years of first line users submitting UCRs, the army eventually conceded that the current issued Tactical Vest was not sufficient for ...


Actually (as we've established in other threads) it was years of users complaining amoungst themselves and only a very small few who took the time to write a UCR.


----------



## 57Chevy (11 Jun 2010)

Wonderbread
  
I know the system is slow on some issues. In fact, sometimes seems broken. But it's not. As long as
the first line users submit UCRs the supply system can remedy the situation. Armyvern mentions the
biggest problem being the "breach of contract" ordeal. Which is likely the most relevent case regarding
the load carrier problem. If, and I say "If" that is the problem that the supply system has encountered,
then LGEN Leslie is pointing the way to the first line users, and COs of those units. As recceguy mentions, there are options to imaginitive unit COs. And monies for procurement of these items could
be raised by a number of methods as mentioned by Overwatch D.

An "alert" commercial supplier or sponser could in fact offer the troops specific items like load bearing carriers or slings, or anything for that matter, overriding any possible breach of contract to the supply system.
And I must agree with you that the front line soldier should not have to use his own monies to purchase normal issued kit. Personal comfort kit is another story.
Best Regards  :yellow:


----------



## Recon 3690 (12 Jun 2010)

SSDD, this has been going on for over 100 years in Canada, our Soldiers getting killed because of a lack of appropriate kit caused by political considerations, greed at higher levels, & the quest for uniformity at any cost. Just a few examples Oliver Pattern gear in the Boer War & WW I, and how about that Ross Rifle. Our troops have always had to buy, scavenge, & steal what the needed to get the job done. Then along comes some POS parade square RSM or CO saying you can't use that its not uniform.

Have heart we will fight the next war with what you need now.


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Jun 2010)

People are going to gripe about CF kit for the rest of their careers, and those people can sum up and do their jobs.

I am quite happy with all the money has been spent in the last 10 years on new equipment and clothing.

If we had been fighting in A'stan in 2000 we would have had olive drab, old webbing, puck-soled boots, a rubber rain jacket, no ballistic eyewear, no Camelbacks, a NBCW backpack, and wool underwear.

I will be the dissenter from the ranks here and say thank you to LGen Leslie for getting us all the kit you have.  I really appreciate it and I know it has saved a lot of lives.  Some people would gripe if you bought them a Ferrari because it wasn't a Lamborghini.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Jun 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> I am quite happy with all the money has been spent in the last 10 years on new equipment and clothing.
> 
> I will be the dissenter from the ranks here and say thank you to LGen Leslie for getting us all the kit you have.  I really appreciate it and I know it has saved a lot of lives.



I agree with you wholeheartedly.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Jun 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> People are going to gripe about CF kit for the rest of their careers, and those people can sum up and do their jobs.
> 
> I am quite happy with all the money has been spent in the last 10 years on new equipment and clothing.
> 
> ...



The order is pretty simple - CO's shouldn't be spending money on stuff that the money isn't supposed to be spent on; I don't see what the complaint is about.

You could probably extend that to a lot of other things.  10 years ago, in all that gear, I was attacking an ML on a hill with blanks.  Fast forward to now and all the sudden it's all live with Apaches blowing stuff up.

Should we talk about the pay 15 years ago?


----------



## Recon 3690 (12 Jun 2010)

It was just a general comment on the state of things. Not the complaints.
Why not make the order simple this is the approved list private purchase kit from it is allowed there is no need for the at Com'd discretion addition. 
Things such as helmet pads are proven technology, do not permanently alter the helmet, and are out of sight. So whats the problem with them, put them on the approved list. Canadian Forces should be looking at what our allies are using ie. OTW shirts we are the only country not using them officially yet, why not investigate them for quality and standards of protection then put them on the list.
Com'd should be looking after the welfare of the troops instead of worrying so much about how they look.
As before SSDD.


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Jun 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Should we talk about the pay 15 years ago?



We don't need to because that's been fixed, too (some would even argue too much [while in Canada, anyway]).

As for the beginning of your post, I wasn't making reference to LGen Leslie's order or what units were allowed to buy so much as countering the endless stream of guys who will gripe about kit no matter what the CF gives them, how much is costs, or how much better is than what Country X has.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Jun 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> We don't need to because that's been fixed, too (some would even argue too much [while in Canada, anyway]).
> 
> As for the beginning of your post, I wasn't making reference to LGen Leslie's order or what units were allowed to buy so much as countering the endless stream of guys who will gripe about kit no matter what the CF gives them, how much is costs, or how much better is than what Country X has.



