Info from DSSPM-DAPES@ADM(Mat) regarding equipment and small arms upgrades

[MikeL]

DSSPM-DAPES response to my email(seen below)

Good morning Sir,

Thank you for your comments. With respect to the FPV, we are currently considering a product improvement on our current system that will improve the strength and shape of the ballistic insert pouches. We are also considering improvements to our PPE (helmets, ballistic plates) to reduce the overall weight and bulk without compromising strength.

While we can base our requirements on the strengths of known products, we are obligated to compete our procurements as much as possible. The next generation of the Rucksack is planned as a Modular Field Pack system that will allow the user to modify the load carriage components to meet their specific mission. However, fielding of this type of system will likely not happen until at least late 2014.

Concerning the small arms upgrades; the C7A3 with integrated rail will not be introduced for a while as this portion of SAM project has been delayed for several years as part of the last Army rationalisation. As far as the triad goes it looks like we will continue to rely on that for the time being. No feedback was received that would lead to believe that majority of soldiers are being unhappy with this system. There is no plan to introduce either the RIS (Rail Interface System) or RAS (Rail Accessory System) at this time due to the fact that they are expensive and they have not passed the trials when firing the M203A1 Grenade Launcher

If you have concerns with the performance of any in-service equipment, I invite you to follow the UCR process to best document and track the problems (http://dgmssc.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/ucrs/Default.asp). All your comments related to recommendations for future requirements have been forwarded to the appropriate DLR section for consideration.

Thanks again for taking the time to contact us.

My original email

Good afternoon Sir/Ma'am,

I am curious if there will be a new FPV in the future that would be more of a plate carrier similar to the USMC Scalable Plate Carrier or the LBT 6094 used by CANSOFCOM(as well as the US and other militaries). A less bulky system I believe would be the best way to go instead of our current system that is quite bulky/awkward, especially when the shoulder/bicep protectors and throat guard are attached. Mobility is key, as well as not weighing troops down as combat loads can already be quite heavy without attaching the shoulder/bicep and throat protectors. As well, a system such as the USMC SPC or LBT 6094 allows troops to attach pouches directly onto the armour. For roles such as driver, gunner, crew commander, etc where PPE is required but not FFO a detachable chest rig would be the way to go similar to the USMC/US Army Tactical Assault Panel.

As well, I have heard there is a new small pack and rucksack system in the works. Would there be a possibility of doing a COTS purchase for a new pack like the Mystery Ranch 3 Day Assault Pack, I believe the Australian Defence Force recently went this was. As well, will the new rucksack be another internal framed rucksack or will it be an external frame. Myself and I'm sure others would like to see us go back to an external framed rucksack such as the USMC FILBE or US Army MOLLE ruck on a DEI frame.

I have seen a .ppt about the small arms upgrades. Any new information regarding this product? I'm sure majority of Soldiers would like to see the Triad removed and us getting a RAS mounted onto our C7/C8 rifles.>


Any chance of us procuring a new Helmet NVG mount? The current mount is ok, but it can loosen off on the strap and become loose/slide around on the helmet. Is there talk of having a NVG mount that would screw directly into the helmet or getting a Cadex Helmet NVG mount? The Cadex is a solid mount and it locks into place.


Lastly, what colour would the new LBE be coming in? Going Coyote Brown for all kit would be a good way to go, as it would work in both TW and AR enviroments. As well, it would cut down on costs as the CF would not have to purchase items in both TW and AR.


Thank you

 

[PuckChaser]

Is there a second part of the email? They didn't answer any questions about the LBE or NVG mounts. Good info none-the-less, thanks for sharing.

 

[MikeL]

I posted the complete email,  but it was mentioned that those questions/suggestions were forwarded to the DLR sections.

All your comments related to recommendations for future requirements have been forwarded to the appropriate DLR section for consideration.

  If I get a response from the DLR sections I'll update this thread.


I did reply back to ask if they can discuss why the RAS and M203A1 wasn't passing trials.  I know C7A2s and C8s have been used with the KAC RAS and M203A1 before; I don't recall hearing anything negative about it from the users.

 

[PJOsborne]

Perhaps the SAM project people were interested in keeping the current design of M203A1 as-is (ie, with the lower handguard still attached) in order to save costs instead of modifying the M203A1 to interface using a RAS? I can't really think of any other reason why it'd fail a trial.

 

[NavyShooter]

At the small arms conference in G-town last November, the RIS/RAS issue was discussed as being a durability issue....some apparently failed in testing with as little as 10 rounds fired.

I cannot speak to the exact model tested, nor can I speak to the installation process followed, etc, but I can confirm that they had nice looking photos of a C-7A3 with a monolithic railed upper receiver that did look rather nice. 

The future SAM project seemed to be two-fold, one with networked digital optics, and the other with a made-in Canada rifle using CT type ammo in a bullpup config.

NS

 

[MikeL]

They must have used a poor quality RAS/RIS if it failed after 10 rounds fired.  CANSOF and Close Protection seem to have no issues with the RAS they use on their C8s.  Same with the members I know who have purchased a KAC RAS for their C7/C8 for tour.

With regards to my reply to DSSPM-DAPES, they never got back to me.  I did write them a new email with suggestions covering some of the same points as my last and some new ones.  Also included was links to photos(C7/M203 with RAS) different products, and AARs(specifically the 1PPCLI AAR on CF weapons).  The reply I got was that the info was forwarded to the project managers.

I encourage everyone who has experience with CF gear as well as some experience with non issue quality gear.  When it comes to suggestions,  explain why  X product/system is better then the issue item, provide links to products and any relevant AARs.  If, you mention that a piece of kit is already in the system issued to CANSOF or Close Protection, you should know that it actually is for a fact.