Tac Vest does not make the grade.

[daftandbarmy]

Well I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon, unless someone makes an FOI request to see what became of the UCR's that were submitted.  Really it could be any number of factors that have led to this development (UCRs/bitching on this forum/bitching in real life to higher ups/etc.).  Unless those up top care to enlighten us on why this about face, then we are going to be stuck guessing at the reasons why.

My point exactly. The easier it is for soldiers to see what effect their suggestions have, the more, and better, suggestions they will make.

 

[McG]

Well I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon, unless someone makes an FOI request to see what became of the UCR's that were submitted.  Really it could be any number of factors that have led to this development (UCRs/bitching on this forum/bitching in real life to higher ups/etc.).  Unless those up top care to enlighten us on why this about face, then we are going to be stuck guessing at the reasons why.

You don't need to make an access to information request.  Anyone with DWAN access can view all submitted UCRs on the UCR web page (and the responces on the closed UCRs).  If you do a search, you will find there are surprisingly few Tac Vest UCRs and even fewer that provide any useable feedback. 

 

[McG]

... and at the same time, I've seen BNs supporting the need for an interim solution making reference to those few UCRs as one of the driving factors behind the requirement. 

 

[KevinB]

You don't need to make an access to information request.  Anyone with DWAN access can view all submitted UCRs on the UCR web page (and the responces on the closed UCRs).  If you do a search, you will find there are surprisingly few Tac Vest UCRs and even fewer that provide any useable feedback.

The problem is that units have been told to compartmentalize the UCR's - so 9 UCR's could indeed by 9 Battalions findings.

Since there are only 9 Inf Bn's in the CF -- that would give you a 100%  rate of rejection for the TacVest.

The thing is a piece of crap - its a legacy piece of gear at best.


MJP did a ppt that speeled out clearly why its IMPOSSIBLE to use in combat - greades you can't get out, mags sitting to high when used with the FPV and Plates.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Where's that powerpoint?  Can someone get me a copy?  PM me for contact details...thanks.

 

[McG]

The problem is that units have been told to compartmentalize the UCR's - so 9 UCR's could indeed by 9 Battalions findings.

Any individual can submit a UCR.  However, if units were told to submit single consolidated UCRs, then 8 battalions must be happy with the Tac Vest because they have not even made the effort for that consolidated UCR.

I've only stumbled across one UCR which might be considered a "Bn UCR."  It came out of 1 PPCLI and we've seen it posted on this site:

As usual bang on...so to help others a recent UCR on the Tac Vest.  Feel free to use and send many many times to DLR.  Maybe your CoC's will be faster than mine in doing actual substantiation.


THE CURRENT TAC VEST REQUIRES MODIFICATION FOR THE COMBAT SOLDIER.  MAGAZINE CARRYING CAPACITY IS LIMITED TO FOUR C7/C8 MAGAZINES IN FOUR SINGLE-MAGAZINE POUCHES. CURRENT STANDARD LOAD IN AFGHANISTAN IS TEN TO FIFTEEN MAGAZINES FOR RIFLEMEN. MAGAZINE POUCHES NEED TO BE INCREASED IN SIZE TO HOLD THREE MAGAZINES EACH.

MAGAZINE POUCHES ARE LOCATED TOO HIGH ON THE VEST FOR EASE OF ACCESS IN STRESSFUL COMBAT SITUATIONS WHERE MAGAZINE CHANGES MUST BE CARRIED OUT INSTANTANEOUSLY WITHOUT FUMBLING. VEST AND POUCHES NEED TO BE MODULAR USING AN INTERNATIONALLY-ACCEPTED STANDARD SUCH AS MOLLE/PALS TO ALLOW ATTACHMENT IN LOCATIONS SUITABLE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER INCLUDING FEMALE SOLDIERS MANY OF WHOM FIND THAT THE CURRENT LOCATION CAN CAUSE REAL PAIN AND SUFFERING WHICH NEGATIVELY AFFECTS THEIR ABILITY TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE AND ACCURATE FIRE, WHICH IS UNACCEPTABLE IN ACTUAL COMBAT SITUATIONS. 

