"The stuff the army issues is useless" and "no non-issue kit over seas!"

[RCR Grunt]

.... Just scream "Incoming!!!" and scurry off to hide somewhere, I'm sure the kit nazi's will forget all about your functioning kit as they scramble for cover.  Kidding.  Don't do that.  Thats a joke.

 

[Canadian Sig]

Hey, it's raining and snowing out now, and I'm in the field.  Can I trial a new rainjacket please?  I realise that it's not an urgent operational requirement, but I am getting wet and cold.  I mean, it's not even 1/10th the price of one Globemaster to outfit 25,000 soldiers with rainjackets.  I mean, sometimes, good enough is what's needed.  


Well, since nobody heard me, I'll just wear something non-issue and if anyone tells me to take it off, I'll just smile politely and put it on UNDER my issue stuff, so that I have the appearance required.

Remember this for my tombstone: IT IS BETTER TO BE SEEN AS GOOD THAN TO ACTUALLY BE GOOD.


Then kick someone in the junk for me.

Someone must have been listening. I got issued my new raingear the otherday.  ;D  Pockets on the sleeves and all.

 

[vonGarvin]

Someone must have been listening. I got issued my new raingear the otherday.  ;D  Pockets on the sleeves and all.

Is it raining where you are?  If so, outstanding.  If not, find me (in the field) and I'll "trial" it for you ;D

 

[Canadian Sig]

Is it raining where you are?  If so, outstanding.  If not, find me (in the field) and I'll "trial" it for you ;D

Sunny Petawawa....but wait 10 minutes, I'm sure the weather will change.

 

[armyvern]

Well for any of you who are interested ...

DIN Link below for the latest CTS updated briefing on kit ...

Army On-Line

Update brief provided to 3 ASG by CTS (you'll note the bit about raingear ...  )

 

[Dirt Digger]

1)  As per the issue of liability.  No agency, not VAC or SISIP, will refuse you coverage based on what you were wearing at the time of injury, period.  I've made the calls, I've asked the questions, this is an invalid argument against unissued kit.

Liability can become an issue if a soldier has deliberately modified PPE in such a way as to defeat its intended function.  i.e. removal of kevlar from the vest.  This is more of an issue of what was "not" worn at the time of injury than what was worn.  All PPE is returned to DRDC-Toronto for analysis.

2)  The problems with CTS all boil down to one thing, job security.  If you're hoping that CTS will hold itself accountable for some of the terrible items it has approved for issue, you're dreaming.  If CTS ever suggested a switch to troops purchasing OTS equipment from a pre-approved list of kit, they would be out of a job.  Those personnel previously flying a desk would then be posted back to a unit, possibly a deployable unit, and who wants to deploy anyways?  Its dangerous!  There are too many desk jockeys in Kingston and Toronto doing "studies" and "trials" and looking into "human factors" for any real change to come without a fight.  In my mind, it is they who promulgate the "parade square" mentality by not allowing other ideas reference kit to come to the surface.

While you are entitled to your opinion, you should be aware of the big picture.  These "desk jockeys" in "human factors" are the reason why gloves come in more than one size and you can go prone while wearing a helmet and ballistic vest at the same time.  They are the reason why we have rain gear that actually stays dry on the inside and the reason why the 82 pattern ruck is on the way out.  Is it a slow process?  Hell yes.  They feel the same way you do about the delays; they have as much control over the kit procurement system as you do.

The ones working at DRDC-Toronto actually have Masters degrees in Human Factors, mostly from Loughbourgh University in England.  They conduct the ergonomic trials and provide recommendations for corrections.  They also have the unenviable task of working on the PPE analysis team...every piece of kit that comes back is photographed and catalogued with the intent of determining if anything could be corrected or improved to increase survivability.  Having been involved with three such events, I can tell you they are not a great way to spend a day.  As for desk jockey status, one of them was in theatre a few months ago and another is preparing for a deployment.  

If you want to fix the system, I invite you to complete a 4 year Bachelors of Science in a life science field such biology, kinesiology, ergonomics, etc. and apply to the Bioscience trade.  If accepted (usually one or two a year) you would then do a few years, most likely in Winnipeg, as an Aerospace Physiologist.  Once you reached Captain, you could then apply for that Masters Degree in Human Factors.  After two years of schooling and a thesis, you can then go through all of the effort to schedule and run a kit trial including:  ethical approval to conduct the study, finding a unit willing/available to conduct the trial, getting enough kit to outfit everyone, funding to get to the study location, conducting a couple dozen anthropometric measurements on each study volunteer, etc, etc, etc.

As you can tell, I don't like CTS, and I think they should be disbanded.  The money they waste could be better spent anywhere else in the CF.  I know this isn't the "lets bash CTS" thread, but its they who push this crap kit on us, and its that crap kit that the soldiers go out and spend their hard earned dollars on to replace with functioning kit that meets their requirements.  

While I understand your frustration, I can tell you that the individuals working behind the scenes are doing their absolute best to listen to the needs of the sharp end.  

Back you your regularly scheduled threat.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

The ones working at DRDC-Toronto actually have Masters degrees in Human Factors, mostly from Loughbourgh University in England.  They conduct the ergonomic trials and provide recommendations for corrections.  They also have the unenviable task of working on the PPE analysis team...every piece of kit that comes back is photographed and catalogued with the intent of determining if anything could be corrected or improved to increase survivability.  Having been involved with three such events, I can tell you they are not a great way to spend a day.  As for desk jockey status, one of them was in theatre a few months ago and another is preparing for a deployment.  

If you want to fix the system, I invite you to complete a 4 year Bachelors of Science in a life science field such biology, kinesiology, ergonomics, etc. and apply to the Bioscience trade.  If accepted (usually one or two a year) you would then do a few years, most likely in Winnipeg, as an Aerospace Physiologist.  Once you reached Captain, you could then apply for that Masters Degree in Human Factors.  After two years of schooling and a thesis, you can then go through all of the effort to schedule and run a kit trial including:  ethical approval to conduct the study, finding a unit willing/available to conduct the trial, getting enough kit to outfit everyone, funding to get to the study location, conducting a couple dozen anthropometric measurements on each study volunteer, etc, etc, etc.

...so just when do these people recieve some meaningful field/ water/ air unit time?

My pet peeve......too much class, not enough clash.

 

[armyvern]

Liability can become an issue if a soldier has deliberately modified PPE in such a way as to defeat its intended function.  i.e. removal of kevlar from the vest.  This is more of an issue of what was "not" worn at the time of injury than what was worn.  All PPE is returned to DRDC-Toronto for analysis.

While you are entitled to your opinion, you should be aware of the big picture.  These "desk jockeys" in "human factors" are the reason why gloves come in more than one size and you can go prone while wearing a helmet and ballistic vest at the same time.  They are the reason why we have rain gear that actually stays dry on the inside and the reason why the 82 pattern ruck is on the way out.  Is it a slow process?  Hell yes.  They feel the same way you do about the delays; they have as much control over the kit procurement system as you do.

The ones working at DRDC-Toronto actually have Masters degrees in Human Factors, mostly from Loughbourgh University in England.  They conduct the ergonomic trials and provide recommendations for corrections.  They also have the unenviable task of working on the PPE analysis team...every piece of kit that comes back is photographed and catalogued with the intent of determining if anything could be corrected or improved to increase survivability.  Having been involved with three such events, I can tell you they are not a great way to spend a day.  As for desk jockey status, one of them was in theatre a few months ago and another is preparing for a deployment.  

If you want to fix the system, I invite you to complete a 4 year Bachelors of Science in a life science field such biology, kinesiology, ergonomics, etc. and apply to the Bioscience trade.  If accepted (usually one or two a year) you would then do a few years, most likely in Winnipeg, as an Aerospace Physiologist.  Once you reached Captain, you could then apply for that Masters Degree in Human Factors.  After two years of schooling and a thesis, you can then go through all of the effort to schedule and run a kit trial including:  ethical approval to conduct the study, finding a unit willing/available to conduct the trial, getting enough kit to outfit everyone, funding to get to the study location, conducting a couple dozen anthropometric measurements on each study volunteer, etc, etc, etc.

