Tac Vest does not make the grade.
- Thread starter Britney Spears
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I don't know how much difference their is between Regs and reserves when it comes to this. But the other day I was at parade for the unit I'm joining, and one of the guys was wearing a non issued, modular LBV. When I asked about it one of the guys told me they were on Ex. and the RSM was getting frustrated with the issues vest, because he couldn't get a grenade out quickly. A troop walked up with his non issue vest on, and said here you go sir, and it popped right out. From then on, the rule was non issue kit is good to go as long as it's functional.
For field exercises, many reserve units are starting to give more and more latitude on this.
Thing is though it's a lot easier to justify buying a good rig for Afghanistan than it is for maybe a weekend a month... And on brigade exercises such things still tend to get kyboshed.
Thing is though it's a lot easier to justify buying a good rig for Afghanistan than it is for maybe a weekend a month... And on brigade exercises such things still tend to get kyboshed.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
yeah, I don't think I could justify spending the cash just for exercises.
But I was looking around on CP gear's website, and they have lots of stuff meant to mod the CF issue vest. Like increasing mag capacity . . . etc.
So the question is, if you are wearing the CF tac vest, but you have moded it with CP gear stuff, does that still get you in hot water? And, could you use that stuff to make the issued vest an effective enough vest for Astan, in turn saving you alot of cash?
- Reaction score
- 1,714
- Points
- 1,260
len173 said:
That is a question that there is no straight answer to; basically it boils down to your chain of command and how they feel. My advice is look at what other guys in your company are using and use that as a baseline and then double check with your Sect Comd or 2IC before spending any money.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,551
- Points
- 1,260
I would agree with dangerboy on this one...dangerboy said:
In a Reserve Unit, such as I am, I do not allow the troops to wear non issue tac vests or rigs. If they wish to add stuff on the Tac Vest, and as long as its not seriously ridiculous, its probably OK. Most of our troops cannot afford to buy kit, nor should they be buying major items.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
For training in Canada does a non-issue rig really give that much of an edge over the issued TV?
In Canada, how often do we get more then 5 mags?
In Canada, how often do we put grenades in the TV?
In Canada, how often do guys have full TCCC bags?
In Canada, how often are we issued NVGs?
In Canada, how often to we carry 40mm around?
A unit on workup training will see a full combat load more often and they need to be training with the rigs (issued or not) that they will be using overseas. But beyond that, the TV does the job.
My advice is to use the TV untill it no longer does the job you need it to do. Until then, save your money. When you do start your workup training you can then get the lowdown on what you can and can't use, what your specific position is likely to be, what equipment you'll have issued, and more modern gear designs then what is available right this minute.
The fact that we don't carry combat loads in all our training is an issue for another thread...
In Canada, how often do we get more then 5 mags?
In Canada, how often do we put grenades in the TV?
In Canada, how often do guys have full TCCC bags?
In Canada, how often are we issued NVGs?
In Canada, how often to we carry 40mm around?
A unit on workup training will see a full combat load more often and they need to be training with the rigs (issued or not) that they will be using overseas. But beyond that, the TV does the job.
My advice is to use the TV untill it no longer does the job you need it to do. Until then, save your money. When you do start your workup training you can then get the lowdown on what you can and can't use, what your specific position is likely to be, what equipment you'll have issued, and more modern gear designs then what is available right this minute.
The fact that we don't carry combat loads in all our training is an issue for another thread...
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,551
- Points
- 1,260
Well said Wonderbread, and the only time we carry out front line is training for Afghanistan I do beleive....if I am wrong someone will correct me.
Not only that, but troops should NOT be shelling out major $$ for their kit.
Not only that, but troops should NOT be shelling out major $$ for their kit.
- Reaction score
- 21,948
- Points
- 1,260
Train as you fight - for you fight as you train.
I dont think I had been issued under 7 mags since 2002.
I've come around on the load issue - as I feel more aim = less shooting, but I think the TV is a unmitigated POS as its placement of the load sucks ass.
You build muscle memory in training, why train wrong?
I dont think I had been issued under 7 mags since 2002.
