The brown Temperate Combat Boot (AKA: Mk IV Cbt Boot) - No longer CADPAT

[OldSolduer]

No Haix aren't being tested. I was trying to say I'll be wearing my own boots from here out.

What does the CoC have to say about that?

 

[Jarnhamar]

What does the CoC have to say about that?

Mine says once a winner is picked it/they will be produced in black and there will be no non issued boots.

 

[Mr. St-Cyr]

Mine says once a winner is picked it/they will be produced in black and there will be no non issued boots.

That is the actual policy and people still do what they want. I don't see that changing just because we have 2 black boots to choose from.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Well the guys from DLR that briefed us on them said "wear them as you wear your boots" so here's hoping common sense prevails...

Rose = common sense    ;D

 

[markppcli]

What does the CoC have to say about that?

I believe 1 CMBG's policy on boots has been posted, from the proverbial horses mouth, on this thread already. To summerize, they couldn't care less, and they certainly aren't going to force me to wear broken boots on ex and risk an injury.

 

[markppcli]

Mine says once a winner is picked it/they will be produced in black and there will be no non issued boots.

Sorry I hate to double post, but that is in direct contravention to what DLR briefed us on. They stated, emphatically, that the army is now trying to get out of the business of designing it's own boots. They will not be redesigning the boots once they are selected.

 

[OldSolduer]

I believe 1 CMBG's policy on boots has been posted, from the proverbial horses mouth, on this thread already. To summerize, they couldn't care less, and they certainly aren't going to force me to wear broken boots on ex and risk an injury.

Thank you.  Now if the rest of the Army will go along.....

 

[PuckChaser]

Thank you.  Now if the rest of the Army will go along.....

Just need the Army SM to stand up and set a policy, or the Army Council, and then enforce it when they hear of contradictory unit-level policies.

 

[Jarnhamar]

That is the actual policy and people still do what they want. I don't see that changing just because we have 2 black boots to choose from.

I think  some bases and places of work currently have policies in place that allow members to wear "black books, 8 inche-style in height" but after the new boots are out there will be a CF wide directive that members will be required to wear them and only them, if anything than to simply "support" the project.

Sorry I hate to double post, but that is in direct contravention to what DLR briefed us on. They stated, emphatically, that the army is now trying to get out of the business of designing it's own boots. They will not be redesigning the boots once they are selected.

No worries. I'm just throwing out what was passed on to me from my bde O-group.

 

[DirtyDog]

.... there will be a CF wide directive that members will be required to wear them and only them, if anything than to simply "support" the project.

Cool.  I have always felt a little inadequate when I hear that every NCO worth his salt has had to have been charged at least once in their career.

 

[DirtyDog]

Some info here:

http://soldiersystems.net/2013/10/15/canadian-military-land-operations-temperate-boot/

 

[armyvern]

Cool.  I have always felt a little inadequate when I hear that every NCO worth his salt has had to have been charged at least once in their career.

So someone for whom issued boots work perfectly fine isn't "an NCO worth their salt"??

This boot thread is akin to this.

Some CF boots work perfectly fine for some CF members;
Some Danners work perfectly fine for some CF members;
Some Oakleys work perfectly fine for some CF members;
Some other purchased boots work fine for some CF members.

What's the common theme in all of that?  That any type of boot will only work for some people.

I have purchased all manner of LPOd footwear for people and have had all manner of it returned because it didn't work for someone.

The only thing that will work would be a boot allowance that lets people find a manufacturer and make that works for them; the kicker is how many pairs would we pay for before they find the make/model that does work right for the individual??  I assure you that just because it's from a civvie company does not equal = a working boot for so & so who buys it.

We will NEVER get a boot allowance (the bit that never ends) ... the CAF has tried to get this and has been snuggley booted back into our place by PWGSC/TB.  It's political and always will be.  Too much money and too many jobs are on the line.  If the CoC allowed the entire CF to wear their own LPOd footwear and just continued paying the contract despite no one being issued theCF boots --- we'd eventually not need any boots provided by the manufacturer because our shelves would be overflowing.  We could then still continue to pay the manufacturer (99.99% guaranteed to be located in la belle province  ), but the manufacturer would still take the money but lay off their employees ('cause they do not need employees to make boots that aren't being supplied) and then 2 federal departments would be paying those pers (employees collecting pogie and while the CF still pays the contractor).  Politics is grand.

