# New Army Equipement and CTS Update



## MPSHIELD (22 Apr 2006)

Didn't see anyone so far post this info. Thought I would pass on some info regarding new clothing equipment that will be coming down the pipe. The links discuss new clothing and equipment that the army will be getting, including the converged cadpat rain gear, new boots, and duffle bag to name a few.
Director of Land Requirements
http://www.textiles.ca/_static/webUpload/193/143_1.pdf
Clothe the Soldier
http://www.textiles.ca/_static/webUpload/193/142_1.PDF

If the links don't work, try refreshing them or visit this site:
http://www.textiles.ca/eng/nonAuthProg/redirect.cfm?path=GovtProcurement&sectionID=6718.cfm

Enjoy


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Apr 2006)

Thanks for that.  I see most of that stuff they want is currently out there yet they continue to trial it.  Give me a break CTS.  Should have "trialed" the snowshoes a bit more.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Apr 2006)

Surprised they didn't print any of the complaints.  :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Apr 2006)

I see they are looking into a CADPAT Urban as well.  Isn't that nice will the ruck is still in development.


----------



## Gayson (23 Apr 2006)

Urban cadpat?

I fail too see the advantage of such a thing.  Even of the colors were right your still going to silhouette off everything around you.  Maybe they should just make a uniform that will make me look like a mailbox.


----------



## Spartan (23 Apr 2006)

So the Rumourmill of CADPAT boots is still true - unreal.


----------



## foerestedwarrior (24 Apr 2006)

So they are delivering AR TacVests...................

Also....I come from the workd of construction....and contract bidding usually doesnt go on for what.....2-3 years like the ruck has....Me and my dad are usualy given a month if we are lucky to get a bid in. I understand that it is different, but still. I could have found, trialed and gotten rucks deliverd in just over a year with the budget they have...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Apr 2006)

With the money CTS has wasted I think someone in the know how could have gotten the Cmbt arms kitted out with all the kit they were looking at within 5 years of the intial start up of CTS.  The biggest hurdle getting CADPAT made and put on the various kit.  I threw out the figure of 5 years because it doesn't take rocket science to see what is working and isn't with our allies in similar combat/terrain/elements and to go with something they are using.  Now if CTS hands are tied by politics and or the procurment process so be it but there is some kit that side tracked the whole procurment process so I can't see why it would be different for the rest of the kit issued to us.


----------



## MPSHIELD (24 Apr 2006)

Although I'm not in anyway an expert in R&D, bidding and trialing of soldier field gear, it does seem a little lengthy in some of these projects. The only thing I can think of is that they only get "X" amount to spend on certain projects during a certain period of time. Also, I think the bidding process take a long time because there is so much red tape regarding the rules and regulations that govern the bidding of contracts for companies which slow the requisitioning system down. But who knows! 

It is good to see that some some more stuff in on the way down the pipe. The good news is, according to the presentation, everyone in the LF might be issued the CAMELBAK (just waiting for funding and approval).

For me, personally the only real item I'm looking forward to is the Rain Gear. I Can't wait- no more sweating in the rubber suit . It will be unfortunately, be 2-3 years before i see it.


----------



## xavier (24 Apr 2006)

Hi all:
Thanks for the link. What a bummer the artice on Canadian camo uniforms 1750-2050 isn't available online. I'd've been very interested in reading it.

xavier


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Apr 2006)

The problem MPSHIELD is that by the time the troops get some of the kit it is already outdated and the troops could have had awesome kit right of the bat.
What do you need the rain jacket for.  You can't get that wet rolling down your cruisers window.


----------



## MPSHIELD (24 Apr 2006)

CFL-IMHO, you are absolutely right. Some of the equipment the troops need take too long to get to the soldiers on ops.



> What do you need the rain jacket for.  You can't get that wet rolling down your cruisers window.


LOL-Good one.


----------



## ArmyRick (24 Apr 2006)

I have a word for the CF CTS program, "Military boondoggle".

