• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New Rucksack

After seeing the pictures of this new rucksack, I've come to the conclusion that it's not actually for transporting kit.  It's a shelter for short people (I personally could fit completely inside it according to my husband).  Why all you tall guys got one is beyond me :p
 
daftandbarmy said:
And, ironically, we have a well known Canadian outdoor equipment company selling gear to the US Army and Marines: Arc'teryx

"Due to dissatisfaction with the MOLLE gear, the United States Marine Corps chose Arc'teryx's Tango design for their new backpack, the ILBE." http://leaf.arcteryx.com/Tango.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc'teryx


Here's their military division 'leaf' website. All serving military members are eligible to 'apply' here. There are a few former CF folks working there, mostly reservists as I understand it.

http://leaf.arcteryx.com/

Even more ironic is that Arc'Teryx (as well as Mountain Equipment Co-Op/Serratus Mountain Products) was intially approached by the CTS staff in the mid 90's to see if they'd be interested in working with DND to develop a rucksack system for the CFs.
At that time, Arc'Teryx was more concerned with building their brand and product line to their core customer base, alpine climbers, and the main kicker, was that even if Arc'Teryx received an R&D contract from DND to develop a ruck, all the design info would then have been made property of DND to put out for industry dissemination once the prototyping was finished and the production was to be tendered.  Arc'Teryx considers several aspects of their ruck design to be proprietary, i.e. hip belt foam laminations and curvature patterns, etc. which they don't want floating around in the public domain for their competitors to gain access to.

With respect to Arc'Teryx's work on the Marine Corps ILBE ruck project, they partnered with Propper to license build the rucks for them in the US (Puerto Rico in this case) so that they were compliant with US procurement policies, but for this program, the Marine Corps was buying a militarised commercial-off-the-shelf ruck, and didn't buy the accompanying technical data package from Arc'Teryx on how to build the ruck, i.e. design pattern, etc.

Until DND alters its procurement policies to buy large-scale commercial-off-the-shelf for individual equipment, I doubt Arc'Teryx would be willing to sacrifice the R&D effort they've put into their product lines for a $200,000 R&D contract for rucksack development, just to have companies like Fellfab, Apparel Trimmings, KW Leather, etc. underbid them on the tender, and for their industry competitors (i.e. Mountain Hardwear, North Face, Lowe Alpine, etc.) get access to their build patterns and know-how via a MERX tender for rucksacks which lists detailed technical info as part of the tender's data package.
 
Matt_Fisher said:
Until DND alters its procurement policies to buy large-scale commercial-off-the-shelf for individual equipment, I doubt Arc'Teryx would be willing to sacrifice the R&D effort they've put into their product lines for a $200,000 R&D contract for rucksack development, just to have companies like Fellfab, Apparel Trimmings, KW Leather, etc. underbid them on the tender, and for their industry competitors (i.e. Mountain Hardwear, North Face, Lowe Alpine, etc.) get access to their build patterns and know-how via a MERX tender for rucksacks which lists detailed technical info as part of the tender's data package.

MERX... you shouldn't use language like that on a site where kids might see it (Dang, I couldn't find a Mr. Yuck smiley to put in here)
 
And for the record the current rucksac is Generation 23 you figure out the rest.
 
I should clarify,

I think that some of you guys are thinking that I think the ruck is good to go, this is definitely NOT the case. Having tried to use it on operations, past just walking from the TLS bldg to my tent on KAF, I cant stress enough that this is a shitty piece of equipment.

What my post was trying to point out is when you hear guys saying "oh its good", "I went on "x" march" or "did "x"" competition and it was great, in most cases they are not using it with full kit and armour. We (DND) spent a LOT of money developing a totally comfortable "pt strip ruck".

Hopefully this clarifies my thoughts.
 
Matt_Fisher said:
Even more ironic is that Arc'Teryx (as well as Mountain Equipment Co-Op/Serratus Mountain Products) was intially approached by the CTS staff in the mid 90's to see if they'd be interested in working with DND to develop a rucksack system for the CFs.
At that time, Arc'Teryx was more concerned with building their brand and product line to their core customer base, alpine climbers, and the main kicker, was that even if Arc'Teryx received an R&D contract from DND to develop a ruck, all the design info would then have been made property of DND to put out for industry dissemination once the prototyping was finished and the production was to be tendered.  Arc'Teryx considers several aspects of their ruck design to be proprietary, i.e. hip belt foam laminations and curvature patterns, etc. which they don't want floating around in the public domain for their competitors to gain access to.