THE TAC VEST IS DESIGNED WITH A RIFLEMAN IN MIND WITH NO REAL CONSIDERATION FOR OTHER JOBS WITHIN A COMBAT ENVIRONMENT ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF INFANTRY SOLDIERS. RIFLE MAGAZINE POUCHES ARE USELESS FOR PERSONNEL ARMED WITH C9 AND C6 ETCETERA, AND THEREFORE ARE A WASTE OF SPACE ON THE TAC VEST. C9 POUCHES ON THE CURRENT TAC VEST ARE LOCATED IN AN AREA FROM WHERE IT IS DIFFICULT TO EXTRACT THE AMMUNITION ESPECIALLY IN STRESSFUL COMBAT SITUATIONS WHERE RELOADS MUST BE CARRIED OUT INSTANTANEOUSLY WITHOUT FUMBLING. C9 GUNNERS IN PARTICULAR ARE ABLE TO CARRY 2 EXTRA BOXES OF AMMO BUT HAVE LOST A LOT OF SPACE FOR OTHER MISSION ESSENTIAL EQUIPMENT.  A MODULAR VEST AND POUCHES USING AN INTERNATIONALLY-ACCEPTED STANDARD SUCH AS MOLLE/PALS WOULD ALLOW THE ATTACHMENT OF THE C9 POUCHES IN LOCATIONS SUITABLE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER AND IN PLACE OF C7/C8 MAGAZINE POUCHES. 

THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR CARRYING 40MM GRENADES IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THEY CAN BE READILY EXTRACTED FOR RAPID RELOADS, ESPECIALLY IN STRESSFUL COMBAT SITUATIONS WHERE RELOADS MUST BE CARRIED OUT INSTANTANEOUSLY WITHOUT FUMBLING. A MODULAR VEST AND POUCH SYSTEM USING AN INTERNATIONALLY-ACCEPTED STANDARD SUCH AS MOLLE/PALS WOULD ALLOW THE ATTACHMENT OF THE 40MM GRENADE POUCHES IN LOCATIONS SUITABLE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER.

THE BAYONET MUST BE MOVED FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEST.  WHEN A SOLDIER GOES INTO THE PRONE POSITION THE HILT OF THE BAYONET DIGS INTO THE BOTTOM OF THE RIB CAGE.  THIS DOES NOT ALLOW THE SOLDIERS TO TAKE UP A PROPER FIRING POSITION.  IT ALSO STICKS OUT AND GETS CAUGHT ON OBSTACLES OR VEHICLES AS SOLDIERS CLIMB OVER/ON THEM.  SIDE/REAR MOUNTING WOULD BE BETTER CONSIDERING THAT THE BAYONET IS RARELY EVER USED. 

THE GRENADE POUCHES NEED TO BE MADE LARGER AS THE GRENADES FIT BUT ARE VERY HARD TO GET OUT.  SEVERAL TIMES, I HAVE OBSERVED THE SAFETY CLIP FALL OFF WHILE A SOLDIER WAS FIGHTING TO GET THE GRENADE IN THE POUCH.  GETTING THE GRENADE OUT IN COMBAT IS A CHALLENGE AS WELL;  AS A SOLDIER FIGHTS TO GET THE GRENADE OUT HE WASTES VALUABLE SECONDS.  A MODULAR VEST AND POUCH SYSTEM USING AN INTERNATIONALLY-ACCEPTED STANDARD SUCH AS MOLLE/PALS WOULD ALLOW THE ATTACHMENT OF GRENADE POUCHES THAT FIT GRENADES, IN LOCATIONS SUITABLE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL SOLDIER.

