Updated Army Service Dress project

[dapaterson]

They also aren't trying to create that industry out of thin air, over a 15 year period, to economically stimulate a contested Liberal riding...

I thought the TCCS contract was let in Alberta, back in the day.

 

[FSTO]

The RCN still hasn't managed to legally change the rank designation of Corporal Of The Sea from Leading Seaman, so "on time" might be a bit of a stretch.

 

[markppcli]

Maybe because they don’t waste effort with standing committees for the purpose of tinkering with DEUs and garrison patches.

Didn’t you object to the lack of “Canada” shoulder patches? Surely if you have thoughts on a design, and the patches going along with it, you’d agree that we need to have some kind of oversight to its design?

 

[dimsum]

Why is the CAF dress committee speaking to anything environmental? The various sorts of operational and specialist dress, absolutely, but seems like Nos. 1-3 should be left entirely to their respective environmental committees.

It’s the other way around.

The environmental committees (which meet like twice a year) control the operational and specialist dress because there’s no point talking about flight suits to a group with the Army and Navy involved. Similarly, NCDs or new Army-specific items.

The national committee (again, twice a year) discusses the DEU stuff.

The minutes are available on DWAN and they discuss all sorts of things.

 

[ueo]

Because we have to actually make decisions about uniforms? Pretty sure it's quarterly or biannual meeting, which isn't breaking the bank in terms of staff work.

Given the amount of changes, I doubt this!

 

[dimsum]

Given the amount of changes, I doubt this!

So…it should be more meetings?

The service committees and the national committee meet twice a year. So to be generous, say each meeting is 3 hours (probably less) - that’s 12 hours a year that the committees discuss dress.

Taking a quick read of the minutes, many of those are quick “all agree” things. There are probably some topics that have some discussion but it’s not like the Army can overrule the Navy on the Navy’s DEU choices.

 

[Rifleman62]

Is the PPCLI officer in the wedge cap Major Stewart?

 

[McG]

Didn’t you object to the lack of “Canada” shoulder patches? Surely if you have thoughts on a design, and the patches going along with it, you’d agree that we need to have some kind of oversight to its design?

We have a system that does oversight of projects.

 

[daftandbarmy]

How do we have people with so little to do that they can form standing dress committees focused on aesthetics?

Oh, I'll go!

Because it's an easier way to make people feel good about themselves than insisting on higher quality leadership?

 

[markppcli]

We have a system that does oversight of projects.

Which is obviously flawless and should be replicated where ever possible.


in theory we procure to meet doctrinal needs, we establish doctrine in various schools, training centres, and HQs. I fail to see a significant difference in have ten people use up 12 hours a year.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Is the PPCLI officer in the wedge cap Major Stewart?

The photo was from the 1977 edition of The Patrician (a PDF download). The officer is not identified, however he would have been with 3VP. I used that photo to illustrate that way back when, some officers of the PPCLI wore wedge caps - either (I speculate) as a nod to a Rifles heritage or because they thought they could look as cool as the Royal Green Jackets exchange officer (they couldn't). I remember the few times that I saw officers wearing it in Calgary they were in service dress, usually S4 (short sleeve shirt). It's odd seeing an army officer of that era wearing a wedge with combats, but from the same pub there's another image of someone also wearing the wedge cap, this time in work dress.

 

[PuckChaser]

We have a system that does oversight of projects.

That gets its tasks from L1s borne out of discussions in committees like NDCDC. Either you're being deliberately obtuse on how projects get created or you actually don't know.

 

[McG]

in theory we procure to meet doctrinal needs …

No actually. Capability is the combination of several things spanning concepts, doctrine, organization, training, materiel, etc …
All of these things should be developed in coordination with each other, but we don’t actually have a coherent process synchronizing that capability development. So sometimes our doctrine, structures, and equipment staffs are working to disjointed ends (if not in opposite directions). Maybe ten people times “12 hours a year” could solve the capability synchronization problem … and that’s not even counting the time some PD is putting into creating obligatory project documentation and briefings to support garrison hats & badges.

 

[Kilted]

The RCN still hasn't managed to legally change the rank designation of Corporal Of The Sea from Leading Seaman, so "on time" might be a bit of a stretch.

I'm wondering if we are going to see the whole Sailor 1st Class thing go away after the next election.

 

[markppcli]

No actually. Capability is the combination of several things spanning concepts, doctrine, organization, training, materiel, etc …
All of these things should be developed in coordination with each other, but we don’t actually have a coherent process synchronizing that capability development. So sometimes our doctrine, structures, and equipment staffs are working to disjointed ends (if not in opposite directions). Maybe ten people times “12 hours a year” could solve the capability synchronization problem … and that’s not even counting the time some PD is putting into creating obligatory project documentation and briefings to support garrison hats & badges.

So I guess the actually question is what do you want to be done then? Because you aren’t happy with the new service dress, but you object to any time being spent on it. You obviously accept that it meets a need, you clearly understand this update was a result of industry no longer being able to meet the material requirements. So do you want to just have industry pitch us our dress policy?

 

[McG]

A standing dress committee is not needed to provide governance to a project, and it does not provide such governance. The governance comes from the army chain of command. What the standing committee offers is a platform for good idea fairies to spawn the next project to tinker (like white belts for RCN on joint parades). When there is a requirement, then we can run a project like for any other requirement. The project can even consult SMEs and conduct user focus groups without need of a standing buttons committee.

 

[markppcli]

A standing dress committee is not needed to provide governance to a project, and it does not provide such governance. The governance comes from the army chain of command. What the standing committee offers is a platform for good idea fairies to spawn the next project to tinker (like white belts for RCN on joint parades). When there is a requirement, then we can run a project like for any other requirement. The project can even consult SMEs and conduct user focus groups without need of a standing buttons committee.

You’re over emphasizing the standing. Sure of the committee. It meets four times a year, would you really call that “standing?” All of these people are already engaged in other aspects of the Army’s chain of command so again… what is the difference? Because if it was just up to the army chain of command, surely they have to meet once or twice or maybe more a year to make these decisions anyways. If they need to consult SMEs, surely that also a couple meetings.