Like it or not, the votes of those laid off and their families and communities far out-number the amount of CAF members who need a boot allowance.  Guess what the politicians are going to do?

 

[Wolf117]

It is too bad, from my perspective, that politics has such an effect on the gear I am expected to operate in combat with.  I would love to see a company like Rocky come in and take over from whatever Canadian firms are currently supplying us.

I got to see two of the variants being trialed while I was at clothing stores today.  Although DND isn't going to be dictating design changes to the bidders, I really hope that the companies at least take input from the soldiers currently evaluating them.  I like the look of the brown one from L.P. Royer but I would definetly lose the zipper feature.

 

[OldSolduer]

It is too bad, from my perspective, that politics has such an effect on the gear I am expected to operate in combat with. 

Have you read the book "Vimy"?

We had the same issues 100 years ago. The Ross rifle is a prime example of politics interfering in military procurement.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Have you read the book "Vimy"?

We had the same issues 100 years ago. The Ross rifle is a prime example of politics interfering in military procurement.

Not like the entire Quebec textile industry and the (French) Canadian space program, though, right?  ;D

 

[MilEME09]

Have you read the book "Vimy"?

We had the same issues 100 years ago. The Ross rifle is a prime example of politics interfering in military procurement.

To be fair, it was a good rifle, just not in the role the it was pushed into due to said political interfering. That said I'm sure we can all remember the procurement of the LSVW and how politics came into that one pretty hard. Though as long as we have procurement politics will try to mess things up

 

[Mr. St-Cyr]

Is the trial over?

 

[DirtyDog]

So someone for whom issued boots work perfectly fine isn't "an NCO worth their salt"??

I was being facetious.  What I was saying was that I could finally become a worthy NCO by having a charge on my pers file.

It's political and always will be.  Too much money and too many jobs are on the line.  If the CoC allowed the entire CF to wear their own LPOd footwear and just continued paying the contract despite no one being issued theCF boots --- we'd eventually not need any boots provided by the manufacturer because our shelves would be overflowing.  We could then still continue to pay the manufacturer (99.99% guaranteed to be located in la belle province  ), but the manufacturer would still take the money but lay off their employees ('cause they do not need employees to make boots that aren't being supplied) and then 2 federal departments would be paying those pers (employees collecting pogie and while the CF still pays the contractor).  Politics is grand.

Like it or not, the votes of those laid off and their families and communities far out-number the amount of CAF members who need a boot allowance.  Guess what the politicians are going to do?

Although I believe politics do play a part, I think that it's a little grandiose to equate the CAF's boot contracts to votes.  That's a serious stretch.

First of all, exactly how many jobs in Quebec could be directly attributed to CAF boot production? 

Secondly of those, how many would translate the loss of that contract, or possibly jobs, to influencing their vote in any way?

 

[OldSolduer]

I was being facetious.  What I was saying was that I could finally become a worthy NCO by having a charge on my pers file.
Although I believe politics do play a part, I think that it's a little grandiose to equate the CAF's boot contracts to votes.  That's a serious stretch.

First of all, exactly how many jobs in Quebec could be directly attributed to CAF boot production? 

Secondly of those, how many would translate the loss of that contract, or possibly jobs, to influencing their vote in any way?

If one Quebcer loses a job over a DND contract you know what will happen - a big crapstorm in PQ.

I lived in Calgary when the CF 18 Maintenance contract was awarded to Bristol in Winnipeg. It was taken by Mulroney and given to a Quebec company.

Quantifiers aren't needed here.  We know what Quebec will say.

 

[markppcli]

Is the trial over?

It's a 45 day trial, so it will be shortly, how 45 days is supposed to test a boot you'll wear for a year is beyond me but I bow to the wisdom of DND. Frankly, in this Cpl's opinion, they need to drop the "easy to break in" quantifier. The simpliest, easiest, and cheapest way to accomplish that is to make a boot flimsy, and in a competition where money talks, that's what you're going to get.