Well well well another CTS triumph

[armyvern]

You want to know what's wromg with the new ruck?? It's design for one, an internal frame is pretty much useless as there is nothing to strap equipment on but the outer shell of the pack of stuff it into the pack itself. I've used the new pack, it sucks for this reason we tried strapping an SF kit to it, the damn thing was so unweildy that it couldn't be carried for more than 2 or 3 kn at a time. The only place to strap the SF kit was to the front of the pack so the SF kit was about 21/2 feet off of theback of the soldier carrying it and the damn thing caused the pack to flop back and forth on his back. The same problem with the 84mm and Eryx missiles.
The so called trial was about 50 or folks walking in circles around our building with nothing strapped on the ruck and a minimal load in it, of course it's much more comfortable than the issued wire frame piece of crap, but not as versatile as the 64 patten ruck. When we asked about load carriage the CTS clown's answer was to place the items inside the ruck...fine if it fits. For what it's worth I'll stick to the 64 pattern ruck.

Ah now see, there's the difference. You've actually used it and humped it ... you are in your lanes.

Interestingly, I find your point about the internal frame the most interesting ... because an internal framed ruck was one of the biggies being asked for by troops a few years ago.

Edited to add:  I'll be keeping my 64 pattern too -- just so you know.

 

[aesop081]

So which one of you is going to ask for a posting to CTS in order to rectify what is going on over there ?

 

[RCR Grunt]

I think a lot of people are pissy with CTS for a couple of reasons.  I have 2 reasons myself.  These are my own personal reasons and are in no way official in any capacity.  So, if you don't like it, then tough.

1)  Re-inventing the wheel:  The trend thus far with kit from CTS is to come out with uniquely Canadian pieces of kit, using fancy studies, botched trials, and terms such as "human factors."  This is expensive, time consuming, and quite unnecessary.  All one needs to do to find suitable pieces of kit is to look south of the border or across the pond and ask allied armed forces, with more combat experience than we have, what they use and what works.  Then, proceed to equip our men and women with off the shelf equipment suitable for our needs, which aren't really that different than our NATO allies.  With such a small army, we cannot afford to throw away cash better spent on big ticket equipment or training so that some scientist in Toronto can re-invent the backpack.

2)  Ignoring UCR's:  We're all aware that certain pieces of kit CTS has issued have turned out to be junk.  We've also all been told that if you have a legitimate complaint, fill out a UCR and pass it up.  From 4-19JAN06, a TAV was sent to Afghanistan to investigate certain items.  The TAV did not visit the BG during this time.  They concluded that soldiers were ignorant as to the use of kit, that doctrine was not being followed WRT load carriage and that "human factors" were being ignored.  Nowhere in the TAV's report did they say that CTS had issued crap, or that CTS had made mistakes during trials or anything to that effect.  Instead, they suggested production of an informational video to train soldiers to use the kit, and that doctrine must be adhered to.  Basically "Its not us, its you."  I have some theories as to why this occurred, but I will not get into that at this time.  If anyone would like to see the TAV's full report, PM me and I will email to you.  I also have an AAR from the BG in theater coinciding with the TAV's visit RE: kit.

To summarize, I don't like CTS and don't trust their equipment.  I'm a big believer in off the shelf equipment.  I haven't used the new ruck yet, so I have withheld comment on it till such time as I am qualified to do so.  However, if MG34's comments hold true (and I do not doubt they will) sounds like another home run for the CTS gang. As for someone getting posted to CTS, I'm quite sure I am both unqualified and unsuitable for the job

 

[armyvern]

I have no problem with your post actually.

Para 1) Agreed, if the trials are flawed or idiotic ... the kit is, in essence, NOT trialled at all. I've seen trials on a couple items ... where the paperwork the users had to file afterwards ... really had them doing nothing job-related in order to fill it out. We bitched ... the trial got changed to include elements and factors which accurately reflected how the kit would be utilized and in life/work conditions.

