# An Arctic Army without Arctic Boots, only in Canada (From: Brown Boots)



## dale622 (12 Jan 2014)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I will post up the CFSM ref tomorrow;  a CO has no authority to authorize an LPO for footwear (or any other thing that is system-issued - CANFORGEN a couple years ago on that), but footwear is, and always has been covered in the CFSM - therefore no CO authority is required in the first place.
> 
> If it is a sizing issue, Base Supply is _obligated_ to provide to member via custom or LPO.
> 
> ...



Can we apply this to winter footwear as well? Seeing as the CF thought prudent to throw out our winter boots without having replacements.


----------



## dale622 (12 Jan 2014)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, seriously, is the winter footwear now an issue as well?



I could get a very large list of soldiers that were turned away from being issued mukluks simply because they are all gone. Talking with a supply tech a few months back they were told to dispose of their stock. So to the dumpster they went.

So we are prepping for winter warfare trg and my troops can't get winter gear.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (12 Jan 2014)

bananaman said:
			
		

> I could get a very large list of soldiers that were turned away from being issued mukluks simply because they are all gone. Talking with a supply tech a few months back they were told to dispose of their stock. So to the dumpster they went.
> 
> So we are prepping for winter warfare trg and my troops can't get winter gear.



They were throwing them out?


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Jan 2014)

> And, seriously, is the winter footwear now an issue as well?



Mukluks no longer available to be ordered, so units that need to procure mukluks say, for arctic survival kits on CF aircraft, cannot equip this survival kits with the regulatory (CF Flying Orders, issued by the CDS) mandated gear.  It's not like aircraft have ever gone down in the North and people needed warm survival gear...oh wait...

For some items, the system is clearly no longer responsive.

Regards
G2G


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jan 2014)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, seriously, is the winter footwear now an issue as well?



Who is in charge of this organization - it appears no one is.

This speaks volumes of our organization - and they are not good. :facepalm:


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Jan 2014)

Its probably because they don't have a full Colonel running the Mukluk Replacement Project to identify and solve the problem. Better promote someone.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Feb 2014)

But we can now wear OD fleece toques in garrison and the field. 

This only took about 10 years........ :facepalm:


----------



## Towards_the_gap (5 Feb 2014)

Even close to a year from when I released, the CF still retains the ability to completely dumbfound me with the monty-python-esque behaviour of a minority of quite clearly mentally deficient persons in positions of command. 

Sadly it is this minority who frustrate those with the passion and smarts to be excellent soldiers to the point where they release or simply shrug and surrender their wish to make things better to the mindless bureaucracy of the 'borg', the same 'borg' which throws out mukluks at a time when the main geopolitical concern of the government of the day is arctic sovereignty.

And those with that same passion and skill who stay and try to make things better are only more frustrated at every turn by the growing majority of idiots. It's like a reverse darwinism of numbskulls.

The mind boggles.


----------



## Grimey (5 Feb 2014)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> Even close to a year from when I released, the CF still retains the ability to completely dumbfound me with the monty-python-esque behaviour of a minority of quite clearly mentally deficient persons in positions of command.
> 
> Sadly it is this minority who frustrate those with the passion and smarts to be excellent soldiers to the point where they release or simply shrug and surrender their wish to make things better to the mindless bureaucracy of the 'borg', the same 'borg' which throws out mukluks at a time when the main geopolitical concern of the government of the day is arctic sovereignty.
> 
> ...



I couldn't have said that better myself as applied to the Mar Eng trade and the main reason i released 14 months ago.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (5 Feb 2014)

My BMQ field and range ex were both in the dead cold prairie of Suffield, the wind cuts into you like a thousand little daggers. Wet Weathers didn't even help.

Half of my platoon had to borrow mukluks, Arctic jackets (the old fur lined parkas) from a cadet unit because the supply system is literally shitting the bed in all aspects. The mukluks were returned to the cadets, but with BMQL starting in the next couple weeks, some of those same people will be without proper winter footwear for the last 2-3 months of bitter Alberta winter.


----------



## MJP (5 Feb 2014)

bananaman said:
			
		

> . Talking with a supply tech a few months back they were told to dispose of their stock. So to the dumpster they went.
> 
> So we are prepping for winter warfare trg and my troops can't get winter gear.



I missed this post.  As you are from 1CER I am pretty familar with your support folks.  I am not in clothing but do deal with the disposal of items once they are declared unservicable or surplus (or did until recently).  I can tell you categorically, no one threw out serviceable Mukluks period full stop.  We did remove a bunch that were unserviceable and too worn to be re-issued which is normal practice in clothing.  





			
				bananaman said:
			
		

> So we are prepping for winter warfare trg and my troops can't get winter gear.





			
				RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> Half of my platoon had to borrow mukluks, Arctic jackets (the old fur lined parkas) from a cadet unit because the supply system is literally ******** the bed in all aspects. The mukluks were returned to the cadets, but with BMQL starting in the next couple weeks, some of those same people will be without proper winter footwear for the last 2-3 months of bitter Alberta winter.



Mukluks are being controlled at the Bde and Div level and can't be issued without release.  Clothing stores has no control over that process.


I agree with with many a poster here that procurement system has shit the bed, but the issue lies at the upper end not your local folks.  I also agree with G2G that the supply system itself is totally unwieldy and slow to respond to issues like this.  There has to be a better way.


----------



## devil39 (5 Feb 2014)

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> My BMQ field and range ex were both in the dead cold prairie of Suffield, the wind cuts into you like a thousand little daggers. Wet Weathers didn't even help.
> 
> Half of my platoon had to borrow mukluks, Arctic jackets (the old fur lined parkas) from a cadet unit because the supply system is literally ******** the bed in all aspects. The mukluks were returned to the cadets, but with BMQL starting in the next couple weeks, some of those same people will be without proper winter footwear for the last 2-3 months of bitter Alberta winter.



Really?  No mukluks?  How is that possible?  And winter jackets?  C'mon, we have enough jackets in the system and throw a civvy down fill under anything we own and  you are good for minus infinity.

The old mukluks were awesome and have been for ever (i'm dating myself with 30 years service and still have them) and can't imagine how we'd want to improve other than make them waterproof.    We've spent the last 10 years in the desert....not like we wore the mukluks out?


----------



## RedcapCrusader (5 Feb 2014)

devil39 said:
			
		

> Really?  No mukluks?  How is that possible?  And winter jackets?  C'mon, we have enough jackets in the system and throw a civvy down fill under anything we own and  you are good for minus infinity.
> 
> The old mukluks were awesome and have been for ever (i'm dating myself with 30 years service and still have them) and can't imagine how we'd want to improve other than make them waterproof.    We've spent the last 10 years in the desert....not like we wore the mukluks out?



We were given one of two answers: "We can no longer issue them" (mukluks) or "There isn't any stock right now. You'll get it when you get it" (IECS Parka and pants)


----------



## MJP (5 Feb 2014)

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> We were given one of two answers: "We can no longer issue them" (mukluks) or "There isn't any stock right now. You'll get it when you get it" (IECS Parka and pants)



Well they were probably right on both counts but I wouldn't hold my breath getting them soon.


----------



## CBH99 (5 Feb 2014)

*I couldn't have said that better myself as applied to the Mar Eng trade and the main reason i released 14 months ago.*

This too is also the reason I released.  I quite enjoyed my time in the CF and really enjoyed the people I worked with.  I liked having a focused mission in which there was some motivation to get through all the courses and take more, because there was a tangible benefit at the end of the tunnel.

I released for this reason as well.  I ended up so frustrated with the bloated and completely inefficient monster that drags us down and holds us back - while smart, motivated, well intentioned people who want to improve things are told "No.  This is how its done."   

Anyhow, to the above highlighted comment, +1


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Feb 2014)

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> \Half of my platoon had to borrow mukluks, *Arctic jackets (the old fur lined parkas) from a cadet unit* because the supply system is literally ******** the bed in all aspects.


