ISSP

[brihard]

They’re getting invisio T7s. I’ll be surprised if they include rail mounts for helmets. A) because they will frankly rightly not want to encourage the infantry to modify them, B) because it’s more expensive to include both, and C) while mounting your comms direct to your helmet has some advantages for sure, it’s also kind of a pain in the dick to have to throw your helmet on and connect to the ptt every time you want to test your comms.




Doubt it. The roll out is on going and I have no idea what the numbers look like. I think / hope they don’t be giving an EUD to every rifleman unless the goal is to crash a tac server through phallic drawings loading simultaneously. Not to be dismissive of guys, but that was the first thing our guys did when we had the tablets in the LAVs for Latvia.

Ok, but shouldn’t it be part of our procurement requirements that any information based system on which it is possible to draw dicks should be able to withstand a brief instance of the majority of a formation’s users of that system drawing dicks at roughly the same time? Because that’s basic soldier-proofing to me.

 

[MJP]

Ok, but shouldn’t it be part of our procurement requirements that any information based system on which it is possible to draw dicks should be able to withstand a brief instance of the majority of a formation’s users of that system drawing dicks at roughly the same time? Because that’s basic soldier-proofing to me.

Standard Light Battalion Clause 7.3, wording is different as it refers to phallic symbols but intent is the same. Might have been missed in the contract.

 

[brihard]

Standard Light Battalion Clause 7.3, wording is different as it refers to phallic symbols but intent is the same. Might have been missed in the contract.

Yup. Dicks will be drawn, so make the kit dick-resilient.

 

[markppcli]

Ok, but shouldn’t it be part of our procurement requirements that any information based system on which it is possible to draw dicks should be able to withstand a brief instance of the majority of a formation’s users of that system drawing dicks at roughly the same time? Because that’s basic soldier-proofing to me.

Unfortunately the builders of these thing are adults and tend to assume their end users are as well.

 

[brihard]

Unfortunately the builders of these thing are adults and tend to assume their end users are as well.

That’s a failure to define the user base; that’s on industry.

 

[GR66]

Quantities, as I understand it, are sufficient to equip high readiness formations, but not the whole army (Reg or Res).

Of course. You wouldn't want to have the whole army have standardized kit.

 

[dapaterson]

Of course. You wouldn't want to have the whole army have standardized kit.

Finite amounts of money; what to purchase in what quantities? Better to buy fewer LAVs? More medium trucks? Always a balancing act.

 

[markppcli]

Of course. You wouldn't want to have the whole army have standardized kit.

Finite amounts of money; what to purchase in what quantities? Better to buy fewer LAVs? More medium trucks? Always a balancing act.

Two sides of the coin; frankly the ISSP vest itself should replace the tac vest. That will rocket our fighting load carriage into the mid 2000s. However the EUD, radios, and comms suite probably don’t need to be issued out on that scale.

 

[Fabius]

Invisio 7 Headset

Three interchangeable models
1. Head band
2. Neck band
3. Helmet mount

The Inviso is a very good setup, especially with ATAK and two radios/or nets concurrently. I have ran various other active hearing protection and almost universally headbands suck with helmets. The suspension system and headband don’t generally go together well, which is incidentally why our AFV Comms headsets are neckband with the Velcro headband. Hence why I am curious what variant we are fielding.

Especially since the DICE helmets are coming standard issue with rails, at minimum those helmets should get the helmet model adaptor.

Honestly everyone should be running active hearing protection, even if they don’t need comms.

 

[dangerboy]

Of course. You wouldn't want to have the whole army have standardized kit.

The helmet was part of the DICE initiative, DICE stands for Dismounted Infantry Capability Enhancement. It was never designed for the whole army, it is just for the 3 x light battalions as well as any attachments they have (FOO party, Engineers...). They are using lessons learned from the DICE initiative as part of the greater army equipment project, SOCEM (Soldier Operational Clothing and Equipment Modernization).

 

[GR66]

The helmet was part of the DICE initiative, DICE stands for Dismounted Infantry Capability Enhancement. It was never designed for the whole army, it is just for the 3 x light battalions as well as any attachments they have (FOO party, Engineers...). They are using lessons learned from the DICE initiative as part of the greater army equipment project, SOCEM (Soldier Operational Clothing and Equipment Modernization).

I'm not suggesting that every individual in the CA be issued every piece of kit regardless of need. I'm saying that if there is an operational requirement for a certain trade/position/role to have a certain piece of kit then it would make sense to try and standardize that kit for all of them.

Quantities, as I understand it, are sufficient to equip high readiness formations, but not the whole army (Reg or Res).

My reading of that statement (perhaps incorrect) was that they would not be a general issue item to the target personnel but rather would be available for units at high readiness in their training cycle only. That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Finite amounts of money; what to purchase in what quantities? Better to buy fewer LAVs? More medium trucks? Always a balancing act.

Good point.

Those TAPVs aren't free

 

[dapaterson]

Good point.

Those TAPVs aren't free

Thank you, Dan and Andy.