Author Topic: CF moving to Multicam?  (Read 26213 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 165,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,103
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #100 on: August 03, 2018, 13:43:27 »
except green only in... crotch  :-X

Green (adjective)

...4 (of a person) inexperienced or naive.
‘a green recruit fresh from college’

 :whistle:
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,053
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #101 on: August 03, 2018, 13:47:35 »
Yah!  Then I can carry my M1A1 in Mali and be a designated marksman!

Whoa, whoa, Sport. The only thing that you will be carrying over the next little while, is your bowl of 10:00 am soup.

 ;)

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 130,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,453
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #102 on: August 03, 2018, 13:49:59 »
Yes, well! I have to admit that the fly-boys (and girls) I have seen on ship all seem to wear tan only uniforms. It was something else of theirs that turned green ... some times.  ;D

Online PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 909,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,940
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #103 on: August 03, 2018, 14:01:18 »
This.
I was having lunch with a fellow Naval Officer who is on his way to Staff College this summer and we got into the subject of the CAF and Joint. In his time at CJOC he continually got the feeling from his Army brethren that the Navy and Air Force folks weren't really jumping for joy when the Army started talking "Joint". Well its crap like this from the CDS that fosters those feelings or when an Army Officer tells an MPA pilot that he should become more joint in his thinking. Excuse me but Maritime Air and the Navy were operating in the joint environment long before that Army officer was a dirty thought in the back of his father's mind!

That chip on your shoulder is pretty huge. You're forgetting the Army and Navy were doing joint operations hundreds of years before people figured out flying machines. You're also forgetting the fact that the Army relied on the expertise of individuals like PO2 Craig Blake to conduct its operations in Afghanistan.

Don't worry, the CDS won't take away your precious 16 pieces of flair NCDs. There are plenty of RCN members who are posted to Army units that would actually need a field uniform, and are happy to trade their NCDs for it.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 202,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,345
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #104 on: August 03, 2018, 14:46:36 »
I don't know about you, but I've seen my fair share of "new" flight suits that have faded into tan in some parts and stayed green in others.  It's almost like Multicam, except green only in armpits and crotch  :-X

it's even closer to Multicam when you wear your 4 year old faded flying shirt with your brand spanking green-as-trees-in-June new pants!
I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 130,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,453
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #105 on: August 03, 2018, 15:08:24 »
Don't worry, the CDS won't take away your precious 16 pieces of flair NCDs. There are plenty of RCN members who are posted to Army units that would actually need a field uniform, and are happy to trade their NCDs for it.

Actually, Puckchaser, the bit in yellow is impossible - and lack of understanding by some is part of the problem with the CAF bad trip about "jointness".

Wearing the naval environmental uniform does not make one RCN anymore than wearing green makes you Army. We have single unified service - this has not changed since re-introduction of distinct uniforms. Someone in a naval uniform posted to an Army unit is under the Land Force Command - now called the Canadian Army - regardless, just as someone in light blue posted to a naval unit is now under Maritime Command (now called RCN), even though the uniform they wear is not from that "element".

Which leads to the real question, which is what the Hell does "joint" mean in the CAF? What is it's purpose?

And on that score, I have to say that the concept seems to have appeared at the time (or shortly after) the creation of the original dot-coms structure. Also, to those of us in the RCN or RCAF (the actual commands as defined in the unified structure) it does seem that the concept of joint originated from the Army (Land Force Command) and appears strikingly limited to asking "what can the other commands do to alleviate my manpower shortage" that occurred to them with the Afghanistan war. This regardless of the other commands own personnel shortages. I think the "Army" got the bug from listening to other nations' command teams that did not have a single unified service. In those countries, deciding how to create inter-services command relationships is needed. Not for us.

Funny enough, we never seems to need it before then. During the Gulf War (I), when the Navy needed air cover for its Task Group, the Air Force had no problem providing it under the overall command of the Commodore. When those air assets had to be protected on land, the Army provided the troops - again without any problems being under the overall command of the "Navy". We didn't need to talk "jointness" to do it because we were a single service. Same thing for the Oka crisis. My patrol boat (PBL CAPTOR) and her crew easily slipped right under the command of the general in charge of the whole ops. I don't recall a situation where a unit I served in couldn't get the appropriate air support when need be.