And _that_ supply'll be gone eventually when Cadets will have to buy their own winter wear.

The taxpayer in me goes :facepalm: at the title of this thread - I guess those way up the food chain missed the photo ops and exercises in the North.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Feb 2014)

devil39 said:
			
		

> Really?  No mukluks?  How is that possible?  And winter jackets?  C'mon, we have enough jackets in the system and throw a civvy down fill under anything we own and  you are good for minus infinity.
> 
> The old mukluks were awesome and have been for ever (i'm dating myself with 30 years service and still have them) and can't imagine how we'd want to improve other than make them waterproof.    We've spent the last 10 years in the desert....not like we wore the mukluks out?



The old mukluks were awesome.  No need to make them waterproof as they and not designed to wear when it is 'wet'.  Making them waterproof would only make them keep the sweat in, which would defeat the purpose and practicality of them.   Creating a need where there is none, in order to provide jobs (R&D) is a waste of money and resources.  E.R.C. touches on this subject in the Canadian Military/Defence procurement process (Mega Thread) thread.

If it ain't broke....Don't fix it.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (5 Feb 2014)

there is a ppt going around from DLR showing new mukluks and also they seem to indicate that neos style boots will be avail through the system too....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Feb 2014)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> there is a ppt going around from DLR showing new mukluks and also they seem to indicate that neos style boots will be avail through the system too....



Typical timelines might indicate you'll be playing in the snow, without proper footwear, for about five years then.

If the new combat boot fiasco is any indication though........................ :


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Feb 2014)

You guys gotta have more faith!

A request was sent out to units to have anyone who is unfit for field duty return their mucklucks, bib overalls and some other winter kit.

Problem solved.


----------



## Northalbertan (5 Feb 2014)

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> My BMQ field and range ex were both in the dead cold prairie of Suffield, the wind cuts into you like a thousand little daggers. Wet Weathers didn't even help.
> 
> Half of my platoon had to borrow mukluks, Arctic jackets (the old fur lined parkas) from a cadet unit because the supply system is literally ******** the bed in all aspects. The mukluks were returned to the cadets, but with BMQL starting in the next couple weeks, some of those same people will be without proper winter footwear for the last 2-3 months of bitter Alberta winter.



My cadet corps has been buying surplus gear for years (Crown auction site).  I have plenty of mukluks.  I'm 60km north of Wainwright, give me a shout if we can help out.  Only half kidding, if they really can't get the mukluks do get ahold of me.

Northalbertan


----------



## George Wallace (5 Feb 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> You guys gotta have more faith!
> 
> A request was sent out to units to have anyone who is unfit for field duty return their mucklucks, bib overalls and some other winter kit.
> 
> Problem solved.



Then what would they wear when they go hunting?    >


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Feb 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Typical timelines might indicate you'll be playing in the snow, without proper footwear, for about five years then.


You eternal, starry-eyed optimist, you ....


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Feb 2014)

I think this is indicative of the CFSS as whole. 

We have gone from an organization that warehouses supplies to one that stores some stuff, relies on LPOs way to much, and now just try's to put out fires as they arise. 

Its my belief that we have made supply much more complicated than it has to be.  DRMIS is and MIMS was an example of this.  It shouldn't take multiple transactions to order or receive a part, which is our bread and butter.  I contend supply consists of issues, receipts, orders and adjustments. Why we make it more complicated is beyond me. 

An example of how simple supply can be: 

I was in CT last week.  I needed a sight and rail system for my new shotgun.  My local CT didn't have any in stock.  The clerk looked around the local area none there either.  So she place an order and had 10 ea delivered in 7 days.  That's excellent logistics if you ask me.  It took her 5 mins to locate, order and set up delivery for a part AND she got spares. 

Perhaps we have gone too far in trying to run our logistics like a money making company.  I know its cliche but no operation will succeed if your logistics train breaks down.  We came close in AFG WRT to ammo supplies and I don't think we have learned from it.  

Some of the older members of the forum may be able to shed light but I am told our logistics system used to be excellent and the envy of others.  At what point did we lose this focus and how can we get it back ?  Well my answer is a massive shift in military mind set and huge reworking of the logbranch as a whole.


----------



## acen (5 Feb 2014)

At least it's easy to source Neos (and many have already done so), but we'll certainly need to re-invent the wheel with them and come up with a more "canadian" option at 5x the cost and produced in procurement's favorite locale. Having a better sole would be a welcomed addition though. The winter Neos are beautiful but I doubt we would opt for that style given what the mukluk replacement is trying to accomplish.

With Mukluks, finding a COTS alternative becomes a little more difficult unless we opt for a Sorel style boot, and not too many would pass the RSM smell test quite like Neos do if they were purchased privately.

Does anyone have any photos of the assault overboot (the neos-esque boot) or the new mukluk?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (5 Feb 2014)

I'll see if I can upload the ppt later....


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Feb 2014)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think this is indicative of the CFSS as whole.
> 
> We have gone from an organization that warehouses supplies to one that stores some stuff, relies on LPOs way to much, and now just try's to put out fires as they arise.
> 
> ...



Tar, 

Perhaps you should be supplied by a money-making organization.  Last I heard CT was not a charity.


----------



## Halifax Tar (5 Feb 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Tar,
> 
> Perhaps you should be supplied by a money-making organization.  Last I heard CT was not a charity.



Your right totally right but perhaps we need to realize that to do things like moving and providing supplies costs money and shouldn't be nickled and dimed.  You want to watch a battle group fall apart, kill its ability to get supplies.  

The whole run like a business model doesn't work to me.  We aren't a business and we don't produce profits and if we run under a business premise then people are only concerned about maintaining a budget, who cares if the job actually gets accomplished we came in under budget, phew!  To me that's terrible way for a war sustaining organization to work. 

Its just my opinion.  I would prefer us to be totally focused on and able to sustain the pointy end's ability close with and destroy the enemy.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Feb 2014)

Facetious comments aside,

I agree entirely that without a solid supply chain nuffink moves.  I don't share the belief that your supply chain shouldn't be run like a business. It should.  But the defining metric should not be the budget but the capability.

Budgets are important, but so are bullets, beans, bandages, blankets and batteries.  

No business shuts down operations just because the budget is stressed.  The budget and the model are adjusted to match the reality of operations.  Budgets are tools for planning and measurement.


----------



## ArmyRick (5 Feb 2014)

I have a simple solution (might be knee jerk reaction, be warned)

1. Reduce Regular Force Regiments to 2 x battalions each (lets stop pretending we can field 9 x battalions), wave a magical wand and re-allocate funds towards supplying and clothing the troops (better to have well equipped 6 battalions worth of troops!)
2. Reduce the P Res recruiting to almost nothing (oh wait, we are already doing that)
3. God forbid, GUT HQ elements at all levels
4. Seriously, seriously, seriously, if your like old and ancient and have been in forever, and have no real position (yes you dinosaurs know who you are), please get out. Your kit could be useful and the money for your wages better spent.
5. Gut the HQ elements (Mentioned twice, driving a point home)

Like I said, a few ideas to cough up some quick money and shift money around the budget

Oh, of course, Really need to fix the procurement system. I don't know how to do that, not my thing. Supply Techs should be all over it.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (5 Feb 2014)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Oh, of course, Really need to fix the procurement system. I don't know how to do that, not my thing. Supply Techs should be all over it.



Don't worry, the government is here to help: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/SOMNIA/article16703809/


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Feb 2014)

Well that's nice and all,.....but does anyone think this could just another layer of wasted money? ?


----------



## Journeyman (5 Feb 2014)

How can you even think that?  

As it notes in the article:


> The government has already placed two troubled procurements under the management of secretariats at Public Works: fighter jets and fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft.


 Look how awesomely those projects have advanced.   :nod:


The good news is, look at all the procurement-related PYs we'll recoup.  Those HQs _will_ shrink in size commensurate with these positions being no longer required, right?