Exactly - maybe I wasn't clear, but I was agreeing with your post.  There is many complaints these days, but those who remember the pay, equipment and training from the 90s know how well we have it today.  The fact that the Tacvest is the biggest cause for concern is a good thing.


----------



## GAP (12 Jun 2010)

For those who want to know what the pay rates were 15 years ago....

http://www.dfas.mil/militarypay/militarypaytables/militarypaypriorrates.html


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Jun 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> For those who want to know what the pay rates were 15 years ago....
> 
> http://www.dfas.mil/militarypay/militarypaytables/militarypaypriorrates.html



In the US military?


----------



## 57Chevy (12 Jun 2010)

Canadian (todays rates)

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/ps/pay-sol/pr-sol/rfncmr-mrfr-eng.asp




(Unable to get to the 1990 rate charts)


----------



## GAP (12 Jun 2010)

CF....I was trying to compare what I made as compared to a CF member....I made 90/month as a private, in Canada a private made 155/month in 1967

my search was "Canadian army pay scale 1968"


----------



## SeanNewman (12 Jun 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Exactly - maybe I wasn't clear, but I was agreeing with your post...



Ack, sorry.  I guess I'm just so used to seeing Farva attacking me that I subconsciously go into defensive mode when I see your avatar.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Jun 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> CF....I was trying to compare what I made as compared to a CF member....I made 90/month as a private, in Canada a private made 155/month in 1967
> 
> my search was "Canadian army pay scale 1968"


Gap

The Canadian private had a sum (I think around thirty bucks, but it could have been more) deducted for rations and quarters from that 155/month. The figure must have been for a private recruit or private, trained, basic rate, as I made 157/month in 1960 as a gunner (private), trained higher rate (18 months service) with Group 2 trades pay and did not pay for rations and quarters.


----------



## GAP (13 Jun 2010)

As a base private, I made $90.00/month...Private 1st Class was 95/96....as a Sargent with combat pay of 65.00/month, I made the grand sum of 260.00, tax free though.... ;D

Rumors being what they were, everybody used to razz me about not joining the CF where the pay was supposedly 5 times higher....I guess those tables at the link put paid to that argument...


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Jun 2010)

Gap sounds like you were short changed better put in for back pay. When I went into the Army in 1972 I made a whopping $288 base pay a month. ;D


----------



## GAP (13 Jun 2010)

See.....you guys were cheaping out the Marines!!!!  ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Jun 2010)

"The Few.The Proud. The Broke A$$ Marines." >


----------



## SeanNewman (13 Jun 2010)

Not worth going into because it's already been covered many times before on this board, but you can not compare pay rates for the CF and the US military because so many factors are different.

So many different things are funded by each country like uniforms, housing, at different levels.  Also, there is no way that personnel account for over 50% of the US military budget like it does here.

However, yes a Canadian may be paid more, but what is it worth for a Marine to be truly appreciated by his citizens he's protecting?  The Canadian public's support of the military may be wide, but it is paper thin.  

I'd give up some pay for that public trust.


----------



## McG (14 Jun 2010)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> Why not make the order simple this is the approved list private purchase kit from it is allowed there is no need for the at Com'd discretion addition.


Because every approved item would see the government assume liability & an obligation toward the soldiers, an approved purchase list would require every item to be tested by DND and continuous manufacture quality monitoring by DND.



			
				Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> Things such as helmet pads are proven technology, do not permanently alter the helmet, and ...


Our helmets were disigned to work with a suspension system and it is known that pads will significantly impair protective characteristics.


----------



## Farmboy (14 Jun 2010)

> Our helmets were disigned to work with a suspension system and it is known that pads will significantly impair protective characteristics.



But you can't show us any proof of this 



> Because every approved item would see the government assume liability & an obligation toward the soldiers,



But yet an approved item list exists for aftermarket rigs.



> an approved purchase list would require every item to be tested by DND and continuous manufacture quality monitoring by DND.



 Does DND really test all after market rigs on the approved list and do they monitor quality? 

Does DND really test all after market boots and monitor quality?  No real approved list for these but almost every make of boot is worn in the CF.


----------



## jeepsport (14 Jun 2010)

A great senior NCO once said, "A soldier shouldn't have to adapt to his kit, he should adapt his kit to his job."


----------



## McG (14 Jun 2010)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> But you can't show us any proof of this


This seems to be your standard fall back position whenever it is suggested your products might not be as safe as the issued PPE.
I suppose that is convenient given that PPE levels are classified.  The proof is out there, and I've seen enough with respect to other items of PPE to trust the agencies that do these technical evaluations for us.



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> But yet an approved item list exists for aftermarket rigs ...


... and that list went through a validation process and all items on it have been trialed by the Army.


----------



## Farmboy (15 Jun 2010)

> and that list went through a validation process and all items on it have been trialed by the Army



How does a brand get on that list or trialed?  Say something like Tactical Assault Gear which has been purchased by multiple CF units?


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jun 2010)

whiskey_tango said:
			
		

> A great senior NCO once said, "A soldier shouldn't have to adapt to his kit, he should adapt his kit to his job."



Wise words that MAYBE we all should heed.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (15 Jun 2010)

whiskey_tango said:
			
		

> A great senior NCO once said, "A soldier shouldn't have to adapt to his kit, he should adapt his kit to his job."





			
				Mid Aged Silverback said:
			
		

> Wise words that MAYBE we all should heed.



My god man that's applying logic to the situation...........

 ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Jun 2010)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> My god man that's applying logic to the situation...........
> 
> ;D



yes....what will we do if we don't have Strict Uniformity??? Woe is me!! ;D


----------



## McG (15 Jun 2010)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> How does a brand get on that list or trialed?


You would have to put your question to DLR or DSSPM.  However, whenever that window of opportunity was, you will probably find it has closed because it was tied to operational load carriage trials.



			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> Say something like Tactical Assault Gear which has been purchased by multiple CF units?


Going back to the message that this thread is about -> Units are not authorized to buy individual kit.
Units buying kit, for which they are not authorized to buy, does not sanction that kit for use or procurement by individuals.


----------



## Loachman (15 Jun 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> I suppose that is convenient given that PPE levels are classified.



That, too, has a level of convenience.

I have seen, but cannot recall where, US data demonstrating the superiority of pad systems.

As I understand, the US Army and US Marines have gone to pad systems.

If there is a difference between US helmet shells and ours that can somehow explain a superior performance of pads in US helmets and an inferior performance in ours, I'd be most interested.

We went from a suspension system to what could be termed a pad system (one big skull-cap pad) in our flying helmets about twenty years ago. Granted, the "threats" are not the same, but there is some overlap.


----------



## McG (15 Jun 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> That, too, has a level of convenience.


 It does, but I am not using it to put money in my pocket in exchange for a product that I promise will provide greater comfort and protection.
If there are CF commanders that need the proof for official use, there are sources where it can be requested from within DND.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> If there is a difference between US helmet shells and ours that can somehow explain a superior performance of pads in US helmets and an inferior performance in ours, I'd be most interested.


Msg sent.  You may also want to send the LCMM an email – he might be able to elaborate more on official means.


----------



## Loachman (15 Jun 2010)

Seen. Thanks.


----------



## Farmboy (15 Jun 2010)

> Going back to the message that this thread is about -> Units are not authorized to buy individual kit.
> Units buying kit, for which they are not authorized to buy, does not sanction that kit for use or procurement by individuals.



 Units are not authorized *to use O&M funds* for buying kit. 

Which is different than kit (again Tactical Assault Gear) procured using the correct methods.


----------



## McG (15 Jun 2010)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> Units are not authorized *to use O&M funds* for buying kit.
> 
> Which is different than kit (again Tactical Assault Gear) procured using the correct methods.


Going back to reply #58, you are asking about individual kit purchased by units.  Bolding O&M does not change my position.  Army units do not get any type of funding with which they can purchase the types of items described in the message that initiated this thread.  If an items such as those described in the message was purchased by a unit, it was not procured properly.  

Today, even CANSOFCOM has a requirements staff and has to go the ADM(Mat) for certain things/types-of-things.


----------



## Farmboy (15 Jun 2010)

> Army units do not get any type of funding with which they can purchase the types of items described in the message that initiated this thread.  If an items such as those described in the message was purchased by a unit, it was not procured properly.



Strange.  

 Does Public Works know this? Does the chain of command know this. Because they both keep approving everything. 

 So either it is actually approved, in which case it's in the system properly or the chain of command recognizes that the issue gear is crap and are ignoring orders because of it.

 Personally I could give two $hits if God himself gave the order not to buy after market gear.  The issue TV doesn't work, the slings don't work, the boots don't work etc.