That is why I prefer to talk of a concept of combined operations rather than Jointness in the case of the CAF. And really, what it means is that we should look into more details into making sure that whatever we acquire as materiel makes it possible to work together. Going back to the Oka crisis example: We did not have radio communication capability on the patrol boat to communicate directly with the land forces we supported. So we had to jury-rig something to bridge the comms gap. Too many such examples exist.

Here's a more recent example of what could be done in that direction that would be more useful: We just learned - not long ago - that the new Army air defence radar deployed in the Baltic states are not "NATO" compatible. But the real question is, are they compatible with CCS330? In other words, when the "Army" defined it's requirements, did they consider the possibility that the missiles to shoot down whatever they wish to shoot could come from a "battery" onboard a Canadian frigate? That perhaps, what they wish to shoot down could be taken down by an ESSM launched from our ships in support of the "Army" radar?

To me, those type of technical questions are where "jointness" should go in Canada, because the issues such as integrated supply, management, administration,finance, support in general and even the command relationship in the field are already unified.     

Online PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 909,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,940
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #106 on: August 03, 2018, 15:15:21 »
Here's a more recent example of what could be done in that direction that would be more useful: We just learned - not long ago - that the new Army air defence radar deployed in the Baltic states are not "NATO" compatible. But the real question is, are they compatible with CCS330? In other words, when the "Army" defined it's requirements, did they consider the possibility that the missiles to shoot down whatever they wish to shoot could come from a "battery" onboard a Canadian frigate? That perhaps, what they wish to shoot down could be taken down by an ESSM launched from our ships in support of the "Army" radar?

To me, those type of technical questions are where "jointness" should go in Canada, because the issues such as integrated supply, management, administration,finance, support in general and even the command relationship in the field are already unified.     

That's a great example. Considering we upgraded our rifles without buying a sling that fits, doesn't surprise me that whoever was buying the Army radar didn't speak with the CSC project folks to find out what protocol everyone was going to use. There's also probably a distinct lack of truly joint doctrine driving any equipment purchases, so everything is bought in isolation. We also have CC130Js that cannot support a parachutist who weighs over 350 lbs, when a civilian CASA can throw a guy out the back weighing as much as the chute will allow.

We preach "joint", but realistically we never push the limits to train completely in that environment, and our procurement/doctrine review system isn't agile enough to fix those changes.

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 150,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,941
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #107 on: August 03, 2018, 15:23:42 »
Wearing the naval environmental uniform does not make one RCN anymore than wearing green makes you Army. We have single unified service - this has not changed since re-introduction of distinct uniforms. Someone in a naval uniform posted to an Army unit is under the Land Force Command - now called the Canadian Army - regardless, just as someone in light blue posted to a naval unit is now under Maritime Command (now called RCN), even though the uniform they wear is not from that "element".

[pedantic]Well, one could say that if you belong to an occupation in which the occupation authority is the Commander RCN, then you are in the Navy, regardless of where you are posted.[/pedantic]

Quote
Which leads to the real question, which is what the Hell does "joint" mean in the CAF? What is it's purpose?...I think the "Army" got the bug from listening to other nations' command teams that did not have a single unified service. In those countries, deciding how to create inter-services command relationships is needed. Not for us.

To me, "joint" is making sure that an Army radio can talk to a Navy radio (or any other technology), and that Army and Navy people understand each other when they talk on the radio (or any other TTP).  You can have a single service, but if elements don't work together, then you've got capability issues.

The US loves and needs joint because it has the most incredible and all-consuming inter-service rivalries, due in part to the huge resource piles at stake.  Their Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force, and joint is the word as they need to ensure that two of the exact same platforms flown by different services have some degree of compatibility.

For the rest of us, "joint" is more of a buzzword than anything, as service cooperation is relatively sparse.  When the RCAF is the only service to fly fighter aircraft, you don't need to figure out joint doctrine for fighter employment (like the US, which has three services under two separate departments that fly fighter aircraft)!

Quote
That is why I prefer to talk of a concept of combined operations rather than Jointness in the case of the CAF.