Seriously this clownery is not putting priorities where it should be. How about the new rucks get issued first? How about a hell of alot less time "researching this and that" and get on with it. Hell buy something american, canadian, aussie or whatever works well, slap some cadpat on it and issue the damn stuff.

My opinion is that the CTS program could have been alot more efficient. Get 5 switched on CPLs from each of the combat arms and have them do all the "research and what not". They would have gotten this done in a very timely fashion.


----------



## armyvern (24 Apr 2006)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I have a word for the CF CTS program, "Military boondoggle".


 



			
				ArmyRick said:
			
		

> My opinion is that the CTS program could have been alot more efficient. Get 5 switched on CPLs from each of the combat arms and have them do all the "research and what not". They would have gotten this done in a very timely fashion.



Just thought I'd throw this out there for all the non-Supply Tech types.....

Clothe the Soldier *IS ALREADY * overwhelmingly manned by combat arms types with only a couple of the 'other' types. Interesting isn't it?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Apr 2006)

Thank you.  I'm here all night.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 Apr 2006)

Yes but Vern those types are officers and senior NCO's who by all accounts have lost touch with today's battlefield.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Apr 2006)

Yup CFL, too much time (as in years and years) in Louis-Standaround dulls the memory of operations...  :-\

It's hard to believe that I've had my TW 2-1 for almost two years...not that I don't think the Air Force would usually have a hard time getting itself out of a wet paper bag, but the responsiveness (or lack thereof) of CTS towards the operational community is mind boggling.  There is something amiss when the only guys who believe that things are fully responsive and effective are the guys in the project themselves.  CADPAT Boots...man oh man, I thought those things died a while ago!  :

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## chrisf (24 Apr 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> CADPAT Boots...man oh man, I thought those things died a while ago!  :



One can only wish they had...

It seems they're going to be jungle boots... what's wrong with a basic leather boot? Take what we've got now, make it brown, stick on a vibram sole, bam, ideal combat boot.


----------



## COBRA-6 (24 Apr 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> CADPAT Boots...man oh man, I thought those things died a while ago!  :



So did I, until I saw a MWO wearing a pair at NDHQ last week... yes they are fabric uppers, I for one want the extra breathability...

Now, on to important issues... what do I have to do to get your rainjacket??  ;D


----------



## MPSHIELD (24 Apr 2006)

CADPAT TW Boots....hmmm, I wonder if they will make them in CADPAT AR. Oh dear, better not give them any ideas! :


----------



## The_Falcon (25 Apr 2006)

The one glaring thing that stood out to me in that presentation (the first one Director Land Requirements), was that they are already contemplating a NEW uniform!!  I hope that means a few cosmetic alteration (like pockets on the sleeves), and not an entirely new uniform.  But at least they are looking at some form of "underarmour" type of shirt to wear under the combat shirt.


----------



## NATO Boy (25 Apr 2006)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> they are looking at some form of "underarmour" type of shirt to wear under the combat shirt.



Kinda ironic since <A  HREF="http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/42140.0.html">this Policy</A> is taking effect in A'Stan.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 Apr 2006)

There was a question mark besides fire resistent so they will probably incorporate that.   Probably reinvent the wheel while they are at it too.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Apr 2006)

Mike_R23A said:
			
		

> So did I, until I saw a MWO wearing a pair at NDHQ last week... yes they are fabric uppers, I for one want the extra breathability...
> 
> Now, on to important issues... what do I have to do to get your rainjacket??  ;D



Awww Mike, you wouldn't want it anyway...it's got those flashy little reflective tape strips on it.    Oh yeah...sure, they're neatly tucked under a flap and held in place with velcro so you can't see them, but just knowing they're there and could be ripped open (making a horribly velcro-ish sound at a tactically inopportune time) and showing your position to anyone with a covert or non-covert light source...well, I know you wouldn't want to take the risk...no matter how comfortable and dry and warm and effective it made you...  >  You had your chance, buddy...nothing ventured, nothing gained!  

On the fire retardant front, I would never wear UA with any of my nomex flying gear.  Not that someone should be wearing non-standard kit...*ahem*...  ...however...hypothetically, if there were any non-standard kit I would consider (as aircrew), it would be several sets of Simpson Safety Systems nomex long underwear right out of my Summitt Racing catalogue.  I hear that it wicks moisture away (achieving some of what UA clearly does very well) all the while providing better FR capability than any CF-issue undergarment does.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## MJP (25 Apr 2006)

[





			
				Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> The one glaring thing that stood out to me in that presentation (the first one Director Land Requirements), was that they are already contemplating a NEW uniform!!  I hope that means a few cosmetic alteration (like pockets on the sleeves), and not an entirely new uniform.  But at least they are looking at some form of "underarmour" type of shirt to wear under the combat shirt.



Not really an underarmour shirt per se but just a better T-shirt than the current cotton one.  We did the first trials as did the 3rd Bn just last fall.  Underarmour is not allowed to be worn anymore due to the melting/shrinkage effect it has when exposed to high heat ie: explosions


----------



## LordOsborne (26 Apr 2006)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> The one glaring thing that stood out to me in that presentation (the first one Director Land Requirements), was that they are already contemplating a NEW uniform!!  I hope that means a few cosmetic alteration (like pockets on the sleeves), and not an entirely new uniform.  But at least they are looking at some form of "underarmour" type of shirt to wear under the combat shirt.



The way it was phrased seems like they do indeed want to make some alterations to the design.. things like "improved compatibility with protective equipment". Maybe this means arm pockets?  

Does anyone know if the changes to the AR uniform will also happen to the TW version?


----------



## Arctic Acorn (28 Apr 2006)

Hopefully the troops coming back who have used the sleeve pockets on the AR uniform will generate enough positive 'press' to facilitate a changeover on the TW uniform. I do not see that happening quickly, though. Maybe the MKIII combats...?

 :dontpanic:


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Apr 2006)

This may be common knowledge but talking with one of the troops going over soon, they said that they were told to take the inside pocket out of the cargo shirt pocket and sew it on the sleeve.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (28 Apr 2006)

Would be a good idea.....seeing...as you cant get to your pockets when your wearing your Body armour and TV and everything else!!! You think they would have thought about that long ago!!!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 Apr 2006)

The UCR's have been put in as far back as Roto 0


----------



## buzgo (5 May 2006)

Who did they interview about the small pack system? Have you guys tried to carry any weight in the damned thing? I'm 6'2" and when I have it loaded and I'm wearing it, the 'waist' belt is up above my frigging belly, and the shoulder straps slide off of my shoulders. Its acceptable as a book or gym bag, but I think thats about it...


----------



## Bobbyoreo (9 May 2006)

I'm only 5 11 and its fine on me full loaded, but I can see what your saying..it does ride high!!!


----------



## MJP (9 May 2006)

Yes but have you worn it fully loaded (and I mean fully loaded) with plates, frag vest and your tac-vest?  IMHO (and my Platoons it seems) that the bag isn't cut out for even overnight trips and we all carry our rucks overseas now even for small trips.

Great cadpat book bag though......


----------



## foerestedwarrior (9 May 2006)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> and the shoulder straps slide off of my shoulders.



Thats why there is a sternum strap.


----------



## Bomber (9 May 2006)

Same guy that designed the Small PAck is the designer of the new ruck, get ready.....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 May 2006)

Oh you mean that ruck that has been trialed for 10 years?


----------



## buzgo (9 May 2006)

I've worn the cadpat ruck that certain CF SOF types have, and that seems to be a pretty sweet pack. However, I don't think that its the CTS ruck - does anyone know?


----------



## Bomber (9 May 2006)

Yes, that very ruck....

Does it have exceptionally stiff "ribs" on the back pad, kind of like a really well defined 6 pack?  If so, then yes, that be her.  I also know that we sent a bunch of them to "those guys" and they weren't overly thrilled with them.  BUt they wouldn;t give them back, the more people change, the more they stay the same.