THE TAC VEST IS NOT EASY TO ADJUST FOR SIZE WHEN ADDING OR REMOVING CLOTHING LAYERS. AN EASIER AND MORE RAPID METHOD OF ADJUSTMENT MUST BE INCORPORATED. THIS WILL MOST LIKELY REQUIRE A COMPLETE REDESIGN.

THE TAC VEST IS NOT STABLE ON THE BODY DUE TO AN INHERENT DESIGN FLAW THAT PERMITS IT TO SHIFT FORWARD AND THEREFORE DOWN ON THE FRONT AND UP ON THE BACK. THE ONLY REMEDY IS A COMPLETE REDESIGN."

IF DAMAGED, THE ENTIRE CURRENT TAV VEST MUST BE TURNED IN FOR REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR. A MODULAR VEST WOULD ONLY REQUIRE REPLACEMENT OR REPAIR OF THE SPECIFIC PART AFFECTED, THEREBY SAVING COST, TIME, EFFORT, AND STORAGE SPACE.

IT IS RECOGNIZED AND APPRECIATED THAT, HAVING EXPENDED CONSIDERABLE TIME, EFFORT, AND MONEY ON THE CURRENT DESIGN, A COMPLETE OR EVEN PARTIAL REVISION IS NOT AN ATTRACTIVE PROPOSITION. COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES, GENERALLY RUN, STAFFED, AND/OR ADVISED BY RETIRED OR SERVING SOLDIERS WHO HAVE DIRECT EXPERIENCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF EQUIPMENT THAT MUST RELIABLY AND CONSISTENTLY SERVE THE NEEDS OF SOLDIERS IN INTENSE COMBAT, HAVE ALREADY DONE THIS WORK. A NUMBER OF SUCH CANADIAN COMPANIES HAVE DEVELOPED SOLID REPUTATIONS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF QUALITY EQUIPMENT, EASILY CUSTOMIZABLE BY INDIVIDUAL SOLDIERS ACCORDING TO THEIR JOB/WEAPON CARRIED, THAT HAS ALREADY RECEIVED THOROUGH TESTING BY SOLDIERS IN ACTUAL COMBAT CONDITIONS. FEEDBACK FROM THESE SOLDIERS HAS RESULTED IN RAPID IMPROVEMENTS TO ELIMINATE ANY PERCEIVED DESIGN SHORTCOMINGS. THIS PRODUCT-IMPROVEMENT PROCESS IS FAR QUICKER THAN THE CURRENT CUMBERSOME AND PLODDING CF SYSTEM THAT, FOR ALL OF ITS GOOD INTENT, ENSURES THAT DESIGN CHANGES APPEAR YEARS AFTER THEY ARE REQUIRED, AND PERHAPS LONG AFTER THEY HAVE CEASED TO BE RELEVANT. SOME OF THESE CANADIAN COMPANIES ARE:

HTTP://WWW.ICETACTICAL.COM/

HTTP://WWW.CPGEAR.COM/DEFAULT.ASP?MN=1.19.2

CONCLUSION

EVERY SOLDIER HAS DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS BASED ON HIS FUNCTION ON THE BATTLE FIELD (RIFLEMAN, LMG GUNNER, GPMG GUNNER, SAPPER, MEDIC, SECT COMD, FOO, AHSVS DRIVER, ETC)

MODULARITY ALLOWS FOR LESS COSTLY REPLACEMENT OF LOAD CARRIAGE COMPONENTS TO SUITE NEW/RETIRED/UPGRADED KIT

MODULARITY BASED ON AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD WILL PROVIDE INDUSTRIAL BENEFITS AS CANADIAN BIDDERS WILL BE ABLE TO MARKET THEIR PRODUCT TO OUR ALLIES

MODULARITY BASED ON AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD CAN PROVIDE REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL BENEFITS AS DIFFERENT CANADIAN CONTRACTORS WOULD BE ABLE TO COMPETE FOR DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF THE SYSTEM

MODULARITY REDUCES LIFE CYCLE COSTS AS DAMAGED COMPONENTS MAY BE REPLACED AS OPPOSED TO COMPLETE ITEMS

MODULARITY PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY (& REDUCES RISKS) BECAUSE IT ALLOWS THE LOAD CARRIAGE SYSTEM TO BE ADAPTED TO THE THEATER OF OPS.  THE REQUIREMENTS OF BOSNIA WERE NOT THE SAME AS CYPRUS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF AFGHANISTAN ARE NOT THE SAME AS BOSNIA, AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR NEXT THEATER WILL NOT BE THE SAME AS AFGHANISTAN.