 You know it. I know it. The Troops know it and the chain of command knows it.

I'll keep pushing till the troops get what actually works.


----------



## armyvern (15 Jun 2010)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> Strange.
> 
> Does Public Works know this? Does the chain of command know this. Because they both keep approving everything.
> 
> ...



You may not give two shits and that is none of my concern.

Chest rigs, camel backs, boots etc are_* ALL * _ 2nd line clothing doc items --- so if some CO of a 1st line Unit IS buying them from you; then no, he is NOT following the correct process and thus the reason the CANFORGEN that this thread is about was cut in order to re-enforce that *fact*. Pretty simple eh?

That* fact*, also happens to be IAW Treasury Board Act (that "Act" is a "Law" just in case you weren't aware of that). Whichever sup tech at that 1st line unit or cbt storesman makes that purchase --- is subject to disciplinary and legal action as NO authority exists in the CF for them to make such a financial transaction.

Now, if a CO wanted to buy and put his requirement through 2nd line who would consult with Ottawa as applicable, THEN he's followed the proper process for procurement. In which case, the purchase from you would be coming from a 2nd line Sup activity vice a 1st line Unit. Of course, I've already posted that in this thread prior though - conveniently ignored by yourself.

NO CO can buy (even through 2nd line) things like camel backs for his Unit pers just "because he thinks his troops should have them" when those troops are not entitled to them if they are not deploying on International Ops. A CO can not override the NDHQ authorized LF scale of clothing and equipment which lists the items that his pers are entitled to. If they are not entitled on that scale, they are also NOT entitled via other means. That CO who believes his troops should have it anyway, also has a process in place for addressing any lack of entitlement via official means and channels to have the scale amended so that troops could become entitled to be issued it by clothing stores (and thus making it visible, legal, and accountable within the system and on the members docs as the TB Act says it must be).

Apparently, this must have become an issue in the system with the COs understanding they have no authority to purchase like this --- else the message reiterating their lack of authorityh to do so simply would not exist.


----------



## Farmboy (15 Jun 2010)

> I've already posted that in this thread prior though - conveniently ignored by yourself.



Not ignored, just missed.



> Now, if a CO wanted to buy and put his requirement through 2nd line who would consult with Ottawa as applicable, THEN he's followed the proper process for procurement. In which case, the purchase from you would be coming from a 2nd line Sup activity vice a 1st line Unit.



This could be what is happening then with confusion on the technical terms.


----------



## captloadie (16 Jun 2010)

To me its sounds more like your saying - 


			
				Farmboy said:
			
		

> I'll keep pushing till the troops get what actually works I'm actually selling.


----------



## DirtyDog (16 Jun 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> That, too, has a level of convenience.
> 
> I have seen, but cannot recall where, US data demonstrating the superiority of pad systems.
> 
> ...


I found it funny during the PPE inclearance brief in KAF how they warned against the evils of the pad system and the inferiority of the American helmets to our suspension system.

The they went on to explain that the TV should be worn with the Frag vest as it is a system desgined to work together and the TV holds the frag vest together and prevents it from blowing off during an explosion.  When someone pointed out that half of the frag vests being issued had completely worn out velcro it was explained that "yes, it would be nice if the velcro worked, but... ummmmmm........."


----------



## armyvern (16 Jun 2010)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I found it funny during the PPE inclearance brief in KAF how they warned against the evils of the pad system and the inferiority of the American helmets to our suspension system.



Interesting that you bring this up at a time when the US military is undergoing a major recall of it's issued helmets due to them not meeting minimum safety standards ... and we are not experiencing such with our Canadian kit. Perhaps those giving their brief actually had some factual info to support their "ours are better according to our safety standards testing" claims."??


----------



## Farmboy (16 Jun 2010)

> Interesting that you bring this up at a time when the US military is undergoing a major recall of it's issued helmets





> The 44,000 recalled helmets -- which cost 250 dollars each -- represent about four percent of the total number of Advanced Combat Helmets in the military's inventory



4% isn't major in my book, however it is an huge concern that troops deployed with these.





> To me its sounds more like your saying -
> Quote from: Farmboy on Yesterday at 15:43:20
> 
> 
> I'll keep pushing till the troops get what actually works I'm actually selling.



OH NO Run away!! Some one is selling something!!  Must resist!!