----------



## Loachman (5 Feb 2014)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> 1. Reduce Regular Force Regiments to 2 x battalions each (lets stop pretending we can field 9 x battalions), wave a magical wand and re-allocate funds towards supplying and clothing the troops (better to have well equipped 6 battalions worth of troops!)



And before you know it, you'll have six under-strength and under-equipped battalions instead of nine and a couple more/bigger headquarters in order to squeeze the last few drops of efficiency from them.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (5 Feb 2014)

acen said:
			
		

> At least it's easy to source Neos (and many have already done so), but we'll certainly need to re-invent the wheel with them and come up with a more "canadian" option at 5x the cost and produced in procurement's favorite locale. Having a better sole would be a welcomed addition though. The winter Neos are beautiful but I doubt we would opt for that style given what the mukluk replacement is trying to accomplish.
> 
> With Mukluks, finding a COTS alternative becomes a little more difficult unless we opt for a Sorel style boot, and not too many would pass the RSM smell test quite like Neos do if they were purchased privately.
> 
> Does anyone have any photos of the assault overboot (the neos-esque boot) or the new mukluk?



May or may not be the actual equipment we get....only showing the winter items


----------



## Nfld Sapper (5 Feb 2014)

con't


----------



## acen (5 Feb 2014)

Thanks NFLD Sapper, it looks as though we could be moving towards real solutions for some kit deficiencies that we have, though my first thought is just how we are going to screw some of these up. Have I become jaded, or has there been a paradigm shift in procurement in regards to what someone on the ground wants/needs? We know how terrible the new snowshoes are, the new gore-tex gloves, the cadpat leather gloves and other CTS systems, perhaps "sense, common, C1" is being issued out once again after the national shortage that lasted the better part of CTS's lifespan. Next up, a complete revamp of the load carriage systems that has been in the works (tac vest, rucksack, and small pack replacements). I'll surely have a CD (7 years in now) by the time I see some of this kit, but it will be welcomed. Until then I'll just hope that I can keep using my privately purchased counterparts.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (5 Feb 2014)

Some of those items are light years ahead of what I got issued when I got in...


----------



## Journeyman (5 Feb 2014)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Some of those items are light years ahead of what I got issued when I got in...


Conversely, lots of people still like the 64-pattern ruck, and my old trail snowshoes and mukluks work just fine.   :nod:


----------



## Nfld Sapper (5 Feb 2014)

Didn't have the joy of using the 64 ruck, still got those trail snowshoes (in addition to the newer ones) and mukluks (rarely wear them)


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Feb 2014)

The power point matches what a supply tech at clothing stores told me where I am, that the Mukluks were being reworked. That said they were telling people to triple sock with wet weather boots to stay warm and that it would be just as good. dumb idea in my opinion to discontinue issue of an item before the replacement is ready


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Feb 2014)

The mukluks we were issued worked just fine. 


So which "good idea fairy" decided they needed to be redesigned?


----------



## Tibbson (5 Feb 2014)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I think this is indicative of the CFSS as whole.
> 
> We have gone from an organization that warehouses supplies to one that stores some stuff, relies on LPOs way to much, and now just try's to put out fires as they arise.
> 
> ...



I've always been lead to believe a lot of our issues developed around the time the government determined that we were required to follow all Treasury Board guidelines and that the CAF was unworthy of having their own way of doing things.  Now we just get bogged down in the TB process and have to bear the brunt of the criticism without being able to "fight back".


----------



## Tibbson (5 Feb 2014)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> 4. Seriously, seriously, seriously, if your like old and ancient and have been in forever, and have no real position (yes you dinosaurs know who you are), please get out. Your kit could be useful and the money for your wages better spent.



Um...just what leads you to believe that those of us who have been in for some time are unworthy of continuing to serve?  I pass every BFT in the lead group(s), I pass every Expres Test and FIT test they require I do.  I provide the best advice, leadership and guidance I can while performing my duties and I have a wealth of experience and trade knowledge to share.  The moment I can no longer provide all of that to the CAF, I'll retire and get out of your way.  Until that time, keep striving to reach our level.  It must be earned on merit not by attrition.


----------



## acen (6 Feb 2014)

No doubt that we've made great strides (or strides at least), but that doesnt mean they can't be light years behind at the same time. Some things just work and there is little need to change them, so there is no real point in doing so (ground sheet for example, simple but effective, and actually has undergone a few changes in regards to the material used and it's weight, but these have been seamless changes), but I think there was a quantum leap ahead in the military gear world as a result of being at war for over a decade. The COTS items that are available now are far and above what we could design internally (especially with the good idea fairies tasked with the job), and generally are cheaper to purchase as well. I wouldnt quote this figure and it may all be hearsay, but I was told the CTS ruck cost approximately $800 a piece. For that kind of money, we could have outfitted everyone with a Mystery Ranch ruck, without volume discounts and with cash to spare. Think of how many colonels and MWO's had their salaries covered for the better part of a decade+ and the COTS option is an even bigger bargain.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Feb 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> That said they were telling people to triple sock with wet weather boots to stay warm and that it would be just as good.



Who was recommending that?  Sounds like a way to make the feet sweat and then freeze....


----------



## acen (6 Feb 2014)

Not only that, but the three socks would restrict blood flow so much that you wouldnt get warm blood to the feet in the first place! Seems like whoever suggested this has never actually tried the feasibility of their brilliant idea.


----------



## dale622 (6 Feb 2014)

Maybe I'm just cranky because it's PER season... but our kit right now is a joke. We claim that we want to be hard charging into supporting arctic sovereignty and yet we don't have any vehicles that can travel the arctic for 12 months of the year. With the exception of a BV 206. Those however are in an absolutely junk state. I'm so glad we spent a boatload of money on a stupid stealth snowmobile though. 

I have now heard so many stories of troops returning from clothing without being issued what they need to survive up north. I'm not blaming anyone in supply at all. I want that said... But my troops can't wear f**king Mk IV combat boots with double socks in -40 for weeks at a time! This is bloody outrageous! The basic bits of kit done well is what makes all the difference to the guy on the ground. We as an army "make do" with a whole lot but at some point something has to give, and some s**thead needs to hang.

Well enough of a rant from me. Time to go see how the divestment of our B vehicle fleet is going.


----------



## MilEME09 (6 Feb 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Who was recommending that?  Sounds like a way to make the feet sweat and then freeze....



airforce supply tech posted to our clothing store


----------



## Loachman (6 Feb 2014)

Invite him along, perhaps via the appropriate chain-of-command, to confirm the wisdom of his advice.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (6 Feb 2014)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> airforce supply tech posted to our clothing store



I'm sure he was saying that tongue in cheek.. he's moved up to LPO section now so you won't see him at the counter anymore.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Feb 2014)

That was quick.....


----------



## Bzzliteyr (6 Feb 2014)

Oh no, completely unrelated actually.  He was already going there...


----------



## Fabius (6 Feb 2014)

And we wonder why we have a retention problem...
Although I would not bill this as a primary factor, the shortages and lack of basic kit sure is a contributing one to our retention problems.


----------



## blacktriangle (6 Feb 2014)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I have a simple solution (might be knee jerk reaction, be warned)
> 
> 1. Reduce Regular Force Regiments to 2 x battalions each (lets stop pretending we can field 9 x battalions), wave a magical wand and re-allocate funds towards supplying and clothing the troops (better to have well equipped 6 battalions worth of troops!)
> 2. Reduce the P Res recruiting to almost nothing (oh wait, we are already doing that)
> ...



I agree on all points. I have long thought we could do "more with less". This however would require people to actually sit down and discuss what critical tasks we want the the CAF to complete, and what things we're willing to do without. As others have said before, defence isn't taken that seriously in Canada, so I won't hold my breath. 

I don't think Canada will choose to afford a world class mechanized army. At the same time, I don't think we can afford NOT to have a modern Navy and AF. I will agree with Loachman that if we start cutting BN's, someone will still find a way to under-man and equip the remaining units. Something has to give though, but I feel we will all suffer equally. 

