The Land Operations Temperate Boots (LOTB)
- Thread starter Poppa
- Start date
RCPalmer
Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
ArmyVern said:
As I have said above, I am not married to any specific COA, or as you say, the specific answer I allegedly want. I would be happy with any COA (be that supply issued, boot allowance or personal purchase) provided it resulted in soldiers receiving half-way decent footwear in a reasonable time frame.
Commanders (at any level) are not assessed on the things they try to do, they are assessed on the things that they do. At a certain point, the "why's" as in "why" something cannot be done cease to matter. We are all paid to generate an effect on the ground, which means using our initiative and creativity to solve the problems between where we are and the desired end state. It is unfair to blame the politicians, the TB, or the civilian bureaucracy for a CAF failure to resolve such a small matter internally within a decade. If we were discussing the acquisition of the next generation fighter, or the surface combatant project, I would be more patient.
If we are still having this discussion in 10 year's time, it is because our commanders (at all levels) have failed us.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
So the "ownership" in all this is very clear to me. Canada was mandated to improve the kit / equipment our soldiers use / wear. We have made huge strides in this improvement - I don't care what anyone thinks. I wore rags, garbage bags and drove parts buckets for at least half of my career. I can only imagine what my predecessors put up with!
My point is, Canada just didn't go and say "Well, we think this will work so lets put millions on millions into this and force them to like it"... We are taught due-dilligence. We have LFTEU for a reason. How many times have I sent out a request for volunteers to either participate in a trial or survey, only to have to send back a no-fill to ops. How many of you on this thread alone have submitted a UCR along with your complaint posts, or the bitterness around the water cooler? I was with a combat arms unit not too long ago where post-ex drills at my level included an AAR. We had several kit issues to which I addressed in the report as it hindered our troops effectiveness. At the following A&Q we we over the final draft of the AAR and my input had been dropped off. Asking why, I got the response "That's a Supply issue, not an "us"issue"...
I have been accused of being monochromatic in some of my views. But I put this to all of us - common sense aside, we live, breath eat and sleep regs as soldiers. What IF every RSM, CSM, OC and CO actually ENFORCED the dress policy? What would you do then?
The reason we "trial" kit is to get a general concensus about what works and what doesn't. Maybe the trials and evaluations process needs to be looked at?
My point is, Canada just didn't go and say "Well, we think this will work so lets put millions on millions into this and force them to like it"... We are taught due-dilligence. We have LFTEU for a reason. How many times have I sent out a request for volunteers to either participate in a trial or survey, only to have to send back a no-fill to ops. How many of you on this thread alone have submitted a UCR along with your complaint posts, or the bitterness around the water cooler? I was with a combat arms unit not too long ago where post-ex drills at my level included an AAR. We had several kit issues to which I addressed in the report as it hindered our troops effectiveness. At the following A&Q we we over the final draft of the AAR and my input had been dropped off. Asking why, I got the response "That's a Supply issue, not an "us"issue"...
I have been accused of being monochromatic in some of my views. But I put this to all of us - common sense aside, we live, breath eat and sleep regs as soldiers. What IF every RSM, CSM, OC and CO actually ENFORCED the dress policy? What would you do then?
The reason we "trial" kit is to get a general concensus about what works and what doesn't. Maybe the trials and evaluations process needs to be looked at?
- Reaction score
- 118
- Points
- 680
RCPalmer said:
http://army.ca/forums/threads/33365/post-732035.html#msg732035
This link is only 8 years old (but there are some older than that on this site too), but I'm sure you'll see the frustration being faced all the way around. Same questions, same proposals, same nyets each and every time.
When a new boot comes out a few years from now, this circle will continue ... to go round and round and round. It is the law of the land for procurement and until we have a government willing to do what's right for the troops' feet ...
BinRat55 said:
Me. I UCRed every single piece of the Aircrew NBCD ensemble in 1988/1989, except for the overboots as they were the standard Army ones and actually worked. The rest would reduce a Tac Hel unit operating in the field to 0% effectiveness in less than 24 hours if there was a chemical threat, even if no chemicals were used. Only the mask has changed in that time. The rest is still just as worse-than-useless. I've not seen much benefit from the UCR system since then.
Staffing a UCR is, especially in this day of customer-friendly online forms with drop-down menus, an onerous task. It should be done via an online form - and one that meets commercial standards (ie gathers information without driving customers mad/away) rather than the nightmarish online Security Clearance form.
BinRat55 said:
Yes. Operational kit should not be handed to non-operational people to try.
Several different examples/versions should be issued to the same trial group for comparison. A single version only allows comparison to the previous POS. As development takes a decade or so, troops conducting trials tend to accept anything marginally better than the previous POS, even if it is badly flawed. They know that, if they reject it, it'll be another ten years before the revised version appears. Speedy revision/manufacture/issue/trial/feedback cycles would improve this as well.
That is what commercial manufacturers do very well - receive complaints, change designs/materials, remanufacture, and put out to market - because they have a very real incentive.