I've come around on the load issue - as I feel more aim = less shooting, but I think the TV is a unmitigated POS as its placement of the load sucks ass.
You build muscle memory in training, why train wrong?
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,551
- Points
- 1,260
Infidel-6 you are correct as well. But as you well know, the military is a bureaucracy as well as a fighting force, and we do have rules to follow.
Personally, if I was going into a situation which demands a better rig, I'd most likely invest some money in a good one. My opinion only. And I'm a cheapskate as well. ;D
Personally, if I was going into a situation which demands a better rig, I'd most likely invest some money in a good one. My opinion only. And I'm a cheapskate as well. ;D
- Reaction score
- 21,948
- Points
- 1,260
I know -- it pisses me off that troops who's lives are on the line get a POS vest.
MJP did a nice PPT showing some of his soldiers trying to get a grenade out of the vest -- FAIL
Try to get mags out of the vest ina hurry with the FPV with plates in - FAIL
Jay and Andy's vests - the DHTC Chest Rig and Patrol Vest, are being made - and while not MOLLE, are a thousand times better than craptacular "Tactical" vest. Issue a stop stop stop on the TV, and issue those for the interim until a real vest can be issued.
MJP did a nice PPT showing some of his soldiers trying to get a grenade out of the vest -- FAIL
Try to get mags out of the vest ina hurry with the FPV with plates in - FAIL
Jay and Andy's vests - the DHTC Chest Rig and Patrol Vest, are being made - and while not MOLLE, are a thousand times better than craptacular "Tactical" vest. Issue a stop stop stop on the TV, and issue those for the interim until a real vest can be issued.
Matt_Fisher
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
There is interest from DLR-5 on coming up with an replacement tac-vest, but the problem is the 'Integrated Soldier System Project' (ISSP) will be coming online around the same timeline as an interim tac-vest would be fielded, so you've got to deconflict the projects.
Also, it's pretty much a given that the defence budget will likely shrink over the next few years, so given a smaller budget, where's the money going to come from to replace the vests?
This would fall into the capital acquisiton area and I don't think that the CLS is going to strongly support that ADM Mat takes some 30 Million from the Army's acquisition budget (original Tac-Vest contract was for $20 some million...you've got to factor in the increase in price if the pouches are modular this time around). CLS is/will have to be doing a massive balancing act in terms of what are need vs. want type equipment. He needs a LAV rebuild program, a Leo II Canadianization upgrade (or upgrade to Leo2A6 standard?) and ARV variants, a replacement for the 60mm mortar (CASW), a Light Armoured Patrol Vehicle to replace the RG-31 and G-Wagen C&R, etc. but also has programs that wants, such as a tac-vest replacement, Temperate Combat Boot (i.e. CADPAT boots), a Close Combat Vehicle, etc.
Given that ISSP is already on the books in terms of funding allocation, and that there is an in-service tac-vest that works for the rest of the Army that isn't combat arms, I'd say that an interim tac-vest replacement for the entire Army is likely a very low procurement priority in the grand scheme of things. Not to say that a UOR for a replacement vest couldn't/wouldn't be done for deployed ops though. However for an Army wide issue of a replacement tac-vest, Treasury Board would likely have a hard time seeing enough separation between the current tac-vest, an interim replacement tac-vest for the entire Army, and ISSP to allocate funding for the interim vest.
Now what could be done is to have additional monies being put into ISSP to provide a 'modular ISSP chassis' and 'modular non-C4ISR specific pouches' for the entire army which would be a defacto tac-vest replacement, so they can plug and play the ISSP specific C4ISR components as required, but this would require a significant revision to the current ISSP program's procurement and fielding plan.
However a problem with the approach of a single modular chassis for the evolution of ISSP is that the program is designed to have 3 fielding stages, whereby over time, 3 different ISSP evolutions will be fielded, replacing the prior version. If you've got a vest in widescale Army issue that was designed to work with the Gen I ISSP kit, and when you go to field Gen II ISSP, if that vest isn't compatible with the C4ISR components (which is really the nuts and bolts of ISSP), then you've got to replace the vest that the entire Army is using again, and possibly for a 3rd time with the Gen III ISSP. Pretty easy way to balloon costs to the point where a program runs seriously over budget.