As for the reserves, I have no knowledge of what they end up costing us...but I do feel that certain jobs (Armd, SIGINT/EW...various techs etc) may best be left to the Reg F due to training times and equipment shortages.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Feb 2014)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I agree on all points.



I wouldn't agree with all of ArmyRick's points as quickly as you have.  Why not?  Those points were covered already by a few other posters, such as Jim.  I felt that ArmyRick's suggestions were rude and ignorant of what the facts may actually be.  




			
				Spectrum said:
			
		

> As for the reserves, I have no knowledge of what they end up costing us...but I do feel that certain jobs (Armd, SIGINT/EW...various techs etc) may best be left to the Reg F due to training times and equipment shortages.



As you admit to having no knowledge as to costs of Reserves, you might as well admit to lack of knowledge about their training as well, and NOT have made a comment.


----------



## blacktriangle (6 Feb 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I wouldn't agree with all of ArmyRick's points as quickly as you have.  Why not?  Those points were covered already by a few other posters, such as Jim.  I felt that ArmyRick's suggestions were rude and ignorant of what the facts may actually be.
> 
> 
> As you admit to having no knowledge as to costs of Reserves, you might as well admit to lack of knowledge about their training as well, and NOT have made a comment.



Well that's your freedom to do so George. But my freedoms allow me to agree with who I see fit, thanks. 

If I may ask (and you may freely decline to answer) which of his points did you find rude or ignorant?  

As to your second point, while I may not forecast budgets for the PRes, I have both worked as a reservist, and as a RegF member at a PRes unit. I just question the validity of certain trades in the reserves. It's not a res/reg thing. I have done both, so have you. It's not an argument, just an honest thought to consider.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Feb 2014)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> If I may ask (and you may freely decline to answer) which of his points did you find rude or ignorant?



Probably this one:

"4. Seriously, seriously, seriously, if your like old and ancient and have been in forever, and have no real position (yes you dinosaurs know who you are), please get out. Your kit could be useful and the money for your wages better spent."

It *was* rude and ignorant of knowledge. Many, myself included, have served to CRA in full capacity ensuring skills, knowledge and mentorship were maintained. Anybody and anyone in agreement, that denigrates that type of service is a jerk and can go piss up a rope.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Feb 2014)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> As to your second point, while I may not forecast budgets for the PRes, I have both worked as a reservist, and as a RegF member at a PRes unit. I just question the validity of certain trades in the reserves. It's not a res/reg thing. I have done both, so have you. It's not an argument, just an honest thought to consider.



In the Reserves, as with the Reg Force, not all Trades are created equal; and even broken down further by: not all units being created equal.  What a certain Trade may do in one unit, they may have totally different operating criteria in another unit.  If you have a broad and lengthy period of service, you will see these minute details/differences over time.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (6 Feb 2014)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> May or may not be the actual equipment we get....only showing the winter items



Thanks for the pics!

We need more of those old snow shoes. They just work. Neos? Sure! It will save wear on my personal pair. New mukluks? Interesting... Mittens and gloves. Excellent. If they buy some Outdoor research gloves like in the picture and don't attempt to invent their own, I would wear them and save the wear on my personal pair as well.


----------



## cupper (6 Feb 2014)

You all realize that the new arctic kit will arrive just in time for global warming to render them obsolete.


----------



## ballz (6 Feb 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Conversely, lots of people still like the 64-pattern ruck, and my old trail snowshoes and mukluks work just fine.   :nod:



Especially the frame...

Funny you mention that, I saw the same PowerPoint that those pictures are from, and they have a picture of a Mystery Ranch rucksack in there...

My impression of those slides is that it was somebody's gucci kit wish list, but given the way our procurement system works we may end up with something that looks kind of like a Neo overboot, but it will be made by a different company that "met the specifications" for the lowest price. It will be heavy, probably made of rubber, and in 4 weeks or the first time you wear them in a swamp (whichever comes first) will no longer be waterproof.

I am guessing if we try to copy a Mystery Ranch rucksack it will be 30 lbs heavier (empty), have 20% of the life span / reliability, and probably have something as equally unimpressive as the daisy chain system on it.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Feb 2014)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> As for the reserves, I have no knowledge of what they end up costing us...but I do feel that certain jobs (Armd, SIGINT/EW...various techs etc) may best be left to the Reg F due to training times and equipment shortages.



Last budget I saw had the Army Reserves allocation to all L2 budgets totaling 310 million.


----------



## MJP (6 Feb 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> My impression of those slides is that it was somebody's gucci kit wish list, but given the way our procurement system works we may end up with something that looks kind of like a Neo overboot, but it will be made by a different company that "met the specifications" for the lowest price. It will be heavy, probably made of rubber, and in 4 weeks or the first time you wear them in a swamp (whichever comes first) will no longer be waterproof.



That may very well be the case, as when we contract for something we don't ask for "NEO" boot or "DEWALT" power tools but rather give a set of requirements that the product must meet.  We can't make it look like we are writing the requirement so only one company can possibly make the cut.  There are exceptions to the rule (UOR, justified sole source, etc) but generally the process plays out that way.  The other problem is larger projects often get politicized and get given to a company as a regional offset or to give business to a Canadian company.

The thing that is in our favour sometimes is it isn't lowest bidder, but lowest compliant. Someone LPOing or running a project can pick the more expensive option because it fits the need better or may very well be less expensive in the long run.   But that means we need to define the need properly.   A poorly written SOW/SOR (Statement of Work/Requirements) often gives the purchasers little leeway.  If that happens and we go with the higher bid because it fits better then it becomes grounds for a compliant by a lower bidder.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Feb 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Last budget I saw had the Army Reserves allocation to all L2 budgets totaling 310 million.



... and the Reg F pay & allowances don't show at all.  Because if someone sees that $1.5B*, they might get ideas for other things to do with that money.

*$1.5B is my rough approximation of the Army's share of the ~$5B/year in Reg F P&A across the CAF.  The Army Res $310M includes both P&A and O&M; the $1.5B is only pay.  There are hundreds of millions more in O&M.  These also exclude things like ammo, spares and clothing, that are not paid out of the Army budget for either Regs or Res.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Feb 2014)

MJP said:
			
		

> If that happens and we go with the higher bid because it fits better then it becomes grounds for a _*compliant*_ by a lower bidder.



Yes, if the lower bidder is_ compliant_, they have a valid _complaint_.


----------



## McG (7 Feb 2014)

MJP said:
			
		

> The thing that is in our favour sometimes is it isn't lowest bidder, but lowest compliant.


Lowest compliant is fine for simple things.  Capital projects to introduce new equipment should tend toward selection criteria that allow us to spend more to get better while protecting us from paying a premium to get the top-end product which is only marginally better than its much less expensive nearest competitor.

Lowest Compliant limits the mileage that we get for our dollar.  Highest Scoring, Point Rated typically leads to throwing money away.  I like Highest Scoring, Point Rated Per Dollar; It requires more effort from the project staff, but it gets us more for each dollar we spend.

… but this is getting into the area of a different thread:  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26594.0.html


----------



## acen (7 Feb 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> Especially the frame...
> 
> Funny you mention that, I saw the same PowerPoint that those pictures are from, and they have a picture of a Mystery Ranch rucksack in there...
> 
> I am guessing if we try to copy a Mystery Ranch rucksack it will be 30 lbs heavier (empty), have 20% of the life span / reliability, and probably have something as equally unimpressive as the daisy chain system on it.



You may be surprised to hear that DLR is seriously looking at Mystery Ranch packs and that it's not just a gucci kit list. MR has already provided the frame (MR NICE Frame) for the C16 Optics bag and for many other organizations that fall under the CF's wing, so don't discount a genuine MR pack being in the realm of the possible (barring canadian procurement law etc etc).