With respect to Arc'Teryx's work on the Marine Corps ILBE ruck project, they partnered with Propper to license build the rucks for them in the US (Puerto Rico in this case) so that they were compliant with US procurement policies, but for this program, the Marine Corps was buying a militarised commercial-off-the-shelf ruck, and didn't buy the accompanying technical data package from Arc'Teryx on how to build the ruck, i.e. design pattern, etc.

Until DND alters its procurement policies to buy large-scale commercial-off-the-shelf for individual equipment, I doubt Arc'Teryx would be willing to sacrifice the R&D effort they've put into their product lines for a $200,000 R&D contract for rucksack development, just to have companies like Fellfab, Apparel Trimmings, KW Leather, etc. underbid them on the tender, and for their industry competitors (i.e. Mountain Hardwear, North Face, Lowe Alpine, etc.) get access to their build patterns and know-how via a MERX tender for rucksacks which lists detailed technical info as part of the tender's data package.

And therein lies the rub.  The laws concerning government procurements have to change, at least with regards to DND, before the "big" CF sees any sort of large scale COTS procurements.  I don't see this happening anytime soon, too many fingers in the pie of government contracts.

What needs to happen for real change in the way we are equipped is a separation of the PWGSC and the DND procurement process.  The best equipment for the best deal is what is required, not the lowest bidder from Canada.
 
You know the US Mil requires that COTS be looked at first these days...

When you figure all the wasted R&D funding and the salaries (equally wasted) with the CTS personnel involved in the PT Ruck, buying COTS from Kifaru, Arc'teryx, Low Alpine etc. would have been much much cheaper...
 
But I6 whatever would we do with all the extra Col's and such in charge of DLR if we started buying decent off the shelf kit?  ::)
 
RCR Grunt said:
And therein lies the rub.  The laws concerning government procurements have to change, at least with regards to DND, before the "big" CF sees any sort of large scale COTS procurements.  I don't see this happening anytime soon, too many fingers in the pie of government contracts.

What needs to happen for real change in the way we are equipped is a separation of the PWGSC and the DND procurement process.  The best equipment for the best deal is what is required, not the lowest bidder from Canada.

I'd say for individual equipment level/soldier system type stuff, even more than a separation of PWGSC and DND would have to happen; Industry Canada would have to approve an exclusion clause on Canadian goods & services requirements, and DND would need to fundamentally change how it views purchasing COTS, as they currently prefer to retain ownership of most of the technical data/specifications for clothing & equipment.

An example which could be brought up by the DND side of the house could go like this:
The CFs/DND decide they want to start buying a commercially available combat boot from a company like Lowa.

These Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß Boots are loaded with awesome features such as a proprietary arch support system (protected by numerous patents), are lightweight, yet extremely supportive around the ankle, but are still flexible for kneeling, have a proprietary sole compound (protected by numerous patents) which is very grippy on wet surfaces and ice, yet hard wearing and long-lasting, etc.  These things are so sweet that about the only thing they don't do is self-levitate.

The Army then trials the Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß boots, and they're found to be acceptable by the user community, scoring record-setting marks by those trialing it (forget 80% solution, this thing is a solid 99.9%) and set up a standing offer with Lowa so that they can commence large-scale purchasing in order to issue the entire Army these Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß boots.

Time progresses, and most of the soldiers in the Army are happy with the Lowa boots that they're issued, "Yea!!!  These  Übermäßiger Fuß kick ***!!! :camo: CTS finally got something right...we told them for years to forget about all that technical data those eggheads at DSSPM come up with for all this crappy issued kit, and just to go out and buy something commercially".
 
Then, a catastrophic fire occurs at the Lowa factory, shutting down production for months and months until the company can rebuild their factory.  Due to undisclosed financial mismangement and unsound leadership, the fire is the nail in the coffin for Lowa, and the company declares bancruptcy and ceases production indefinitely. 