 

[MJP]

Where's that powerpoint?  Can someone get me a copy?  PM me for contact details...thanks.

I will see if I can find it on my CDs/USB sticks. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

Of course, if more senior decision makers in our army had peed themselves when they had a problem accessing their last mag in that hairy gunfight in the grape vineyard,    then you wouldn't need a UCR process at all for something simple, important and cheap like a Tac Vest. It would just get fixed... fast.

 

[dapaterson]

Of course, if more senior decision makers in our army had peed themselves when they had a problem accessing their last mag in that hairy gunfight in the grape vineyard,    then you wouldn't need a UCR process at all for something simple, important and cheap like a Tac Vest. It would just get fixed... fast.

But if they aren't there they need a way to get that information back.  We have a system to do just that, that no one seems to use.  I would suggest that the use of the UCR needs to be taught somewhere other than the Sup Tech QL5 - like part of PLQ to teach Jr leaders how to not pass a fault (from higher).

And while one tac vest is cheap, the 50K or so it takes to outfit the Army isn't cheap.  If they were 50 cents each, the Army commander could sign the contract for them.  They aren't.  He can't.  So the process isn't as easy as we might like - procurement through Public Works - who know nothing of what we need - so we have to tell them in detail what it is.  We define the requirement.

If the Tac Vest is lousy, it's because the Army said it needed something that kind of lousy.

"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves"

 

[aesop081]

procurement through Public Works - who know nothing of what we need - so we have to tell them in detail what it is. 

Is it time for a dedicated Defence Procurement Agency , sort of like the french DGA ?

 

[dapaterson]

There are dedicated staff to support DND within PWGSC; any Major Crown project has dedicated, embedded PWGSC resources who can call on others if needed - so in theory, they can draw on a greater base of knowledge and experience if needed.

Our biggest procurement problems aren't with PWGSC - they're with the requirements definition.  Hard to get what you want when you can't even articulate what it is that you want - or can't substantiate the requirement.

I know of one project where the requirements came from a bit of cut and paste from one vendor's flyer.  But those were essentially "nice-to-haves" - the key baseline functions were not defined well (if at all) so we got a product that met those requirements - but could not be safely used for its primary role (and has since been scrapped).

The Tac Vest isn't a PWGSC problem.  It's an "Army can't define its requirements" problem.

 

[KevinB]

Part of the problem(s) is that some asshole in a lab coat is busy telling troops that their movements are inefficient or wrong, or some moron(s) not understanding what need to be in fighting equipment.

I've just seen the recent Canadian Forces Thermal Weapon Sight solicitation - talk about all types of fucked up.  Obviously the people in the palace are far removed from reality, as the CF has no provision to make us of some of the most modern equipment but is being forcing themselves into legacy items.

 

[Canadian Mind]

If the problem is that the army can't define what it wants, why can't the army purchase several models of different types of vests (including those I read awhile back were approved for afghanistan), give them to a buch of Infantry, Engineer, and Armoured types, and conduct a survey as to which is the best. Doesn't even have to be one of those fancy ones like they did for the brassards for the Frag-vest, just has to be two simple questions: "Which ones did you like?" and, "why?"

I'm willing to bet the #1 reason will always be modularity, followed by ammo/overall storage capacity. As you get into the nitty-gritty details, specifics like Chest-Rig vs. Split-Front Vest could be decided based off the soldiers responses, or based on a set of follow-up questions based off of initial answers.

Based off of all the information they collect directly from the guys who use the things the most, they can model their needs, or simply buy a vest off the shelf that fits the bill.

Is this too simple?

 

[daftandbarmy]

Part of the problem(s) is that some ******* in a lab coat is busy telling troops that their movements are inefficient or wrong, or some moron(s) not understanding what need to be in fighting equipment.

I've just seen the recent Canadian Forces Thermal Weapon Sight solicitation - talk about all types of ****ed up.  Obviously the people in the palace are far removed from reality, as the CF has no provision to make us of some of the most modern equipment but is being forcing themselves into legacy items.

Should we anticipate seeing a thread entitiled "CFTWS: Why it doesn't make the grade"?

 

[dapaterson]

"Off the shelf" isn't that simple.  Government buys by saying "This is what we want - and here are the terms".  Industry then decides whether or not to offer.  For example, for the MLVW MilCOTS replacement, only one company offered a truck.  Thus, only one choice.

For requirements definitions we do bring SMEs together - though sometimes units claim they're too busy to assist, so things go forward without their input.

It's easy to point at CTS and complain - but stop and look at everyone who's ever refused a posting to Ottawa - aren't they all equally culpable?

 

[McG]

If the problem is that the army can't define what it wants, why can't the army purchase several models of different types of vests (including those I read awhile back were approved for afghanistan), give them to a buch of Infantry, Engineer, and Armoured types, and conduct a survey as to which is the best. ...

Is this too simple?

... or maybe it is already being done.  Try going back and reading some of the last 50 posts to find out.

 

[birdgunnnersrule]

I have been away from the site for a while and see the UCR/TFR rant started some discussion.  The TFR and UCR process does work.  It is important to remember that it is difficult to see action overnight.  The project office must investigate, analysis, sometimes repair/procure, test, train, and field.  The process is meant to cue those of us that work in the puzzle palace that something is wrong and needs some TLC.  The more coherent the submission, it is a lot easier to understand the issue.  The more UCRs/TFRs that are submitted that are clear and concise, the easier it is to get resources (money) in an increasingly resource constrained environment.

One of the hardest parts at the end of the day, as mentioned, is requirements definition.  Usually one of the largest problems when defining the requirement is that the scope for the project is too large or poorly defined when handed off to the requirements world.  Not only are UCRs and TFRs very beneficial for project director to define the Arcs of fire, but statements of capability deficiencies/lessons learned are extremely useful at limiting/focusing a project on the high level requirements.  If the high level requirements are properly defined than the remainder of the requirements should fall out of these.  Human nature being what it is, there is never a perfect SOR and never enough resources to get everything so there will be gaps and griping.

 

[Pointer]

I spoke with someone that sat on the most recent working group for procuring a new tac vest and what he had to say was pretty encouraging.  Firstly, the group consisted primarily of infantry NCOs - a good sign.  Secondly, they looked at scads of rigs that are presently on the market - Tactical Tailor, Arktis, HSG, Blackhawk, etc. and identified what they liked and didn't like.  The modularity issue was big and everyone seemed to agree that TRULY modular - not just "I can move 2 pockets on the entire rig" - was the way to go.  I think there was some disagreement over vest vs. MAV-style "webbing", but really, as long as the thing is modular, the largest step in the right direction has been taken.

Personally, I'd like to see something MAV-style, just due to the versatility of being able to hoist it up to sit like a chest rig or move it down to sit like webbing, depending on what you're doing.  That, and not having to hoist it over your head when it's loaded with 50 lbs of crap would be nice.  That seems to have been the biggest detraction from the HSG Warlord and other non-front opening rigs. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

Nevermind found it

 

[MikeL]

Wondering if anyone has anymore news on this. One of the O Group points we had last week said there was a new tac vest going to be issued, but nothing else was mentioned on that.


Someone earliar on the forums said the Spec Ops Over Armor Vest was choosen, but can anyone confirm/deny that?