----------



## Loachman (7 Feb 2014)

cupper said:
			
		

> You all realize that the new arctic kit will arrive just in time for global warming to render them obsolete.



Which will be sometime after the coming Little Ice Age, so, what, one or two centuries hence?

You win Cynic (Realist?) of the Decade.


----------



## rick7475 (18 Nov 2014)

Hello,

My son is currently taking his BMQ on the weekends in the reserves over the winter. The course is 60+ recruits and they do not have enough boots for everyone. He has to wear a pair of worn cadet boots that have holes in the bottom. Since he is infantry, and as a former infantry NCO, I know he needs good boots. The MWO of the course will allow them to purchase civilian boots for the course. There is a CANEX in town where some of the other older recruits are buying some pairs there (my son is 17 still in high school). My question is what are the best civilian equivalent boots we can buy for him, either at the CANEX (limited supply) or other places like Sale or Marks Work Warehouse. Thank you for any recommendations.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2014)

rick7475 said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> My son is currently taking his BMQ on the weekends in the reserves over the winter. The course is 60+ recruits and they do not have enough boots for everyone. He has to wear a pair of worn cadet boots that have holes in the bottom. Since he is infantry, and as a former infantry NCO, I know he needs good boots. The MWO of the course will allow them to purchase civilian boots for the course. There is a CANEX in town where some of the other older recruits are buying some pairs there (my son is 17 still in high school). My question is what are the best civilian equivalent boots we can buy for him, either at the CANEX (limited supply) or other places like Sale or Marks Work Warehouse. Thank you for any recommendations.


http://www.marks.com/shop/en/marks-marksdefaultsalescatalog/footwear/mens-footwear/mens-winter-boots

Take a look at the Wind River Transitional @ $104. 

I'm going to assume the Crown is going to reimburse for kit that's required but can't be issued?

I'd also question on what authority the Directing Staff has to issue such direction. If someone ends up with frostbite, because their boots aren't sufficient, who accepts the blame?


----------



## LightFighter (18 Nov 2014)

If all he needs to combat boots, I would stick with something like SWATs, Rocky S2Vs, Danners or similar brands. Those Windriver boots just seem like they would draw the wrong kind of attention due to the look/style of them and they aren't solid black.

Is your son only short combat boots, or is he short mukluks as well?


----------



## rick7475 (18 Nov 2014)

He is short boots. There is no reimbursement. He has mukluks. The SWAT ones have been mentioned before, but I will check the others ones. Thanks very much for the suggestions. Solid black is not a concern because when I picked him up other recruits had brown or tan colored boots. He has a shitload of other equipment, including the newest CADPAT with the bigger flag. Just not boots. I really appreciate everyone's help here on these boards.


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Nov 2014)

rick7475 said:
			
		

> He is short boots. There is no reimbursement. He has mukluks. The SWAT ones have been mentioned before, but I will check the others ones. Thanks very much for the suggestions. Solid black is not a concern because when I picked him up other recruits had brown or tan colored boots. He has a shitload of other equipment, including the newest CADPAT with the bigger flag. Just not boots. I really appreciate everyone's help here on these boards.



So we are unable to provide our troops with the most important item of personal kit: boots?

That is pretty Effed up. I apologize on behalf of all the people in the CF who give a crap!

FYI, these are awesome boots: http://www.ajbrooks.com/qs/product/40/6842/139808/0/0


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Nov 2014)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> So we are unable to provide our troops with the most important item of personal kit: boots?



It's been that way for at least 18 months, if not longer. How someone in the larger Chain of Command hasn't made this their largest priority, saddens me greatly.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Nov 2014)

rick7475 said:
			
		

> He is short boots. There is no reimbursement. He has mukluks. The SWAT ones have been mentioned before, but I will check the others ones. Thanks very much for the suggestions. Solid black is not a concern because when I picked him up other recruits had brown or tan colored boots. He has a shitload of other equipment, including the newest CADPAT with the bigger flag. Just not boots. I really appreciate everyone's help here on these boards.



This is not right and unacceptable. A person who has signed the line and joined should not have to purchase kit. Period. This is crap.

Personally I wear Danner boots for comfort and the price is reasonable.


----------



## GnyHwy (19 Nov 2014)

You never mentioned where he was doing his training i.e. prairie winters are too cold for regular boots. 

If he is in a moderate climate, regular boots should be fine, but I would consider goretex socks as well.

I'll echo the comments about not having the right kit issued.  Complete crap, and someone needs to get real busy ordering the required kit.  I hear Purolator has an effective delivery service.


----------



## Pusser (19 Nov 2014)

If you end up buying the boots, I would recommend submitting a claim for reimbursement.  If it's refused, get it in writing, and then submit an application for Redress of Grievance.  It may take a while, but in my experience, that is the sort of grievance that is likely to be redressed.  Just make sure everything is documented.  The most important thing is to show that he is required to attend training and that he has not been issued the proper kit.  Getting a response that he doesn't "have" to attend training (i.e. resulting in not being able to advance his qualifications) would likely not be viewed as acceptable by the Initial Authority (and definitely not by the Final Authority).


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Nov 2014)

DND and the CAF - we as a collective entity need to stop worrying about shiny toys, bells, whistle and as Mr. Campbell puts it "gee gaws" and worry about the soldier, sailor or airmen. The leadership should be wringing their hands over things like this and not over new toys.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Nov 2014)

A Canadian recruit has to pay for his own main pair of boots?

More than just _a_ facepalm ....





Maybe the Minister of Defence (not the CDS, not the bureaucrats) needs to be reminded of this statement attributed to him in a news release less than a week ago (also attached if link doesn't work):


> *"Our Government understands the importance of providing our men and women in uniform with the tools they need to excel at their jobs while on training, exercise, or operations."*


Apparently, the Government does not.

Epic.  Fail.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Nov 2014)

Let's call a spade a spade.....the system is broken when we can't issue boots to soldiers. It's not the governments fault.....the fault lies with us. :facepalm:


----------



## Brasidas (20 Nov 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Let's call a spade a spade.....the system is broken when we can't issue boots to soldiers. It's not the governments fault.....the fault lies with us. :facepalm:



If the battle school doesn't have the means to provide the minimum kit to safely and effectively train troops, it shouldn't be running the course. It sucks and screws over both the troops and the units, and it should be shoved in the face of every level above which had higher priorities. The system's broken, sure. Pips and crowns instead of boots. But somebody made a very basic bad call whenever they decided some kids' ankle boots were acceptable. Not available, no way, no how? Remit receipts for local purchase or cancel the damned course.


----------



## JesseWZ (20 Nov 2014)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> If the battle school doesn't have the means to provide the minimum kit to safely and effectively train troops, it shouldn't be running the course.



Amen!


----------



## RedcapCrusader (20 Nov 2014)

Brasidas said:
			
		

> If the battle school doesn't have the means to provide the minimum kit to safely and effectively train troops, it shouldn't be running the course. It sucks and screws over both the troops and the units, and it should be shoved in the face of every level above which had higher priorities. The system's broken, sure. Pips and crowns instead of boots. But somebody made a very basic bad call whenever they decided some kids' ankle boots were acceptable. Not available, no way, no how? Remit receipts for local purchase or cancel the damned course.



The issue lies particularly with the orders given. Supply Sections are being told not to issue mukluks because new ones are being made. Leaving no boots until the new Extreme Cold Weather boot system is produced and enters the system for issue. Ditto the GD boots (told only to issue CWWs). Which means they should cease winter courses until it becomes available or, reverse the order to stop issuing the mukluks.

There's been back to back issues with Res BMQs especially in Calgary since they shut the Supply Section here down. Orders are sent from here to Edmonton Garrison stores to be processed and then they courier it or someone picks it up and drives it down. No longer are recruits able to try everything on and ensure it fits and is serviceable before they leave Stores. Orders come back incomplete (no sleeping bags, rucks, boots), sizes are all sorts of frigged up.