In order to keep a 'low risk' approach to ISSP, it's likely that only enough kit (including vests and pouches) will be procured for that generation of the system.
In respect to UORing a bunch for deployed op, Afghanistan is pretty much over in 2011 (despite what people say we're going to maintain an OMLT or PRT, given the current political winds in Ottawa, right or wrong, I doubt that we'll maintain much if any of a force over there after our current mandate expires), so any UOR 'Try and Buy' type programs will have to happen before TF 1-10/3-10 get deployed (given government procurement speed, it's TF 3-09 has already passed beyond the needed timeframe), and would probably be limited to a single TFs worth of kit.
Even with a limited UOR purchase of CADPAT AR modular vests/kit, what does the rest of the non-deployed force do? -Stay with the current vest.
I'm speculating that the tac-vest will eventually be replaced, but by whatever iteration of a vest/rig that ISSP comes up with, and from the preliminary numbers put forth, they're looking at an initial purchase/delivery of about 3 TFs worth of kit in the 2011/12 timeframe, with numbers increasing to about 6-9 TFs worth of kit by the time that ISSP Gen III is fielded in the 2019/20 timeframe. Again, the tac-vest will continue on in service for those non-ISSP equipped units, unless ISSP's plan is changed to what I described above to include a modular chassis with non-C4ISR specific pouches to be issued to the entire Army as part of the initial fielding of ISSP Gen I.
Also, it's pretty much a given that the defence budget will likely shrink over the next few years, so given a smaller budget, where's the money going to come from to replace the vests?
This would fall into the capital acquisiton area and I don't think that the CLS is going to strongly support that ADM Mat takes some 30 Million from the Army's acquisition budget (original Tac-Vest contract was for $20 some million...you've got to factor in the increase in price if the pouches are modular this time around). CLS is/will have to be doing a massive balancing act in terms of what are need vs. want type equipment. He needs a LAV rebuild program, a Leo II Canadianization upgrade (or upgrade to Leo2A6 standard?) and ARV variants, a replacement for the 60mm mortar (CASW), a Light Armoured Patrol Vehicle to replace the RG-31 and G-Wagen C&R, etc. but also has programs that wants, such as a tac-vest replacement, Temperate Combat Boot (i.e. CADPAT boots), a Close Combat Vehicle, etc.
Given that ISSP is already on the books in terms of funding allocation, and that there is an in-service tac-vest that works for the rest of the Army that isn't combat arms, I'd say that an interim tac-vest replacement for the entire Army is likely a very low procurement priority in the grand scheme of things. Not to say that a UOR for a replacement vest couldn't/wouldn't be done for deployed ops though. However for an Army wide issue of a replacement tac-vest, Treasury Board would likely have a hard time seeing enough separation between the current tac-vest, an interim replacement tac-vest for the entire Army, and ISSP to allocate funding for the interim vest.
Now what could be done is to have additional monies being put into ISSP to provide a 'modular ISSP chassis' and 'modular non-C4ISR specific pouches' for the entire army which would be a defacto tac-vest replacement, so they can plug and play the ISSP specific C4ISR components as required, but this would require a significant revision to the current ISSP program's procurement and fielding plan.
However a problem with the approach of a single modular chassis for the evolution of ISSP is that the program is designed to have 3 fielding stages, whereby over time, 3 different ISSP evolutions will be fielded, replacing the prior version. If you've got a vest in widescale Army issue that was designed to work with the Gen I ISSP kit, and when you go to field Gen II ISSP, if that vest isn't compatible with the C4ISR components (which is really the nuts and bolts of ISSP), then you've got to replace the vest that the entire Army is using again, and possibly for a 3rd time with the Gen III ISSP. Pretty easy way to balloon costs to the point where a program runs seriously over budget.
In order to keep a 'low risk' approach to ISSP, it's likely that only enough kit (including vests and pouches) will be procured for that generation of the system.
