Soldier Operational Clothing and Equipment Modernization

[OldSolduer]

The ‘82 pattern webbing was inexcusable as it was just a different take on the ‘64.
The grommet/hook attachment method was brain dead as fuck. As the plastic hooks constantly sheared - and grommets ripped out making the belt N/S. Plus the tab method of closure - sure the nylon tabs where robust enough (albiet small and awkward) but the plastic loop again cracked and made the pouch N/S

The coat hanger frame ruck was another travesty from the ‘82 pattern project.

I preferred my 82 Pattern over the tac vests. Even with the grommet/hook issues. Zip ties can fix a lot.

 

[markppcli]

I preferred my 82 Pattern over the tac vests. Even with the grommet/hook issues. Zip ties can fix a lot.

If they’d just made 82 pattern covered in Molle we’d be in a much better place. Mind you the issue with 82 was that for some reason we decided that regardless of how it was supposed to be used, the but pack would be attached at all times.

 

[KevinB]

Honestly by the time the TV showed itself the DHTC Patrol Vest and Chest Rigs could have been issued to everyone… For less money as well.

 

[MilEME09]

It was a nice idea.

Get us pack howitzers again, and you are good to go. Seriously we are way to symmetrical of a force. Our kit needs to reflect the diversity of our missions as well. Tac vests need to be customized to the user. Have a generic load out for BMQ but then leave it upto individual units and trades to decide their own lay out. A vehicle tech doesn't need the same vest layout as a Grenedier

 

[daftandbarmy]

Back to my rant about gear...

It is a bit of a pet peeve of mine, as when I first joined, I was issued the 1951 pattern webbing (lucky me), as the '64 pattern was fucking terrible (curious if they dug the guy who did that up so he could fuckup the Tac Vest), and there wasn't enough '82 pattern to go around (which was also terrible executed with the velcro and the plastic hooks).

One example of better than plain Jane Cordura Nylon is BlueForce Gear's Ultra Comp - they license it to a lot of other gear companies FWIW.

Our Mission at Blue Force Gear

To provide our customers with professional-grade gear and life accessories which exhibit our total commitment...

www.blueforcegear.com

It only took the British about 20 years to get this stuff right. And I think they still use both chest rigs and web gear for different applications

Personal Load Carrying Equipment - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[markppcli]

It only took the British about 20 years to get this stuff right. And I think they still use both chest rigs and web gear for different applications

Personal Load Carrying Equipment - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

They now get issued Virtus, which includes the body armour and webbing.

 

[daftandbarmy]

They now get issued Virtus, which includes the body armour and webbing.

OK, that's pretty awesome IMHO.

 

[markppcli]

OK, that's pretty awesome IMHO.

I rate the current British set up really highly. The armour offers frag protection while not being overly restrictive, it gives good options for load bearing both with and without armour.

 

[OceanBonfire]

Defence Materiel - ADM(Mat) | Matériel de défense - SMA(Mat) on LinkedIn: #cansec2023

The new base layer system starts the modernization of CAF operational clothing! The new system provides performance and comfort and made of 4 different weights…

www.linkedin.com

Trials completed on 6 June:

More than 100 Canadian Army (CA) members and 25 Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) members, half of them women, from various occupations participated in this trial to evaluate the operational effectiveness of this clothing system in various operational settings, helping to provide realistic and applicable feedback for future designs. The trial was broken into two phases:

· a cold weather trial from January to March 2024
· a warm weather trial from March to June 2024

Defence Materiel - ADM(Mat) | Matériel de défense - SMA(Mat) on LinkedIn: #matnewsgroup #wellequipped

#MatNewsGroup - On June 6th, 2024, the Canadian Combat Uniform Ensemble (CCUE) user trials have ended at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, marking an important…

www.linkedin.com

See kit pictures - there is a chest rig, a plate carrier and a battle belt. The gloves are also fantastic, being developed in concert with Kombi. Merino wool liner, multiple systems that fit together etc. Overall very much heartening stuff.

In CADPAT-MT:

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1037469434722950

 

[dangerboy]

The chest rig is not part of SOCEM, it is the ISSP vest. SOCEM is waiting for the DICE (Dismounted Infantry Combat Enhancement) project to deliver load carriage and use lessons learned from that project for when it looks at the load carriage.

 

[markppcli]

The chest rig is not part of SOCEM, it is the ISSP vest. SOCEM is waiting for the DICE (Dismounted Infantry Combat Enhancement) project to deliver load carriage and use lessons learned from that project for when it looks at the load carriage.

I realize this is an old post - is there a time one on DICE delivering ?

 

[ytz]

Honestly all three LIB’s should be Para BN’s. (Got to say Para least anyone think one is doing a CAR again).

Why? What's the point? Airborne is increasingly useless to anybody but the really big boys. What near-peer conflict will ever require a Canadian para battalion? Developing a real air assault capability would be far more useful. And provide a nascent landing force, if eventually the RCN gets a big honking ship.

