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

Soldier Operational Clothing and Equipment Modernization

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,323
Points
1,060
Furniture said:
The trial pattern looks pretty reasonable to me, as for the roll out timeline I imagine it will be staggered by base much like the CADPAT roll out was.

There is no need for most RCAF/RCN pers to be in a camouflage uniform at all, so using up the less than optimal camouflage uniforms in those environments makes good sense. If RCAF, RCN, and pers basic training stick to the CADPAT TW until stocks are used up, then switch to the new pattern it stands to reason that the rollout of new uniforms could take years to complete.

Or just give all the stuff that you want to get rid of faster to the training bases and the Combat Arms :)
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
381
Points
930
Furniture said:
The trial pattern looks pretty reasonable to me, as for the roll out timeline I imagine it will be staggered by base much like the CADPAT roll out was.

There is no need for most RCAF/RCN pers to be in a camouflage uniform at all, so using up the less than optimal camouflage uniforms in those environments makes good sense. If RCAF, RCN, and pers basic training stick to the CADPAT TW until stocks are used up, then switch to the new pattern it stands to reason that the rollout of new uniforms could take years to complete.

That's just crazy talk! You must outfit the chairborne warriors at Startop first, then the frontline troopies of Ostfront Carling. Then if anything is left over, maybe send something to the hinterlands of Petawawa.
 

Furniture

Sr. Member
Reaction score
140
Points
480
daftandbarmy said:
Or just give all the stuff that you want to get rid of faster to the training bases and the Combat Arms :)

If the RCAF went back to a modernized work dress similar to NCDs (current or new pattern) for use on base I'd be all for it. Not much is more ridiculous to me than walking around a weather office in a camouflage uniform. The job of the Jr Met Techs requires a more practical uniform than 3s, but does not require CADPAT with safely boots.

 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,277
Points
1,060
Burn down our procurement system and put a new one in.

Put everyone in multicam.

Same style/cut CANSOF uses.  Army, Navy, Airforce. Wear it in the field and in the office.

DEUs for parades and other functions.

Everyone gets a boot allowance.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,353
Points
940
Furniture said:
If the RCAF went back to a modernized work dress similar to NCDs (current or new pattern) for use on base I'd be all for it. Not much is more ridiculous to me than walking around a weather office in a camouflage uniform. The job of the Jr Met Techs requires a more practical uniform than 3s, but does not require CADPAT with safely boots.

The safety boot thing is another RCAF screwup.  Very few people, and even not all aircrew, need safety boots. 

Also, the new NCD is the same cut (more or less) than the newer CADPAT aside from colours and fire-retardant properties.  I personally think we should have gone in with the Navy and got NCDs (AFCDs?) too.
 

my72jeep

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Jarnhamar said:
Burn down our procurement system and put a new one in.

Put everyone in multicam.

Same style/cut CANSOF uses.  Army, Navy, Airforce. Wear it in the field and in the office.

DEUs for parades and other functions.

Everyone gets a boot allowance.
In the new military everyone is special, taking away their cadpat will diminish the ability to tell stories at the leagion. Thus creating a whole new line of PTSD claims.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
357
Points
910
Dimsum said:
The safety boot thing is another RCAF screwup.  Very few people, and even not all aircrew, need safety boots. 

Also, the new NCD is the same cut (more or less) than the newer CADPAT aside from colours and fire-retardant properties.  I personally think we should have gone in with the Navy and got NCDs (AFCDs?) too.

We had the RCAF CWO at the Sqn last...spring?  He said the boot issue is being looked at and the intent is to go the way the Army did.  Honestly...most, if not a lot, of people (aircrew, at least) seem to be buying their own boots and wearing them.  Who wants to walk around in 5-6 lbs of steel toe boots? 
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,323
Points
1,060
Eye In The Sky said:
We had the RCAF CWO at the Sqn last...spring?  He said the boot issue is being looked at and the intent is to go the way the Army did.  Honestly...most, if not a lot, of people (aircrew, at least) seem to be buying their own boots and wearing them.  Who wants to walk around in 5-6 lbs of steel toe boots?

Navy divers. I am qualified to comment because I've seen 'Men of Honor' (ASNF) :)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_of_Honor
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
357
Points
910
daftandbarmy said:
Navy divers. I am qualified to comment because I've seen 'Men of Honor' (ASNF) :)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_of_Honor

But...only on the way down to the bottom.... ;D
 

OceanBonfire

Sr. Member
Reaction score
52
Points
330
Close comparison:

pW6kscz.jpg


https://twitter.com/Army_Comd/status/1197898289741471744

Looks like digitized multicam.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,323
Points
1,060
OceanBonfire said:
Close comparison:

pW6kscz.jpg


https://twitter.com/Army_Comd/status/1197898289741471744

Looks like digitized multicam.

Looks pretty good!

I just hope it won’t inherent the ‘Cadpat Fade’ effect ...
 

STONEY

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
A fine selection of different boots sortta  destroys the term uniform.

Cheers
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
357
Points
910
STONEY said:
A fine selection of different boots sortta  destroys the term uniform.

Cheers

Everyone wears the same ankle boots or oxfords on the parade square...not really required in operational dress, though, is it?  Maybe the real need is to reconsider what 'uniform' means for op dress.  I don't care if everyone has the 'same make' of fire protective gloves on;  the important thing is that they are fire protective to the required spec.  If some are green, some brown....doesn't matter.
 

winds_13

Member
Reaction score
14
Points
250
I agree with daftandbarney and
Jarnhammer, it just seems to make more sense for us to adopt Multicam along with our closest allies (U.S., U.K., Australia). Creating another unique camo pattern is costly and ensures our continued reliance on sole-source procurement.

IMO, the army does have somewhat of a uniformity problem at the moment, with soldiers in some units wearing whatever color/pattern of equipment they see fit. This makes our force look like a militia, not a first world fighting force. If we added Multicam along with everyone else, it would greatly solve the issue of uniformity in most ways as there is ample aftermarket equipment already  available in the pattern. There is very little available currently in CADPAT TW or AR, there will be even less in this new pattern at the start.

Further to this, it would make it easier to consider moving to a more American-style procurement system, where we would provide a clothing allowance and soldiers would be empowered to buy their own boots, gloves, load carriage systems, etc. (within guidelines).
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
578
Points
1,040
Really makes no sense for Navy to adopt multicam on a ship; all we really need is fire resistance work clothes, our current uniform works fine for that. If you can see the ship, the multicam is redundant. Making a set of multicam with the fire proofing would be a bit dumb when they make all kinds of stuff that would be fit for purpose for the offshore industry.

If you look up the CADPAT, it's about $300+ for a set, compared to whatever pittance they pay for the DEUs. Worth the savings to keep all the office monkeys wearing something other then combats.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
699
Points
940
One thing I have heard from RUMINT is that the move to multicam is actually a potential shift towards a NATO standard camo pattern, to make the supply chain easier for the entire alliance.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,323
Points
1,060
MilEME09 said:
One thing I have heard from RUMINT is that the move to multicam is actually a potential shift towards a NATO standard camo pattern, to make the supply chain easier for the entire alliance.

At which point the US will replace 5.56mm with 6.5mm :)
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
381
Points
930
Navy_Pete said:
Really makes no sense for Navy to adopt multicam on a ship; all we really need is fire resistance work clothes, our current uniform works fine for that. If you can see the ship, the multicam is redundant. Making a set of multicam with the fire proofing would be a bit dumb when they make all kinds of stuff that would be fit for purpose for the offshore industry.

If you look up the CADPAT, it's about $300+ for a set, compared to whatever pittance they pay for the DEUs. Worth the savings to keep all the office monkeys wearing something other then combats.

But....how would CJOC maintain its operational focus if they weren't wearing combats?
 

PPCLI Guy

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
479
Points
910
MilEME09 said:
One thing I have heard from RUMINT is that the move to multicam is actually a potential shift towards a NATO standard camo pattern, to make the supply chain easier for the entire alliance.

Where did you hear this?  The NATO water cooler?  The NATO smoking area?  Outside NATO clothing stores?  A dude from the NATO uniform purchasing desk?  Just trying to determine the source and hence value of the rumour.  ;D
 

Infanteer

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
961
Points
1,060
winds_13 said:
it just seems to make more sense for us to adopt Multicam along with our closest allies (U.S., U.K., Australia). Creating another unique camo pattern is costly and ensures our continued reliance on sole-source procurement.

Except they don't.  The U.S. Army uniform uses Operational Camouflage Pattern, which is derived from Multicam.  The British Armed Forces use Multi-Terrain Pattern, which is derived from Multicam (and which the NZ Army will adopt as well).  The Australians us Australian Multicam Camoflauge Pattern, which is derived from Multicam.

These are all domestic patterns derived from Multicam.  So, it isn't a stretch to see that the CAF would pursue a domestic pattern similar to multicam.

IMO, the army does have somewhat of a uniformity problem at the moment, with soldiers in some units wearing whatever color/pattern of equipment they see fit. This makes our force look like a militia, not a first world fighting force.

What does "looking like a first world fighting force" mean?  Remember, the original purpose of a uniform in the 1600s was to identify soldiers on a battlefield where fighting was close (within a hundred meters).  Does that requirement for uniformity still exist?  If so, are matching boots part of that requirement?
 
Top