----------



## 57Chevy (16 Jun 2010)

[quote author=Farmboy  Must resist!!
[/quote]

 :argument:   :deadhorse:  ;D


----------



## DirtyDog (16 Jun 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Interesting that you bring this up at a time when the US military is undergoing a major recall of it's issued helmets due to them not meeting minimum safety standards ... and we are not experiencing such with our Canadian kit. Perhaps those giving their brief actually had some factual info to support their "ours are better according to our safety standards testing" claims."??


Yes but she seemed to be referencing  the basic concept of helmet pads, not some manufacturing defect.  She specifically mentioned how our suspension system which creates an air space much like that in a construction hard hat is fundamentally superior to pad systems, "like the American helmets".  

People can also point to the "facts" of scientific studies of how the CTS ruck is ergonomically a home run for soldiers.  Kind of like the warm fuzzy feeling I got when the CLS told us that extremely talented teams of scientists and engineers were designing the new arid combat boot (or whatever it is called) and it will be a hit with us.


----------



## Fusaki (16 Jun 2010)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> The they went on to explain that the TV should be worn with the Frag vest as it is a system desgined to work together and the TV holds the frag vest together and prevents it from blowing off during an explosion.  When someone pointed out that half of the frag vests being issued had completely worn out velcro it was explained that "yes, it would be nice if the velcro worked, but... ummmmmm........."



Is the Frag vest safe for use by vehicle crews and other pers who don't wear the TV in combat?


----------



## 2010newbie (16 Jun 2010)

Farmboy said:
			
		

> 4% isn't major in my book, however it is an huge concern that troops deployed with these.



I think 4% is a huge number, especially in a manufacturing environment like this one providing PPE. Last year GM's internal target for Supplier Quality issues (defective parts from suppliers received at GM assembly plants) was 25 ppm (parts per million received). Not 25 percent, but 25 individual defective parts for every one million they received globally. They were well on their way of acheiving that target when I left in December 2009. Here's a sample from a GM training presentation we do for suppliers when they come up with "It's only 1%" or something along those lines...

Things Done Right 99.9% of the Time Means:

  One hour of unsafe drinking water per month

  Two unsafe landings at O’Hare Airport each day

  16,000 lost pieces of mail per hour

  20,000 incorrect drug prescriptions per year

  500 incorrect surgical operations per week

  22,000 checks per hour deducted from wrong account

  32,000 missed heartbeats per person each year

  60 mislabeled containers per day per assembly plant

This presentation is a couple years old so some of the figures might vary slightly, but it gets the point across.


----------



## McD (16 Jun 2010)

QA (quality assurance ) quickly becomes a nightmare place to be and/ or deal with. Seen similar presentations 2010Newbie :nod:


----------



## RCR Grunt (16 Jun 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Interesting that you bring this up at a time when the US military is undergoing a major recall of it's issued helmets due to them not meeting minimum safety standards ... and we are not experiencing such with our Canadian kit. Perhaps those giving their brief actually had some factual info to support their "ours are better according to our safety standards testing" claims."??



The flaw in those helmets is in the material, not in the design.


----------



## dogger1936 (17 Jun 2010)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I found it funny during the PPE inclearance brief in KAF how they warned against the evils of the pad system and the inferiority of the American helmets to our suspension system.
> 
> The they went on to explain that the TV should be worn with the Frag vest as it is a system desgined to work together and the TV holds the frag vest together and prevents it from blowing off during an explosion.  When someone pointed out that half of the frag vests being issued had completely worn out velcro it was explained that "yes, it would be nice if the velcro worked, but... ummmmmm........."



When we finally got our frags that done up (velcro worked), we never had a issue with them flying off. The previous roto's had a few broken teeth due to the vest /plate making contact de la tete. Alas getting one that was GTG proved problematic during our roto.


----------



## Recon 3690 (2 Jul 2010)

Funny, the Canadian helmet is basically a British MK 6 & they have a pad upgrade system for theirs & the Mk 6A comes with the pads installed.


----------



## Recon 3690 (2 Jul 2010)

The new US Enhanced Combat Helmet also comes with the pads pre installed.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Jul 2010)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> Funny, the Canadian helmet is basically a British MK 6 & they have a pad upgrade system for theirs & the Mk 6A comes with the pads installed.





			
				Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> The new US Enhanced Combat Helmet also comes with the pads pre installed.



You have identified two instances where kit was provided by the issuing Army, which would have been subject to procurement requirements, quality control inspections and issued with authorized modifications and/or installation.

Neither example justifies allowing third-party purchases that may not meet quality assurance requirements or which require modifications to equipment such that it might not be returnable to the original state for return to the supply system.

So, your point?


----------



## Recon 3690 (2 Jul 2010)

whiskey_tango said:
			
		

> A great senior NCO once said, "A soldier shouldn't have to adapt to his kit, he should adapt his kit to his job."



The point is it is proven tech, it is removable, and not a safety concern in the same UK helmet. So why the parade square mentality if it makes the troops more comfortable while doing their jobs why give them grief about it let them get on with their job. The PS mentality always has to have some excuse to jump all over the Troopers.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Jul 2010)

The "parade square mentality" also protects those soldiers who might choose to buy some cheap knockoff.  Some controls are actually in place for a purpose, and have not been developed by narrow minded bureaucrats just to fuck soldiers over. It's all too easy to blame "the man" for what you think is wrong when you wouldn't have to accept responsibility for problems that arise from cutting corners by allowing uncontrolled solutions to your pet issues.


----------



## Recon 3690 (2 Jul 2010)

Soldiers have been modifying their kit to get the job done since the first one put on a uniform. If DND wants to protect them from getting knock offs them give them a list of approved equipment as the US & UK do, if they choose to make use of it and its lets them do there job better it should be  up to them. Or better yet give them the right stuff to begin with.


----------



## Recon 3690 (2 Jul 2010)

But maybe the pad manufacturers, helmet manufacturers, US DOD, & UK MOD have not done any R&D or QA on these items. DND says so.


----------



## Michael OLeary (2 Jul 2010)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> Soldiers have been modifying their kit to get the job done since the first one put on a uniform. If DND wants to protect them from getting knock offs them give them a list of approved equipment as the US & UK do, if they choose to make use of it and its lets them do there job better it should be  up to them. Or better yet give them the right stuff to begin with.



Yeah, you win, no matter what we buy our soldiers, we should have bought the stuff that became available two years later.    :

Sorry we're so fucked up. You can skip the preamble here next time, just send your sage advice directly to:

NDHQ  Ottawa 
101 Colonel By Drive 
Ottawa ON 
K1A 0K2


----------



## Recon 3690 (2 Jul 2010)

And what is wrong with either giving or allowing our troopers to aquire the best equipment available?


----------



## McG (2 Jul 2010)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> Funny, the Canadian helmet is basically a British MK 6 ...


This is your qualitative assesment based on helmet appearance.  You have failed to consider material properties and how each helmet is expected to disipate the forces from which it protects your head.  Beyond that there is also the consideration of nationally determined requitements (as already stated).  The US has made decisions to accept more risk with certain types of PPE in comparison to Canada.  You might want to know what those risks are before declaring some PPE is good enough just because another country uses it.



			
				Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> If DND wants to protect them from getting knock offs them give them a list of approved equipment as the US & UK do ...


You have made this point already.  If you have all the right answers, why have you stayed silent on meeting the challenges related to such an approach?  Remember this one:




			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Because every approved item would see the government assume liability & an obligation toward the soldiers, an approved purchase list would require every item to be tested by DND and continuous manufacture quality monitoring by DND.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jul 2010)

Recon 3690 said:
			
		

> And what is wrong with either giving or allowing our troopers to aquire the best equipment available?



Who decided it was the "best equipment available"?  What qualifications do they hold to say so?  Sure you as an end user may think that some LCF or Gucci kit is great and buy it, but who says that it really is the "best"?  How many different opinions are out there to say that some other piece of kit may be better?  Who will fund all your "best kit" purchases, if tomorrow a better piece of kit comes along?    Where will this end?

We have a lot of "Kit Sluts" these days saying that what they have is the best.  There are a lot of items out there, and the Government can only concentrate on a few, that they hope will last for at least a decade longer than thirty days.  Next month there will be something new and Gucci.  When will YOU be happy?  I suspect NEVER.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jul 2010)

I'm quite happy with my Boots,  chest rig, sleeping bags and rucksack.   $1500 later lol



Do we still tell soldiers that if they die while wearing non-issued kit their life insurence is void?


----------



## DirtyDog (2 Jul 2010)

Apollo Diomedes said:
			
		

> I'm quite happy with my Boots,  chest rig, sleeping bags and rucksack.   $1500 later lol


About the only issue thing I wear stepping off on a patrol is my pants..... oh, and underwear.  I'm kinda partial to the issue underwear.


----------