Combined operations refers to working with other countries.  "Joint" is about making sure our soldiers, sailors, and aviators can talk (or do stuff together), while "combined" is about making sure our soldiers and sailors can talk (or do stuff together) with [insert country X]'s soldiers, sailors, and aviators.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2018, 15:26:53 by Infanteer »
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 165,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,103
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #108 on: August 03, 2018, 15:45:36 »
I was under the impression that the remaining ‘joint’ conundrums are due to be remedied by WEEDFORGEN in a few months?  ???
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Online FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,603
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #109 on: August 03, 2018, 20:25:10 »
That chip on your shoulder is pretty huge. You're forgetting the Army and Navy were doing joint operations hundreds of years before people figured out flying machines. You're also forgetting the fact that the Army relied on the expertise of individuals like PO2 Craig Blake to conduct its operations in Afghanistan.

Don't worry, the CDS won't take away your precious 16 pieces of flair NCDs. There are plenty of RCN members who are posted to Army units that would actually need a field uniform, and are happy to trade their NCDs for it.

I don't give a rats *** about the NCD's. Name and rank is all they need because you should only wear it at sea.

That being said, OGBD has probably given the best explanation of the actual make up of the CAF I've ever heard.

Online Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 21,887
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 313
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #110 on: August 03, 2018, 22:26:01 »
Here's a more recent example of what could be done in that direction that would be more useful: We just learned - not long ago - that the new Army air defence radar deployed in the Baltic states are not "NATO" compatible. But the real question is, are they compatible with CCS330? In other words, when the "Army" defined it's requirements, did they consider the possibility that the missiles to shoot down whatever they wish to shoot could come from a "battery" onboard a Canadian frigate? That perhaps, what they wish to shoot down could be taken down by an ESSM launched from our ships in support of the "Army" radar?

To me, those type of technical questions are where "jointness" should go in Canada, because the issues such as integrated supply, management, administration,finance, support in general and even the command relationship in the field are already unified.     

Did the RCN consult the rest of the CAF before choosing CMS330? Did the navy talk with the army about AD and determine that the ESSM was compatible with army systems, and the best tool for the job? Pretty weak example to make the argument that army bad, navy good.

Back to the actual topic, can anyone come up with a reason that a phased replacement of CADPAT TW/AR with a single pattern is a bad idea beyond the usual we need money for other things, Or CADPAT is Canadian so therefore best?

On a side note I find the objection to improving/changing operational uniforms funny on a site that spent a few years lashing out at DEU changes because operational kit was being ignored...

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 156,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,611
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #111 on: August 03, 2018, 22:28:49 »
Back to the actual topic, can anyone come up with a reason that a phased replacement of CADPAT TW/AR with a single pattern is a bad idea beyond the usual we need money for other things, Or CADPAT is Canadian so therefore best?

On a side note I find the objection to improving/changing operational uniforms funny on a site that spent a few years lashing out at DEU changes because operational kit was being ignored...

Agree.  I'm a little confused why CADPAT TW is even going to be issued to recruits - why not just issue Multicam when it's phased in?  Is it because they need to get rid of CADPAT by attrition?
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 214,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,433
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #112 on: August 03, 2018, 22:36:51 »
Back to the actual topic, can anyone come up with a reason that a phased replacement of CADPAT TW/AR with a single pattern is a bad idea beyond the usual we need money for other things, Or CADPAT is Canadian so therefore best?

FWIW, after about 3 days on field ops it's hard to tell what colour anyone's uniform is as a result of all the mud, sweat and dust (and the uniform/ LB equipment profile is more important than colours in avoiding blue on blue) so the actual cam pattern is probably only relevant to the REMFs anyways ;)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 165,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,103
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #113 on: August 04, 2018, 00:28:43 »
Single pattern? No thanks.

We could just as easily find ourselves operating in a desert as we could a jungle / woodlands. Would AR have been suitable in Bosnia? TW in Kandahar or Mali? I would contend that we are likely to operate in disparate enough climates that we should have a couple of different palates available. There are even 'Arid' and 'Tropic' variants of Multicam now.

It defies credulity to think a single camouflage pattern can genuinely suit the majority of environments we're likely to work given the variety of terrain we have found ourselves in, not hypothetically.