The Army then quickly starts to run out of Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß boots to issue, and despite calls to industry, due to all the proprietary features, this Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß boot cannot be replicated by industry, as the Army doesn't have own the technical data that is needed to build this boot.

Now the Army is out of boots, doesn't know what boot to replace the now extinct Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß, and must go through a selection and trial process of several commercially available boots, and set up a standing offer with the winner of the trial and selection process, who in turn must tool up production and deliveries, so you could easily be looking at a year and a half before the Army starts getting boots again.

The same analogy could be applied to almost any piece of individual kit that's procured commercially from the manufacturer who has claims on proprietary design features, i.e. Arc'Teryx Alpha pack, Blue Force Gear Vickers Sling, Eagle CIRAS body armour, SO Tech Hellcat chest rig, etc.

I think it's wise for DND to have DSSPM control the technical data for certain things, however, in an ideal world, a better selection and trial process would put superior issued kit in the hands of the troops.
 
RCR Grunt said:
What needs to happen for real change in the way we are equipped is a separation of the PWGSC and the DND procurement process.  The best equipment for the best deal is what is required, not the lowest bidder from Canada.

Okay, I have always been wondering on this one.  Who has to be pestered to actually bring about that change?? I mean, we can bitch and whine all over and in every equipment thread and it most usually boils down to this.  WHO will do anything about it?  Is this something we can talk to the CLS about?  Maybe an anonymous email (sent from ArmyVern's account) to the CDS??

WHO?!?!?
 
Bzzliteyr said:
Okay, I have always been wondering on this one.  Who has to be pestered to actually bring about that change?? I mean, we can bitch and whine all over and in every equipment thread and it most usually boils down to this.  WHO will do anything about it?  Is this something we can talk to the CLS about?  Maybe an anonymous email (sent from ArmyVern's account) to the CDS??

WHO?!?!?

I think that has to be legislated by Parliament. If I'm wrong (I doubt it) someone correct me...verbal smacks upside the head are OK. ;)
 
Bzzz the only thing that exist is the UCR system and well read the other threads and you will see just how great that system is and how well it works to do anything... ::)
 
BulletMagnet said:
Bzzz the only thing that exist is the UCR system and well read the other threads and you will see just how great that system is and how well it works to do anything... ::)

A landfill's worth of UCR's will not change the law.  A conversation with your local MP, however, is closer to the mark.  A conversation with the Minister of Public Works might be even better.

BulletMagnet said:
But I6 whatever would we do with all the extra Col's and such in charge of DLR if we started buying decent off the shelf kit?  ::)

I guess they'll have to look for other desks to hold down to avoid the next war.    :)

Matt_Fisher said:
I'd say for individual equipment level/soldier system type stuff, even more than a separation of PWGSC and DND would have to happen; Industry Canada would have to approve an exclusion clause on Canadian goods & services requirements, and DND would need to fundamentally change how it views purchasing COTS, as they currently prefer to retain ownership of most of the technical data/specifications for clothing & equipment.

An example which could be brought up by the DND side of the house could go like this:
The CFs/DND decide they want to start buying a commercially available combat boot from a company like Lowa.

These Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß Boots are loaded with awesome features such as a proprietary arch support system (protected by numerous patents), are lightweight, yet extremely supportive around the ankle, but are still flexible for kneeling, have a proprietary sole compound (protected by numerous patents) which is very grippy on wet surfaces and ice, yet hard wearing and long-lasting, etc.  These things are so sweet that about the only thing they don't do is self-levitate.

The Army then trials the Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß boots, and they're found to be acceptable by the user community, scoring record-setting marks by those trialing it (forget 80% solution, this thing is a solid 99.9%) and set up a standing offer with Lowa so that they can commence large-scale purchasing in order to issue the entire Army these Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß boots.

Time progresses, and most of the soldiers in the Army are happy with the Lowa boots that they're issued, "Yea!!!  These  Übermäßiger Fuß kick ***!!! :camo: CTS finally got something right...we told them for years to forget about all that technical data those eggheads at DSSPM come up with for all this crappy issued kit, and just to go out and buy something commercially".
 
Then, a catastrophic fire occurs at the Lowa factory, shutting down production for months and months until the company can rebuild their factory.  Due to undisclosed financial mismangement and unsound leadership, the fire is the nail in the coffin for Lowa, and the company declares bancruptcy and ceases production indefinitely. 

The Army then quickly starts to run out of Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß boots to issue, and despite calls to industry, due to all the proprietary features, this Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß boot cannot be replicated by industry, as the Army doesn't have own the technical data that is needed to build this boot.

Now the Army is out of boots, doesn't know what boot to replace the now extinct Lowa Übermäßiger Fuß, and must go through a selection and trial process of several commercially available boots, and set up a standing offer with the winner of the trial and selection process, who in turn must tool up production and deliveries, so you could easily be looking at a year and a half before the Army starts getting boots again.

The same analogy could be applied to almost any piece of individual kit that's procured commercially from the manufacturer who has claims on proprietary design features, i.e. Arc'Teryx Alpha pack, Blue Force Gear Vickers Sling, Eagle CIRAS body armour, SO Tech Hellcat chest rig, etc.

I think it's wise for DND to have DSSPM control the technical data for certain things, however, in an ideal world, a better selection and trial process would put superior issued kit in the hands of the troops.

A simple solution would be to have several different brands of COTS boots available to the soldier.  I don't see the Lowa factory AND the Danner factory both burning down in the same week.  In a situation like the one above, could DND not aid in Lowa's situation by purchasing the patents to the Uber boot in a case such as that?  They're going out of business anyways.
 
Has anyone worn the Arc'teryx Echo/Tango packs, or the CP Gear Gen III 64-pattern back-panel config with PPE/plates? Not having trialed the CTS ruck, I am assuming the main issue is with the internal aluminum stays, correct? Wouldn't other packs, such as the Kifaru line, be subject to similar if not identical feedback (ie. negative) if worn with the vest/plate?

Thus the question about the CP Gear back-panel - seems like a flexible/open back would conform to whatever is/isn't being worn, while the hip-belt/frame would take a portion of the load from the shoulders.
 
Soldier1stTradesman2nd said:
Has anyone worn the Arc'teryx Echo/Tango packs, or the CP Gear Gen III 64-pattern back-panel config with PPE/plates? Not having trialed the CTS ruck, I am assuming the main issue is with the internal aluminum stays, correct? Wouldn't other packs, such as the Kifaru line, be subject to similar if not identical feedback (ie. negative) if worn with the vest/plate?

Thus the question about the CP Gear back-panel - seems like a flexible/open back would conform to whatever is/isn't being worn, while the hip-belt/frame would take a portion of the load from the shoulders.

Arc'teryx Tango and Echo are both internal frame packs, so it's likely they'd interface with SAPI plates in the same manner as would the CTS rucksack, as would the pre-Gen II Kifaru lineup.

As for our CP Gear Gen III 64 system, by having the back pads removeable, the user could leave them off, and then loosen the 'trampoline' style back panel, thus letting the ruck frame come into closer contact with the ballistic vest, and given that the 64 frame has a curved body, it might be more prone to conform better to the vest with plates.

Unfortunately, I don't have a CF ballistic vest or plates to trial, but if anybody does have a vest and plates, maybe we could work something out in regard to doing a T&E report of the Gen III system in regard to how it interfaces with the CF ballistic vest and plates.  ;)
 
Matt_Fisher said:
Arc'teryx Tango and Echo are both internal frame packs, so it's likely they'd interface with SAPI plates in the same manner as would the CTS rucksack, as would the pre-Gen II Kifaru lineup.

As for our CP Gear Gen III 64 system, by having the back pads removeable, the user could leave them off, and then loosen the 'trampoline' style back panel, thus letting the ruck frame come into closer contact with the ballistic vest, and given that the 64 frame has a curved body, it might be more prone to conform better to the vest with plates.

Unfortunately, I don't have a CF ballistic vest or plates to trial, but if anybody does have a vest and plates, maybe we could work something out in regard to doing a T&E report of the Gen III system in regard to how it interfaces with the CF ballistic vest and plates.   ;)

Well, in answer to to Matt's request for a quick T&E, I've been using the CP Gear Gen 3 64 pattern C2 Ruck for a year now.  So far it's one of the best that I've ever used.  Carries loads well, it's adaptable for different tasks ( I carry a 522set and a 138 set) and so far very durable.  No signs of wear, the hardware hasn't broken yet and using the A7 straps allow the user to compress the daylights out of it.  I also have the CPGear Valice that I modified with two extra compression straps (I'll show you what I did when I get to Gagetown in April Matt.  This makes the whole package compact and tight.  With the Gen 3 vest with plates it works very well.  Even with the High Speed Gear Chest rig that I use.  No bruising, blisters or chaffing, unlike the nice blisters that I had on my hips with the CTS Ruck last summer before I turned in back in.  I know this is a shameless plug for CPGear in a way, but their 64 pattern ruck is a good piece of kit.
 
A case I can cite.

The US Army hold the SASS M110 trials (Semi-Auto Sniper System) we base ours of a PIP Mk11Mod1 that we did for the USMC (based off the USSOCOM Mk11Mod0).

Our XM110 wins the competition.

Big Army buys our rifle in a fixed period contract with various add ons for additional rifles.  Army gets the TDP and sole sources the rifle for the fixed period.  At the end of the contract period (no longer than 5 years) the Army can release a RFP and give interested parties the TDP, then place it out to bid.

This same situation occured with our M4 and M5 RAS, however despite us being underbid, no other company has met 1st Article on the items, so FN and Colt sole source purachse these rails from us (as does the Army) in yearly contracts, and should a competitor meet the requirements with a lower priced version, they will win the contract.

 
Infidel-6 said:
A case I can cite.

The US Army hold the SASS M110 trials (Semi-Auto Sniper System) we base ours of a PIP Mk11Mod1 that we did for the USMC (based off the USSOCOM Mk11Mod0).

Our XM110 wins the competition.

Big Army buys our rifle in a fixed period contract with various add ons for additional rifles.  Army gets the TDP and sole sources the rifle for the fixed period.  At the end of the contract period (no longer than 5 years) the Army can release a RFP and give interested parties the TDP, then place it out to bid.

This same situation occured with our M4 and M5 RAS, however despite us being underbid, no other company has met 1st Article on the items, so FN and Colt sole source purachse these rails from us (as does the Army) in yearly contracts, and should a competitor meet the requirements with a lower priced version, they will win the contract.

And such a system works great for the US, where they often pursue a policy of comparing various offerings, selecting the best product for the best price, and incorporate the TDP as part of the overall contract, whereas in Canada, with alot of the individual equipment type stuff, the TDP is developed first, whether it be in-house using CF/DND resources, or paid to a 3rd party company to develop the TDP for DND to own, then that TDP is put out for tender as part of a production contract.

Unfortunately/Fortunately (depending on what side of the coin you're looking at) textile manufacturing for Canadian defence contracts doesn't tend to be as complex as does precision machining weapons parts, so if you've putting out tenders with TDPs for large scale production items (i.e. Tac-Vest, Rucksack, Combat Uniform, etc.) he who bids the lowest generally wins the contract, rather than he who invests in the product innovation side of things, because DND has probably put some emphasis on what industry is capable of producing competitively, rather than having a contract to go a company like Arc'Teryx for the new rain jacket, which they do the TDP for, in which the design features all welded and glued seams and pockets, of which they're the only company in Canada capable of producing such an item on a commercial scale, instead, DND would say "You've got to dumb this thing down a bit so that industry can competitively respond to our tender." 
There are exceptions to the rule, i.e. Advance Contract Award Notices (ACANs), whereby no other product is available other than a specific one which is being requested, but for the most part, these are not often found in the clothing & individual equipment realm.
 
Matt,

The problem with the that is you are dragging the cart in front of the horse, as who knows if the TDP/item is any good.  I would suggest trials should be done on items, and the lowest priced item that meets the need should be picked - give the company the option of selling the TDP at X, or contracting them and buying the TDP as part of the contract, with a 5 year or other reasonable time frame for sole sourcing it.

It rewards companies that do R&D, and T&E with troops rather than leech of others...

 
Back
Top