The Integrated Soldier System Project (ISSP)

[Matt_Fisher]

IMO a major issue in regard to CF spec'd ballistic eyewear is the closed nature of the objecive performance specifications.  Several companies have expressed frustration in regard to DRDC Valcartier/DSSPM being so tight lipped about what their performance objectives are, it's difficult for them (the eyewear manufacturers) to work on engineering a solution to meet the Canadian requirements as they don't really know what objective they're having to build to.

I don't have any issue with the CFs having their own standard (provided that it's superior to what is already established as ANSI/CSA/Mil ratings) for PPE performance, but what I think is fair is that industry is given a fair opportunity to participate in developing equipment that can meet the spec, is validated by DND sanctioned testing programs (whether they're run through DRDC Valcartier or outsourced to an independent facility), even if it is the commercial interest that has to foot the bill for the testing, provided that if the product meets or exceeds the objective standard it is allowed for personal procurement, i.e. US Army Approved Protective Eyewear List.

What is frustrating is that given the CFs strong concern for PPE, the glacial speed procurement for a goggle solution for operational use.  On the one hand we're giving doom & gloom messages to the troops about not deviating from the issued BEW, as "SISIP/VAC won't cover you if you're not wearing them..." "No Wiley X's because I was just told you can't wear them..." yet we're still issuing 'Sun/Wind/Dust Goggles' NSN 8465-01-004-2893 which aren't designed to interface with the MNVG (Goggles are a slightly updated version of the 1940's era 'Type 1021 Polaroid Goggle' ) and have less than stellar ballistic performance (I'm quite confident in assuming that they would NOT meet the current CF spec for ballstic performance).

There is, however, a problem in that ballistic eye wear (in its various issued types) does not cooperate well with the MNVG.  If by this point in time we (the CF) have not found effective BEW that is MNVG compatible, then perhapses it is time to get an effective MNVG that is BEW compatible.

There are several COTS ballistic glasses and goggles that are designed to work with the AN/PVS-14.  Whether they meet Canadian specs or not?  I know that two of the ESS models (V-12 and Profile NVG) were tested by DRDC Valcartier in 2006/2007 and found to be acceptable enough that there was a MR 'Try & Buy' for TF 1-07 to use operationally.  If you look at the cost and timeframes involved in engineering a MNVG that's BEW compatible, I think that is NOT the solution, unless we're looking at incorporating all our optical (both image intensification and PPE) as well the communication headset/microphone into some sort of integrated helmet. 

 

[medaid]

Matt,

  You and I BOTH know that it'll take an eternity before what you're suggesting (an integrated helmet system) *gasp* a Canadian version of the FFW program to EVER be implemented. It'll just be like every other CF equipment and contract ever given out. It'll take forever and a day to tender and it'll all be shrouded in mystery, and when we finally get the packages to DO something about it, some company in QC's gotten theirs done and submitted weeks ahead of us, and we've only got 2 weeks left to source the fabric, work out the designs and build the damn thing...

 

[geo]

Medtech.....
relax on the QC bashing.
The other provinces have done & are doing the same now...

Pls give it a rest.

 

[Armymedic]

Re: BEW and MNVG,
Being a V3, I need to wear the inserts with my BEW. I have gained a bit of experience in using the MNVG in all weather with the BEW. The only difficulty I have experienced with that set up is when weather is cool, fog tends to build up between the insert and ballistic lens. I have had no problems with BEW and MNVGs while wearing contacts and not the inserts.

I do though, take to cup off the user end of the NVG so that there is airflow at the risk of others seeing the glow on my face.

 

[medaid]

Medtech.....
relax on the QC bashing.
The other provinces have done & are doing the same now...

Pls give it a rest.

Oh no no no Geo I'm not bashing QC mate, I'm just stating a fact of life in the textile industry and Government contracts.

I personally don't have hard feelings towards QC ;D

 

[McG]

You and I BOTH know that it'll take an eternity before what you're suggesting ... a Canadian version of the FFW program to EVER be implemented.

Google "Integrated Soldier System Project" and you find that there is a project working toward implementing a "Canadian version" of the US Future Force Warrior (FFW).

 

[PuckChaser]

Re: BEW and MNVG,
Being a V3, I need to wear the inserts with my BEW. I have gained a bit of experience in using the MNVG in all weather with the BEW. The only difficulty I have experienced with that set up is when weather is cool, fog tends to build up between the insert and ballistic lens. I have had no problems with BEW and MNVGs while wearing contacts and not the inserts.

I do though, take to cup off the user end of the NVG so that there is airflow at the risk of others seeing the glow on my face.

Do you get headaches from the RX inserts for the glasses? I had to stop wearing them for convoys, and went back to normal glasses inside my Sun/Dust/Wind goggles. Couldn't even concentrate on watching my arcs they hurt so bad.

 

[medaid]

Google "Integrated Soldier System Project" and you find that there is a project working toward implementing a "Canadian version" of the US Future Force Warrior (FFW).

I know, but seeing how long it too CTS to pump out CADPAT clothing, I'm not holding my breathe on that one.

 

[NL_engineer]

Google "Integrated Soldier System Project" and you find that there is a project working toward implementing a "Canadian version" of the US Future Force Warrior (FFW).

Hasn't the US been working on this for over ten years? 

IMO if it takes them that long, I will be forced to retired (just over 40 years till that happens), by the time we make it.