In respect to UORing a bunch for deployed op, Afghanistan is pretty much over in 2011 (despite what people say we're going to maintain an OMLT or PRT, given the current political winds in Ottawa, right or wrong, I doubt that we'll maintain much if any of a force over there after our current mandate expires), so any UOR 'Try and Buy' type programs will have to happen before TF 1-10/3-10 get deployed (given government procurement speed, it's TF 3-09 has already passed beyond the needed timeframe), and would probably be limited to a single TFs worth of kit.
Even with a limited UOR purchase of CADPAT AR modular vests/kit, what does the rest of the non-deployed force do? -Stay with the current vest.
I'm speculating that the tac-vest will eventually be replaced, but by whatever iteration of a vest/rig that ISSP comes up with, and from the preliminary numbers put forth, they're looking at an initial purchase/delivery of about 3 TFs worth of kit in the 2011/12 timeframe, with numbers increasing to about 6-9 TFs worth of kit by the time that ISSP Gen III is fielded in the 2019/20 timeframe. Again, the tac-vest will continue on in service for those non-ISSP equipped units, unless ISSP's plan is changed to what I described above to include a modular chassis with non-C4ISR specific pouches to be issued to the entire Army as part of the initial fielding of ISSP Gen I.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Hmmm - those are a lot of words to say "we're stuck with it"...
- Reaction score
- 27,524
- Points
- 1,090
Not at all. The DND capital programme always has slippage, so a bit of planning would see a no-strat project sitting on the shelf, ready to be pushed out the door once another project has delays. $30M sounds like a lot, but spread it over 3-4 years and it's only picking at the edges of the capital funds deferred every year.
Not to say there will be shiny new kit tomorrow. But if positioned correctly, the Army could do this one relatively quickly.
Not to say there will be shiny new kit tomorrow. But if positioned correctly, the Army could do this one relatively quickly.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
So, if we all worked at DLR and had to look at concepts for a Tac Vest replacement, instead of re-inventing the wheel (something that is doctrine it seems), what would be the top 3-5 modular base rigs COTS that we would look at as working examples? Cost aside, purely from a functional, tried/tested/&true perspective? I know people have asked about what they should get as a non-issue setup in other posts/forums (with equally as many responses), however, what would all the responses or thoughts on the subject finally narrow down to, if ready to be taken to the DLR planning table...?
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 230
Best gear out there bar none...hate to say that as its Australian 
http://www.sordaustralia.com/products.php
Superb quality....best molle plate carriers avail....+ they do the full nine yards WRT accessories.
Our equip buyers should be to the COTS drama on this...
Old fart...out.
http://www.sordaustralia.com/products.php
Superb quality....best molle plate carriers avail....+ they do the full nine yards WRT accessories.
Our equip buyers should be to the COTS drama on this...
Old fart...out.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
OK. Good insights into what works and what doesn't. Let's stay within the parameters of what is realistic though. If DLR had to take design ideas from a variety of rigs (or one rig in particular) or MOTS purchase one design, it would still have to conform to what soldiers have to wear with the load bearing kit, ie PPE. So far TT MAV 2-piece and CP Gear MOFOCR stand out, unless someone in the know would like to see design elements of both incorporated. These rigs are designed to work mainly in conjunction with a frag vest, thus are suitable for the average Canadian soldier. Any other suggestions that worked well overseas?
CP and SOF applications are another ball of wax altogether and may require another top 3 list.
Rumour has it that DLR is looking into a tav vest v2.0 project in the near-mid-term (maybe enough UCRs have hit the right mark or some commander was fed up with the status quo), however no idea what the output may be or how DLR has come up with their choises (aside from what has been mentioned earlier about various trial pieces floating around).
Note: I do not/not work at DLT. Just trying to get a handle of a summary of what has been said in the pages before.
CP and SOF applications are another ball of wax altogether and may require another top 3 list.
Rumour has it that DLR is looking into a tav vest v2.0 project in the near-mid-term (maybe enough UCRs have hit the right mark or some commander was fed up with the status quo), however no idea what the output may be or how DLR has come up with their choises (aside from what has been mentioned earlier about various trial pieces floating around).
Note: I do not/not work at DLT. Just trying to get a handle of a summary of what has been said in the pages before.
Similar threads
