Canadian Army Prohibits Purchase of Commercial Kit

[Nfld Sapper]

A great senior NCO once said, "A soldier shouldn't have to adapt to his kit, he should adapt his kit to his job."

Wise words that MAYBE we all should heed.

My god man that's applying logic to the situation...........

;D

 

[OldSolduer]

My god man that's applying logic to the situation...........

;D

yes....what will we do if we don't have Strict Uniformity??? Woe is me!! ;D

 

[McG]

How does a brand get on that list or trialed?

You would have to put your question to DLR or DSSPM.  However, whenever that window of opportunity was, you will probably find it has closed because it was tied to operational load carriage trials.

Say something like Tactical Assault Gear which has been purchased by multiple CF units?

Going back to the message that this thread is about -> Units are not authorized to buy individual kit.
Units buying kit, for which they are not authorized to buy, does not sanction that kit for use or procurement by individuals.

 

[Loachman]

I suppose that is convenient given that PPE levels are classified.

That, too, has a level of convenience.

I have seen, but cannot recall where, US data demonstrating the superiority of pad systems.

As I understand, the US Army and US Marines have gone to pad systems.

If there is a difference between US helmet shells and ours that can somehow explain a superior performance of pads in US helmets and an inferior performance in ours, I'd be most interested.

We went from a suspension system to what could be termed a pad system (one big skull-cap pad) in our flying helmets about twenty years ago. Granted, the "threats" are not the same, but there is some overlap.

 

[McG]

That, too, has a level of convenience.

It does, but I am not using it to put money in my pocket in exchange for a product that I promise will provide greater comfort and protection.
If there are CF commanders that need the proof for official use, there are sources where it can be requested from within DND.

If there is a difference between US helmet shells and ours that can somehow explain a superior performance of pads in US helmets and an inferior performance in ours, I'd be most interested.

Msg sent.  You may also want to send the LCMM an email – he might be able to elaborate more on official means.

 

[Loachman]

Seen. Thanks.

 

[Farmboy]

Going back to the message that this thread is about -> Units are not authorized to buy individual kit.
Units buying kit, for which they are not authorized to buy, does not sanction that kit for use or procurement by individuals.

Units are not authorized to use O&M funds for buying kit.

Which is different than kit (again Tactical Assault Gear) procured using the correct methods.

 

[McG]

Units are not authorized to use O&M funds for buying kit.

Which is different than kit (again Tactical Assault Gear) procured using the correct methods.

Going back to reply #58, you are asking about individual kit purchased by units.  Bolding O&M does not change my position.  Army units do not get any type of funding with which they can purchase the types of items described in the message that initiated this thread.  If an items such as those described in the message was purchased by a unit, it was not procured properly. 

Today, even CANSOFCOM has a requirements staff and has to go the ADM(Mat) for certain things/types-of-things.

 

[Farmboy]

Army units do not get any type of funding with which they can purchase the types of items described in the message that initiated this thread.  If an items such as those described in the message was purchased by a unit, it was not procured properly.

Strange. 

Does Public Works know this? Does the chain of command know this. Because they both keep approving everything.

So either it is actually approved, in which case it's in the system properly or the chain of command recognizes that the issue gear is crap and are ignoring orders because of it.

Personally I could give two $hits if God himself gave the order not to buy after market gear.  The issue TV doesn't work, the slings don't work, the boots don't work etc.

You know it. I know it. The Troops know it and the chain of command knows it.

I'll keep pushing till the troops get what actually works.

 

[armyvern]

Strange. 

Does Public Works know this? Does the chain of command know this. Because they both keep approving everything.

So either it is actually approved, in which case it's in the system properly or the chain of command recognizes that the issue gear is crap and are ignoring orders because of it.

Personally I could give two $hits if God himself gave the order not to buy after market gear.  The issue TV doesn't work, the slings don't work, the boots don't work etc.

You know it. I know it. The Troops know it and the chain of command knows it.

I'll keep pushing till the troops get what actually works.

You may not give two shits and that is none of my concern.

Chest rigs, camel backs, boots etc are ALL 2nd line clothing doc items --- so if some CO of a 1st line Unit IS buying them from you; then no, he is NOT following the correct process and thus the reason the CANFORGEN that this thread is about was cut in order to re-enforce that fact. Pretty simple eh?

That fact, also happens to be IAW Treasury Board Act (that "Act" is a "Law" just in case you weren't aware of that). Whichever sup tech at that 1st line unit or cbt storesman makes that purchase --- is subject to disciplinary and legal action as NO authority exists in the CF for them to make such a financial transaction.

Now, if a CO wanted to buy and put his requirement through 2nd line who would consult with Ottawa as applicable, THEN he's followed the proper process for procurement. In which case, the purchase from you would be coming from a 2nd line Sup activity vice a 1st line Unit. Of course, I've already posted that in this thread prior though - conveniently ignored by yourself.

NO CO can buy (even through 2nd line) things like camel backs for his Unit pers just "because he thinks his troops should have them" when those troops are not entitled to them if they are not deploying on International Ops. A CO can not override the NDHQ authorized LF scale of clothing and equipment which lists the items that his pers are entitled to. If they are not entitled on that scale, they are also NOT entitled via other means. That CO who believes his troops should have it anyway, also has a process in place for addressing any lack of entitlement via official means and channels to have the scale amended so that troops could become entitled to be issued it by clothing stores (and thus making it visible, legal, and accountable within the system and on the members docs as the TB Act says it must be).

Apparently, this must have become an issue in the system with the COs understanding they have no authority to purchase like this --- else the message reiterating their lack of authorityh to do so simply would not exist.

 

[Farmboy]

I've already posted that in this thread prior though - conveniently ignored by yourself.

Not ignored, just missed.

Now, if a CO wanted to buy and put his requirement through 2nd line who would consult with Ottawa as applicable, THEN he's followed the proper process for procurement. In which case, the purchase from you would be coming from a 2nd line Sup activity vice a 1st line Unit.

This could be what is happening then with confusion on the technical terms.

 

[captloadie]

To me its sounds more like your saying -

I'll keep pushing till the troops get what actually works I'm actually selling.

 

[DirtyDog]

That, too, has a level of convenience.

I have seen, but cannot recall where, US data demonstrating the superiority of pad systems.

As I understand, the US Army and US Marines have gone to pad systems.

If there is a difference between US helmet shells and ours that can somehow explain a superior performance of pads in US helmets and an inferior performance in ours, I'd be most interested.

We went from a suspension system to what could be termed a pad system (one big skull-cap pad) in our flying helmets about twenty years ago. Granted, the "threats" are not the same, but there is some overlap.

I found it funny during the PPE inclearance brief in KAF how they warned against the evils of the pad system and the inferiority of the American helmets to our suspension system.

The they went on to explain that the TV should be worn with the Frag vest as it is a system desgined to work together and the TV holds the frag vest together and prevents it from blowing off during an explosion.  When someone pointed out that half of the frag vests being issued had completely worn out velcro it was explained that "yes, it would be nice if the velcro worked, but... ummmmmm........."

 

[armyvern]

I found it funny during the PPE inclearance brief in KAF how they warned against the evils of the pad system and the inferiority of the American helmets to our suspension system.

Interesting that you bring this up at a time when the US military is undergoing a major recall of it's issued helmets due to them not meeting minimum safety standards ... and we are not experiencing such with our Canadian kit. Perhaps those giving their brief actually had some factual info to support their "ours are better according to our safety standards testing" claims."??

 

[Farmboy]

Interesting that you bring this up at a time when the US military is undergoing a major recall of it's issued helmets

The 44,000 recalled helmets -- which cost 250 dollars each -- represent about four percent of the total number of Advanced Combat Helmets in the military's inventory

4% isn't major in my book, however it is an huge concern that troops deployed with these.

To me its sounds more like your saying -
Quote from: Farmboy on Yesterday at 15:43:20


    I'll keep pushing till the troops get what actually works I'm actually selling.

OH NO Run away!! Some one is selling something!!  Must resist!!

 

[57Chevy]

[quote author=Farmboy  Must resist!!
[/quote]

:argument:  :deadhorse:  ;D

 

[DirtyDog]

Interesting that you bring this up at a time when the US military is undergoing a major recall of it's issued helmets due to them not meeting minimum safety standards ... and we are not experiencing such with our Canadian kit. Perhaps those giving their brief actually had some factual info to support their "ours are better according to our safety standards testing" claims."??

Yes but she seemed to be referencing  the basic concept of helmet pads, not some manufacturing defect.  She specifically mentioned how our suspension system which creates an air space much like that in a construction hard hat is fundamentally superior to pad systems, "like the American helmets". 

People can also point to the "facts" of scientific studies of how the CTS ruck is ergonomically a home run for soldiers.  Kind of like the warm fuzzy feeling I got when the CLS told us that extremely talented teams of scientists and engineers were designing the new arid combat boot (or whatever it is called) and it will be a hit with us. 

 

[Fusaki]

The they went on to explain that the TV should be worn with the Frag vest as it is a system desgined to work together and the TV holds the frag vest together and prevents it from blowing off during an explosion.  When someone pointed out that half of the frag vests being issued had completely worn out velcro it was explained that "yes, it would be nice if the velcro worked, but... ummmmmm........."

Is the Frag vest safe for use by vehicle crews and other pers who don't wear the TV in combat?

 

[2010newbie]

4% isn't major in my book, however it is an huge concern that troops deployed with these.

I think 4% is a huge number, especially in a manufacturing environment like this one providing PPE. Last year GM's internal target for Supplier Quality issues (defective parts from suppliers received at GM assembly plants) was 25 ppm (parts per million received). Not 25 percent, but 25 individual defective parts for every one million they received globally. They were well on their way of acheiving that target when I left in December 2009. Here's a sample from a GM training presentation we do for suppliers when they come up with "It's only 1%" or something along those lines...

Things Done Right 99.9% of the Time Means:

  One hour of unsafe drinking water per month

  Two unsafe landings at O’Hare Airport each day

  16,000 lost pieces of mail per hour

  20,000 incorrect drug prescriptions per year

  500 incorrect surgical operations per week

  22,000 checks per hour deducted from wrong account

  32,000 missed heartbeats per person each year

  60 mislabeled containers per day per assembly plant

This presentation is a couple years old so some of the figures might vary slightly, but it gets the point across.

 

[McD]

QA (quality assurance ) quickly becomes a nightmare place to be and/ or deal with. Seen similar presentations 2010Newbie :nod: