The Land Operations Temperate Boots (LOTB)

[RCPalmer]

I think the real question becomes, how many times are we going to through this process, only to see it fail again?  I remember seeing the first trial temperate boots in CADPAT (which, apart from being as ugly as sin, were not a terrible design) in field use back in 2005.  That is a longer time period than WW2 and the Korean Wars combined. Soldiers who joined during that trial will be up for their CDs in a few months.  At some point, the CoC needs to say uncle, and make hard decisions to find workable solutions. 

The combat bra (individual allowance) option appears to have been investigated and rejected due to the associated TB regulations. 

At this point, we would be better off to publish a list of acceptable boots, make soldiers buy them with their own money (which so many are doing already), and then consider that expense as part of the next compensation review.  If it works for the U.S. Army, I see no reason it couldn't work for us.  They capture that expense through a uniform upkeep allowance.  Maybe we will decide that the personal expense is reasonable considering existing compensation, or perhaps we can parlay that into a .5% salary increase in a year or two.

Ultimately, the CoC has a responsibility to deliver on government directed defence capabilities, and boots are an essential component of delivering on virtually any defence capability, just like rifles, helmets, pencils and toilet paper.  Would the CoC tolerate a failure of the supply system to deliver toilet paper?  Additionally, the cost of the staff effort associated with this program is likely quite prohibitive, and could have been much more usefully allocated to the acquisition of more complex systems like vehicles or weapon systems.

I attended a briefing a few months ago where a very smart WO challenged the visiting DLR rep on this topic. His comments went something like this, "Stop worrying about boots, the troops are solving that problem for themselves...focus on something they can't buy like anti-armor weapons".

One way or another, they should have figured out a way to solve this problem before now, and given the current state of play (which does not fill me with confidence), should still be looking at sustainable alternatives. 

 

[dimsum]

At this point, we would be better off to publish a list of acceptable boots, make soldiers buy them with their own money (which so many are doing already), and then consider that expense as part of the next compensation review.  If it works for the U.S. Army, I see no reason it couldn't work for us.  They capture that expense through a uniform upkeep allowance.  Maybe we will decide that the personal expense is reasonable considering existing compensation, or perhaps we can parlay that into a .5% salary increase in a year or two

<sarcastic but not joking> 

Because then the Canadian company that makes said footwear will not have the lucrative contract, and like the CRTC, there must be a "made in Canada" proportion for all things.

</sarcastic but not joking> 

 

[medicineman]

In all seriousness, what really needs to happen is that the mentally challenged procurement process needs to get sorted - the "It must be made in Quebec by the highest bidder in the PM's or some other Minister's home riding" crap, coupled with continuing to be paid despite being 20 years behind schedule, with inferior quality stuff, has got to stop.  For the same number of public dollars spent on alleged R&D and production, I'm willing to bet that that money could be given to the soldiers to buy a few pairs of good boots every couple years and there'd even be some left over for coffee money for the TB to use.

Or do I need to hand the crack pipe to others so it makes sense to them?

MM

 

[BinRat55]

Whatever the case, the whole boot file has been completely mismanaged and to blame troops because someone figures "that they just want the newest and shiniest" is degrading and immoral. They just want something on their feet that works and shouldn't be concerned with what the procurement problems are. ...

In no way, shape or form am I "blaming" troops for anything. And I never said that everyone want the newest and shiniest. But it is problematic behaviour in our line of work.

My whole point is please don't blame the Supply Tech - we are not out to screw over everyone that come in to the front counter. I say "I'm sorry, you aren't entitled to that" and the troop goes to his CoC and tell them how Clothing Stores berated him and told him to go buy it somewhere else! This happened to one of my girls two weeks ago.

The boot-fiasco is just that - a fiasco. I am in 100% agreement with you. There is nothing that I can do about it at my level except follow my direction. We often become the "bearers of bad news" and pay the price for the frustration of the soldier on the other end. Many are quite understanding, many are not.

What is degrading is when someone comes in wanting the new combat shirt (the one with the big flag) and i hand them an older style (because I have to issue on attrition) and i'm told I am stingy, racist and an asshole because I won't "help" a guy out... now THAT'S degrading!


[Edit to fix coding for quote.]

 

[RCPalmer]

In all seriousness, what really needs to happen is that the mentally challenged procurement process needs to get sorted - the "It must be made in Quebec by the highest bidder in the PM's or some other Minister's home riding" crap, coupled with continuing to be paid despite being 20 years behind schedule, with inferior quality stuff, has got to stop.  For the same number of public dollars spent on alleged R&D and production, I'm willing to bet that that money could be given to the soldiers to buy a few pairs of good boots every couple years and there'd even be some left over for coffee money for the TB to use.