----------



## Bomber (9 May 2006)

I also replaced all the drawstrings on my trial one with boot laces, makes the openings about 3 times larger.  Only a Tetris wizard can pack it with the original strings.


----------



## buzgo (9 May 2006)

The one I have seen appears to come in woodland dpm as well... Perhaps an earlier trial version? Why we wouldn't just contract Arcteryx or MEC to do a pack, I'll never understand (well I do understand how projects in Ottawa work... so nevermind.) They could even just scrap it now and buy Kifaru of the rack...


----------



## KevinB (9 May 2006)

Bomber -- Keep in mind that Kifaru does CADPAT versions TW and AR for some people...


----------



## fourninerzero (10 May 2006)

MJP said:
			
		

> Yes but have you worn it fully loaded (and I mean fully loaded) with plates, frag vest and your tac-vest?  IMHO (and my Platoons it seems) that the bag isn't cut out for even overnight trips and we all carry our rucks overseas now even for small trips.
> 
> Great cadpat book bag though......



We were doing some training with the old Vietnam style frag vests (no plates) and TVs, and with only a fleece and stealth suit in my small pack and it did not work or fit well. The arm straps seemed too short to work, and the pack didn't work well or feel good with even that small amount of stuff in it. Awkward would be the best descriptor IMO. I would not want to carry that thing around loaded up with all the protective gear. I echo what some of the taller guys were saying about it too. I'm 6'2" and the bloody waist belt does up around my lower ribs, and forge even wearing the belt if I'm wearing a TV with it. although it does work well for a laptop/school bag...my Toshiba A50 fits perfect in the radio pouch.... :
Edit for spelling


----------



## Bobbyoreo (10 May 2006)

"Yes but have you worn it fully loaded (and I mean fully loaded) with plates, frag vest and your tac-vest?  IMHO (and my Platoons it seems) that the bag isn't cut out for even overnight trips and we all carry our rucks overseas now even for small trips.

Great cadpat book bag though......"

Your right Ive never worn it with Body armour.....but with Tack vest and jacket is seems fine....but all different body types and sizes...so its hard to please everyone!!! I also cant see it keeping up with the use that is required.


----------



## Bartok5 (10 May 2006)

I would strongly encourage everyone who has questions or concerns regarding CTS products and production/issue timelines to send their comments directly to the project personnel here:  http://www.army.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/8/8_e.asp

Perhaps if more people write in, the CTS staff will acquire a greater appreciation for the manifest disatisfaction that their inadquate designs and molasses-like development/procurement/fielding process has engendered within the "pointy end" of the field force.  

Sadly, there is no "discussion forum" per se, nor are the  e-mails sent to the CTS staff available for viewing and comment.  For all we know, our e-mail comments will promptly end up in "File 13".   Still, you can't bitch if you don't at least make an effort.  Heck, even sending an e-mail with links to some of the more "controversial" CTS threads on this site might cause a few folks to sit up and take more notice of what the field force actually thinks.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for the CADPAT Goretex rain gear that my Airforce bretheren have been wearing for the past 5 years.  It has been raining for the past 2 days here in Dundurn.  Every second soldier in the unit seems to be wearing a $220 Stealth Suit purchased at their own expense.  Go figure.  Hmmm - if project funding is the problem, you'd think that CTS would at least allow soldiers to purchase the "unobtainium" CADPAT rainsuit direct from the manufacturer based on proof of current service.  It can't be all that much more expensive than a Stealth Suit.....


----------



## McG (10 May 2006)

Hatchet Man said:
			
		

> ... at least they are looking at some form of "underarmour" type of shirt to wear under the combat shirt.





			
				MJP said:
			
		

> Not really an underarmour shirt per se but just a better T-shirt than the current cotton one.  We did the first trials as did the 3rd Bn just last fall.  Underarmour is not allowed to be worn anymore due to the melting/shrinkage effect it has when exposed to high heat ie: explosions


Here is the catch.  I don't think you can get something that offers the comfort of underarmour without loosing the fire protection of the cotton shirt.  Thinking back to Op Peregrine, cotton shirts were the recommended undergarment with NOMEX.

There is a trade-off to be made.  One shirt is less comfortable and the other may melt to your skin and cause greater injury in the fireball of an SVBIED attack.

. . . but, does the rest of the uniform offer us any better fire protection?  Underarmour was banned by the US Army (who has non-melting & fire resistant uniforms) because it was the weak link in protecting US soldiers.  Where do our uniforms stand for resistance to melting or fire?


----------



## McG (10 May 2006)

MPSHIELD said:
			
		

> The good news is, according to the presentation, everyone in the LF might be issued the CAMELBAK (just waiting for funding and approval).


It is also compatible with the Tac Vest (attaches to the back) but is less compatable with purchased chest-rigs.  AR CADPAT covers already exist and both are in issue in Afghanistan.


----------



## DBA (10 May 2006)

They can only buy so much each year with their allowance so spend a lot of time thinking about what to spend it on. If the money for item X isn't going to be budgeted for 5 years it makes little sense to decide what to get in 6 months and have it become dated in the 4 1/2 year wait before it's fielded. Of course with 5 years to play with they start doing some really odd things just because they have the time and need to look busy.


----------



## Bomber (10 May 2006)

To bad about the lame rules regarding the use of Cadpat, or else Peerless could just start selling CADPAT stealth suits, make it tax deductable, and everyone wins.


----------



## LordOsborne (10 May 2006)

DBA said:
			
		

> *They can only buy so much each year with their allowance so spend a lot of time thinking about what to spend it on*. If the money for item X isn't going to be budgeted for 5 years it makes little sense to decide what to get in 6 months and have it become dated in the 4 1/2 year wait before it's fielded. Of course with 5 years to play with they start doing some really odd things just because they have the time and need to look busy.



I was told a similar story when i tried to get my IECS jacket and pants from stores - apparently the army's budget for clothing has been soaked up because of the afghanistan deployment, while the air force was able to set aside money for those items, and thus were able to get the cadpat rain jacket.

My thoughts on the smallpack is that it's better than what i had before, which was nothing. my experience is limited at best, but i've done a few exercises with the smallpack and a 522 inside. the 522 fits decently, and i'd much rather use the SPS for carrying the 522 than the issued manpack carrier, since i have some space left over. I'm 6'3", and i agree that the pack is much too high, just as i'm sure it is for many other taller soldiers. i found that the straps really dug into my shoulders and collarbone when i was wearing the SPS with 522, a TV and the PASGT vest. it always seems too heavy, no matter what i have inside of it. with the extra pouches on, i found it to be very bulky. my final complaint is that the top pouch inside of the flap is too small, and difficult to acess. (something like the pouch on the 82 ruck would have been better, IMO.). 

just my 0.02


----------



## MPSHIELD (13 May 2006)

Bomber said:
			
		

> To bad about the lame rules regarding the use of Cadpat, or else Peerless could just start selling CADPAT stealth suits, make it tax deductable, and everyone wins.



WOW stop it!!! That makes too much sense! LOL. Begs the question why did CTS not just take the same design as the stealth suit they currently make that has been field tested, proven and used by soldiers on operations and exercises. All CTS would need to do is throw a few more pockets. Velcro tab for brassard and velcro flag and you got yourself a CADPAT Rain suit! CTS should have been jumping at the that opportunity years ago as they would have had hundreds, if not thousands of solders who have trialed purchased this jacket at there own expense, costing CTS little in R and D. 

Oh wait, I better stop it, I might start making sense!

OK I'm done ranting!


----------



## Bomber (13 May 2006)

Add 3 years of trials per pocket you put on, how many do you want?
Stick with what they got, simple. Someone send an email to O'Connor


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 May 2006)

The small pack is a lot better than the old NBC bag in my opinion. My only complaint is wearing the small pack when your wearing your tacvest, armor AND ballastic plates.  Makes it pretty uncomfortable and awkward.

I'm told the airforce got the new cadpat rain jackets because they were happy with the version they were presented where as the army send the jacket back to get a few more modificatins done to it.


----------