While I understand your frustration, I can tell you that the individuals working behind the scenes are doing their absolute best to listen to the needs of the sharp end.  

Back you your regularly scheduled threat.

The 82 pattern rucksack IS NOT on it's way out. It's only disappearing for those who conduct regular dismounted operations; everyone else will be retaining their 82 pattern ruck (see the update briefing in my post below for details/breakdown).


Let's not kid ourselves ... the "desk jockeys" he is referring to are not limited to those of the "ergonomic/human factors" type that you have outlined in your post.

There are some other trades, including combat arms, flying desks in CTS.

And all the nice trials, 4 years of ergo work, and a masters degree still should not overrule the troops when actual CONTACT/BATTLE has shown the kit is not as perfect as it seemed to be to the 'specialists' developing & testing it in pristine conditions in Canada, when the shit hits the fan.

And, after all, that kits reliability and ability to function as intended when the shit is actually hitting the fan is ultimately what it's all about. Now, we have a group (ever-growing) of soldiers who have worn that kit in the battlefield circumstances for which it is intended -- and they say "It doesn't work!!" And there's no Masters Degree in NATO who hasn't been there and actually DONE IT who should rightfully be able to tell them that they are wrong.

 

[RCR Grunt]

Liability can become an issue if a soldier has deliberately modified PPE in such a way as to defeat its intended function.  i.e. removal of kevlar from the vest.  This is more of an issue of what was "not" worn at the time of injury than what was worn.  All PPE is returned to DRDC-Toronto for analysis.

Like I said, I made the calls, I asked the questions.  SISIP covers you both civvy side and military, and no one wears full PPE when they play ball hockey or drive down the 401, so they cover you 24/7.  As for VAC, if you are injured in the line of duty, it doesnt matter whether you were wearing a pink tu-tu or the latest and "greatest" CTS approved gear, as long as it was in the line of duty.  Those are the facts straight form those organizations.

While you are entitled to your opinion, you should be aware of the big picture.  These "desk jockeys" in "human factors" are the reason why gloves come in more than one size and you can go prone while wearing a helmet and ballistic vest at the same time.  They are the reason why we have rain gear that actually stays dry on the inside and the reason why the 82 pattern ruck is on the way out.  Is it a slow process?  Hell yes.  They feel the same way you do about the delays; they have as much control over the kit procurement system as you do.

What rain gear?  I don't have new rain gear, unless you mean the stealth suit I purchased, in that case its great.

The ones working at DRDC-Toronto actually have Masters degrees in Human Factors, mostly from Loughbourgh University in England.  They conduct the ergonomic trials and provide recommendations for corrections.  They also have the unenviable task of working on the PPE analysis team...every piece of kit that comes back is photographed and catalogued with the intent of determining if anything could be corrected or improved to increase survivability.  Having been involved with three such events, I can tell you they are not a great way to spend a day.  As for desk jockey status, one of them was in theatre a few months ago and another is preparing for a deployment. 

If you want to fix the system, I invite you to complete a 4 year Bachelors of Science in a life science field such biology, kinesiology, ergonomics, etc. and apply to the Bioscience trade.  If accepted (usually one or two a year) you would then do a few years, most likely in Winnipeg, as an Aerospace Physiologist.  Once you reached Captain, you could then apply for that Masters Degree in Human Factors.  After two years of schooling and a thesis, you can then go through all of the effort to schedule and run a kit trial including:  ethical approval to conduct the study, finding a unit willing/available to conduct the trial, getting enough kit to outfit everyone, funding to get to the study location, conducting a couple dozen anthropometric measurements on each study volunteer, etc, etc, etc.

I think you just tossed a lot of people who were sitting on the fence on this issue straight into my yard.  Look at all your fancy degrees and qualifications.  Look at all the money.  Look at all the disconnect from the fighting soldier you have going on there.  All your studies and such cost cash, I'm just a high school grad but I can see that much.  It doesn't take a bloody rocket scientist to look around and see what pieces of kit work best.  Look south, look east across the Atlantic, ask our allies what they use.  We are a small force with a small budget, the cash your using to reinvent the back pack could be better spent elsewhere.  The time factor of issuing new kit is but one frustration of the common fighting soldier, the fact that half the time it doesn't do what it is needed to is another.  You don't need a degree in anything to realize gloves should come in more than one size.

P.S. -- Go get' em, Vern!

 

[2 Cdo]

While I understand your frustration, I can tell you that the individuals working behind the scenes are doing their absolute best to listen to the needs of the sharp end.  

That's what frightens me.

masters degree still should not overrule the troops when actual CONTACT/BATTLE has shown the kit is not as perfect as it seemed to be to the 'specialists' developing & testing it in pristine conditions in Canada, when the shit hits the fan.

I think that says it all.

 

[Dirt Digger]

...so just when do these people recieve some meaningful field/ water/ air unit time?

My pet peeve......too much class, not enough clash.

Due to the competition to get into the trade, most come the ranks, either as a CFR or DEO with Reserve experience.  UTPNCM has also occurred, but it's rare.  Just having a degree usually isn't enough to make selection.  Of the three currently in the cell, two have prior experience in the infantry...one Reg (PPCLI Capt) and one Res (Wpg Rifles Sgt).  The other has prior in the Air Force, although I'm not familiar with his background.  The cell also has two additional non-Bios...one is a Vandoo Capt and the other is a RMS Clerk Sgt with lots of field time.  It's a small cell, which is another limiting factor.

However, you do bring up a valid concern with recruitment.  I would rather see the trade pull someone in from the ranks than cherry pick a PhD with a huge sloping forehead, which tend to have some issues adapting to the uniform and rank structure.  Of course, a personal view, and I don't sit on the selection board.  Winnipeg gives some field and air experience with the combined exposure as a physiologist and the SERE program.  Suffield, another Bio posting, can lead to experience in NCBD.  However the hard core field experience is as limited to the trade as it would be for a doctor (which we're often mistaken for)...which is why the field trials are so valuable.    

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

So then, if they happen to bump into him in KAF ... and find out he's lying ... (or ask for ID/take his name - last 3 etc) ... he's fucked twice?? Because really, anyone in authority can simply get ahold of the clothing section and ask "XXX Bloggins -- is there a chit on his docs for non-issue footwear?" It's happened before, quite frequently actually.

Niiii-iiiice advice.

He'd be in more shit from me for the blatant lying than the boots.

If this person in authortity wants to clog up the admin house with a personal vendetta then I guess I'd be screwed.  He can do what he wants and so can I.  And if it were me I would lie and man up to the consequences if caught.

Speaking of lies: "While I understand your frustration, I can tell you that the individuals working behind the scenes are doing their absolute best to listen to the needs of the sharp end."

How then do you explain the hundreds of UCR's sent in on junk equipment?  Also talk to people who have trialed kit where there input was rarely factored in ie. doubling up the size of the mags on the TV.  

 

[Dirt Digger]

The 82 pattern rucksack IS NOT on it's way out. It's only disappearing for those who conduct regular dismounted operations; everyone else will be retaining their 82 pattern ruck (see the update briefing in my post below for details/breakdown).

Those that need it first should be in the queue to get it first, which are those in dismounted ops.  I should have been more clear about that.  In time though, the 82 pattern will be replaced.  Until then, I'm happy with my 64 pattern...  

Let's not kid ourselves ... the "desk jockeys" he is referring to are not limited to those of the "ergonomic/human factors" type that you have outlined in your post.

There are some other trades, including combat arms, flying desks in CTS.

Which is why I stayed away from commenting on the activities of CTS itself.  The Bios are involved with one component of the entire kit procurement procedure, which is the human factors component that was commented on.

And all the nice trials, 4 years of ergo work, and a masters degree still should not overrule the troops when actual CONTACT/BATTLE has shown the kit is not as perfect as it seemed to be to the 'specialists' developing & testing it in pristine conditions in Canada, when the shit hits the fan.

And, after all, that kits reliability and ability to function as intended when the shit is actually hitting the fan is ultimately what it's all about. Now, we have a group (ever-growing) of soldiers who have worn that kit in the battlefield circumstances for which it is intended -- and they say "It doesn't work!!" And there's no Masters Degree in NATO who hasn't been there and actually DONE IT who should rightfully be able to tell them that they are wrong.

No one is saying they are wrong Vern...in fact it's on the contrary.  However, in the big picture, like many others they only have the power to test and recommend a course of action.  No one disputes the "quality" of the LSVW, but somehow it got into service.  One of the most valuable sessions involves talking with the infantry once they've returned from a deployment...however these are difficult to organize due to post-deployment leave, courses, etc, etc...  Believe me, you're not the only one feeling frustrated.  

 

[bilton090]

Due to the competition to get into the trade, most come the ranks, either as a CFR or DEO with Reserve experience.  UTPNCM has also occurred, but it's rare.  Just having a degree usually isn't enough to make selection.  Of the three currently in the cell, two have prior experience in the infantry...one Reg (PPCLI Capt) and one Res (Wpg Rifles Sgt).  The other has prior in the Air Force, although I'm not familiar with his background.  The cell also has two additional non-Bios...one is a Vandoo Capt and the other is a RMS Clerk Sgt with lots of field time.  It's a small cell, which is another limiting factor

        Thats the problem, they let the officers in it !, they have a problem reading a map !  :

 

[armyvern]

Those that need it first should be in the queue to get it first, which are those in dismounted ops.  I should have been more clear about that.  In time though, the 82 pattern will be replaced.  Until then, I'm happy with my 64 pattern...  

Which is why I stayed away from commenting on the activities of CTS itself.  The Bios are involved with one component of the entire kit procurement procedure, which is the human factors component that was commented on.

No one is saying they are wrong Vern...in fact it's on the contrary.  However, in the big picture, like many others they only have the power to test and recommend a course of action.  No one disputes the "quality" of the LSVW, but somehow it got into service.  One of the most valuable sessions involves talking with the infantry once they've returned from a deployment...however these are difficult to organize due to post-deployment leave, courses, etc, etc...  Believe me, you're not the only one feeling frustrated.  

It IS NOT being replaced. See the CTS update ppt that I provided earlier in this thread; begin at page 24 for the rucksack. See the PIP on the CTS website.

Entitlement:

"Issued on IA to Reg/Res dismounted pers working away from vehicles or camps for in excess of 24 hours."

See particularily slide # 31. There is no intention "on the table" to eventually field these to other pers besides those who conduct dismounted ops. None. There was NO intention of such stated at any CLS WGs I've attended on the issue either.

Slide 31:

The CTS Rucksack is NOT INTENDED TO REPLACE THE 82 Pattern rucksack one for one.
The CTS Rucksack is to be issued only to those who conduct significant dismounted operations away from vehicles Regular and Reserve.
Infantry is the primary customer along with elements of the Artillery (FOO, FAC and Mortars), Armoured Recce, and Engineers.
Small Pack System will be used as the main bag and accessory pouches equal 45 Litres of capacity equal to the 82 pattern rucksack.

The above is taken directly from CTSs official update briefing.

Ref your last para:

Have you seen the official response by CTS to those UCRs?? I have, and overwhelmingly, their official response has been that the troops are simply "not using the kit as designed or that they have "not been instructed properly on it's use." No shit --the design sucks -- it isn't working when used "as designed and instructed" over in Afghanistan in the real world. And, they need to start admitting that fact and listening to the troops who are telling them this constantly ... UCR after UCR, roto after roto ... but it's always the users fault??

Gimme a break already.

Long story short??

The SME on a TAC vest as it's performance in battle??

Is the soldier who  has used it in battle on the front line, even should they be some "uneducated first year 031 private". That's THE SME and the EXPERT on the Tac Vest.

It sure ain't some "well degreed, high paid" individual who has probably never had one on their own back (wearing components of one on one's back in the lab ... don't count).

 

[Dirt Digger]

I think you just tossed a lot of people who were sitting on the fence on this issue straight into my yard.  Look at all your fancy degrees and qualifications.  Look at all the money.  Look at all the disconnect from the fighting soldier you have going on there.  All your studies and such cost cash, I'm just a high school grad but I can see that much.  It doesn't take a bloody rocket scientist to look around and see what pieces of kit work best.  Look south, look east across the Atlantic, ask our allies what they use.  We are a small force with a small budget, the cash your using to reinvent the back pack could be better spent elsewhere.  The time factor of issuing new kit is but one frustration of the common fighting soldier, the fact that half the time it doesn't do what it is needed to is another. 

If they're tossed into your yard, that's fine.  If they have a better understanding of how the system is working/not working, then all the better.    I'm not disagreeing that the system is broken or that procurement takes too long, but I think you'll find disconnects with kit in every force you speak with.  I remember speaking with some individuals in the US regarding COTS purchasing...how it tended to have higher levels of acceptance due to name brand recognition (i.e. polar fleece made with Polartech...with the label still attached).  Should we be still be using a ruck sack that was designed in the eighties with all of the advances in tech since then?  Why do I use a 64 pattern?  Could it be because the 82 has two positions for the low back padding, neither of which really seems to fit anybody?  "Should it be reinvented?" can be answered the same way as every other kit/vehicle purchase the CF has made.

I realize that you're very passionate about this topic, but your beef is with the procurement process...not the individuals that are actually trying to get stuff to you that works.  

You don't need a degree in anything to realize gloves should come in more than one size.

One-size-fits-all?  Three sizes in S/M/L?  Five in XS/S/M/L/XL?  Seven?  What length for the fingers?  Is there a standard finger length of 5'11" males for the North American Population that can be used for sizing?  What about 5'2" females or 6'4" females? Does the sizing serve a representative group for the Canadian Forces covering up to, or over, the 95th percentile?  How wide should the palm be?  Will the glove have inserts?  What's the burden of the supply system with 3/5/7/... sizes?  

Admin:  Why does the spell checker try to replace "One-size-fits-all" with "Incestuously"?

 

[RCR Grunt]

If they're tossed into your yard, that's fine. If they have a better understanding of how the system is working/not working, then all the better.   I'm not disagreeing that the system is broken or that procurement takes too long, but I think you'll find disconnects with kit in every force you speak with.  I remember speaking with some individuals in the US regarding COTS purchasing...how it tended to have higher levels of acceptance due to name brand recognition (i.e. polar fleece made with Polartech...with the label still attached). Should we be still be using a ruck sack that was designed in the eighties with all of the advances in tech since then? Why do I use a 64 pattern? Could it be because the 82 has two positions for the low back padding, neither of which really seems to fit anybody?  "Should it be reinvented?" can be answered the same way as every other kit/vehicle purchase the CF has made.

I realize that you're very passionate about this topic, but your beef is with the procurement process...not the individuals that are actually trying to get stuff to you that works.  

One-size-fits-all? Three sizes in S/M/L? Five in XS/S/M/L/XL? Seven? What length for the fingers? Is there a standard finger length of 5'11" males for the North American Population that can be used for sizing? What about 5'2" females or 6'4" females? Does the sizing serve a representative group for the Canadian Forces covering up to, or over, the 95Th percentile? How wide should the palm be? Will the glove have inserts? What's the burden of the supply system with 3/5/7/... sizes?  

Admin: Why does the spell checker try to replace "One-size-fits-all" with "Incestuously"?

For the size of our force, we should be going off the shelf, not designing our own kit.  If we go off the shelf, some other company has already asked those questions and found those answers, all we have to do is buy the gear.  If you compile a list of appropriate companies that make appropriate kit, then let the soldier decide which kit suits him/her, you can make people happy, up to and including the 95th percentile.  I hear Mountain Equipment Co-op makes a lovely backpack.

 

[Garett]

Arcteryx is a Cdn company, I'm sure they could pump this out in CADPAT for everyone in the CF for half what it cost to design and produce the new rucksack.  I bet they could produce 4-5 sizes and it would fit just as well.

 

[armyvern]

You know ...