I fully agree Medicine Man, but it is more than that.  The procurement process is not fully under the control of the CAF, or DND for that matter, and while we should do our best to improve it, we should also look to find solutions that are within CAF control such as the one I have proposed above.  The relevant commander (such as the CDS or CCA) could say, "thanks DLR, let me know when you've sorted out that boot thing" while moving forward with solutions that address the immediate need.  At the moment, lower level commanders (unit and brigade) are assuming all the risk by turning a blind eye to non-issue boots because they have no practical alternative while the official policy (via most recent CANFORGENs) is that all non-issue kit is forbidden. 

I have heard ridiculous things come from parties in both the supply and medical system stating that if you incur a lower body injury while wearing non-issue footwear (absent a medical chit), you would not receive compensation for your injuries.  I can tell you with confidence that this is not the case, and if it came to that for one of my soldiers I would engage all necessary parties to see it resolved. 

Commanders should be crushing that kind of talk while working to find solutions that are both within our control and achievable within a reasonable time frame.  I am all for fixing the procurement system, but we have to get on with business in mean time.

 

[BinRat55]

The combat bra (individual allowance) option appears to have been investigated and rejected due to the associated TB regulations. 

What did you mean by this?

At this point, we would be better off to publish a list of acceptable boots, make soldiers buy them with their own money (which so many are doing already), and then consider that expense as part of the next compensation review.  If it works for the U.S. Army, I see no reason it couldn't work for us.  They capture that expense through a uniform upkeep allowance.  Maybe we will decide that the personal expense is reasonable considering existing compensation, or perhaps we can parlay that into a .5% salary increase in a year or two.

Ultimately, the CoC has a responsibility to deliver on government directed defence capabilities, and boots are an essential component of delivering on virtually any defence capability, just like rifles, helmets, pencils and toilet paper.  Would the CoC tolerate a failure of the supply system to deliver toilet paper?  Additionally, the cost of the staff effort associated with this program is likely quite prohibitive, and could have been much more usefully allocated to the acquisition of more complex systems like vehicles or weapon systems.

I attended a briefing a few months ago where a very smart WO challenged the visiting DLR rep on this topic. His comments went something like this, "Stop worrying about boots, the troops are solving that problem for themselves...focus on something they can't buy like anti-armor weapons".

One way or another, they should have figured out a way to solve this problem before now, and given the current state of play (which does not fill me with confidence), should still be looking at sustainable alternatives.

I have always been a firm believer in a COA that mirriored the BTW allowance. But a few weeks ago, I was voicing this opinion (to a possibly smarter, albiet not quite as good looking Logistician) when I was given pause for thought.

Major: How many years you got in?
Me: 27.
Major: How often have you exchanged your boots in 27 years?
Me: (counting on fingers...) 5 or 6 maybe...
Major: So, if we were to give you $160.00 a year just like the BTU, how often would you buy new boots?
Me: Every... ooohhh....

It's not perfect, but we can still do it. The CUA (for those who remember it) was 17 bucks a pay. The cost of a complete uniform (DEU) spread out over a 5 year period.

Edited to say "See? I'm not as black and white as some would think!"

 

[RCPalmer]

What did you mean by this?

My understanding (which is mostly second hand, town halls with senior leaders, etc.  Perhaps someone closer to the mechanics of the issue could weigh in) was that there was considerable interest within the CAF senior leadership to pursue a boot allowance COA after the QA/QC issues with the last supplier, but that there was treasury board resistance to this.  I think the logic is that if the CAF can provide a piece operational clothing through the supply system, it should do so. I happen to agree with that logic, provided that the system can actually deliver.

Keep in mind that the allowance COA for the BTW was only adopted after the CAF tried (and failed) to produce a garment suitable for all women.  When the members in the BTW trial said "You can't possibly produce a style of bra that would suit every woman, so you should stop trying", how could anyone (lacking the er...equipment) disagree with them?  I know I wouldn't try.  If only we could apply that logic to feet...

Personally, I think the boot allowance COA is a great idea.  However, every other initiative seems to be moving away from allowances, and towards the provision publicly funded items. The transition from the clothing upkeep allowance to the points system delivered by Logistik Unikorp is a prime example of that.  Concurrently, the Kilt Grant (provided to Army Reserve units to pay for items of highland kit in lieu of CAF issued DEU trousers), appears to be in the process of being replaced by a system to supply some basic items of highland dress.  In the case both of these initiatives, I think this approach is a good one. 

I view my COA as an acceptance of this wholly unsatisfactory situation in the short term while getting proper footwear on our soldier's feet today. 

 

[BinRat55]

It's difficult. I agree that this "boot" thing needs to come to a head - I have seen more boot styles throughout my career than you can shake a stick at. But it does say something to me - DND has not stopped trying. While seemingly fail after fail has produced nothing but basements and kit rooms full of boots, as frustrating as it is they keep going back to the drawing board. I know we keep slapping s*** on a pig, but at least they are trying. We could be like other nations - you will take this and like it - making the troops suffer to sustain an economy of otherwise wasted dollars.

