# The Integrated Soldier System Project (ISSP)



## joonrooj (25 Feb 2008)

Hey all, did a search but I can't find anything on it.

What is the current eyewear policy (or whatever guys are wearing) in Afghanistan. What are guys wearing? I see things on the news (mostly Americans) wearing ski goggles. Others wearing Oakleys, and more wearing issued ballistic eyewear. 

I was mainly wondering because of a rumor I heard saying that certain color eyeglasses can improve your sight etc, which is why ski goggles are orange/yellow etc.

Does current policy overseas allow soldiers to wear ski goggles, etc, different colored sunglasses, issue colored inserts?

Thanks,
-J


----------



## MikeL (25 Feb 2008)

Aslong as its ballastic an the goggles are like black, tan, etc than its good to go.

I wear Oakley M Frames(got an orange lense with them) and Revision Desert Locust goggles(got a yellow lense with them).


http://tacticaltailor.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=289
https://dstactical.com/product_info.php?cPath=29_87_191&products_id=897


----------



## Sig_Des (25 Feb 2008)

Yeah. I'd avoid ski goggles...  8)


----------



## NL_engineer (25 Feb 2008)

Joonrooj said:
			
		

> Hey all, did a search but I can't find anything on it.
> 
> What is the current eyewear policy (or whatever guys are wearing) in Afghanistan. What are guys wearing? I see things on the news (mostly Americans) wearing ski goggles. Others wearing Oakleys, and more wearing issued ballistic eyewear.
> 
> ...



Do you mean goggles like these, these are not ski goggles.


----------



## Donut (26 Feb 2008)

Wiley X goggles are specifically banned, as they reportedly do not meet impact protection requirements.


----------



## Fusaki (26 Feb 2008)

> What is the current eyewear policy (or whatever guys are wearing) in Afghanistan. What are guys wearing? I see things on the news (mostly Americans) wearing ski goggles. Others wearing Oakleys, and more wearing issued ballistic eyewear.



Any old ski goggle and any old pair of sunglasses just don't cut it.

Mililtary goggles and glasses should be rated to the ANSI Z87.1 standard. What exactly does ANSI Z87.1 mean? To be honest, I'm not quite sure, but I think its a (NATO?) standardized system to rate how well the lenses will protect you from sharp flying metal objects. I'm sure someone here will elaborate.

I wore ESS Profile Goggles in the LAV turret, but found that in the hottest months they tended to fog up. If I could do it again I might have gone for the Turbofan version. I know other guys who swore by the ESS V12 goggles. Our issued Revision Sawfly glasses apparently perform very well, but some consider them to be uncomfortable under helmets and can cause headaches. Both ESS and Revision are brands that I personally trust.

Check out this link:
http://www.firesupportbase.com/reviews/EyeProtectionSystems2bx.htm
Both the Oakley A Frames and Wiley X XL-1 failed failed to stop penetrations... :-\


----------



## Nfld Sapper (26 Feb 2008)

ANSI is the acronym for the American National Standards Institute, a nonprofit organization that serves as administrator of the United States private sector voluntary standardization system. The primary objective of ANSI is to promote and facilitate voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment systems. ANSI does not have authority to enforce such standards, but their standards are used by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to be sure that certain safety devices, such as eyewear, provide adequate protection for workers. 

The ANSI Z87.1 standard sets forth requirements for the design, construction, testing, and use of eye protection devices, including standards for impact and penetration resistance. All safety glasses, goggles, and face shields used by employees under OSHA jurisdiction must meet the ANSI Z87.1 standard. The eyewear standard includes the following minimum requirements: 


Provide adequate protection against the hazards for which they are designed 
Be reasonably comfortable 
Fit securely, without interfering with movement or vision 
Be capable of being disinfected if necessary, and be easy to clean 
Be durable 
Fit over, or incorporate, prescription eyewear 
Many manufacturers of sports eyewear and other protective eyewear not used in a work environment also comply with the ANSI Z87.1 standard. If you need protective eyewear of any kind, look for products that comply with the ANSI standard or consult with an optometrist, ophthalmologist, or optician before purchasing. 


Info take from here


----------



## Nfld Sapper (26 Feb 2008)

And for what the standard is:

The New ANSI Z87.1-2003 Standard


We are pleased to inform you that the new ANSI Z87.1-2003 Standard is approved. It took several years for the ANSI committee of industry experts to come to an agreement on the new Practice for Occupational and Educational Personal Eye and Face Protective Devices. The new Standard is called ANSI Z87.1-2003 (Z87+). 

Because we understand that many questions will arise as a result of this new Standard, we have prepared this informational page to help you better understand the significance of the standard. 

Scope and Purpose 
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989 
This Standard shall apply to those occupational and educational operations or processes where eye and face hazards exist. These include, but are not limited to, machining operations, material welding and cutting, chemical handling, and assembly operations. The objective of this Standard is to provide minimum requirements for eye and face protective devices and guidance for the selection, use, and maintenance of these devices. The requirements of this Standard apply to protectors when they are first placed in service. 
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003 
Section 2 has been expanded to clarify the intent of the Standard. emphasizes the types of hazards that the protectors meeting the Standard will address, while continuing to except specialized areas of radiation protection, sports and bloodborne pathogens. Users are cautioned in selecting eyewear where other standards may apply or where no definitive performance standards exist. If marked Z87, the entire device must meet all the requirements of the Standard. The user is cautioned to use extreme care in selecting replacement components to ensure ongoing compliance. 


Frame Tests 
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989 
Frames, housings or headgear assemblies meant to hold removable lenses are fitted with test lenses and subjected to: 

High Mass Test - A 500 gm pointed projectile is dropped from a height of 130 cm (51.2 in). No parts or fragments of the protector shall contact the eye of the headform. Four samples are tested - all must pass. 

High Velocity Tests - A 6.35 mm (.25 in) steel ball is propelled at a speed appropriate to the projector type. No contact with the headform is allowed, nor shall any parts or fragments be ejected. 20 samples are tested - one failure is allowed. 

Products with non-removable lenses are tested as complete devices using the same tests. 
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003 
As in the current Standard the frame, body, housing or headgear components are tested by installing "test" lenses that are strong enough to allow high mass and high velocity tests to be conducted. These components must have the integrity to comply with the tests regardless of the actual lens that will be in the model. The high velocity and high mass test methods are carried over from the 1989 Standard, but in the high velocity test, no failures are allowed. Spectacle frames intended to house prescription lenses shall meet the same criteria. Lateral coverage requirements have been increased to provide expanded rearward protection which primarily affects spectacles. 


Frame Marking 
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989 
All major frame or housing components shall bear the manufacturer's trademark and shall be marked "Z87" to indicate compliance with the Standard. Frames intended for prescription lenses shall meet the marking requirements of ANSI Z80.5-1986. 
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003 
All spectacle frames and temples, goggle bodies or housings, faceshield headgear and welding helmet components shall carry a permanent and legible mark or logo identifying the manufacturer. In addition, they are to be marked "Z87". Spectacle frames intended to hold prescription lenses are to be marked "Z87-2", and shall meet the requirements of Z80.5- 1997. For those products classified as having non-removable lenses, the product need carry only one marking. For spectacles, the Z87 (basic impact level) or Z87+ (high impact level) mark may be placed on the frame or temple. For goggles, faceshields or welding helmets, the Z87 or Z87+ mark may be applied to any component including the lens. 


Lens Tests 
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989 
Removable plano lenses, as well as prescription lenses, shall be capable of resisting the impact of a 25.4 mm (1 in) steel ball dropped 127 cm (50 in). For spectacles where the removable lens is less than 3mm thick, they shall be capable of meeting the High Velocity Impact Test. Products with non-removable lenses are to be tested as complete devices, and be capable of passing both the High Mass and High Velocity Tests. 

Plastic lenses are required to resist the impact of a weighted (44 gm) needle dropped from 127 cm (50 in). The lens may neither fracture nor be penetrated. 
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003 
Personal eye protectors will now be classified, based on performance, as either basic or high impact models. They are to be tested as complete products as they will be offered to the user, and there is no distinction made based on whether the product has removable or nonremovable lenses. Basic impact models shall be capable of passing the 1 inch drop ball test and high impact models shall comply with high mass and high velocity impact criteria. The basic vs. high level impact requirements now fully apply to prescription spectacles. The penetration test continues to apply to plano plastic lenses, for all protectors, whether they are of the basic impact or high impact type. 


Lens Thickness 
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989 
Minimum Thickness of Plano Lenses - All removable plano (non-prescription) spectacle lenses shall be not less than 3.0 mm (.118 in) thick, except lenses which are capable of withstanding a 45.7 mps (150 fps) impact of 6.35 mm (1/4 in) steel ball, when tested in accordance with Section 15.1. Such lenses shall not be less than 2.0 mm (.079 in) thick. 
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003 
Lens thickness requirements for goggle lenses, faceshield windows and welding filters are unchanged. Basic impact lenses in these product categories must be at least 3.0 mm thick. 

The most significant change relates to spectacle lenses. High impact plano spectacles that are tested as complete products have no minimum thickness requirement. Basic impact spectacle lenses must be at least 3 mm thick. High impact lenses that will be installed in prescription frames must be no thinner than 2.0 mm. 


Lens Marking 
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989 
Each lens shall be distinctly marked in a permanent and legible manner with the manufacturer's monogram. If other than clear or special purpose, each lens shall be marked with the applicable shade designation. Special purpose lenses shall be marked with an S or in the case photochromic lenses, marked with a V. 
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003 
Removable lenses must be marked in a permanent and legible manner. All lenses must bear a mark or logo identifying the manufacturer. For spectacles with removable lenses, basic impact lenses require no additional mark related to Z87, but high impact lenses require a "+" mark indicating the elevated impact performance. For all other product categories, non-removable lenses, windows or filters require the manufacturer's mark or logo. The product need carry only one marking. Basic impact lenses shall be marked with "Z87" and high impact lenses shall be marked "Z87+". Special purpose lenses and photochromic lenses continue to carry "S" and "V" markings respectively. A product marking chart is provided in a new Annex G. 


Optical Requirements 
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989 
Optical requirements for plano spectacles are specified in the areas of refractive power, prismatic power and definition. Haze for lens components shall not exceed 3%. Transmittance requirements are specified for clear, tinted and shaded filter lenses and windows. Table 1 lists the requirements for general purpose filters. 
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003 
The optical performance values are largely unchanged in the new addition including the upper limit for haze which continues at 3%. Table 1 for shaded filter requirements is unchanged, and a new table, Table 2 has been added to clarify transmittance ranges for special purpose lenses. Another new table, Table 3 has been added to specify switching index times for Auto Darkening Filters (ADFs) that are a relatively new technology in welding eye protection. 


Sideshields 
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989 
The use of protectors providing side protection should be encouraged wherever practical. 
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003 
There is no change in this recommendation, and it should be part of the overall hazard assessment to determine those areas in which side protection should be worn. 


Corrosion 
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989 
Metal parts are boiled in a 10% aqueous solution of sodium chloride for 15 minutes. Then immersed in the same solution at room temperature, removed and allowed to dry for 24 hours. The metal parts are then rinsed in lukewarm water and allowed to dry. The function of the spectacles shall not be impaired by the corrosion. 
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003 
No change in test method or pass/fail criteria. 


Flammability 
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989 
Protector components or representative test plaques are tested for flammability per Federal Test Standard No 406, Method 2021. 
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003 
A new test method, ASTM D635- 1998 has been designated, but the pass/fail criteria is unchanged. 


Respirators 
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989 
The 1989 edition did not address respiratory products. 
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003 
Full facepiece and loose fitting NIOSH approved respirators are now covered by the Z87.1 Standard. These devices contain lenses or windows and are subject to complete product requirements including optics, impact resistance and markings. 


Enforcement 
OLD ANSI Z87.1-1989 
OSHA under Regulation 29 CFR Standard 1910.132 regulates the enforcement of Personal Protective Equipment. Safety Spectacles are considered Personal Protective Equipment. 
 NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003 
OSHA continues to enforce use of protective equipment under Regulation 29CFR 1910.132. Section 1910.133 addresses Eye and Face Protection specifically, and ANSI Z87.1-1989 is still incorporated by reference, subject to change at a later date.


----------



## joonrooj (26 Feb 2008)

Awesome answers everyone, thank you, cleared it up perfectly.


			
				NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Do you mean goggles like these, these are not ski goggles.


I did mean goggles like those, and I used ski goggles for lack of a better term.


			
				-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> I wear Oakley M Frames(got an orange lense with them) and Revision Desert Locust goggles(got a yellow lense with them).


Do the different color lenses make a difference?

edit: 
Wouldn't the whole "you can wear anything you want as long as it meets the basic standards and is black, tan or green" thing go against the "no non issue kit overseas"? I realize the rules change when you leave the wire and bullets start flying, but for instance, if you took some shrapnel or w/e in the eye, and were wearing Oakley's would the CF cover that?


----------



## medaid (26 Feb 2008)

Joonrooj said:
			
		

> Do the different color lenses make a difference?



Sure, it's all about the LCF  8)

The different shades help block out the varying degrees of sunlight... just like normal glasses do.


----------



## MikeL (26 Feb 2008)

Joonrooj said:
			
		

> Awesome answers everyone, thank you, cleared it up perfectly.I did mean goggles like those, and I used ski goggles for lack of a better term.Do the different color lenses make a difference?
> 
> edit:
> Wouldn't the whole "you can wear anything you want as long as it meets the basic standards and is black, tan or green" thing go against the "no non issue kit overseas"? I realize the rules change when you leave the wire and bullets start flying, but for instance, if you took some shrapnel or w/e in the eye, and were wearing Oakley's would the CF cover that?




Like Medtech said different colour lenses block out different types of light.  Check out the Oakley website, it shows you what its like looking through each of their lenses.

Search around the site, its been mentioned a few times that you are covered no matter what you are wearing.


----------



## paraflare (24 Apr 2008)

I tried the persimmon lenses for my M Frames. It made me feel like I was in a furnace cause everythings bright orange. The iridium lenses amplify details pretty well.


----------



## Ecco (25 Apr 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> High Velocity Tests - A 6.35 mm (.25 in) steel ball is propelled at a speed appropriate to the projector type. No contact with the headform is allowed, nor shall any parts or fragments be ejected. 20 samples are tested - one failure is allowed.
> 
> Products with non-removable lenses are tested as complete devices using the same tests.
> NEW ANSI Z87.1-2003
> (...)The high velocity and high mass test methods are carried over from the 1989 Standard, but in the high velocity test, no failures are allowed. Spectacle frames intended to house prescription lenses shall meet the same criteria. (...)



Is this a joke?  So that ANSI Z87 means that the lens will protect from specific steel ball coming at a speed determined and chosen by the manufacturer when he buys a projector.

I am quite sure I can reliably create a steel ball projector, using only two of my fingers.  This projector can probably propel balls at more than 10 feet per second.  And I am sure I can design lenses that protect from that projector.  Standard is met.

I am happy that Canada does not use that standard to accept goggles for use, because I guess Johnny Taliban does not register his projector type with authorities when he puts ball bearings in his IED...

MIL-V-43511C at least specifies a V50 speed (way too slow, but still).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Apr 2008)

Ecco said:
			
		

> Is this a joke?  So that ANSI Z87 means that the lens will protect from specific steel ball coming at a speed determined and chosen by the manufacturer when he buys a projector.
> 
> I am quite sure I can reliably create a steel ball projector, using only two of my fingers.  This projector can probably propel balls at more than 10 feet per second.  And I am sure I can design lenses that protect from that projector.  Standard is met.
> 
> I am happy that Canada does not use that standard to accept goggles for use, because I guess Johnny Taliban does not register his projector type with authorities when he puts ball bearings in his IED...



Hey, don't hold back there Sparky. No need to sugar coat it. Tell us exactly how you feel. 8)


----------



## McG (25 Apr 2008)

Canada has tested, against battlefield threats, several types of ballistic eye wear that were claimed to have met ANSI &/or Mil Std requirements.  Many of these (including popular brand names) failed catastrophically under our testing.  Knowing this, do you want to gamble with your eyes?  There is, however, a problem in that ballistic eye wear (in its various issued types) does not cooperate well with the MNVG.  If by this point in time we (the CF) have not found effective BEW that is MNVG compatible, then perhapses it is time to get an effective MNVG that is BEW compatible.

Beyond the brand name, most soldiers don't really know what they are buying when they select a particular BEW (take Wonderbread's example above in which he would have selected something different).  For leadership in theater, this introduces a bit of a challenge: how do you ensure your troops' eyes are properly looked after by day & by night?  Generally (though not always) something is better than nothing, so do you go with a policy of issue only in daylight & after-market acceptable in night/low-light?


----------



## Fusaki (26 Apr 2008)

> Canada has tested, against battlefield threats, several types of ballistic eye wear that were claimed to have met ANSI &/or Mil Std requirements.  Many of these (including popular brand names) failed catastrophically under our testing.



This seems to be confirmed by the independant test I linked earlier:

http://www.firesupportbase.com/reviews/EyeProtectionSystems2bx.htm

Our Issued Revision Sawfly BEW performed the best with ESS coming in second, while the Oakley A Frames and Wiley-X XL-1 both showed penetrations.  I'm sure someone can come up with a more scientific test than this guy did, but I think he did a pretty good comparison.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Check out this link:
> http://www.firesupportbase.com/reviews/EyeProtectionSystems2bx.htm
> Both the Oakley A Frames and Wiley X XL-1 failed failed to stop penetrations... :-\



WB, that's a fantastic link, thank you. I'll definately be passing that onto my guys who are considering COTS eyewear.

MCG: Appreciate you hilighting the link, didn't notice it sneak it there before.


----------



## LordOsborne (26 Apr 2008)

Thanks for that link. Although i already found Revision's video to be impressive, that independant link was a very informative read. thank you again for posting it.


----------



## McG (27 Apr 2008)

I'd just like to add that there is an obvious flaw in any BEW standard which allows lenses to be removed from the frames prior to conducting penetration tests.  If the interface between lens and frame is the weak link, you will not know until too late.  Military users will also want BEW that has been tested for blast performance.  I do not know if there is much they glasses or goggles can to to protect eyes from the shock-wave & overpressure.  I do know that if they are not fit for a blast threat, then they may become the object which removes your eyes in a situation which otherwise would not have caused serious eye injury.


----------



## NL_engineer (27 Apr 2008)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> This seems to be confirmed by the independant test I linked earlier:
> 
> http://www.firesupportbase.com/reviews/EyeProtectionSystems2bx.htm
> 
> Our Issued Revision Sawfly BEW performed the best with ESS coming in second, while the Oakley A Frames and Wiley-X XL-1 both showed penetrations.  I'm sure someone can come up with a more scientific test than this guy did, but I think he did a pretty good comparison.



Are those Oakley goggles form the standard issue line? as they look like the ones here.  If this was a real test, they would have used the ones from the US standard issue program.

A friend of mine uses a set of A frames (civi type) to keep dust and dirt out of his eyes at work etc (driving through Gagetown); then compare them to a set of land ops that are designed to protect the eyes from projectiles is comparing apples to oranges. 

just my 2 cents


----------



## Matt_Fisher (29 Apr 2008)

IMO a major issue in regard to CF spec'd ballistic eyewear is the closed nature of the objecive performance specifications.  Several companies have expressed frustration in regard to DRDC Valcartier/DSSPM being so tight lipped about what their performance objectives are, it's difficult for them (the eyewear manufacturers) to work on engineering a solution to meet the Canadian requirements as they don't really know what objective they're having to build to.

I don't have any issue with the CFs having their own standard (provided that it's superior to what is already established as ANSI/CSA/Mil ratings) for PPE performance, but what I think is fair is that industry is given a fair opportunity to participate in developing equipment that can meet the spec, is validated by DND sanctioned testing programs (whether they're run through DRDC Valcartier or outsourced to an independent facility), even if it is the commercial interest that has to foot the bill for the testing, provided that if the product meets or exceeds the objective standard it is allowed for personal procurement, i.e. US Army Approved Protective Eyewear List.

What is frustrating is that given the CFs strong concern for PPE, the glacial speed procurement for a goggle solution for operational use.  On the one hand we're giving doom & gloom messages to the troops about not deviating from the issued BEW, as "SISIP/VAC won't cover you if you're not wearing them..." "No Wiley X's because I was just told you can't wear them..." yet we're still issuing 'Sun/Wind/Dust Goggles' NSN 8465-01-004-2893 which aren't designed to interface with the MNVG (Goggles are a slightly updated version of the 1940's era 'Type 1021 Polaroid Goggle' ) and have less than stellar ballistic performance (I'm quite confident in assuming that they would NOT meet the current CF spec for ballstic performance).



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> There is, however, a problem in that ballistic eye wear (in its various issued types) does not cooperate well with the MNVG.  If by this point in time we (the CF) have not found effective BEW that is MNVG compatible, *then perhapses it is time to get an effective MNVG that is BEW compatible*.



There are several COTS ballistic glasses and goggles that are designed to work with the AN/PVS-14.  Whether they meet Canadian specs or not?  I know that two of the ESS models (V-12 and Profile NVG) were tested by DRDC Valcartier in 2006/2007 and found to be acceptable enough that there was a MR 'Try & Buy' for TF 1-07 to use operationally.  If you look at the cost and timeframes involved in engineering a MNVG that's BEW compatible, I think that is NOT the solution, unless we're looking at incorporating all our optical (both image intensification and PPE) as well the communication headset/microphone into some sort of integrated helmet.


----------



## medaid (29 Apr 2008)

Matt,

   You and I BOTH know that it'll take an eternity before what you're suggesting (an integrated helmet system) *gasp* a Canadian version of the FFW program to EVER be implemented. It'll just be like every other CF equipment and contract ever given out. It'll take forever and a day to tender and it'll all be shrouded in mystery, and when we finally get the packages to DO something about it, some company in QC's gotten theirs done and submitted weeks ahead of us, and we've only got 2 weeks left to source the fabric, work out the designs and build the damn thing...


----------



## geo (29 Apr 2008)

Medtech.....
relax on the QC bashing.
The other provinces have done & are doing the same now... 

Pls give it a rest.


----------



## Armymedic (29 Apr 2008)

Re: BEW and MNVG,
Being a V3, I need to wear the inserts with my BEW. I have gained a bit of experience in using the MNVG in all weather with the BEW. The only difficulty I have experienced with that set up is when weather is cool, fog tends to build up between the insert and ballistic lens. I have had no problems with BEW and MNVGs while wearing contacts and not the inserts.

I do though, take to cup off the user end of the NVG so that there is airflow at the risk of others seeing the glow on my face.


----------



## medaid (29 Apr 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Medtech.....
> relax on the QC bashing.
> The other provinces have done & are doing the same now...
> 
> Pls give it a rest.



Oh no no no Geo I'm not bashing QC mate, I'm just stating a fact of life in the textile industry and Government contracts.

I personally don't have hard feelings towards QC ;D


----------



## McG (29 Apr 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> You and I BOTH know that it'll take an eternity before what you're suggesting ... a Canadian version of the FFW program to EVER be implemented.


Google "Integrated Soldier System Project" and you find that there is a project working toward implementing a "Canadian version" of the US Future Force Warrior (FFW).


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Apr 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Re: BEW and MNVG,
> Being a V3, I need to wear the inserts with my BEW. I have gained a bit of experience in using the MNVG in all weather with the BEW. The only difficulty I have experienced with that set up is when weather is cool, fog tends to build up between the insert and ballistic lens. I have had no problems with BEW and MNVGs while wearing contacts and not the inserts.
> 
> I do though, take to cup off the user end of the NVG so that there is airflow at the risk of others seeing the glow on my face.



Do you get headaches from the RX inserts for the glasses? I had to stop wearing them for convoys, and went back to normal glasses inside my Sun/Dust/Wind goggles. Couldn't even concentrate on watching my arcs they hurt so bad.


----------



## medaid (29 Apr 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Google "Integrated Soldier System Project" and you find that there is a project working toward implementing a "Canadian version" of the US Future Force Warrior (FFW).



I know, but seeing how long it too CTS to pump out CADPAT clothing, I'm not holding my breathe on that one.


----------



## NL_engineer (29 Apr 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Google "Integrated Soldier System Project" and you find that there is a project working toward implementing a "Canadian version" of the US Future Force Warrior (FFW).



Hasn't the US been working on this for over ten years?  

IMO if it takes them that long, I will be forced to retired (just over 40 years till that happens), by the time we make it.


Just my 2 cents


----------



## Matt_Fisher (29 Apr 2008)

US has been working on Land Warrior and now Future Force Warrior for some time now, however the Canadian system is likely to be somewhat more based on COTS technology which has been proven in other soldier modernisation programs, i.e. FIST, FELIN, IDZ 2000, Land Warrior/Future Force Warrior, etc.  
This is not to say that Canada is behind the curve in respect to what's going on internationally, and ourselves here at home have run a fairly extensive program to evaluate various forms of technology to see how applicable they are to increasing the lethality of our dismounted soldiers, i.e. DRDC's SIREQ program http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/pubdocs/sireq_e.html

For those on the RegF pointy end expect to start to see ISSP being fielded in the 2011-2015 timeframe for operational task forces and CMTC work-up training as first priority, then filtering into the rest of the reg force, and possibly reserves.  Given the inherent cost of the system, there is the possibility that there will be some sort of fleet-management plan, as there probably won't be enough systems procured for every soldier, i.e. WES equipped tac-vests.  How ISSP is going to be tied into current legacy individual equipment, STANO, communications, small arms, and other items remains to be officially defined (or at least some direction given by DLR to the potential industry prime systems integrators for ISSP), as well as what items will remain legacy or what is to be retired/replaced into the 3 different fielding stages for ISSP, as well as how ISSP is going to be coordinate with parallel/related programs such as Small Arms Replacement Project, the Future Combat Uniform project, etc.


----------



## GAP (19 Jun 2008)

Canadian soldiers' high-tech gear helps in battle, creates burden
Article Link

VANCOUVER — Canada is among countries evolving their armies into forces of futuristic soldiers, with laser-sighted rifles, GPS-equipped units directed via computer and equipment that lets them see and kill the enemy in all conditions, day or night.

But before conjuring images of invincible Star Wars troopers, consider some not-so-fun facts.

The average Canadian foot soldier on patrol in Afghanistan today is toting more than two-dozen extra batteries on his already overloaded body to power all the electronics he must carry.

During Operation Medusa in the fall of 2006, an offensive against the Taliban, one infantry company alone burned through 17,500 AA batteries in two weeks.

And those cool night-vision goggles that clip to every soldier's helmet? They give the soldier an edge in combat but sometimes also a pain the neck as they dangle in front of his eyes - that is, if they don't cause a poorly strapped-on helmet to flip right off his head.

That's the kind of reality check Doug Palmer will provide for anyone too much in awe of the possibilities of high-tech warfare.

Palmer, a former infantry officer with 35 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, now works in the army's Directorate of Land Requirements unit that develops equipment for foot soldiers - everything from boots to helmets and all the gee-whiz stuff such as visors with jet fighter-style heads-up displays and holographic gun sights.

He is closely involved with the directorate's Integrated Soldier System Project, which aims to create that futuristic warrior before the end of the next decade.

The federal Treasury Board is to decide this month whether to approve release of the first slice of money to fund the $310-million program, which would involve defining what the system's initial capability should be and testing the solutions with Canadian soldiers.
More on link


----------



## lone bugler (19 Jun 2008)

some of the things in this article is true and it is alot of extra manual labour lugging things around. a lot of equipment is bulky, clumsy and award to make use in a hurry. But you can't say night vision goggles killed more people than it saved can ya, It's equipment like this that gives us an advantage. I'd be happy to lug around anything that can save my life if the overburdening dosn't cause me to calapse every time over the wire :warstory:


----------



## Red 6 (19 Jun 2008)

I agree with lone bugler. SLA Marshall wrote a classic book called "The Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation" which addresses this topic in-depth. It was always my observation that packing lists only made the problem of the soldier's load worse. I was probably as guilty as any other leader when I sat down with the XO prior to heading for the field to formulate the packing list. To me, batteries are just like ammo. You have to have them or you can't do your job. Right next to these is water, and then chow.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jun 2008)

I agree with Red 6 and lone bugler.

"Kit Lists" as we know them, are a necessary evil. When we were issued our new Cadpat Patrol/Day packs, some troops thought they could replace a rucksack. It doesn't, especially in winter. We had one troop try it. He was miserable. 
Now I make the direction clear that for Marching Order, the Day pack will not replace the rucksack.
I was asked one time for sugestions for a kit list. I gave my opinion, but the CSM said "I like that so it stays" So much for suggestions.


----------



## Babbling Brooks (19 Jun 2008)

I just did a piece about this at _The Torch_.  Not sure how many of you know, but PWGSC put out an Opportunity Abstract on MERX about a month and a half ago called "DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPROVING SOLDIER MOBILITY."

They specifically mentioned exoskeletons and "smart materials" in the MERX abstract.  I've posted video of the Raytheon Sarcos suit at the blog, as an example of the technology, just for fun.

I await the obligatory "I am Iron Man" comment!


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Jun 2008)

Priority for kit:
1. Ammo:
2. Water;
3. Rations.


----------



## X-mo-1979 (19 Jun 2008)

Being the proud owner of 2 MOB's full of green kit gone to Afganistan...to then be told the day after that they finally changed the list.And that it didnt make sense to bring all your green combats etc.

I have two box's sent with nothing applicable in them.

Thank you battle group.


----------



## AlphaQup (19 Jun 2008)

I was reading a book on the Iraq War, 'Generation Kill', and the soldiers on the ground often compained that nightvision goggles lacked dept perception. Have there been any improvements in such technology lately? I'm asking because I'm not military, and that same gear saves their lives in the book.


----------



## Loachman (19 Jun 2008)

Monoculars give no depth perception - same as looking throughjust one eye.

Binoculars do. Aircrew NVGs are all the binocular type.


----------



## KevinB (24 Jun 2008)

Depending upon what stuff you have;

The old cyclops vision 504's/7B's take a one image picture and send it to both your eyes -- the mono's PVS-14 and 18 gave you one NV eye and one un aided eye -- which gave greater local SA - however did not help for longer.  Dual Tube units like the 793's or ANVIS-9's etc give you true dual tube vision -- which allows a degree of depth perception.
  Having used all o fthe above - and the old old honey comb duals we had, it becomes clear that many missions require different stuff.

Doing weapon IA's can be a lot easier in a PVS-18 than a 50/50, however driving sucks in an 18.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Jan 2010)

Has anyone seen this allegedly new stuff?


Canada Joins The Movement

January 24, 2010: 

Canada  is joining its NATO allies in providing its infantry with new basic equipment, including electronic gear that, until quite recently, no one saw the troops getting for a decade or more. The Canadian gear set is called ISSP (Integrated Soldier System Project). The first components of ISSP will be issued next year. ISSP contains the usual elements of improved infantry gear. New uniforms, that incorporate improvements the troops have been demanding for years, plus new helmets and protective vests, that are lighter and provide improved shielding from bullets and fragments. New communications gear gives each soldier a link with everyone in his unit, while individual GPS is something troops have already provided for themselves. As other armies have discovered, the troops have already bought a lot of the new gear that is now proposed for the new standard issue. 

A lot of this new stuff is commercial, with the military taking the best and most appropriate gear designed for outdoor living. This is particularly true of stuff marketed to the demanding mountain climbing and winter sports enthusiasts. Canada isn't plunging into unknown territory here. The U.S., France , Germany and most other major NATO countries have already gone this route, and left a lot of practical experience in their wake. Thus the major goal is to get all the most useful gear, and reduce the weight of stuff the infantry have to carry into combat. It's much easier to find new gear that works better, than it is to find stuff that's lighter, and still gets the job done.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20100124.aspx


----------



## brihard (25 Jan 2010)

Tease the Soldier: Redux?


----------



## LordOsborne (11 Mar 2011)

I was perusing and stumbled upon this page, containing some interesting documents for industry types relating to the ISSP project. Of particular note is the document showing a design for the ISSP Modular Load Carriage System (MLCS).

http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/keydocumentsinformationforindustry-documentsclesinformationpourlindustrie-eng.asp

This link will open a 2Mb Word document with the drawing of the MLCS:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/documents/ISSP_Vol%202%20doc%202.doc

You will see that the MLCS is a two-piece chest rig-style design, using PALS! Also of note is that the design also makes an allowance for the carriage of plates. On the main website are other supporting documents with descriptions regarding the pouches and the ISSP "roles": Assaulter, Commander, Machine gunner and, Grenadier. In some of the documents, the description of the pouches / roles are accompanied by descriptions of _where _ these pouches are to be placed on the vest:

(my italics)​


> Ammunition for the rifleman and Commander consists of rifle ammunition (5.56mm in 30 round magazines) and hand grenades (fragmentation and smoke). In order to access this ammunition efficiently _it is located low and centrally on the MLCS within three triple (capacity of 3 to 9 magazines) magazine pouches_. The ammunition pouches should remain on the waistline for access. The contractor can secure ISS components and/ or pouches (shingle) to the magazine pouches or vica-versa.



From this document (80Kb Word file):
http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/documents/ISSP_Vol%202%20doc%208.doc

Looks like the average rifleman's issue of C7 magazines will potentially increase to 9.. Very interesting stuff.

Has anyone else seen this? Thoughts?


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Mar 2011)

I haven't looked at this yet, but since you asked for my first thought, here goes:

How long will it be before some CWO decides that all vests in his unit must look the same, no matter what the soldier's job is?

I'm a bit of a pessimist.


----------



## LordOsborne (11 Mar 2011)

My thinking on it is that they'll have to allow their soldiers to wear the pouches given to them, based on their role. I'm sure the RSMs will insist that all Riflemen will have their pouches in exactly the same spots, and the same goes for the C9 gunners etc.  

The very fact that the ISSP documents are specifying PALS / MOLLE as the modular system of choice is significant in and of itself. Change is in the wind... could you have imagined the CF going for PALS / MOLLE ten years ago?


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Mar 2011)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> Change is in the wind... could you have imagined the CF going for PALS / MOLLE ten years ago?


SACRILEGE!! BLASPHEMER OF THE WAYS OF UNIFORMITY!!!

I am of course jesting here..... >


----------



## RCR Grunt (12 Mar 2011)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> I was perusing and stumbled upon this page...
> 
> This link will open a 2Mb Word document with the drawing of the MLCS:
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/documents/ISSP_Vol%202%20doc%202.doc
> ...



My thoughts...

1) The rig shown is a side entry rig... A split front rig is easier to don and doff.

2) The rig shown allows for carriage of plates. If this rig is a true plate carrier, then it's performance will be degraded if the plates are removed.  It will sag under the load of the kit attached to it.  I recommend that if plates are not meant to be carried inside the rig that the option to do so be removed completely.

3) The drawing indicates a single waist adjustment strap centered in the panel.  This leaves the upper and lower corners free to sag and droop.  A simple solution would be to change to 2 straps, one on the extereme lower edge and one on the corner above it.  This change would lead to a more secure rig, less flop and droop.

4) The eventual adoption of the MOLLE/PALS system is a uniformity nightmare.  Someone somewhere will force their soldiers to follow a layout, effectivley defeating the whole modular concept.  If this becomes the case, the CF shold just hold a Sergeant Major's Symposium and hash out the layout the whole Force should adhere to and just sew the pouches right to our combat shirts.  They could end the thing with a big mess dinner, old dudes love that crap.

5) The eventual adoption of the MOLLE/PALS system is a "tactical nylon distributor's" wet dream.  A plus for the troops will be the ability to use pouches that actually function and make sense and place them where they prefer.  Unfortunately, they'll have to pay out of pocket to get them, and they will.  I have very little faith, reinforced by looking at this single drawing, the we are capable of designing and fielding a variety of pouches that can effectivley perform the various combat functions the CF requires.  I predict a series of pouches that will perform many functions in a poor manner.  Very little will change in the way of the "non-issue kit" debacle, but now instead of whole rigs it will become an issue of individual pouches.  

6) The front panel is joined to the back panel over the shoulders using hook and loop. I personally view this as a weak point, especially where casualty extraction is concerned. IMO the velcro shoulders will become a weak point and will release at the most critical time. 

Conclusion / Summary:

It's a step in the right direction, but we're still miles away, IMO, from acceptable load carriage.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (12 Mar 2011)

Not all 30 round 5.56mm mags are the same size, who knows if the CF will change mags sometime in future, it would be short sighted to have to change all our pouches.Hopefully the mag pouches will be open topped or large enough and bungeed to secure a variety of mag sizes.


----------



## LordOsborne (12 Mar 2011)

The ISSP project page does in fact show the pouches to be issued:

Be advised, this is a 30Mb Word document. It contains actual pictures of the MLCS vest and pouches in the 4 different configurations.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/documents/ISSP_Vol%202%20doc%209.doc


----------



## Troopasaurus (12 Mar 2011)

> 1) The rig shown is a side entry rig... A split front rig is easier to don and doff.



True but if it is designed to carry plates then split front is not really an option.



> 4) The eventual adoption of the MOLLE/PALS system is a uniformity nightmare.  Someone somewhere will force their soldiers to follow a layout, effectively defeating the whole modular concept.  If this becomes the case, the CF shold just hold a Sergeant Major's Symposium and hash out the layout the whole Force should adhere to and just sew the pouches right to our combat shirts.  They could end the thing with a big mess dinner, old dudes love that crap.



The only place I see a layout having a place would be on basic courses. On basic troops need to be told how to pack so they can learn the basics of being a soldier before spending their time thinking about which works better, mag shingles or triple pouches.



> 6) The front panel is joined to the back panel over the shoulders using hook and loop. I personally view this as a weak point, especially where casualty extraction is concerned. IMO the velcro shoulders will become a weak point and will release at the most critical time.



Agreed and at the same token why not make this releaseable while were at it. I can think of a few situations from my tour that having releaseable armour (and this being a plate carrier) would have been beneficial.


----------



## Sig_Des (12 Mar 2011)

Troopasaurus said:
			
		

> True but if it is designed to carry plates then split front is not really an option.



That's something I'm wondering. Is the plan to move to the use of plate carriers and changing our SOP for PPE, or is the fact that this chest-rig has a plate pouch just a coincidence? Because like Anyone's grunt mentioned, wearing a plate carrier without plates causes sagging.

This Rig looks a lot like the SORD Chest rig to me, with a couple of modifications, and if it is, that pouch is intended for trauma plates.


----------



## Lerch (12 Mar 2011)

So...no plans for a canteen pouch? A bladder carrier on your back is all fine and dandy, but I don't know how I'd keep mine from freezing solid in the winters...ya know, when my thermos makes an appearance.
I'm just guessing that necessity items like that will have to paid out of pocket...

WRT the plates, the one article does mention that the rig is to be worn over our existing frag vest.


----------



## LordOsborne (12 Mar 2011)

Some of the ISSP documentation I've read so far have mentioned that ISSP items must be compatible with the existing Gallet helmet, ballistic eyewear and Frag vest - no mention was made of the tac vest at all, so it seems like the TV will eventually be fully replaced, at least for ISSP users. 

The 30Mb document shows pictures of the MLCS vest and pouches.. what worries me is that the pouches are for the most part in the same places. I'm hoping that's just for demonstrating the layout. I really hope that these vests don't come with someone from DLR-5 saying that all our C7 Magazine pouches must be worn in a specific spot for "human factors" reasons...


----------



## Matt_Fisher (12 Mar 2011)

Beadwindow 7 said:
			
		

> This Rig looks a lot like the SORD Chest rig to me, with a couple of modifications, and if it is, that pouch is intended for trauma plates.



The rig is in fact the SORD 'SCS Chest Rig Front' http://www.sordaustralia.com/details.php?catid=162&parentid=84&checkpage=1&oldpage=1 and the SORD 'SCS Chest Rig Back' http://www.sordaustralia.com/details.php?catid=165&parentid=84&checkpage=1&oldpage=1

I'd be surprised if the risk averse CF ever authorize the use of plate carriers rather than the current FPV with plates carried in it.  However, the plate pockets could be extremely useful to stow the Source Hydration 2L 'Low Profile System' (LPS) reservoir http://www.militarymorons.com/equipment/outdoor.html#source2
-advantages of this is that it has a much more ergonomic shape so you can sit in a vehicle more comfortably, or wear your ruck or small pack while keeping your hydration system as part of your rig and it also reduces weight because you can ditch the 3L carrier.
-throw a 2L in the front plate pocket and a 2L in the back plate pocket and fill them about 3/4 full so you've got 1.5L in each which would give you 3L in total.  This now gives you a redundant system so that if one of your bladders gets damaged you still have hydration on your person.
-combine the LPS bladders with the Source 'Universal Tap Adaptor' (UTA) and you can refill the bladders without having to remove them from the rig 
http://www.militarymorons.com/equipment/packs4.html#uta


----------



## Matt_Fisher (12 Mar 2011)

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> My thoughts...
> 
> 
> 3) The drawing indicates a single waist adjustment strap centered in the panel.  This leaves the upper and lower corners free to sag and droop.  A simple solution would be to change to 2 straps, one on the extereme lower edge and one on the corner above it.  This change would lead to a more secure rig, less flop and droop.



This could be somewhat easily done as a non-permanent mod using field repair hardware, some extra 1" webbing, and some DIY ingenuity by the user.


----------



## LordOsborne (12 Mar 2011)

Matt, I'm curious - the page was meant as an industry information site for bidders to the ISSP project. Is CPGear getting involved in this?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (12 Mar 2011)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> Matt, I'm curious - the page was meant as an industry information site for bidders to the ISSP project. Is CPGear getting involved in this?



I wouldn't know as I haven't been involved with that organization since December 6th, 2010.

Cheers,

Matt


----------



## LordOsborne (12 Mar 2011)

Ack - Sorry, I must have missed that memo


----------



## RCR Grunt (13 Mar 2011)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> The rig is in fact the SORD 'SCS Chest Rig Front' http://www.sordaustralia.com/details.php?catid=162&parentid=84&checkpage=1&oldpage=1 and the SORD 'SCS Chest Rig Back' http://www.sordaustralia.com/details.php?catid=165&parentid=84&checkpage=1&oldpage=1
> 
> I'd be surprised if the risk averse CF ever authorize the use of plate carriers rather than the current FPV with plates carried in it.  However, the plate pockets could be extremely useful to stow the Source Hydration 2L 'Low Profile System' (LPS) reservoir http://www.militarymorons.com/equipment/outdoor.html#source2
> -advantages of this is that it has a much more ergonomic shape so you can sit in a vehicle more comfortably, or wear your ruck or small pack while keeping your hydration system as part of your rig and it also reduces weight because you can ditch the 3L carrier.
> ...



As this is a clear ripoff of a presumably patented design, does SORD have any legal recourse to prevent this rig from being contracted for manufacture by the CF?  If this was the MoFOCR, let's say, even though you are no longer associated with them, would CP Gear have grounds for legal action if this was done without their consent?  Is this patent infringement?

As for the plate carrier issue, some questions come to mind...

Are our plates rated as stand alone plates?  That is, can they be worn without a soft armor backing?  If not, then some changes need to be made.  I see one of three routes being taken.

1) Procure new plates that are rated as stand alone;
2) Procure a special cut of soft armor to back the plates and insert them in the carrier pockets as well; or
3) Remove the plate carrying option from this rig altogether.

Option 3 is most likely.  Simply stitch the vertical bar-tacks that divide the MOLLE/PALS columns right through the body of the rig and sew the opening in the bottom shut.  Remove the extra bits that hold the plate out of the back panel.  I say it's most likely as there are times when armor is desireable, but not kit i.e. filling sandbags, riding in a turret in an armored vehicle, etc.  A plate carrier would be desireable in certain situations, however the risk averse CF makes the chances of seeing one issued (at least for that purpose) slim to none.

Using the plate carrier pockets for hydration is a typically Canadian thing to do.  To take something that is inadequate or unsuitable and make the best of it, or take something built for one purpose and employ it in a completely different manner is something our Infantry Corps has been doing quite successfully for generations.  In order to become properly equipped, this attitude of "we'll make it work" needs to be stimied, especially during the T&E phases of equipment procurement.  We deserve better.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good idea, but we shouldn't have to go to those lengths.



			
				Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> [quote author=Anyone's Grunt on Yesterday at 10:48:05]
> My thoughts...
> 
> 
> 3) The drawing indicates a single waist adjustment strap centered in the panel.  This leaves the upper and lower corners free to sag and droop.  A simple solution would be to change to 2 straps, one on the extereme lower edge and one on the corner above it.  This change would lead to a more secure rig, less flop and droop.




This could be somewhat easily done as a non-permanent mod using field repair hardware, some extra 1" webbing, and some DIY ingenuity by the user.
[/quote]

Again, the end user shouldn't be required to modify a brand new piece of gear.


----------



## REDinstaller (13 Mar 2011)

I've seen the MTTF MP Pl running around in the Garrison field house with these carriers on. Looks wierd on some as the only pouches worn are for the 152.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (13 Mar 2011)

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> As this is a clear ripoff of a presumably patented design, does SORD have any legal recourse to prevent this rig from being contracted for manufacture by the CF?  If this was the MoFOCR, let's say, even though you are no longer associated with them, would CP Gear have grounds for legal action if this was done without their consent?  Is this patent infringement?
> 
> As for the plate carrier issue, some questions come to mind...
> 
> ...



I was told a few months ago through the grapevine that DND had licensed SORD's design for their rigs and pouches.  With that said, even if they hadn't unless something is specifically patented or has some other sort of IP protection, i.e. registered industrial design, design patent, trademark, etc. there's virtually nothing other than crying "Hey you *******, you copied my stuff..." that can be done.  Lots of companies in the nylon business either take somebody else's design and modify it, or outright copy it.  Eagle did some mods to London Bridge's Riverine Warfare H-Harness, and came up with the 'Maritime Load Carriage System', which was then cloned by Blackhawk as their STRIKE line back in 2003.

I don't know for certain, but believe the current CF issued plates are not for stand-alone use.  CANSOFCOM may be different, but not for big Army.  It's a fairly simple fix to build a nylon pouch for a SAPI plate that has the appropriate soft armor on the rear for back face deformation/spalling issues.  Pacific Safety Products, Armorworks Canada, and Allen Vanguard  (the major soft body armor producers in Canada) could easily fabricate something like this, and have it tested and certified.  The SAPI plate would be inserted into that pouch and then the ensemble would be placed into the plate carrier pocket inside the MLCS rig.  Now you have a modular plate carrier platform.

So as long as the rig is adjusted snugly, the extra bulk for the plate carrier pockets probably won't really affect the performance of the rig, as they'll be compressed under the rig against the body.  It's not like you're wearing a CIRAS, which has alot of play in the material because it's designed to accomodate soft body armor panels.  I've worn a SO Tech Callahan plate carrier, and an older TAG plate carrier for range training sessions and they fit fine without the plates inserted.  Plate Carriers without plates are more like a chest rig type system with a full back panel.  

Regarding 'Jerry Rigging' hydration bladders into plate carrier pockets:  You'd be surprised as to what some very high speed units (non-Canadian) are doing with respect to inserting that Source LPS 2L into plate carrier pockets, placing the bladder in front of the strike face.  They want to reduce weight and extraneous bulk, and because they can get away with doing what they want in respect to PPE they actually approached Source to develop a system specifically to do this.


----------



## RCR Grunt (13 Mar 2011)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> ...It's a fairly simple fix...



Fairly simple fixes in the CF still take years... look at the WWB re-sole project.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (13 Mar 2011)

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> Fairly simple fixes in the CF still take years... look at the WWB re-sole project.



I wouldn't be surprised if before too long either CPGear, ICE Tactical, Dropzone, or somebody else have a commercial version of this thing available, with or without some improvements.


----------



## RCR Grunt (14 Mar 2011)

So once again troops will have to pay out of pocket for proper equipment... Awesome.

Does the release of these documents indicate that the T&E phase is over?  If not, who's trialling this rig in Canada?


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Mar 2011)

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> If not, who's trialling this rig in Canada?



Probably someone at NDHQ who hasn't been in the field since St.Jean. Then they'll give it to an Inf Bn for a 12 hour assessment period just before the final T&E report is delivered.


----------



## RCR Grunt (14 Mar 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Probably someone at NDHQ who hasn't been in the field since St.Jean. Then they'll give it to an Inf Bn for a 12 hour assessment period just before the final T&E report is delivered.



The river of bitterness runs deep I see.

Don't forget, during the 12 hour assessment period the only thing the science wienies will be concerned about is "do you like the color?"  All other objections will be waved aside.

Nothing is too good for the troops, so nothing is what they'll get.


----------



## McG (14 Mar 2011)

Anyone's Grunt said:
			
		

> ... who's trialling this rig in Canada?


Where there are eqpt trials in the Army, it should be these guys: http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/cfb_gagetown/english/units/lfteu/index.asp


----------



## alexgold (14 Mar 2011)

This is the exact same vest we have in theatre right now actually, we've had them since Wainwright.  It is an awesome vest except it is extremely difficult to put on with the new arm brassards on the frag vest, you almost need a buddy to put it on.  But no its very good and lots of pouches come with it (27 are the baseline plus more for specialty jobs).  So far nobody has tried to make standards at all, but section commanders do have to make sure their guys don't try to put on all the pouches at once because they can and which becomes not practical.  But all in all very good vest, however, we were told that this was only one of three models they were testing so I wasn't aware that they went ahead with this project.  It would be good tough, cause this system looked the best out of the three.


----------



## RCR Grunt (17 Mar 2011)

alexgold said:
			
		

> ...It is an awesome vest except ...



Please ensure you make this point known to those running the trial along with the other points this thread has brought up regarding this rig.  If your unsure who to bring these points to ask you CoC.  Those participating in the trial are the only chance we have to ensure that proper kit is procured.



			
				alexgold said:
			
		

> ...this system looked the best out of the three.



Looks can be deceiving.  IMO it's a POS.


----------



## BCBoy (9 May 2011)

All of 3VP has been issued this MFR, along with most (if not all) of TF 1-11. We have been using it for the last 5 months or so. The specialty pouches have finally come in.. C9 gunners got issued 2 pouches, grenadiers got 2x quad carriers plus a 12 bomb bandolier. I'd say the general consensus is fairly positive. The only thing i've had a problem with is it's very front heavy, and quite annoying while lying in the prone. Obvious ways to counter that, you just have to switch the pouches around to better suit the user. I've switched my pouches around a few times now, just trying to figure out what I like best. I sure hope they keep this rig around and issue it to all combat arms. 



...better than the old rig, designed by Chair Force and completely useless...


----------



## medaid (10 May 2011)

... *sigh* another case of CF equipment stupidity...


----------



## Snaketnk (10 May 2011)

Would the front heavy problem be solved if you carry water on your back?


----------



## RCR Grunt (10 May 2011)

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> Would the front heavy problem be solved if you carry water on your back?



Yup, right up until you drink the water.


----------



## a_majoor (10 May 2011)

I inherited a rig with a somewhat similar layout, and the front strike plate carrier served as a map pocket and FMP holder for me. I don't see a kangaroo pouch as being a total waste of time even if you don't have a plate to put inside.


----------



## LordOsborne (7 Dec 2011)

Update on the ISSP Modular load carriage subject - looks like we're getting close to seeing a Request for Proposals soon...

from the site: 





> Update - Nov. 17, 2011
> 
> The ISSP Team is pleased to inform you that we are making every effort to finalize the Request For Proposal in preparation for a February 2012 release to the Government Electronic Tendering Service (GETS).  Due to the upcoming release, all RFP related content will be removed from this website sometime during the month of January 2012.
> 
> The feedback and questions received so far have been of great assistance. As a result of several inquiries, we realized that some additional clarification may be required to help potential Bidders better understand the sequence of events related to Systems deliveries and participation in the Performance Evaluation (PE) following the Solicitation closing.  A graphical representation of this sequence of events is available, with tentative timing blocks so that potential bidders have a better time appreciation of the activities involved.  Specific dates on these activities cannot be provided before the Solicitation process is well underway.  Amendments to the schedule may occur should circumstances change.


----------



## Redeye (7 Dec 2011)

Odd that they're tendering already. TF 2-12 (Op Attention Roto 1) is going over with SORD rigs - not contracted versions, but actual SORD Australia kit. We were told it's one system on trial, but we're only just getting ready to head over in February.

We've hardly gotten to use them for the time being, but I'm liking mine. The only problem, as someone mentioned, is that it's a bit of a pain in the ass to don. It's a two-man job, really.

We did, however, get told in no uncertain terms that no standard setup/uniformity was to be enforced, other than that the med pouch should be accessible to either hand. People have been experimenting with a variety of configurations.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (8 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The only problem, as someone mentioned, is that it's a bit of a pain in the *** to don. It's a two-man job, really.



What's the worst issue with donning the rig?  Having to put it over your head each time you put it on/take it off?  Or the way that you have to reach to the  back to fasten the buckle?


----------



## Snaketnk (8 Dec 2011)

I see dozens of non-combat types donning them perfectly fine every day at work...by themselves.


----------



## Hurricane (8 Dec 2011)

I have minor difficulty putting mine on. It can be buckled up successfully alone, however a buddy system always makes things easier. As far as the front being heavy that I noticed someone mentioned may be a problem, myself I have it adjusted so that the top of the back portion of the rig nestles right into the collar of the issued fragmentation vest and its working for me so far. Also, the mention of a lack of "water bottle" pouch, the 1L Canteen fits into the supplied Large Utility Pouch perfectly however many people I have seen choose not to utilize it. The only issue I have come across so far is the large velcro flap on the triple mag pouches could be somewhat of a hindrance when changing mags. Overall, I would prefer this over the current issued tac vest (No not just because it is new).


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> We've hardly gotten to use them for the time being, but I'm liking mine. The only problem, as someone mentioned, is that it's a bit of a pain in the *** to don. It's a two-man job, really.



Are you using the X straps or the harness for the back? I can get my SORD rig on with the x straps just fine alone, but have noticed the harness is very loose unless you're more round than tall and it can be difficult to reach the buckles behind your back.

One thing I'd like to see is the straps on the X harness being a lot longer. I'm 6'1" and 170 lbs and have to have them straps maxed out to wear it. It would be a no-go for anyone wanting to use those straps if they were any larger than I am. I agree the pouches leave something to be desired, but hopefully that can get captured in the feedback session mid-tour. I like the velcro SORD uses for the pouches, just not the pouches themselves.


----------



## Hurricane (8 Dec 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> One thing I'd like to see is the straps on the X harness being a lot longer. I'm 6'1" and 170 lbs and have to have them straps maxed out to wear it. It would be a no-go for anyone wanting to use those straps if they were any larger than I am.



I concur, a coworker of mine is roughly 6'2" i would say but around 280 lbs. We actually had to adjust his shoulder straps to go approx 6-7 inches past where the fabric stops. Otherwise, his chest rig was more of a chest bra.


----------



## Redeye (9 Dec 2011)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> What's the worst issue with donning the rig?  Having to put it over your head each time you put it on/take it off?  Or the way that you have to reach to the  back to fasten the buckle?



With armour and plates, it's not too easy to reach the buckles. It can be done, but it takes a lot of shoulder flexibility it seems like. I'm getting better at it with practice, though. I do use the rig harness vice the the X- harness, because I'm going to use the Camelbak pouch with it. Overall, it's a pretty neat piece of kit. The "command pounch" when mounted up top has pistol mag loops that are really well positioned, I thought it was excellent when I was on the pistol range to do fast mag changes. I found on the jungle lanes that the positioning of mags worked pretty well, but I'll second that the flaps are a bit large and can get caught up.

I haven't seen the alternatives being considered, but I can say I'd take this over a tac vest any day and twice on Sundays.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2011)

Does anyone have any pictures of the SORD rig that the CF is using?


----------



## MikeL (11 Dec 2011)

Yea, pics of the SORD rig you guys have would be great.  Also,  is the rig only able to be set up like a plate carrier, or can the "bib" portion be folded down and you can wear it as a chest rig?


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Dec 2011)

I will take some pictures of my SORD rig given to Op Attention R1 shortly, I'm still unpacking from Gagetown. Its the MFR Trial Rig "C", haven't found specifically what SORD model it is yet though.


----------



## Redeye (11 Dec 2011)

I left mine in Gagetown but might be back there this week on my way to Boston for a long weekend, any specific pictures anyone want? Here's a picture of mine from range day, one of the configurations I've played with so far.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Dec 2011)

Pictures as promised:

My rig set up, with bib folded down. Left to right: Bayonet, Utility pouch with fastex/velcro, grenade pouch, IFAK with tearaway panel, 30rd mag shingle with 90rd mag pouch on top, 30rd shingle with 90rd on top and multitool pouch on top of that, fold up dump pouch, zipper utilty pouch, 60rd mag pouch (storage currently), smoke grenade pouch (storage currently), PRR pouch on left strap.






Rig with bib folded up, clips onto the straps with a metal button w/loop through a d-ring on each side.





Optional back panel with hydration carrier attached. Hydration straw cover on each shoulder strap.





Assorted pouches that I'm not using. Each rifleman kit comes with 4x 90rd pouch, 4x 60rd pouch, 2x 30rd shingle, 2x utility pouch fastex, 1x utility pouch zippered, 1x IFAK with tearaway, 1x PRR pouch, 1x double grenade pouch, 2x single grenade pouch, 1x smoke grenade pouch, 1x hydration bladder carrier, 1x ETrex pouch, 1x multitool pouch, 1x dump pouch, and back harness.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2011)

That's a pretty decent looking chest rig.

Defiantly  reminds me of the HSGI Wasatch I used. I found it fairly front heavy and difficult to put on and off easily.  I countered that by attaching a camelbak to the back of it (not always convenient).
It got considerably better when I wore the plates in my Wasatch and not in my soft armor but I spent the rest of the tour being sneaky about it fearful of being noticed "by the man".  Can the SORD only use a plate in the front? The back doesn't look large enough.

I've seen them priced at $545 at sordaustralia.com for the vest and some pouches(package deals).  Wonder what we'll pay for them.


----------



## MikeL (11 Dec 2011)

Happy to see that the bib can be folded down.  If that is the MFR that is picked,  I can already see a mod/private purchase item for the rig.. instead of having the straps go over the back like a X,  would be more comfortable for a H style set up IMO.


----------



## DirtyDog (11 Dec 2011)

Considering the effort it took to don my front entry rig when fully loaded with water and ammo, that thing does not look fun at all.  It was easily doable but after watching some guys wrestle with rigs that didn't split made me shudder.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Dec 2011)

The back harness has a plate carrier as well. I don't have training plates yet (not gonna ask for them  >) so I won't know till I hit theatre if the plates actually fit well in there. The pocket looks fairly flimsy. The dump pouch is basically a nylon bag, nothing fancy and I hope they don't pick it as it will not positively control your mags when they get dumped in there. Something like CPgear's lobster trap design would be better.

As for donning, it took me a while to figure out how to get it on and off easily. Over the head is fine, but taking it off esp. with the frag vest on is dicey. I found out if I lean forward, lift the vest and then uncross the straps over my head, it pops right off over the collar on the vest and doesn't get stuck on the clips from the wings. Haven't had a combat load in it yet, but it sits nicely against the body with the horizontal strap that connects left to right side of the rig on the back, it seems like it would sit under the rear plate, which would prevent the rig from falling forward as the strap would catch on that rear plate pocket. It really needs longer straps for the x-style, it would make it much more manageable to take on and off.

DLR told us the rigs are valued at $550 a piece for the rifleman setup, but I think we should really look at getting pouches from another supplier. The IFAK and shingles are well made, as well as the frag pouches, but there are far better substitutes for everything else, at 40% or more savings.


----------



## DirtyDog (11 Dec 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> As for donning, it took me a while to figure out how to get it on and off easily. Over the head is fine, but taking it off esp. with the frag vest on is dicey. I found out if I lean forward, lift the vest and then uncross the straps over my head, it pops right off over the collar on the vest and doesn't get stuck on the clips from the wings. Haven't had a combat load in it yet, but it sits nicely against the body with the horizontal strap that connects left to right side of the rig on the back, it seems like it would sit under the rear plate, which would prevent the rig from falling forward as the strap would catch on that rear plate pocket. It really needs longer straps for the x-style, it would make it much more manageable to take on and off.


Should be fun with 50lbs of kit in it.....


----------



## MikeL (11 Dec 2011)

A front opening rig is much easier to get into(one of the reasons why I ditched my chest rig after tour and got a TT 2pc MAV)  On tour I wore the HSGI Warlord Chest Rig, and it was awkward getting into at times when fully loaded, but overtime you get used to it and come up with your own system to don it.

Seems like more and more units are getting this SORD Rig,  any reason as to why?  Also seems like it's only the Patricia Battalions(1st and 3rd, I don't believe 2VP has them at this time) getting the TT 2pc MAV and everyone else is getting the SORD.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Dec 2011)

I read a piece on an American board that talked about how a chest rig like the TT Mav is better for light infantry when patrolling long distances on foot, mountain ops and extended dismounted use over something like this (Well they used vest type rigs for an example).  Figure there is any truth in that?


----------



## Redeye (11 Dec 2011)

The training plates fit perfectly. I had them in there before I got a frag vest issued to start getting familiar with the weight. No issue at all.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The back harness has a plate carrier as well. I don't have training plates yet (not gonna ask for them  >) so I won't know till I hit theatre if the plates actually fit well in there. The pocket looks fairly flimsy. The dump pouch is basically a nylon bag, nothing fancy and I hope they don't pick it as it will not positively control your mags when they get dumped in there. Something like CPgear's lobster trap design would be better.
> 
> As for donning, it took me a while to figure out how to get it on and off easily. Over the head is fine, but taking it off esp. with the frag vest on is dicey. I found out if I lean forward, lift the vest and then uncross the straps over my head, it pops right off over the collar on the vest and doesn't get stuck on the clips from the wings. Haven't had a combat load in it yet, but it sits nicely against the body with the horizontal strap that connects left to right side of the rig on the back, it seems like it would sit under the rear plate, which would prevent the rig from falling forward as the strap would catch on that rear plate pocket. It really needs longer straps for the x-style, it would make it much more manageable to take on and off.
> 
> DLR told us the rigs are valued at $550 a piece for the rifleman setup, but I think we should really look at getting pouches from another supplier. The IFAK and shingles are well made, as well as the frag pouches, but there are far better substitutes for everything else, at 40% or more savings.


----------



## DirtyDog (11 Dec 2011)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> I read a piece on an American board that talked about how a chest rig like the TT Mav is better for light infantry when patrolling long distances on foot, mountain ops and extended dismounted use over something like this (Well they used vest type rigs for an example).  Figure there is any truth in that?


From what I can tell, other than the front bib and the lack of splitting in the front (both of which can be had, or not had respectively, with the TT MAV) this is basically the same type of rig as the MAV.


----------



## Hurricane (11 Dec 2011)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> A front opening rig is much easier to get into(one of the reasons why I ditched my chest rig after tour and got a TT 2pc MAV)  On tour I wore the HSGI Warlord Chest Rig, and it was awkward getting into at times when fully loaded, but overtime you get used to it and come up with your own system to don it.
> 
> Seems like more and more units are getting this SORD Rig,  any reason as to why?  Also seems like it's only the Patricia Battalions(1st and 3rd, I don't believe 2VP has them at this time) getting the TT 2pc MAV and everyone else is getting the SORD.



I would assume that these are trials. We were told that we would be doing some type of debrief with the pros and cons of the SORD Harness mid tour. If theres any truth to that I have no idea.


----------



## Lerch (11 Dec 2011)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Seems like more and more units are getting this SORD Rig,  any reason as to why?  Also seems like it's only the Patricia Battalions(1st and 3rd, I don't believe 2VP has them at this time) getting the TT 2pc MAV and everyone else is getting the SORD.



Might be a 1CMBG thing? I know Z Bty has also gotten the TT MAV's with the goody bag of pouches, also saw a couple guys at 2VP using them last time I was in the field.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Aug 2012)

Bump with the latest Backgrounder on the Integrated Soldier System Project (see attached if link doesn't work)





> .... The Integrated Soldier System Project (ISSP) will provide the soldier with an integrated suite of equipment that includes weapon accessories, electronic devices, sensors, individual equipment and operational clothing. This soldier system will significantly increase soldier performance, as soldiers and low-level command centres will seamlessly share data and voice communications through a network.
> 
> (....)
> 
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Sep 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Bump with the latest Backgrounder on the Integrated Soldier System Project (see attached if link doesn't work)



Does that mean we'll finally get a real baynoet that doesn't break when you look at it  ;D


----------



## kqm (13 Nov 2012)

Do you think the ISSP is going to  increase soldier performance by facilitating communications and the sharing of data with low-level command centres?

http://atlantic-council.ca/portfolio/new-horizons-the-future-as-dictated-by-canadian-military-procurement/


----------



## Cdnleaf (14 Nov 2012)

I thought it was a poorly written article, full of absolute statements with no references. Though consistent with an undergrad student who lacks experience in the field and similar to your assertion that the CF '...shares data with low level command centres,' which equally lacks doctrinal reference.   :2c: have a great day.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Nov 2012)

kqm said:
			
		

> Do you think the ISSP is going to  increase soldier performance by facilitating communications and the sharing of data with low-level command centres?
> 
> http://atlantic-council.ca/portfolio/new-horizons-the-future-as-dictated-by-canadian-military-procurement/



Huh?

I read the "article" and said "holy leap of logic, Batman".  The author should substantiate his claims that _"The increased focus on the individual soldier as the unit of choice as opposed to larger divisions is indicative of lessons learned fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan"_, or that _"The ISSP implies a directional change in the way counter-insurgency is employed."_ or that _"traditional military structures become too restrictive to allow the freedom of movement necessary to strike frequently against an insurgency"_.  I won't even pretend to understand what _"They are ready to fight in a conflict where the enemy is not designated by location, but rather by action."_ actually means.

All this really tells me is that the author likely knows little of which he speaks and that the Atlantic Council is in need of some serious editorial/peer review help.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Nov 2012)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Does that mean we'll finally get a real baynoet that doesn't break when you look at it  ;D



As long as they stick in Zombies.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2012)

It would be interesting to compare the power and usability of these "future soldier" systems to a smartphone or a Garmin RINO. Smartphones cost @ $600 and you can buy the RINO for about $400, and either system fits inside a pocket. Not to be too facetious, but commercial items like these are probably at the 80% solution mark right now, and have well developed user interfaces that most soldiers are already familiar with. Picture a smartphone like device strapped to the wrist of a soldier and you get the idea.

True there will be extra costs associated with ruggedizing the device and installing crypto capabilities (although that could be piggybacked in the short term by connecting the device to the TCCS radio suite at the commander level, while the devices talk to each other at the section level through a PRR like radio link).


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Apr 2013)

Latest from the PWGSC info-machine:


> .... Public Works and Government Services Canada has issued a new Request for Proposals (RFP) to acquire integrated suites of cutting‑edge equipment under the Integrated Soldier System Project. The Government of Canada is launching a new solicitation for the procurement of an integrated soldier system. A draft RFP was issued on February 15, 2013, an industry day was held on March 5, continued engagement took place during the month of March, and now the formal RFP has been issued. It will close on August 1, 2013 …. The Integrated Soldier System Project will provide soldiers with an integrated suite of equipment that includes weapon accessories, electronic devices, sensors, individual equipment and operational clothing. The different elements will be networked and will work seamlessly together, giving soldiers more comprehensive situational awareness, real-time tactical information and an increased ability to synchronize activity.  The RFP is to acquire up to 6,624 integrated suites of cutting-edge equipment under the Integrated Soldier System Project over four years. The RFP includes a requirement for up to 11 years of associated in-service support ….


More in the MERX posting here and the honkin' bid document (+1800 page PDF via Google Docs) here


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (5 Apr 2013)

Two words: Palantir Mobile (tied to the Palantir enterprise).


----------



## GnyHwy (5 Apr 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Latest from the PWGSC info-machine:More in the MERX posting here and the honkin' bid document (+1800 page PDF via Google Docs) here



That's one helluva monsterdoc.  How do you expect to keep up with technology with this beast?  The tech will be outdated by the time you finish reading.  I guess you could aim far ahead and wait til you are on trend before you publish.  All the best to the team that is writing the SOR; you have a daunting task no doubt, and that is without amendments or interfence from PWGSC.

Perhaps at best we can buy a few good gizmos that will be byproducts from the offers that come in.  Getting one company to take charge and pull this off seems unrealistic.  You never know though.  Maybe some company will have to try to live up to their glossy now.

P.S.  Anyone ever wonder why procurement takes so long for Gucci kit?  These docs don't wrote themselves overnight, and unfortunately, they are necessary.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Apr 2013)

One word:

iPhone

I think it is about time that we in the military realized that comercial R&D dwarfs anything the military puts out, and the market drives technology cycles far faster than anyting *we* can respond to.

While the iPhone itself might not be the best platform, an iPhone or Samsung galaxy in a ruggedized case, feeding into Google Glasses for display purposes and running a suite of apps written by soldiers (there are many soldiers who know how to write apps and would be pleased to do so for the Army under contract) is probably the conceptual model for what would fill most of the ISSP requirements at a fraction of the time or cost (an unlocked smartphone goes for @ $600 and Google Glasses are thought to cost @ $1500/pair).

Taking it a few steps beyond, the electronics in many military vehicles are housed in multiple steel boxes the size of packing crates, and could also be replaced with a pair of ruggedized laptops (for redundancy) acting as the vehicle server or a scattering of iPhone like computer modules at each vehicle crew station. (going a bit further, if there was some sort of Bluetooth like communication protocol initiated inside the vehicle, there would be very little need for vehicle electronics, as it could feed off the ISSP computer devices in each soldier's uniform.) This could free up internal volume and reduce weight in may vehicles.

Open the box nd let some light inside....


----------



## George Wallace (5 Apr 2013)

Ummm?  Have you looked inside one of those boxes?  I am sure that once you ruggedized you iPhone to the necessary standards, along with your laptops, the boxes would likely come out to be the same, or very close to the same, size.


----------



## willy (5 Apr 2013)

Oh, you must mean like the IRIS NAU, which requires a flash as soon as you look at it and third line maint if you breathe on it wrong. 

I have a little pelican case for my iphone that has never failed to withstand any abuse that I've thrown at it.  The iphone + case combo is cheaper than any purpose-built military equivalent.  In other words, we can afford to have spares.  Thucydides is spot on the money on this one: we can't afford our own military R&D.


----------



## Sig_Des (5 Apr 2013)

Willy said:
			
		

> Thucydides is spot on the money on this one: we can't afford our own military R&D.



Amen. Add to that the convoluted procurement process, and we're hooped.

From my time at ADM(Mat) (lower lever Land System support) this is how we tended to see the process (as far as comms equipment).

-Army sees a requirement for a specific piece of equipment. 

     - This piece must be able to perform A, B, C, D and E.

-Tender is put out for equipment

-Companies return with proposals

     - Company 1 has a piece of equipment that can do A,B,C,D and E and costs  $ X.00

     - Company 2 has a piece of equipment that can do A,B and C (Not D & E), but can do F & G (not required actions) and costs $ X.00 - 20%

-Company 2 gets the contract

-There is now a requirement for a piece of equipment that can perform D&E and can be integrated into piece of equipment purchased above

Process repeats.

I know that this is very simplified, and I didn't see the entire process. We were just the guys that pushed up what we saw was required, had to integrate what we got, and let them know what we needed to fill the gaps. And this was how we saw the process.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Apr 2013)

Innovation Canada: A Call to Action

I wonder how this report landed?

Innovation Canada: Special Report on Procurement

A Potential Set of Procurement Initiatives

The creation of new initiatives that seek to make better use of procurement to stimulate innovation would signal that the federal government is aware of the potential opportunities to promote business innovation using this tool. There are also a number of possible complementary policy directions and potential improvements to the recent initiatives still in start-up mode (PWGSC's CICP, DND's Project ACCORD, and Industry Canada's revised IRB policy) that could be put in place. These initiatives fall under three areas: general procurement, strategic civilian initiatives and defence procurement.

http://rd-review.ca/eic/site/033.nsf/eng/00323.html


----------



## OceanBonfire (14 Aug 2018)

https://www.facebook.com/CanadianForces/photos/a.1524483394445524.1073741830.1522633664630497/2357615871132268/?type=3&theater

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/integrated-soldier-system-project.page


----------



## Loch Sloy! (14 Aug 2018)

Those wires are going to get caught on EVERYTHING.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Aug 2018)

Loch Sloy! said:
			
		

> Those wires are going to get caught on EVERYTHING.



... which will make them 'wireless' after the first three 'actions on coming under effective enemy fire....'


----------



## dapaterson (14 Aug 2018)

For a Reg F Army of 3 CMBGs, with about 4500 each, plus about 12000 trained Reservists in CBGs, total just over 25000 personnel... we're buying 4000.

"Train as you fight" is clearly an aspirational thing.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Aug 2018)

From the CAF Facebook video, intent is Section Commanders to the Platoon Commanders. That significantly reduces the number of systems required.

As for cable management, I'm sure you'd be able to spend 5 minutes and route the cables properly with some zap straps so they're not sagging.


----------



## buzgo (14 Aug 2018)

FOC in 2023? Meanwhile in the USA, ATAK on commercial hardware, type 1 radios, GoTenna, MANET radios, whatever you want: https://youtu.be/tojMXYMVdyw


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Aug 2018)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> FOC in 2023? Meanwhile in the USA, ATAK on commercial hardware, type 1 radios, GoTenna, MANET radios, whatever you want: https://yo
> 
> utu.be/tojMXYMVdyw



I'm just looking forward to the day when we don't have to rely on our phones to maintain comms on exercises....


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Aug 2018)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> FOC in 2023? Meanwhile in the USA, ATAK on commercial hardware, type 1 radios, GoTenna, MANET radios, whatever you want: https://youtu.be/tojMXYMVdyw



Canadian Armed Forces: Delivering yesterday's equipment, Tomorrow!



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'm just looking forward to the day when we don't have to rely on our phones to maintain comms on exercises....



This project doesn't fix the manpack gap created by some bright Signals Officers when they decided turning all manpacks in the CAF into vehicle-only radios without replacing those manpacks was a good idea...


----------



## buzgo (14 Aug 2018)

That's a different problem. ISSP creates new problems. If I recall, the system is a stovepipe and the dismounts can't communicate with their ride, using the ISSP. They still need to have a 152 or 117 or whatever is being used now.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Aug 2018)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> That's a different problem. ISSP creates new problems. If I recall, the system is a stovepipe and the dismounts can't communicate with their ride, using the ISSP. They still need to have a 152 or 117 or whatever is being used now.



Excellent news for the manufacturers of the tank telephone....


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Aug 2018)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> That's a different problem. ISSP creates new problems. If I recall, the system is a stovepipe and the dismounts can't communicate with their ride, using the ISSP. They still need to have a 152 or 117 or whatever is being used now.



Because they weren't carrying enough weight as it is...  :rofl:


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Aug 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Because they weren't carrying enough weight as it is...  :rofl:



Again, job security... this time for the Platoon and Company signalers


----------



## FinnO25 (10 Nov 2018)

Hey Everyone, I am just wondering does anyone have any recommendations for set-ups of this new vest, I have been tinkering around with different set-ups, but continuously run into the same problem. The CPU pouch, what would thoughts be on moving it down to my Battle belt as opposed to on the vest itself?


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 May 2019)

I've been told this new vests costs $7000 per vest, is that true?

Does any other western military use a vest like this with a PDA, integrated radio system, antennas and batteries?

I've heard batteries need to be changed    every 3 days, having seen the battery dependent laser tag vests in wainwright I can't see battery resupply being an issue...


----------