With all the money the CF is spending to pay the high priced 'experts' to determine that all girls are not 38-26-37 red heads with size 5.6E boots and size small-long fingers to fit into mortar gloves ... study after study to tell me my finger sizes when civvy street did it years ago?? For each and every piece of kit?? So someone can claim "this was a specific CF copyrighted innovation" (think cadpat design here ....)(think - they probably got a promotion out of it too) ... even though actual BATTLEFIELD testing is proving that much of their "high-priced" help with "fully funded 40 million dollars worth of purchasing" items such as the TV --- isn't worth much at the end of the day when the kit doesn't work on the battlefield.

this outfit could AFFORD to buy each and every soldier his "one man -- one (off the rack) kit that works" -- if it cut some of the middle men between requirement identification and soldier operation. Think of the PYs and man hours saved!! Enough actual money to buy 'one man -- one kit' for their career!! (I need an award for fiscal management for this brilliant idea!!  : )

Soldiers CoC identifies need for (Hmmmm), let's say, (Ohhh!!) -- Chest Rigs!!

Requirement is Valid says the CoC;
Proceed to RFQ from civvy street;
Contract to provide XXX number off-the-rack chest rigs (many types already in use & battlefield PROVEN by our allies out there);
Delivery from contractor manufacturer completed;
Issued to the troop within a very short time period.

Wow!!

Now??

Soldiers CoC identifies need for (Hmmmm), let's say, (Ohhh!!) -- Chest Rigs!!

Requirement is Valid says the CoC;
Proceed to RFQ from civvy street; Proceed to spend millions to "develop, plan, test, ergo assess many styles/designs/layouts";
Conduct expensive Field Trails & Tests (including DRDC etc);
Send back to ergo for more million dollar re-design and rescoping;
Proceed to RFQ (step #2 the other way!!);
Develop funding plan -- and fight to obtain it;
Contract to provide XXX number "CF INVENTED & DEVELOPED & COPYRIGHTED" chest rigs (none battlefield PROVEN, but heck ... lab proven and trialled while marching in circles around a warehouse just may qulify as "trialled" in some offices out there);
4 OR 5 years later ...
Delivery from contractor manufacturer completed;
Issued to the troop.
Troop ends up buying his own "proven" gear that actually works on the battlefield anyway... and the circle continues.

I can so see a better way ahead ... and I guarantee that I'll save this system (ie the taxpayers of Canada) money & save the actual users of this kit (ie the pointy end soldiers required to fight & die with it) some aggravation. And gee, my salary is a heck of a lot lower too!!

 

[Dirt Digger]

For the size of our force, we should be going off the shelf, not designing our own kit.  If we go off the shelf, some other company has already asked those questions and found those answers, all we have to do is buy the gear.  If you compile a list of appropriate companies that make appropriate kit, then let the soldier decide which kit suits him/her, you can make people happy, up to and including the 95th percentile. 

Many designs start out as COT prototypes and are then modified.  I think what you're hitting on is the "good enough" concept and wether a COT design meets CF requirements without the whole modification process.  Obviously there are a lot of good manufactures out there, several of which post on these boards.  Do they make the cut?  Can new designs get on the approved list?  Who approves?   

Which then goes back to the often quoted tale of the RSM that wants every soldier wearing the same boot.  No matter how much your plan makes sense, I seriously doubt that it would go as far as you would like.  The US boot purchasing system makes sense...different boots for different feet.  But extending that to load-bearing vests, rucks, etc., in the eyes of the Devil's Advocate, flys in the face of the whole concept of "uniform".  Personally, I feel that if it works, use it...especially when your life is on the line.  Just convince that RSM with the throbbing forehead vein, the procurement system that takes a year (or more) to make a decision and all of the COT business that are more than willing to file the inevitable lawsuit when they don't make the final cut.  Kit should be about functionality - unfortunately that seems to be trumped by several other factors, none of which anyone here has a huge amount of control over.  You can guide the elephant, but it sits down when it wants to.

I hear Mountain Equipment Co-op makes a lovely backpack.

Just try getting it in olive drab.    :-\  Can anyone confirm the story of MEC balking on certain "military-inspired" colours?