Multicam looks cool, and we all like to look cool. But my issued camouflage speaks to my survivability, so I want that decision to be research based.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Online Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 159,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,801
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #114 on: August 04, 2018, 02:42:57 »
Actually, Puckchaser, the bit in yellow is impossible - and lack of understanding by some is part of the problem with the CAF bad trip about "jointness".

Wearing the naval environmental uniform does not make one RCN anymore than wearing green makes you Army. We have single unified service - this has not changed since re-introduction of distinct uniforms. Someone in a naval uniform posted to an Army unit is under the Land Force Command - now called the Canadian Army - regardless, just as someone in light blue posted to a naval unit is now under Maritime Command (now called RCN), even though the uniform they wear is not from that "element".
 


Well explained, and a good example of uniform colour not determining whether one is actually army, navy or air force would be the decision in this grievance.

https://www.canada.ca/en/military-grievances-external-review/services/case-summaries/case-2012-101.html
Quote
Case Summary

F&R Date: 2012–10–10

The grievor replied to an advertisement for a Class B position which indicated that the component order of preference for the applicants would be: 1) members of the Primary Reserve (Air) (P Res (Air)), and 2) members of other P Res elements. The grievor, an Air reservist who held a position within the Maritime Command Primary Reserve List (PRL) at the time was identified as a "priority 2" candidate and was not considered, but screened out in favour of a "priority 1" applicant.

The grievor argued that as a member of the P Res who wears a blue uniform, she is an Air reservist even if employed outside of the Air Command and her application should have been treated as such. She requested that the original selection process be set aside and that a new Selection Board be formed to review the files of all original applicants. She also requested to be considered as a "priority 1" candidate.

The initial authority (IA) determined that at the time of application, the grievor was a member of the P Res, but affiliated to a component of the Naval Reserve and not the Air Reserve; however, despite this fact, the IA found an irregularity in the selection process given that the grievor's application had been accepted, but never considered/reviewed by the Selection Board. The IA directed that the initial Selection Board be reconvened to review and assess the grievor's application.

The grievor submitted that the IA had not addressed all of her contentions as he had determined that she was not an Air reservist, but failed to indicate what type of reservist she was. She argued that her application should have been reviewed as an Air reservist, albeit employed with another command at the time of the selection process. In her view, for her application to be reviewed was a futile exercise if her file was still considered on a "priority 2" basis.

After a thorough review of the applicable Reserve Force policies, the Board agreed substantially with the IA's conclusion that, at the time of the advertised position, the grievor was not a member of the Air Reserve. In the Board's opinion, the grievor was not affiliated with a unit, headquarters (HQ) or PRL of the Air Reserve notwithstanding the colour of the uniform worn. The Board noted section 12 of Canadian Forces Administrative Order 2-8 - Reserve Force - Organization, Command and Obligation to Serve, which specifies that there are five authorized PRL establishments against which members of the P Res may be carried. Four of the PRLs form part of the four elements and are commanded and controlled by the appropriate command HQ. At the time, the grievor was not commanded by the Air Command.

The Board also found that it was open to Air Command to prioritize applicants on the basis of component affiliations as this practice is entirely permissible; however, as the IA conceded, the Board agreed that what is unfortunate with such a process is that well-qualified candidates may have been screened out simply because there was a "priority 1" applicant.

While the Board noted that part of the grievance has been rightfully granted in that the grievor's application is being considered, the Board found the grievor should not be categorized as a "priority 1" candidate.

The Board recommended that the Chief of the Defence Staff deny the grievance as it pertains to the classification criteria since the Board concluded that the grievor was not a member of the P Res (Air) at the time of the selection process.


CDS Decision Summary


CDS Decision Date: 2013–04–04

The CDS agreed with the Board's finding and recommendation that the grievance be denied. The CDS agreed that the policy that permits component prioritization for Primary Reserve employment is unnecessarily restrictive and disavantages Primary Reserve members who may have extensive experience within an element from competing for a position. The CDS directed the Chief- Reserves and Cadets to review the practice of restricting competitions to determine whether it is widely used and if so, whether it is indeed a reasonable force generation practice. He also directed a concurrent review of the issue of environmental affiliation as it pertains to reservists employed outside the element of their DEU.
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 202,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,345
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #115 on: August 04, 2018, 09:18:09 »
Agree.  I'm a little confused why CADPAT TW is even going to be issued to recruits - why not just issue Multicam when it's phased in?  Is it because they need to get rid of CADPAT by attrition?

That's what I'd bet on.  Same as Cadets getting the old combats that were left in warehouses when we went to CADPAT back in the early 2000s.

They mention $500 for the multicam.  I wonder how much the equivalent #s of CADPAT would cost.  Maybe this has the potential to save money?
I feel the need...the NEED to FEED! - Prop Gun

Offline rmc_wannabe

  • CADPAT Computer Nerd
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 16,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 451
  • NTLDR is missing, PRESS Ctrl+Alt+Del to restart
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #116 on: August 04, 2018, 10:20:33 »
They mention $500 for the multicam.  I wonder how much the equivalent #s of CADPAT would cost.  Maybe this has the potential to save money?

Since Crye owns the patent for Multicam maybe this is a unique way to sole source from a cheaper manufacturer, rather than wait for the usual cataclysmic and more expensive frig up that is a "Made in Quebe-.....Er......Canada" "solution."
"One of the most feared expressions in modern times is 'The computer is down.'"
 -Norman Ralph Augustine

Online PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 909,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,940
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #117 on: August 04, 2018, 10:43:04 »
Its Winnipeg this time,  Peerless Garments wins every contract for clothing.

Offline RDBZ

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 66
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #118 on: August 04, 2018, 17:56:49 »
Single pattern? No thanks.

We could just as easily find ourselves operating in a desert as we could a jungle / woodlands. Would AR have been suitable in Bosnia? TW in Kandahar or Mali? I would contend that we are likely to operate in disparate enough climates that we should have a couple of different palates available. There are even 'Arid' and 'Tropic' variants of Multicam now.

It defies credulity to think a single camouflage pattern can genuinely suit the majority of environments we're likely to work given the variety of terrain we have found ourselves in, not hypothetically.

Multicam looks cool, and we all like to look cool. But my issued camouflage speaks to my survivability, so I want that decision to be research based.

Add to those the Australian Defence Force's multicam variant which utilizes a colour palette based the old AUSCAM.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 156,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,611
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #119 on: August 04, 2018, 19:29:15 »
Add to those the Australian Defence Force's multicam variant which utilizes a colour palette based the old AUSCAM.

Damn.  I was starting to get used to "bunnies and love hearts" by the end of my tour   :whistle:
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline RDBZ

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 66
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #120 on: August 05, 2018, 02:55:14 »
Damn.  I was starting to get used to "bunnies and love hearts" by the end of my tour   :whistle:

Auscam was an OK evolution of the USMC P42 pattern.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2018, 02:58:46 by RDBZ »

Online Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 21,887
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 313
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #121 on: August 05, 2018, 06:45:52 »
Single pattern? No thanks.

We could just as easily find ourselves operating in a desert as we could a jungle / woodlands. Would AR have been suitable in Bosnia? TW in Kandahar or Mali? I would contend that we are likely to operate in disparate enough climates that we should have a couple of different palates available. There are even 'Arid' and 'Tropic' variants of Multicam now.

It defies credulity to think a single camouflage pattern can genuinely suit the majority of environments we're likely to work given the variety of terrain we have found ourselves in, not hypothetically.

Multicam looks cool, and we all like to look cool. But my issued camouflage speaks to my survivability, so I want that decision to be research based.

You're correct that a pattern tailored to the terrain we operate in is obviously going to be better than a transitional pattern designed to be "good enough" most places. The problem with multiple patterns is we never seem to have enough of the right ones at the right times, and we are never going to have a big enough budget to issue all of our people with multiple patterns. If we have an 80% solution for most places we are likely to go we are farther ahead than using TW in Kabul/Kandahar, or AR in open grasslands/forrests. Further to that, if our AOR is big enough we may need something passable in the dessert, but also something that works in green spaces, or irrigated areas adjacent to desserts.