Just my 2 cents

 

[Matt_Fisher]

US has been working on Land Warrior and now Future Force Warrior for some time now, however the Canadian system is likely to be somewhat more based on COTS technology which has been proven in other soldier modernisation programs, i.e. FIST, FELIN, IDZ 2000, Land Warrior/Future Force Warrior, etc. 
This is not to say that Canada is behind the curve in respect to what's going on internationally, and ourselves here at home have run a fairly extensive program to evaluate various forms of technology to see how applicable they are to increasing the lethality of our dismounted soldiers, i.e. DRDC's SIREQ program http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/pubdocs/sireq_e.html

For those on the RegF pointy end expect to start to see ISSP being fielded in the 2011-2015 timeframe for operational task forces and CMTC work-up training as first priority, then filtering into the rest of the reg force, and possibly reserves.  Given the inherent cost of the system, there is the possibility that there will be some sort of fleet-management plan, as there probably won't be enough systems procured for every soldier, i.e. WES equipped tac-vests.  How ISSP is going to be tied into current legacy individual equipment, STANO, communications, small arms, and other items remains to be officially defined (or at least some direction given by DLR to the potential industry prime systems integrators for ISSP), as well as what items will remain legacy or what is to be retired/replaced into the 3 different fielding stages for ISSP, as well as how ISSP is going to be coordinate with parallel/related programs such as Small Arms Replacement Project, the Future Combat Uniform project, etc.

 

[GAP]

Canadian soldiers' high-tech gear helps in battle, creates burden
Article Link

VANCOUVER — Canada is among countries evolving their armies into forces of futuristic soldiers, with laser-sighted rifles, GPS-equipped units directed via computer and equipment that lets them see and kill the enemy in all conditions, day or night.

But before conjuring images of invincible Star Wars troopers, consider some not-so-fun facts.

The average Canadian foot soldier on patrol in Afghanistan today is toting more than two-dozen extra batteries on his already overloaded body to power all the electronics he must carry.

During Operation Medusa in the fall of 2006, an offensive against the Taliban, one infantry company alone burned through 17,500 AA batteries in two weeks.

And those cool night-vision goggles that clip to every soldier's helmet? They give the soldier an edge in combat but sometimes also a pain the neck as they dangle in front of his eyes - that is, if they don't cause a poorly strapped-on helmet to flip right off his head.

That's the kind of reality check Doug Palmer will provide for anyone too much in awe of the possibilities of high-tech warfare.

Palmer, a former infantry officer with 35 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, now works in the army's Directorate of Land Requirements unit that develops equipment for foot soldiers - everything from boots to helmets and all the gee-whiz stuff such as visors with jet fighter-style heads-up displays and holographic gun sights.

He is closely involved with the directorate's Integrated Soldier System Project, which aims to create that futuristic warrior before the end of the next decade.

The federal Treasury Board is to decide this month whether to approve release of the first slice of money to fund the $310-million program, which would involve defining what the system's initial capability should be and testing the solutions with Canadian soldiers.
More on link

 

[lone bugler]

some of the things in this article is true and it is alot of extra manual labour lugging things around. a lot of equipment is bulky, clumsy and award to make use in a hurry. But you can't say night vision goggles killed more people than it saved can ya, It's equipment like this that gives us an advantage. I'd be happy to lug around anything that can save my life if the overburdening dosn't cause me to calapse every time over the wire :warstory: 

 

[Red 6]

I agree with lone bugler. SLA Marshall wrote a classic book called "The Soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation" which addresses this topic in-depth. It was always my observation that packing lists only made the problem of the soldier's load worse. I was probably as guilty as any other leader when I sat down with the XO prior to heading for the field to formulate the packing list. To me, batteries are just like ammo. You have to have them or you can't do your job. Right next to these is water, and then chow. 

 

[OldSolduer]

I agree with Red 6 and lone bugler.

"Kit Lists" as we know them, are a necessary evil. When we were issued our new Cadpat Patrol/Day packs, some troops thought they could replace a rucksack. It doesn't, especially in winter. We had one troop try it. He was miserable.
Now I make the direction clear that for Marching Order, the Day pack will not replace the rucksack.
I was asked one time for sugestions for a kit list. I gave my opinion, but the CSM said "I like that so it stays" So much for suggestions.

 

[Babbling Brooks]

I just did a piece about this at The Torch.  Not sure how many of you know, but PWGSC put out an Opportunity Abstract on MERX about a month and a half ago called "DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES FOR IMPROVING SOLDIER MOBILITY."

They specifically mentioned exoskeletons and "smart materials" in the MERX abstract.  I've posted video of the Raytheon Sarcos suit at the blog, as an example of the technology, just for fun.

I await the obligatory "I am Iron Man" comment!

 

[OldSolduer]

Priority for kit:
1. Ammo:
2. Water;
3. Rations.

 

[X-mo-1979]

Being the proud owner of 2 MOB's full of green kit gone to Afganistan...to then be told the day after that they finally changed the list.And that it didnt make sense to bring all your green combats etc.

I have two box's sent with nothing applicable in them.

Thank you battle group.

 

[AlphaQup]

I was reading a book on the Iraq War, 'Generation Kill', and the soldiers on the ground often compained that nightvision goggles lacked dept perception. Have there been any improvements in such technology lately? I'm asking because I'm not military, and that same gear saves their lives in the book.

 

[Loachman]

Monoculars give no depth perception - same as looking throughjust one eye.

Binoculars do. Aircrew NVGs are all the binocular type.

 

[KevinB]

Depending upon what stuff you have;

The old cyclops vision 504's/7B's take a one image picture and send it to both your eyes -- the mono's PVS-14 and 18 gave you one NV eye and one un aided eye -- which gave greater local SA - however did not help for longer.  Dual Tube units like the 793's or ANVIS-9's etc give you true dual tube vision -- which allows a degree of depth perception.
  Having used all o fthe above - and the old old honey comb duals we had, it becomes clear that many missions require different stuff.

Doing weapon IA's can be a lot easier in a PVS-18 than a 50/50, however driving sucks in an 18.