My unit has an advantage being that my HQ is 1 MP Regt, we can book appointments with Edmonton Garrison Stores, try everything on and leave with everything in good order. Not every reserve unit is so lucky.


----------



## Arty39 (21 Nov 2014)

I have the rocky s2v's and they are awesome boots just a little expensive. Rocky alpha force are a good option for gortex/water proof style boots. I haven't tried swats but I know a ton of people who wear them. Magnums and oakley's are other common boots. I would also check out a army surplus store for mk 3 or general purpose combat boots.


----------



## ancasterguy (21 Nov 2014)

Where are you located? What size of boots does he need?


----------



## Northalbertan (21 Nov 2014)

If you are located in Wainwright my cadet corps up in Vermilion has mukluks.  We can do a temporary loan with the battle school I'm sure.

Northalbertan


----------



## MJP (21 Nov 2014)

Northalbertan said:
			
		

> If you are located in Wainwright my cadet corps up in Vermilion has mukluks.  We can do a temporary loan with the battle school I'm sure.
> 
> Northalbertan



He has Mukluks



			
				rick7475 said:
			
		

> He is short boots. There is no reimbursement. He has mukluks.



If there are no boots then the supporting supply agency should be getting them either HPR or LPO.  That that isn’t happening is troubling.  



			
				RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> The issue lies particularly with the orders given. Supply Sections are being told not to issue mukluks because new ones are being made. Leaving no boots until the new Extreme Cold Weather boot system is produced and enters the system for issue. Ditto the GD boots (told only to issue CWWs).



Mukluks are issued however they are a controlled stores right now so it requires Bde or Div(at home and don’t have the email in front of me) permission to do so.  Right now that is done to top up units and crses through bulk temporary loans that are returned as soon as the unit doesn’t need them.  There is no restriction on boots at all, if they have your size in GP then you get GP (and the others).  There is however a shortage of certain sizes as they transition to the new brown style ones.

That in a Northern army that operates in winter conditions for a good portion of the year, this has even been an issue for as long as it has been is a command as well as supply failure.  There are some exceptional circumstances, shitty planning and poor assumptions that lead to the overall shortage.  Failure to rectify that with an interim LPO buy when it became clear that a quick solution wasn’t forthcoming is more proof that the institution has its priorities in the wrong place.


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Nov 2014)

So much for "putting people first"


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Nov 2014)

Jim, certain people are being put first.

Just not the ones without boots....


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Nov 2014)

The Prime Minister said 'no boots on the ground' and I guess he meant it.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Nov 2014)

Troops having to buy their own boots is an outrage.  I would hope, but am not very optimistic, that some high priced heads would roll after this.  Either that or promoted and moved out of the way, which is more likely.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Nov 2014)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> *Jim, certain people are being put first.
> 
> Just not the ones without boots.... *


QFTT


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Dec 2014)

Hey I found some winter boots the CF could purchase and issue to soldiers to use on PT, ex's and daily tasks out in the snow.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Dec 2014)

It would not be the first time the government would have to buy back surplussed goods.


----------



## DBA (7 Jan 2015)

rick7475 said:
			
		

> Hello,
> 
> My son is currently taking his BMQ on the weekends in the reserves over the winter. The course is 60+ recruits and they do not have enough boots for everyone. He has to wear a pair of worn cadet boots that have holes in the bottom. Since he is infantry, and as a former infantry NCO, I know he needs good boots. The MWO of the course will allow them to purchase civilian boots for the course. There is a CANEX in town where some of the other older recruits are buying some pairs there (my son is 17 still in high school). My question is what are the best civilian equivalent boots we can buy for him, either at the CANEX (limited supply) or other places like Sale or Marks Work Warehouse. Thank you for any recommendations.



Using work boots for some portion of training has been common at various times for several decades and nothing to get exited over. A decent and not too expensive pair of work boots is fine for the classroom and parade square portions of training. Usually something tan with a heal like the old combat or ankle boots.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Jan 2015)

DBA said:
			
		

> Using work boots for some portion of training has been common at various times for several decades and nothing to get exited over. A decent and not too expensive pair of work boots is fine for the classroom and parade square portions of training. Usually something tan with a heal like the old combat or ankle boots.



I beg to differ sir.

Young and not do young Canadians have signed the dotted line. It's our duty to see thst they are properly trained, administered and kitted out. This includes boots.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jan 2015)

It's a sad state of affairs we are in WRT some pieces of kit.  No mukluks to be had  :facepalm: for some army types, no boots period for some PRES recruits.  WTF is going on?   :

It's great that the Crse staff are 'allowing' people to buy their own kit, but should we REALLY be asking that of our troops??

Having said that, yesterday morning I broke a lace.  No problem right?  I'll just stop by Wing Supply on my way to the Sqn from the gym.  They don't have laces.   :stars:


----------



## George Wallace (7 Jan 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> It's a sad state of affairs we are in WRT some pieces of kit.  No mukluks to be had  :facepalm: for some army types, no boots period for some PRES recruits.  WTF is going on?   :
> 
> It's great that the Crse staff are 'allowing' people to buy their own kit, but should we REALLY be asking that of our troops??
> 
> Having said that, yesterday morning I broke a lace.  No problem right?  I'll just stop by Wing Supply on my way to the Sqn from the gym.  They don't have laces.   :stars:



90 million sent in aid to Iraq and Syria.  Accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees.  Seems our Government has its priorities mixed up.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jan 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> 90 million sent in aid to Iraq and Syria.  Accepting 10,000 Syrian refugees.  Seems our Government has its priorities mixed up.



Yup, it's nice to mow the neighbors lawn for them but you should make sure you leave enough gas to do your own...


----------



## GK .Dundas (7 Jan 2015)

Maybe I'm mistaken but we really are a G 7 country, aren't we?


----------



## jeffb (7 Jan 2015)

I've been waiting for replacement boots since April now....


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Jan 2015)

jeffb said:
			
		

> I've been waiting for replacement boots since April now....



And that is unacceptable, yet we, the senior leadership shuffle the deck chairs, navel gaze and wonder why the hell soldiers release.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jan 2015)

DBA said:
			
		

> Using work boots for some portion of training has been common at various times for several decades and nothing to get exited over. A decent and not too expensive pair of work boots is fine for the classroom and parade square portions of training. Usually something tan with a heal like the old combat or ankle boots.


<sarcasm> Hey, maybe we could do like the Ukrainian army and ask taxpayers to donate a few bucks for stuff like this? </sarcasm>  :


----------



## blacktriangle (8 Jan 2015)

Can someone explain (in simple terms) why these soldiers are not getting LPO footwear as MJP had suggested? 

…and I agree with GW et al why are we throwing my tax dollars away to these hell holes (and inviting the people here) when we can't even fund pathetic items for our military? 

Time to stop recruiting for a few years until we get enough equipment back from releases. Let's start with some Generals and Admirals.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jan 2015)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Time to stop recruiting for a few years until we get enough equipment back from releases. Let's start with some Generals and Admirals.




Cutting back on recruiting has been shown to create more problems down the road with loss of knowledge and experience, and skill fade in numerous Trades.

Most Senior officers would no longer have reams of equipment to return, so although a necessity to trim the fat, it will result in no significant increase of items on the shelves of our QMs.


----------



## blacktriangle (8 Jan 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Cutting back on recruiting has been shown to create more problems down the road with loss of knowledge and experience, and skill fade in numerous Trades.
> 
> Most Senior officers would no longer have reams of equipment to return, so although a necessity to trim the fat, it will result in no significant increase of items on the shelves of our QMs.



I'm keenly aware of both points and meant my post more in jest - but honestly what IS the point of recruiting if we can't equip people? You speak of problems down the road - but what about our problems now? (NO BOOTS?!) Succession planning and depth of experience mean nothing when we lack even the most basic of equipment. 