Also... we have seen what "research based" has lead to in boots, rucks, etc... do we really need more research when others have done it for us? If Multicam/transitional patterns are such a bad idea why have most other anglosphere nations switched to MC, or something very similar?

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 214,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,433
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #122 on: August 05, 2018, 09:55:28 »
If Multicam/transitional patterns are such a bad idea why have most other anglosphere nations switched to MC, or something very similar?

Because we have the luxury of focusing on 'combat fashion minutae' while other countries are more concerned about sustaining capabilities that will help ensure national survival?

It's a Maslow thing....
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline OceanBonfire

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 46
Re: CF moving to Multicam?
« Reply #123 on: August 10, 2018, 14:12:59 »
Quote
Fit, Function, Fight: Our Uniform, Our Future


There has been a fair amount of media speculation over the past week regarding the future of the Canadian Armed Forces’ combat uniforms. This issue matters to every member of the profession of arms, because our uniforms are more than our working clothing, or a symbol of our service. They are a combat system. And like any combat system, they are carefully designed to meet our operational needs.

We have been using our current Canadian Disruptive Pattern (CADPAT) uniforms for 20 years, in dozens of missions in different operating environments. Over that time, we’ve learned many lessons from their use, and made subtle changes based on your feedback. We’ve moved pockets to allow better access to your kit while you’re wearing body armour. We’ve changed the cut to improve wear and comfort. Each one of these factors – patterns, cut, configurations, material – can affect the way we operate.

And after 20 years of use, it’s time to take a wider look at the entire combat system, both in its individual parts and the combat uniform as a whole.

To be clear, this is a decision based on our desire to improve our performance on operations. “Fashion” has nothing to do with it. “Fashion” doesn’t offer survivability to our members, and any suggestion that we would base our decisions on something like that is both ridiculous and offensive.

Here are some of the questions we are asking as part of our analysis:


- Are our combat uniforms designed to fit the soldier of today? While the “average” body shape hasn’t changed all that much across the force, we want to be sure the uniform works for every member who wears it, regardless of gender, and whether you’re 5’5” and lean or 6’6” and jacked.
- Is the material standing up to use in the field, in the different environments we’re operating in?
- Is the uniform’s configuration optimized for the new soldier systems that are coming into use?
- Are we over-specializing to particular environments? Can we find a single pattern that offers a broader range of use, so we can avoid the issues that come with trading sets between mission rotations?[/li][/list]


This last point is particularly important – moving to a single pattern will provide a real operational boost to our soldiers. As the Canadian Forces Chief Warrant Officer, Alain Guimond, has said: “The soldier’s job is to be fit to fight, and no two uniform types are built exactly the same – even small differences in fit can be a major distraction. Allowing the soldier to adapt to one uniform, with one set of personalized kit, will improve their ability to fight. We want to make the system fit the soldier, and not the other way around.”

But while we’ve got most of the right questions, we’re still in the early stages of finding the answers. Later this year, we will be moving out with several small test runs of different uniforms – a “try before you buy” approach that will allow us to get direct feedback from you, our members, about what works well and what doesn’t. Not everyone will get to test these out, but every version will undergo testing by your fellow members of the profession of arms. We are also engaging our defence research scientists, as we did in the development of CADPAT, to make sure our decisions are fully informed.

What will the final result look like? How much will it cost? These are things we don’t know right now, because we’re just starting our testing. Our focus, in the short term, is on the needs of you – our people. As we’ve demonstrated in recent policy changes on personal equipment – from boots to undergarments – we want to ensure that your personal equipment is designed based on what you need it to be.

Once we’ve determined what those requirements are, we’ll communicate those details. We’re confident, after two decades of experience with CADPAT, that Canadian industry will find a way to make this work.

https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2018/08/17529
Recruiting Center: Montreal
Regular/Reserve: Regular Force
Officer/NCM: Officer (DEO)
Occupation choice #2: Logistics Officer (Selected)
Current application: March 28, 2017
CFAT: Previously completed in November 2011
Interview: July 11, 2017
Medical: August 2017
Competition list: October/November 2017
Position Offered: May 25, 2018
Swearing In: August 21, 2018
BMOQ: August 25, 2018