Possible Clothe the Soldier dropleg setup?

[Command-Sense-Act 105]

CDN Aviator, thanks for that - the "choice factor" is one that I forgot to work into my post above.  Yet another factor...

 

[HItorMiss]

Honestly for 1 year I would go to DLR if only to stop some of the projects I have seen.

And Patrick no rig is design for putting the mags back in, thats why I preach dump pouch. When in contact gross motor skills only and jamming into dump pouch is easy and quick.

 

[RHFC_piper]

Just a quick question. no offence intended...

How many afghanistan Vets would be willing to take a posting to DLR ?

I know in some trades, being posted away from the line units to a office-type job is seens as undeirable by most members, therfore how many combats arms guys with recent time in the sandbox would accept a posting to Ottawa with DLR ?

I would in a heart beat... But I think my motivation comes partly from the lack of civilian employment I'll be facing once I'm released from my extended class C contract. 

I'm very interested in defence R&D and have a background in Manufacturing and CAD/CNC...  I also have a vested interest in getting the best gear to the troops.

All this coupled with the fact that I may never get another shot at a combat tour with a front line unit (long reserve waiting list with 'luck of the draw' selection), pretty much leaves me open to postings elsewhere without remorse.

With all this said; the chances of a reserve cpl. with one combat tour (only 3 weeks of), no other trades training in the forces, and only college trades courses, getting a position at DLR are pretty slim... at best.  oh well... back to the machine shop.

 

[aesop081]

Honestly for 1 year I would go to DLR if only to stop some of the projects I have seen.

One year is rather insufficient for someone to get trained and familiar with his/her employement.  I'm not trying to be condescending but why do i have a feeling that next time you see your career manager, you wont be volunteering for a posting to DLR ?

You have Afghanistan experience and beleive you can do a better job so why not do it......it can only help everyone out, right ?

I would in a heart beat... But I think my motivation comes partly from the lack of civilian employment I'll be facing once I'm released from my extended class C contract. 

I'm very interested in defence R&D and have a background in Manufacturing and CAD/CNC...  I also have a vested interest in getting the best gear to the troops.

All this coupled with the fact that I may never get another shot at a combat tour with a front line unit (long reserve waiting list with 'luck of the draw' selection), pretty much leaves me open to postings elsewhere without remorse.

With all this said; the chances of a reserve cpl. with one combat tour (only 3 weeks of), no other trades training in the forces, and only college trades courses, getting a position at DLR are pretty slim... at best.  oh well... back to the machine shop.

Piper, i realise what you are saying.  But as a general principle, if someone who has experience in recent ops, beleives they can do a better job, and is in an apropriate rank, would they go to DLR ?  Seems to me that would be the best way to make a change.  its like postings to the schools.  Everyone bitches about the quality of students/training but no one wants to get posted there.

 

[HItorMiss]

No worries on the condesending issue CDN we know eachother to well for that to be misconstrude 

As for 1 year being to short I think it's just right, any longer and you will loose touch with current op's 1 yr would get constant new experience while making ensuring the cbt arms member does not end his career and rotates back for a deployment after a good break. Plus although the time is short it is long enough to create and or stop a kit precurment or project.

All IMO of course

 

[MJP]

I know of people that have expressed interest in going to DLR, CMTC, LFDTS etc etc.  Wanna know what they are told by the career manager?  It isn't ok we will look into it for you.  Reality is most of the time you are told your options (or lack thereof) and they usually consist of one of the schools.  Which is fine, the schools need a steady turnover of personnel fresh from operations to stay current and relevant just as much as any other unit.  But don't try and tell me it's as easy as pie to just raise your hand and whammo your in DLR or any of the other non school units CSA 105 mentioned.

HOM 1 year is a drop in the bucket. You need to be there for some time.  While you may lose touch with the small changes in TTPs over a year or two, I don't think you'll be missing much overall.  Especially if your part of a regular TAV going over and getting the lessons learned from the front.

 

[RHFC_piper]

Piper, i realise what you are saying.  But as a general principle, if someone who has experience in recent ops, beleives they can do a better job, and is in an apropriate rank, would they go to DLR ? 

What would be considered an apropriate rank?  I only ask as I figure the best ranks to send to DLR would be the ones who use the equipment directly and see the effects first hand; Pte. Cpl. MCpl. Sgt.  These are the ranks who use the kit to it's fullest, in an evironment where, if the kit doesn't perform, it can cost lives.  I'd sooner want a cpl with Op experience designing my gear rather than a Captian with the same amount of Op tours.  It's first hand knowledge from front line soldiers.

I think this kind of posting should be offered to troops who've been in the worst fire fights, on the worst tours and have first hand knowledge of what is needed on the battlefield.  And with that said, it should be encouraged and supported by peers and their CoC.

Seems to me that would be the best way to make a change.  its like postings to the schools.  Everyone bitches about the quality of students/training but no one wants to get posted there.

There's quite a stigma attached to school postings, and I've heard it from Regs and reserve alike.  I agree with you on this one; the only way things will get better is if this attitude changes.  IMHO, I believe it is the duty of soldiers with Operation Experience to train those who have none, and prepare them for what's to come.  And I think it should be the same with the development of operational equipment.

I'm glad to see that the CF is trying to sort out drop leg rigs, as misguided as the attempt might seem. If nothing else, atleast it may ease the tension in the ranks about using non-issued drop leg with the arguement that, now that there is one in the system how bad is it for a soldier to use an aftermarket one that performs better but looks the same.  

 

[aesop081]

Look, i'm not familiar with DLR or what ranks should be posted there...i was just offering something for discussion...get some thoughts.

In my line of work, if i even utter "MP&EU" in front of my career manager ( that our T&E unit) ...i will be there faster than the speed of sound........wether i like it or not !!!

 

[brihard]

As some of you know, the CLS authorized a try-and-buy for new load carriage options for the army. An email I read about DLR sending some people to Afghanistan and conducting interviews and questionnaires about kit issues was awful to read. As usual the conclusion of DLR was that the kit wasn't inadequate- soldiers just weren't using it as they intended and were therefore to blame. 10 magazines? nope. We have to stop thinking we need to carry so much ammo, says DLR. I will try to see if I'm allowed to post the email in full.

I digress, but some of the try-and-buy options that I read about included some new drop-leg items that were to be developed through CTS (in addition to that mythical C9-pouch divider I've heard about). I took a look at FellFab's website (they make the TV and the Small Pack) and they have posted an image of what looks like a dropleg M203 setup.

http://www.fellfab.com/canada/military/index.shtml

Thoughts? Comments?


(Edited to include URL)

Am I the only one to whom that looks like an M203 panel for the tacvest? The straps look configured about right for the buckles...

 

[Spartan]

Related to company - not dropleg specific.
Rucksacks are contracted since Nov 06 -
http://www.fellfab.com/canada/news/110906.shtml

FELLFAB Limited Awarded $22.6 Million Defence Contract

November 9, 2006 - Hamilton, Ontario - FELLFAB Limited has recently been awarded a $22.6 million contract by the Department of National Defence to produce the newly developed Rucksack.  This is the third contract award to FELLFAB Limited in support of the Load Carriage System under the Department of National Defence’s Clothe the Soldier Project.  The project, established in 1996, was implemented to provide 24 items of operational clothing and equipment to Canadian Forces personnel conducting land operations.  The Rucksack is the 21st item to reach contract award under this project.
The Rucksack incorporates the advanced Canadian Disruptive Pattern (CADPAT™) digital camouflage.  CADPAT™ is a significant step forward in camouflage, concealment and deception on the battlefield.   The Rucksack will be a basic issue item to selected dismounted Regular and Reserve CF personnel conducting land operations.  It will provide the primary load carriage means in operations where soldiers are required to carry combat supplies and sustainment items for greater than 24 hours and sufficient for up to 72 hours.  Additionally, the Rucksack has been designed to be worn over fragmentation protection if necessary.

This award comes only a few years following two previous awards to FELLFAB Limited of $10.7 million and $18.9 million respectively for the first and second items in the Load Carriage System, the Tactical Vest and Small Pack System.  “The award of the Tactical Vest contract in 2002 was a milestone for FELLFAB®.  Undertaking the bid process and learning the project management requirements associated with the contract allowed our company to grow in our knowledge and experience.  The follow up award on the Small Pack System served to reinforce this learning and paved our way for success with the Rucksack.  This award is a significant accomplishment for FELLFAB®, and demonstrates our commitment to the project, our people, and our support of the Canadian Forces”, says Glen Fell, President of FELLFAB®.  

As a result of this significant award, FELLFAB Limited is looking to hire additional industrial sewing machine operators and general labourers; estimating that the contract will create approximately 20 new jobs. The contract is expected to be completed over a two-year period and includes a sub-contract portion to Apparel Trimmings Inc. of Scarborough, Ontario.

I'm just wondering - 11M for the Tackvest and 19M for a backpack with detachable pockets - doesn't that seem a tad pricey ?

 

[RHFC_piper]

Am I the only one to whom that looks like an M203 panel for the tacvest? The straps look configured about right for the buckles...

Now that you say that... and upon closer inspection...  I agree...

But what then? sacrifice a utility pouch?

Too many problems with the TV,  too many 'band-aid' solutions.

 

[MJP]

That is exactly what it is.  I have a trial one hanging around my tickle trunk somwhere.  IMHO it's pretty useless as it just takes away a pouch that could hold a 2 quart, box of C9 or other things a rifleman has to carry and replaces it with 7 M203 rounds that are hard to get at under the best of conditions.  Not to mention using buckles that are almost impossible to use when you lose all fine motor control during a firefight.

 

[HItorMiss]

Yes it does attach the vest I was remiss in not making that clear...

 

[PJOsborne]

Good eye for pointing that out. I wasn't looking closely enough. I think this item went from being a badly-concieved dropleg item to being an even worse pouch replacement idea    I bet once this comes out, CTS will start marketing the vest as being "more modular than ever before!!"

 

[westie47]

Well i know what I will be using, and it won't be the TV. It would have to have some MAJOR changes for me to use it.  As far as carrying too much, we carry what the bosses give us...enough stuff to do the job. That is why the ESSTAC BOAR and CP GEAR MOFOCR will be my two rigs.

 

[Kunu]

Gents, some of your comments about "chairborne in DLR" result from actions taken by the different land element Corps.  Ask around - for officers and Sr NCOs, a tech posting is often seen as streaming into a purely tech world; there is very little mixing between the streams of officers and NCOs that continue to go back and forth serving in Bns and Regts and those in technical postings.  Part of this is the fault of the chain of command - those in tech positions tend to go from tech position to tech position - DLR, T&E Gagetown, DREV, DRES, DRDC Toronto, Picatinny Arsenal, etc - tech trained personnel, who the Army has made a significant investment in, tend to move in this stream.  There are exceptions to this, but as a generalization it is a noticeable trend.  One can say "we need to send recent combat veterans to technical jobs", however look at all the places that are all looking for officers and Sr NCOs with recent operational and combat experience:

CTC Gagetown - Inf/Armd/Arty/Engr schools
CFSEME, CFSAL, CFSCE, other CS/CSS schools
CMTC - OPFOR and O/Cs
CLFCSC - DS for AOC
CFC Toronto - DS for CSC
Tactics School Gagetown - DS for CTCC and ATOC
RMC - Sqn/Div Comds to mentor upcoming officers
1, 2, 5 CMBG HQ - staff
CFLRS - DS
Staff in CEFCOM, Canada Com (or RJTFs esp with Olympics coming up), CANSOFCOM, CANOSCOM, CFJOG
CSOR - operators
DHTC - operators
and finally - DLR

Something, somewhere has to give.  Often what 'gives' is the technical world.  There is a lot of frustration out there, but not all the blame can be laid on those serving in DLR who do not have recent operational experience, as in many cases, it is where they have been "streamed" for one reason or another.  Part of the fault lies in decisions made by the Army in past years - as ye sow, so shall ye reap.

I'm relatively new and inexperienced CF-wise, but speaking from my design engineering experience in the civvy world, I'd have to agree DLR has dropped the ball here.  And any lack of experienced combat personnel at DLR there may or may not be is NO EXCUSE. 

When designing any product, there are many different considerations and stakeholders who must be taken into account.  Considerations such as cost, manufacturability, safety, environmental effects, ease of use, comfort, and performance in service.  Every stakeholder will also be pushing for their own agenda: beancounters will want it cheap, the supplier will want it easy to make, and troops will want it effective and comfortable.  The role of the designer is thus to develop a solution that satisfies all these criteria as best as possible, and unfortunately here, compromises often need to be made.  I'm sure everyone will agree that even the best Tacvest in the world would do little good if it cost $20 000 a piece.  Extreme example, but you see my point.  That being said, for each criteria, there are lines that just cannot be crossed.  One of which is a minimum standard of performance in service, which in this case is being able to hold 10 C7 mags, among other things.  And everyone knows they booted this one. 

The trick to being able to find effective solutions to problems with this many different considerations is to work concurrently with all stakeholders.  This includes going out and getting the honest, candid input from those who are going to be using the product, AND ACTUALLY LISTENING TO THEM.  No matter how well-intentioned the designers may be, and how much they try to imagine being in the user's shoes, they will NEVER understand the task to the same level as those who are actually doing it.  Now, again, compromises will often have to be made, but if concurrent design (as known in the field) is sincerely practiced, there can really be only two outcomes:

1/ a product that everyone agrees is at least good enough or,
2/ somebody was asking the impossible when specifying what they wanted in the product

 

[PhilB]

Well i know what I will be using, and it won't be the TV. It would have to have some MAJOR changes for me to use it.  As far as carrying too much, we carry what the bosses give us...enough stuff to do the job. That is why the ESSTAC BOAR and CP GEAR MOFOCR will be my two rigs.

I will see you Boar/MOFOCR and raise you a custom kydex retention trimmed bush and a MOFOCR! >

Seriously though I think one of the intrinsic issues with this topic is that we are looking for a be all end all solution. Perhaps adopting a system similar to that of the USMC is what is needed. Have, for instance, the infantry school, or some other learned body develop a list of sanctioned kit. i.e. TT MAV, MOFOCR, Eagle, incl pouches etc. From there, a soldier is given an allowance equal to the cost of a TV. I know that I set up my MAV on 1-06 completely for approx $300 Canadian. I know that the argument to this is idea is resupply however I feel that two points address this;

a) Approved after market kit is much more durable than anything we currently issue. My MAV went 9 months in the desert with absolutely no issues. The same cannot be said for my TV
b) The TV could be retained in the system for those who do not require a different rig i.e. purple trades in theater. If there is some drastic failure of the personal purchase kit it could be replaced with the TV. Although not a good option, better than nothing at all

The question would be how far to take this policy. Who should this program apply to? Troops earmarked to deploy? Reg force combat arms trades and reservists set to deploy? Who knows. Additionally should there be a replacement allowance?

I think that this idea has merit because it ;

a) Seems to be a somewhat lower cost alternative to completely redesigning our load bearing system, particularly if the program was limited to reg force combat arms, and those reservists who are deploying.
b) It addresses an individuals preference far better than a one size fits all solution
c) It allows for the input of those with current operational experience. (They could assist in compiling the "list")
d) Would see quality, usable kit placed in the hands of troops sooner rather than later.
e) Has the ability to keep pace with changes in the kit industry. (If the list were updated and altered as things changed)
f) Is not a band-aid solution, nor a complete Canadian re-design the wheel process. It takes into account the large amount of operational experience on both sides of the border

 

[KevinB]

Hire BigRed and I ,on a contract basis and we will redo DLR and CTS...

 

[RHFC_piper]

Hire BigRed and I ,on a contract basis and we will redo DLR and CTS...

I second that motion...   Sort it out.. design us some kit that's actually usefull.  ;D

 

[Farmboy]

Am I the only one to whom that looks like an M203 panel for the tacvest? The straps look configured about right for the buckles...

Beat you to it, check page 1    :-*

Phil

Is that whole concept not how the US does it.   That wouldn't be accepted, it's to american!!!