 

[KevinB]

Why? What's the point? Airborne is increasingly useless to anybody but the really big boys. What near-peer conflict will ever require a Canadian para battalion? Developing a real air assault capability would be far more useful. And provide a nascent landing force, if eventually the RCN gets a big honking ship.

Airborne is still a very feasible delivery method for non near peer, or even distracted near peer.

JFE/NEO aspects would also point to being able to have a BN minimum and Bde ideally capable for that task. With SOF conducting the PR missions.


Air Assault, absolutely, but the RCAF couldn’t air assault a wet paper bag with its current rotary wing assets. Canada currently could conduct a Bde (ish) para operation with the C-17 and C-130 fleet.

The CH-146 and CCH-147 (or whatever you call the F/G hybrid Hook) fleets are not sufficient to move a BN, and less when one considers that 427 is now SOAS, and a bunch of 450th Hooks are tasked to CANSOF as well.

I don’t see 8-10 Griffons / Bde doing much.
Any sort of credible Air Assault capability for the CAF is going to require a massive investment in Rotary Wing, adding AH, and skyrocketing the numbers of Hooks and ideally a better UH than the Griffon.

 

[PuckChaser]

Why? What's the point? Airborne is increasingly useless to anybody but the really big boys. What near-peer conflict will ever require a Canadian para battalion? Developing a real air assault capability would be far more useful. And provide a nascent landing force, if eventually the RCN gets a big honking ship.

Airborne is a way to get to work, so is air assault and littoral/beach landings. A LIB that is also airborne qualified and proficient just had another insertion method in their toolbox. Airborne operations also require a specific type of "patrolling spirit" that should be fostered to make them into a type of shock troop. Look how the Russians use the VDV to either seize initiative or hold a defensive.

What you've also established is that the RCAF is incapable of providing the lift and SEAD for an airborne/air assault, and RCN is incapable of providing lift for a landing force. We've developed our elements in silos and they are only interoperable on the fringes. Instead of smashing at CA capabilities maybe we need to holisticly look at what modern conflict will require and built mutually supporting systems with all this promised 2% of GDP so everyone can get to work with the right tools. That amount of money should make us one of the "big boys", even if we're not at the divisional airborne task force level that the US is.

 

[Fabius]

In a Cdn context there seems to be a desire to increase our ability to rapidly deploy forces into the Arctic. Airborne forces are still viewed as one of the best ways to do that.
In order to achieve that you need a certain level of mass, and specifically some key CS and CSS enablers that are best achieved by having a Bde and its units all trained together as airborne forces.
That is also key to enabling the maintenance of a constant capability on VHR. This was a key realization from a few GRTF war games that largely got ignored because it would require a rethink of the Army Structure and a rethink of the F2025 unsuccessful COAs.

Joint is a key weakness for the CAF that the CAF seems to be content with, preferring to focus on combined operations with US and NATO forces of the same composition.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

Joint is a key weakness for the CAF that the CAF seems to be content with, preferring to focus on combined operations with US and NATO forces of the same composition.

Joint is THE weakness of the CAF; in the sense that we tend to overstate it's requirement in all activities, thus refusing to acknowledge the benefit of bespoke or dedicated solutions for a specific problem set.

Airborne, Air Assault, Mech, Amphibious, all of them have specific requirements for Sig Support; as it stands, I would have thr same sprinkling of assets across the CAF that would not add up to a sufficient capability to enable a full operation in any capacity.

Now, dedicate a Bde to a task (say 2 Cdn Airborne Bde Gp), we can build packages for the specific IERs and TacC2IS needs for the role.

Joint means you're able to cooperate when needed, not that interoperability is your raison d'etre

 

[markppcli]

Airborne is a way to get to work, so is air assault and littoral/beach landings. A LIB that is also airborne qualified and proficient just had another insertion method in their toolbox. Airborne operations also require a specific type of "patrolling spirit" that should be fostered to make them into a type of shock troop. Look how the Russians use the VDV to either seize initiative or hold a defensive.

What you've also established is that the RCAF is incapable of providing the lift and SEAD for an airborne/air assault, and RCN is incapable of providing lift for a landing force. We've developed our elements in silos and they are only interoperable on the fringes. Instead of smashing at CA capabilities maybe we need to holisticly look at what modern conflict will require and built mutually supporting systems with all this promised 2% of GDP so everyone can get to work with the right tools. That amount of money should make us one of the "big boys", even if we're not at the divisional airborne task force level that the US is.

I agree outside of the VDV thing. They’re used that way because they were exclusively volunteers and professionals CS conscripts more than anything.

 

[dimsum]

So, about clothing and equipment modernization…

 

[KevinB]

So, about clothing and equipment modernization…

Well technically you really should figure out your force composition before you equip them.

 

[PuckChaser]

Well technically you really should figure out your force composition before you equip them.

Nah, this is basic outdoor gear that shouldn't be a decade long project. If we want specific kit for a specific task, that needs a force review. SOCEM is trying to make us look like a military.