Para 2) It is actually pretty close to what I'd say about the items that we know (and have been proven to be crap) are useless in combat. Closer than you'd think actually.

 

[RCR Grunt]

Ladies and gentlemen, break out the parkas.  Hell hath frozen over.  Vern and I have agreed.  If only CTS were as reasonable as we are, what a world we would live in.

I have no problem with your post actually.

Vern, none of my posts are meant to cause you problems, it just seems that way.    >

 

[armyvern]

Ladies and gentlemen, break out the parkas.  Hell hath frozen over.  Vern and I have agreed.  If only CTS were as reasonable as we are, what a world we would live in.

Vern, none of my posts are meant to cause you problems, it just seems that way.    >

Nah,

We have agreed at least once before on a prior occasion.

I believe it was that I was "old", "female" (ergo a bad driver you said -- we disagreed on that point), and that the footwear policy sucks. 

 

[medaid]

I'd actually love to see it up close and personal. Anyone mind lending me theirs for a week or so? Vern? Since you're sticking to your 64 (personal favorite)


;D

 

[aesop081]

As for someone getting posted to CTS, I'm quite sure I am both unqualified and unsuitable for the job

So, If the kit experts we have around here are either Unqualified, Unsuitable or Unwilling to take/ask for a posting to CTS that leaves us with the "clowns" that are there now. I'm just a dumb airman here but methinks that i see what the problem is and its not just the CTS people......

 

[ArmyRick]

I want to say something about how the CTS trials are done but I can't. Leave it at the trial was rigged so that the outcome was what they wanted IMO.

 

[RCR Grunt]

So, If the kit experts we have around here are either Unqualified, Unsuitable or Unwilling to take/ask for a posting to CTS that leaves us with the "clowns" that are there now. I'm just a dumb airman here but methinks that i see what the problem is and its not just the CTS people......

I was only speaking of myself.  I would gladly take a posting to CTS if they would have me, but what I would prefer is the disbandment of CTS altogether.

 

[Kat Stevens]

So, If the kit experts we have around here are either Unqualified, Unsuitable or Unwilling to take/ask for a posting to CTS that leaves us with the "clowns" that are there now. I'm just a dumb airman here but methinks that i see what the problem is and its not just the CTS people......

And you suppose for one minute that Cpl Mukluk, from 3rd Bn, The Kitimat Light Infantry, after serving 4 back to back to back to back tours and gets posted to CTS, is going to be heard and taken seriously there?  The army must indeed be a much better place than it once was. The guys with time on the tools are the last ones with any say in what works and what doesn't.  Anyone remember the LSVW trials?  It kept failing, so the trial criteria kept changing until it passed.  The quote went something like "if the truck doesn't fit the army, the army will have to fit the truck".

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

For the record I had nothing negative to say about the ruck per se.  My negativity was directed at the time it took to create this piece of kit .  Perhaps it is quick by civy standards but when we have the Americans, Brits, Aussies, etc with combat proven kit I can't for the life of me see why our military needs to find different solutions to problems that a solution has already been found. 
On a side note, has anyone complained about the old jump ruck?

 

[geo]

On a side note, has anyone complained about the old jump ruck?

Though the Airborne used it... everyone else did too.  It wasn't a jump ruck - that moniker stuck when the wire frame ruck showed up and started to bend on impact & the Airborne "asked" for something more robust.

Old "problems"?
- the cargo bag was small
- the cargo bag wasn't all that solid - poor stitching
- the cargo shelf was flimsy / could get lost
- not much padding on the various straps
- weight (cargo bag) was at the bottom & light stuff (sleeping bag) was at the top

 

[riggermade]

Though the Airborne used it... everyone else did too.  It wasn't a jump ruck - that moniker stuck when the wire frame ruck showed up and started to bend on impact & the Airborne "asked" for something more robust.

Old "problems"?
- the cargo bag was small
- the cargo bag wasn't all that solid - poor stitching
- the cargo shelf was flimsy / could get lost
- not much padding on the various straps
- weight (cargo bag) was at the bottom & light stuff (sleeping bag) was at the top

Most bags for sale now are about 20% bigger
Bags are made of cordura not the rubber material and are alot stronger
Most people don't use the cargo shelf..no need
There is all kinds of pad systems out there
Most people prefer the valise on top from discussions I have had

 

[McG]

Probably too busy drinking champagne with another successful launch.

Yep, that is right.  Everyone in CTS is only there working for the glory of their own project.  In fact, they are all-incompetent & hate the troops.  The more delay, inconvenience and discomfort that they can cause the soldiers, the happier they are.  :

Grow-up guys.  If someone were to as baselessly slag infantry sections then you would rightfully be demanding the pull their heads out of their asses.

Does the requirements & procurement world have its problems?  Yes.  Does it have its share of underachievers?  Most certainly (and so do the brigades).  However, for us to project an image of an organization, which is incompetent & uncaring down to every last person, is uncalled for.

In fact, if this site is openly hostile toward anyone from DLR or DSSPM then any of those people surfing this site may decide to tune us out, and even the good ideas here will be ignored.

when we have the Americans, Brits, Aussies, etc with combat proven kit I can't for the life of me see why our military needs to find different solutions to problems that a solution has already been found. 

Do you recall the purchase of off the shelf helmets & flack vests which were not compatible?  Canada has different needs, TTPs & in-service equipment than our allies.  There is nothting wrong with buying there kit, but we also need to confirm it is compatible with what is already in existance.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

There is nothting wrong with buying there kit, but we also need to confirm it is compatible with what is already in existance.

100% correct but I don't think it should take 10 years to figure that out.

 

[KevinB]

Well I happen to like Internal Frame rucks.  One of the designs put forward to base the setup of, was Kifaru's EMR, an outstanding ruck.  WE pushed CTS in the direction of the internal frame...
I'm not a big 64 Pattern "Jump" ruck fan - I used one for years but it is in reality a poor design, and went thru several frames - the only thing it really had going for it was the 82 pattern coat hanger frame was a dismal disaster.
 What annoys me is we started a new ruck trial back when E Bty 2RCHA was jumping...  1992 was the date that people showed up with a "new" ruck for design trial.  

Keep in mind I am about the biggest burn it down (CTS) crusader out there.   However we do have to accept responsibility for pushing them in the directions we wanted to go.
 Where we have a legitimate beef is both time lag in deleivery, once the system has been UCR's and actions are not taken on it.

 

[HItorMiss]

I love my 64 pattern Ruck but I more then willing to give this new ruck a fair shake on how it preforms, having used a Bergen before I was/am a large fan of internal frame rucks. I have no difficulty carrying the kit I required using it. The question will be id they listen to us when soldiers raised the concern that if you make the main compartment larger then will we just be made to carry more *useless* kit as per the needs of uniformity. Yes I am well aware that people stop packing as per kit list however the direction still exist.

As for someone getting posted to CTS, I'm quite sure I am both unqualified and unsuitable for the job

Grunt we have talked about this before, You and I and many others are very qualified to do the job we have the necessary real worldexperience to do it. What u are most certainly right about is that we would be considered "UNSUITABLE" for the postion based on our current level of rank and likely what would be considered time in trade. Oh ad our clear bias towards combat arms soldiering may very well not be looked on kindly by other areas of our Military system.

 

[MG34]

Internal frame rucks are indeed much more comfortable and do have much better ergonomics, but they cannot support extenal loads as efefctively as a frame pack. IMHO the best option from CTS was the improved packboard, which allowed the most flexibility of ant system in the trials,sure it isn't as comfortable as a Bergan inspired ruck but you can carry what is needed for extended dismounted operations.

 

[KevinB]

You know you can take the internal frame out of a Kirafu EMR and make it a packboard 
  I wonder why "part" of the CF rejected the new ruck in favour of Kifaru's stuff...