Someone is to blame for this issue - and we both know it is not a Pte, Sgt, or Capt. Even if it is not a General or Admiral who is responsible for this, they are the ones on the executive floor of this hollow organization. Since the PS Bureaucrats seem untouchable, and the Politicians care little, who else can I blame but the very top of the chain of command? 

I know we have incredibly skilled and hard working GOFOs in our military (some even on this site) that have invested their entire lives in the military. I'm sure issues like this sicken them - and I challenge them to do whatever it takes to rectify the problem.


----------



## MJP (8 Jan 2015)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Can someone explain (in simple terms) why these soldiers are not getting LPO footwear as MJP had suggested?



Simple answer is no one knows based on internet postings.  Not an exhuastive list but it could be a failure of the supporting supply org (SSO) to realize that or leverage all options availiable to them, the SSO may have tried to LPO and were told no for any number of reasons or the soldier in this case misunderstood what was told to them and made up their own intrepretation (which happens).


----------



## quadrapiper (8 Jan 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> <sarcasm> Hey, maybe we could do like the Ukrainian army and ask taxpayers to donate a few bucks for stuff like this? </sarcasm>  :


Was that not the "traditional" approach to kitting and otherwise raising militia units? The biggest donor gets Hon Col and a seat at mess dinners?

Could really expand on that - $1000 gets you Hon 2Lt, and so on. Works for arts groups!


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Jan 2015)

MJP said:
			
		

> Simple answer is no one knows based on internet postings.  Not an exhuastive list but it could be a failure of the supporting supply org (SSO) to realize that or leverage all options availiable to them, the SSO may have tried to LPO and were told no for any number of reasons or the soldier in this case misunderstood what was told to them and made up their own intrepretation (which happens).



A CANFORGEN was released a few years ago prohibiting COs from purchasing operational kit. Maybe this included boots.


----------



## MJP (8 Jan 2015)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> A CANFORGEN was released a few years ago prohibiting COs from purchasing operational kit. Maybe this included boots.



It does but in ths case the SSO there had other mechanisms they can utilize to get boots for folks including LPO.   They do involve some staff work and in some cases command involvement but we should be able to get fills boots.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Jan 2015)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> A CANFORGEN was released a few years ago prohibiting COs from purchasing operational kit. Maybe this included boots.



yes can't be embarrassing the system by circumventing it and actually getting the kit. to explain the supply system to recruits I drew a dot, surrounded by 3 rings and a stick figure on the outside of the rings. I explained that the stick figure was us and that the dot was the item needed/wanted and the 3 rings were the layers you needed to get through to get it. Back in the days of handfilled out Form 2302's


----------



## GK .Dundas (9 Jan 2015)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Was that not the "traditional" approach to kitting and otherwise raising militia units? The biggest donor gets Hon Col and a seat at mess dinners?
> 
> Could really expand on that - $1000 gets you Hon 2Lt, and so on. Works for arts groups!


 Didn't Conrad Black when he was  an Hon. Lt. Col offer /threaten to purchase AFV's for the Pri Res  unit he belonged to. I'll bet that would of caused  a few Coronaries at good old Fort Fumble on the Rideiu .


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jan 2015)

Shades of McNaughton and the E8's?  8)

Mind you had some bright Hon. Col. bought VBL's in the 90's for the Armoured Reserve, you could bet they would have all ended up in Bosnia with nary a thank you or "Great idea you had".

Now if I had oodles of millions of dollars I might just buy back some of the 105mm Howitzers we sold to Vietnam and get them refitted in South Korea and re-equip my unit again as a full battery and purchase a couple of real 4x4's with a box on the back for the main and alternate CP's


----------



## GK .Dundas (12 Jan 2015)

I always thought the VBL was a perfect fit for the reserves combined with some cougars it might made for an effective force  both for training and some limited operational uses.
  You know one really has to wonder how we are supposed to be able to procure ships and aircraft costing billions and we can't even provide boot and mucluks to our troops ? What annoys me the most aside from all the money wasted is denying the unit C.O. s the authority to solve the problem themselves.


----------



## blacktriangle (12 Jan 2015)

MJP said:
			
		

> They do involve some staff work



Translation: no LPO boots will be forthcoming.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jan 2015)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Translation: no LPO boots will be forthcoming.


So what is the solution? 

This situation is unacceptable.


----------



## Brasidas (12 Jan 2015)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> So what is the solution?
> 
> This situation is unacceptable.



That battleschool shuts down until the powers that be recognize the seriousness of the problem and deal with it.


----------



## MJP (12 Jan 2015)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> So what is the solution?
> 
> This situation is unacceptable.



The solution is people at all levels just do their job IAW with the direction given.

From the Supply Administration Manual

5.5 Clothing and Personnel Equipment Para1.15

Clothing, including footwear and equipment that is normally nationally procured in accordance with (IAW) DND specifications and requirements, cannot be purchased locally unless authorized by the applicable Life Cycle Materiel Manager (LCMM).

The thing is not everyone knows what the rules are and where to even look and if they do know then actually taking action.


The thing is that boots are one of thoses issues that get everyone's hackles up.  Everyone is special snowflake and needs something special so it makes it hard to get approval when someone wants something normal to fulfill a stock shortage.  The SSO and the CoC of soldiers need to be loud in directing their needs up to higher formations.  I have seen stick up the @ss LCMM reverse their tune when commanders get involved.  On the flip side soldiers need to keep their COC informed of issues, often issues fester for so long that when they explode every one is in crisis mode and the real problem isn't solved.  At the end of the day until we get a boot type allowance we will see issues like these.  It is the nature of the beast considering that with the seemingly never ending special requirements we write into contracts and regional buy Canada BS, no one really wants to deal with us in a timely manner without extra cash.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Jan 2015)

This would be a good subject for the opposition to bring up in the House of Commons.  :stirpot:


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jan 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> This would be a good subject for the opposition to bring up in the House of Commons.  :stirpot:


The first step could also be "Government Flogs Protecting North (While Short of Mukluks/Other Boots)" headlines to get things rolling  >


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Jan 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The first step could also be "Government Flogs Protecting North (While Short of Mukluks/Other Boots)" headlines to get things rolling  >



You are living proof that yes, the pen is mightier than the sword  :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 May 2015)

At looooooooong last, the ball begins to roll ....


> ....This Request for Proposal is for the provision of Extreme Cold Weather Mukluk (ECWM) for the Department of National Defence. This procurement process is divided in two stages.
> 
> Stage 1 (Trial Contracts): A maximum of three (3) contracts will be awarded for the supply of 50 Mukluk Shells and 100 pairs of removable liner(s), removable insole(s) and replacement laces under each contract. These goods will be used for a User Acceptance Performance Evaluation.
> 
> ...



Specs for boots from bid package attached - full bid package (including evaluation criteria - 169pg 12.5 MB PDF) here.


----------



## captloadie (6 May 2015)

Makes total sense to me. Lets trial some boots in the summer time to determine their suitability, then award the contract that won't be able to deliver until probably next spring/summer timeframe.


----------



## MilEME09 (6 May 2015)

Call me crazy but isn't 12,000 a bit low to equip the CF? or are we only going to be given these when we go up north?


----------



## MJP (6 May 2015)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Call me crazy but isn't 12,000 a bit low to equip the CF? or are we only going to be given these when we go up north?



I suspect in service stock will still be utilized much like we have done with the old and new combats.  Generally mukluks last a fairly long time as they are not a daily use item, reasonable to assume that it will take a while for all sets currently out there to become worn out.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 May 2015)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Call me crazy but isn't 12,000 a bit low to equip the CF? or are we only going to be given these when we go up north?


It's actually "at least 12K" - note this bit from the bid posting:


> .... one contract will be awarded for the supply of 12,000 pairs of the Mukluk Shells, 36,000 pairs of removable liner(s) and removable insole(s) and 24,000 pairs of replacement laces.  *The Main Contract also includes one option to purchase additional maximum quantity of 12,000 pairs of Mukluk Shells and 24,000 pairs of removable liner(s) and removable insole(s)* ....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 May 2015)

Did they stop making the mukluks we once had?  I used them for years and still carry them in my B25 kit.  My current pair are practically brand new.