But, as I come full circle here, I know this needs to stop. We can't make everyone happy, but like i've said (and RCPalmer and many others) how many females are unhappy with their bras? I wouldn't say any - they chose them, they bought them. Same with nurses and dental assistant footwear. We don't issue these - the member goes to an approved footwear provider and chooses from several different approved styles. All in all, a nurse has about 15 different options for sneakers.

I would love to hear the council's reasoning for why a "boot allowance" of any sort would not work.

Speaking as a Supply Tech - we only issue the kit - we don't buy it and put it on the shelves. We don't set the entitlements nor do we create the implementation scheme. Please try not to take your frustrations out on us!

 

[Terrier]

From a PD session here in Gagetown, the current brown boots are an interim boot. The decision has been made to go with the Mark IV for everyone, with a softer sole than initially trialed. I'm not sure on time frame or anything, but that's the word.

My only issue (no pun intended,) is that there is no perfect boot for everyone... You can't find a boot that will make both clerks (as an example,) and infantry soldiers happy. Their jobs are completely different, and they require different things.

 

[BinRat55]

From a PD session here in Gagetown, the current brown boots are an interim boot. The decision has been made to go with the Mark IV for everyone, with a softer sole than initially trialed. I'm not sure on time frame or anything, but that's the word.

I was there. I honestly think that was misspoken. These two boots were researched, trialed and manufactured over a 5 year period. Millions have gone into it. Only to be an intrem boot so we can go back to a boot we already have? Sounds wrong somehow...

My only issue (no pun intended,) is that there is no perfect boot for everyone... You can't find a boot that will make both clerks (as an example,) and infantry soldiers happy. Their jobs are completely different, and they require different things.

Very true!

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

If you don't like Binary'[I meant] Binrat's answers [god damn auto-correct], you can always go about it this way (A bit of levity before the long week-end  [):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nbbi16tvYA

 

[captloadie]

Speaking as a Supply Tech - we only issue the kit - we don't buy it and put it on the shelves. We don't set the entitlements nor do we create the implementation scheme. Please try not to take your frustrations out on us!

You don't give your trade enough credit. There are many Supply techs involved in the setting of entitlements, designing scales of issue, and providing inputs into implementation schemes. Your trade is supposed to be the CAF SMEs on these issues, and it is to the senior Sup Techs we often turn to when making these plans.

 

[Arty39]

I was there. I honestly think that was misspoken. These two boots were researched, trialed and manufactured over a 5 year period. Millions have gone into it. Only to be an intrem boot so we can go back to a boot we already have? Sounds wrong somehow...

Very true!

There was a rather large discussion about boots that day at the pd session and the answer was a modified mark 4 boot would be the boot of the future.

 

[BinRat55]

If you don't like Binary'[I meant] Binrat's answers [god damn auto-correct], you can always go about it this way (A bit of levity before the long week-end  [):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nbbi16tvYA

I got the insult...

 

[Terrier]

I was there. I honestly think that was misspoken. These two boots were researched, trialed and manufactured over a 5 year period. Millions have gone into it. Only to be an intrem boot so we can go back to a boot we already have? Sounds wrong somehow...

Very true!

]

Nothing was unclear about what was said, and I doubt the CWO was mistaken, or shooting from the hip on that one. The Mark IV with a softer sole will be the boot we are issued going forward. I'm just not sure when the planned start date for that is, as I don't recall there being one given. Agree with it or not, that's what we were told is happening.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So, a Mk IV III with vibram soles.  :rofl:

Exactly where we were 10 years ago, millions of man hours (how many PYs did this burn up with testing, QM time, research, etc) wasted and millions of dollars spent :facepalm:

"Halt, as you were!!" [Xp


Edit: forgot there was no such thing as a Mk IV

 

[blacktriangle]

If the CAF wasn't a joke before, it's certainly heading in that direction.

Enjoy your crappy boots, troops.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

]

Nothing was unclear about what was said, and I doubt the CWO was mistaken, or shooting from the hip on that one. The Mark IV with a softer sole will be the boot we are issued going forward. I'm just not sure when the planned start date for that is, as I don't recall there being one given. Agree with it or not, that's what we were told is happening.

No such boot exists....

The following boots do exist:

i. Mk III Combat Boot (21-872-4291);
ii. General Purpose Boot (20-001-9296);
iii. Arid Regions Combat Boot (20-005-2773);
iv. MK II Temperate Combat Boot (20-008-0229)

In addition to

Land Operations Temperate Boot (LOTB)
20-0012410 AA  Zipper
20-0082050 AA Laces

 

[Terrier]

No such boot exists....

Then I'd say it fits the criteria of a NEW boot.

 

[RCPalmer]

So, a Mk IV with vibram soles.  :rofl:

Exactly where we were 10 years ago, millions of man hours (how many PYs did this burn up with testing, QM time, research, etc) wasted and millions of dollars spent :facepalm:

"Halt, as you were!!" [Xp

Don't forget about the personnel costs of injuries associated with ill-fitting or inadequate footwear...for the last decade. That's my sunny thought for the day.  :facepalm: