The Integrated Soldier System Project (ISSP)

[daftandbarmy]

Has anyone seen this allegedly new stuff?


Canada Joins The Movement

January 24, 2010:

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

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

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

 

[brihard]

Tease the Soldier: Redux?

 

[LordOsborne]

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

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

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

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

(my italics)​

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

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

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

Has anyone else seen this? Thoughts?

 

[OldSolduer]

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

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

I'm a bit of a pessimist.

 

[LordOsborne]

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

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

 

[OldSolduer]

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

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

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

 

[RCR Grunt]

I was perusing and stumbled upon this page...

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

...Has anyone else seen this? Thoughts?

My thoughts...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion / Summary:

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

 

[AmmoTech90]

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

 

[LordOsborne]

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

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

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

 

[Troopasaurus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Sig_Des]

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

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

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

 

[Lerch]

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

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

 

[LordOsborne]

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

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

 

[Matt_Fisher]

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

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

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

 

[Matt_Fisher]

My thoughts...


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

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

 

[LordOsborne]

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

 

[Matt_Fisher]

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

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

Cheers,

Matt

 

[LordOsborne]

Ack - Sorry, I must have missed that memo 

 

[RCR Grunt]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[quote author=Anyone's Grunt on Yesterday at 10:48:05]
My thoughts...


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

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

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

 

[REDinstaller]

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