----------



## George Wallace (6 May 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Did they stop making the mukluks we once had?  I used them for years and still carry them in my B25 kit.  My current pair are practically brand new.



Part of modernization......Old mukluks were....."old"......Needed to find an "NEW"...."MODERN" ....."High Speed, Low Drag"......"more fashionable" mukluk...... >


The fact that the old kit worked and was some of the best in the world did not matter.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 May 2015)

Whatever happened to don't fix something that isn't broken.  I thought we were just waiting for a contract to buy more new copies of the issued mukluk.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 May 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Whatever happened to don't fix something that isn't broken.  I thought we were just waiting for a contract to buy more new copies of the issued mukluk.



I'm pretty sure the company that we bought them from the last time went bankrupt sometime after the Korean war.


----------



## acen (22 May 2015)

Looks like a shoe-in for the contract, pun intended. http://soldiersystems.net/2015/05/21/sofic-2015-airboss-defense-extreme-cold-weather-mukluk/#comments

In the meantime, I have seen this issued out to a recruit with "interim extreme cold weather boot" on the label, arctic CADPAT and all.


----------



## MJP (22 May 2015)

A quick update, all restrictions on Mukluks have been lifted.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 May 2015)

MJP said:
			
		

> A quick update, all restrictions on Mukluks have been lifted.



So...did the CAF buy all the ones back it sold to surplus stores?


----------



## dapaterson (22 May 2015)

MJP said:
			
		

> A quick update, all restrictions on Mukluks have been lifted.



Only until it gets cold again and people begin ordering them


----------



## MJP (22 May 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> So...did the CAF buy all the ones back it sold to surplus stores?



Interim purchase until new contract is awarded was my understanding.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (25 May 2015)

http://www.airbossdefense.com/products/airboss-extreme-cold-weather-mukluk/

Soldier Systems was talking about this being the new Canadian Mukluk producer.


----------



## Loachman (25 May 2015)

"It keeps feet dry and warm for _*up to eight hours*_ at temperatures ranging from 0° C to −55°C."

And the other sixteen hours per day are spent in the rack/at the bar/...?


----------



## Kirkhill (25 May 2015)

Loachman - they just need three pairs of liners.  Two of them flapping in the breeze on the back of their rucks.....

I wonder what the weight is when you have two pair of wet liners.

PS - Maybe you could borrow the drying rack design from these guys....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9x5ADYWXeo


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 May 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Loachman - they just need three pairs of liners.  Two of them flapping in the breeze on the back of their rucks.....


Funny - that's how one civilian stores staffer suggested I deal with socks until one of my bosses "convinced" him maybe more than two pairs might not be all THAT ridiculous to request.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 May 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Funny - that's how one civilian stores staffer suggested I deal with socks until one of my bosses "convinced" him maybe more than two pairs might not be all THAT ridiculous to request.



Liners might be in a different category.  I can just imagine end-ex with two weeks worth of moldy, sweaty felt in my ruck.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 May 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Liners might be in a different category.  I can just imagine end-ex with two weeks worth of moldy, sweaty felt in my ruck.....


 :nod:  I meant my comment as an example of another "good idea fairy" plan.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 May 2015)

Understood.  I meant mine as a humorous response.....  :crybaby:


----------



## a_majoor (25 May 2015)

Well, there is a profit opportunity for the well capitalized and motivated: a mukluk that you can purchase on line or at CANEX or your friendly kit/surplus shop.

Much like Danners, SWAT's or NEO's, real kit a solider can actually use without being hurt/broken by using it, or left in the rather embarrassing position (like I have been repeatedly over the years) of waddling about in the field after the sole came off the issue boot...

AS for the liners, I suspect that there are modern materials out there which can either wick away the moisture (think of Underarmour cothing), or is made out of material that simply won't get moldy (something like fabrics made from basalt. ROXULTM is an example of that sort of material used as insulation; it is also sound retarding and fireproof in that format, and not all that expensive either. This company makes a basalt fabric, for anyone wanting to do the research.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 May 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Well, there is a profit opportunity for the well capitalized and motivated: a mukluk that you can purchase on line or at CANEX or your friendly kit/surplus shop.
> 
> Much like Danners, SWAT's or NEO's, real kit a solider can actually use without being hurt/broken by using it, or left in the rather embarrassing position (like I have been repeatedly over the years) of waddling about in the field after the sole came off the issue boot...
> 
> AS for the liners, I suspect that there are modern materials out there which can either wick away the moisture (think of Underarmour cothing), or is made out of material that simply won't get moldy (something like fabrics made from basalt. ROXULTM is an example of that sort of material used as insulation; it is also sound retarding and fireproof in that format, and not all that expensive either. This company makes a basalt fabric, for anyone wanting to do the research.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 May 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Well, there is a profit opportunity for the well capitalized and motivated: a mukluk that you can purchase on line or at CANEX or your friendly kit/surplus shop.
> 
> Much like Danners, SWAT's or NEO's, real kit a solider can actually use without being hurt/broken by using it, or left in the rather embarrassing position (like I have been repeatedly over the years) of waddling about in the field after the sole came off the issue boot...
> 
> AS for the liners, I suspect that there are modern materials out there which can either wick away the moisture (think of Underarmour cothing), or is made out of material that simply won't get moldy (something like fabrics made from basalt. ROXULTM is an example of that sort of material used as insulation; it is also sound retarding and fireproof in that format, and not all that expensive either. This company makes a basalt fabric, for anyone wanting to do the research.



Intuition liners are worn extensively by extremists in extremely cold environments all around the world. And they are made in Canada.

https://intuitionliners.com/


----------



## a_majoor (25 May 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Intuition liners are worn extensively by extremists in extremely cold environments all around the world. And they are made in Canada.
> 
> https://intuitionliners.com/



Halfway there already. If they fit into a pair of NEO's then I think we have the 80% solution....


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 May 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Halfway there already. If they fit into a pair of NEO's then I think we have the 80% solution....



They do.

I take NEOs with me on some of my extended high altitude odysseys and use them around the tent. I just pop them out of my ski/ climbing boots, stick them in the Neos, and Robert's your father's brother.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (26 May 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> They do.
> 
> I take NEOs with me on some of my extended high altitude odysseys and use them around the tent. . . .



Sounds just like the purpose of "arctic slippers".  Are they still in the system?


----------



## McG (26 May 2015)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Sounds just like the purpose of "arctic slippers".  Are they still in the system?


I think they are gone.  Not many guys seem to remember them any more.


----------



## dimsum (26 May 2015)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Sounds just like the purpose of "arctic slippers".  Are they still in the system?



Are those the black half-mukluks?  I have a pair of them.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (26 May 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Are those the black half-mukluks?  I have a pair of them.



I thought that question had been the subject of a previous thread and that I had answered.  It had been, seven years ago, and you were the one who had started the thread.
http://army.ca/forums/threads/71796/post-693037.html#msg693037


----------



## George Wallace (26 May 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Are those the black half-mukluks?  I have a pair of them.



They are thin (black) rubber, about the same height of ankle boots, that one could slip over their mukluk sock and walk around in.  They are a slipper for wear within the tent/shelter and not meant trudging out into the snow for a long period or march.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (26 May 2015)

On the same note: has anyone actually ever seen anyone wearing a pair of those? I feel I stil have mine in my tickle trunk somewhere.


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 May 2015)

I had a Tp WO who declared them the most essential piece of kit in Christendom, and woe be unto he that weareth them not in the ten man tent.


----------



## Good2Golf (27 May 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I had a Tp WO who declared them the most essential piece of kit in Christendom, and woe be unto he that weareth them not in the ten man tent.



He was wrong.  I still put the combat scarf near, if not at the top of the list.


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 May 2015)

The scarf is amazing and so versatile.


----------