- Reaction score
- 22,785
- Points
- 1,360
BinRat55 said:
As with Loachman, I submitted mid-double digits' worth of UCRs, first as a Squadron ALSEO, then as a Group and Wing ALSEO. Temporarily, to respond to some of the UCRs for boots (haven't even touched on gloves, Life-perserver/Survival-vests, etc...), we were given L501 funding to procure Danners (mid/late-90's) until the situation was "fixed"....still waiting for the fix. As you said BinRat55, it isn't a Sup Tech issue, it is a Force Development issue that remains to be resolved...mondopoint and some other "good ideas" along the way have not helped the long-term solution...
op:Regards,
G2G
- Reaction score
- 118
- Points
- 680
Good2Golf said:As with Loachman, I submitted mid-double digits' worth of UCRs, first as a Squadron ALSEO, then as a Group and Wing ALSEO. Temporarily, to respond to some of the UCRs for boots (haven't even touched on gloves, Life-perserver/Survival-vests, etc...), we were given L501 funding to procure Danners (mid/late-90's) until the situation was "fixed"....still waiting for the fix. As you said BinRat55, it isn't a Sup Tech issue, it is a Force Development issue that remains to be resolved...mondopoint and some other "good ideas" along the way have not helped the long-term solution...
Regards,
G2G
I can vouch for those UCRs!! :nod:
MJP
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 2,972
- Points
- 1,260
Loachman said:
The UCR form is online and fairly simple except for a few tricky spots.
1) Finding the NSN or the right one and sometimes the actual item name.
1) Finding the right authority (DSSM5 etc etc).
All the that info means going to the CGCS which is unwieldy at best and then once you find the item knowing how to read it.
Luckily there is a UCR how to manual on the UCR site, it says more than it needs to but it gets folks the info they need.
I agree that the form could be done a bit better and the how to guide pared down to "explain like I am Infantry", but it is workable.
- Reaction score
- 79
- Points
- 680
Can you post the link?
- Reaction score
- 79
- Points
- 680
:facepalm:
missed it the first time..
missed it the first time..
RCPalmer
Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
BinRat55 said:
You are quite correct with regards to the improvements. We are a long way from the denim field jacket with corduroy collar.
The trials process is very important, and we should all help out with that. I have been in the field force for 15 years, and I have never seen a request to participate in a trial apart from high readiness training, and there was a fairly disciplined process in place to collect feedback on the tac vests which were being trialed in that case. If you are looking for a PRes Infantry unit to participate in some trials, please let me know
In the case of the boots, a proper trial could have/should have noted the glaring QA/QC issues with our suppliers, but I digress...
I am a bit less satisfied by the stuff we build from the ground up based on our own organic human factors research. My observation is that we tend to get very expensive and over-engineered products out of that process. The CTS rucksack is a good example. I think it is a bit arrogant for us to think that we can design better products than industry, with its massive R&D resources, and continuous iterative improvement based on customer feedback and market forces.
ArmyVern said:
I don't dispute the fact that the boot allowance COA has been tried many times over the years. It is a good COA. Lots of great staff work probably went into providing a solid justification to the TB. However, as Einstein said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
My point here is that for a commander, it isn't acceptable to just accept an unsatisfactory situation on an important issue, or simply reinforce failure and hope for the best. I include myself in this at a lower level. It isn't acceptable for me to ignore this either. So, where do we stand?
-Boot allowance COA rejected by TB multiple times. Ok, probably not worth the staff effort to revisit.
-Standard acquisition process fails three times over a decade, not because of a failure to produce a "perfect boot", but because each boot procured disintegrated on contact with dirt. Do you expect a different result in the next round? Maybe this isn't going to work either...
That is where the initiative and creativity aspect comes in to come up with some new options. Obviously there are some "tongue-in-cheek" elements to these proposals. For example, we could:
-Implement the self-purchase from a list option I have noted above
-Engage with a non-profit to start a "buy a soldier his dream boots" charitable initiative. The U.S. Army has a "buy a soldier a long distance phone card" charitable initiative...
-Create a small cobbler occupation and implement a nice signing bonus to attract some talented staff from Lowa, or another top tier manufacturer. Employ the cobblers as compliance experts to bring a Canadian factory up to speed.
My point here is that there are always options, and our job is to make things happen.
- Reaction score
- 79
- Points
- 680
ArmyVern said:Sorted the above out for you as I'm quite certain MCG has placed it on this site at least that many times. >
Thanks Vern [
- Reaction score
- 22,785
- Points
- 1,360
The system (UCRs) can work. It may have taken a little time, but I did see an early-90s UCR for mortarman's gloves make its way through the system and provide a workable product in the end. In the mean time, mortarmen were issued aircrew gloves (tactile feel and required grip). The Army played quite nicely, and provided the Air Force LCMM with additional funds to procure enough additional gloves to fulfil the mortar requirement -- all in all a rather collegial and workable interim solution, pending the end-state solution. That said, boots will likely be an enduring challenge.
:2c:
Regards
G2G
:2c:
Regards
G2G
MCG said:
Roger. Thanks. It's nice to see progress.
How widely advertised is this? There should be posters everywhere.
RCPalmer said:
Yes. Definitely.
And how often do we make "continuous iterative improvement(s) based on customer feedback"? Smaller purchases made over time, rather than one massive purchase every decade or more (everything from tac vests to ships), would make that easier.
Similar threads
