"The stuff the army issues is useless" and "no non-issue kit over seas!"

[chrisf]

Problem is, what the companies inflate their prices to in those bids. Then they ***** and whine when another company ends up winning the contract. So sad says I, perhaps if you'd only inflated your "offered for contract" bid price at a mere 20% over what it costs you like the winning bidder did instead of at 38% -- you'd find yourself with the contract. These companies put a lot of time, effort, and resources into figuring out exactly how high they can list (ie the maximum - not the minimum price) a product up for contract bid at. Sometimes, their greed bites them in the ***. Sometimes, they happen to be the "less" greediest of the greedy.

So the question of course is begged, why companies aren't offering goods at the retail prices? They'd be generally garunteed as winners of the bidding process since everyone else is inflating their offers, and they'd still realise a profit, as they're already (presumably) making a profit at retail price... price fixing anyone?

Plus, here's a question, any idea if military members are precluded from bidding as suppliers? I can see it being a conflict of interest, but after hearing what our SQ is paying for a certain item (At a 500% markup from the walmart price) it's almost tempting!

 

[amastermason]

The overall answer to this problem is simple, nothing is perfect.  It may be hard to believe but there are people out there who do like the TV, but not me.  The BEW is actually a great item, it does it's job, they just get scratched too easily.  The old style desert boot is far better than the new Vibram sole one, but both are availiable.  Not everything we have sucks, some does, some doesn't. Combine what works with stuff personally procured, and you are combat effective.  I'v met alot of pers here who've bought stuff only to find it's just not right, here right now.  It boils down to trial and error for everything, some guys hate the foreward handgrip, but you can trade that to the marines who love them more than their issued crap as they see it.  No one thing can make everyone happy, it's the way of the gun.

 

[OldSolduer]

Maybe you should be issued with the kit from the 1970's. What I see is a bunch of spoiled children who aren't happy with anything given them, but want more more more. If  you don't like the kit, get out. Stop whining and get on with the job.
As for taking the TF RSM to task...go ahead try it out. I've known the man for 20 years and he'll cut YOU down to size in about 3 seconds, and that is on his slow day.

 

[RCR Grunt]

Maybe you should be issued with the kit from the 1970's. What I see is a bunch of spoiled children who aren't happy with anything given them, but want more more more. If  you don't like the kit, get out. Stop whining and get on with the job.
As for taking the TF RSM to task...go ahead try it out. I've known the man for 20 years and he'll cut YOU down to size in about 3 seconds, and that is on his slow day.

Right on, way to help solve the problem. 

 

[OldSolduer]

It may not solve the problem, HOWEVER, there is far too much complaining and whining. If you don't like what I have to say, too bad. It's true. The kit issued these days is far superior than what was issued even 10 years ago.
WSe weren't even allowed to wear sunglasses, now we're issued them. What do I read? A bunch of whiners complaining about them and how Brand X is far superior and we should have bought them instead.
You may not realize this, but TF RSMs take orders from the TF Commanders. If the Commander gives an order pertaining to dress, its the TF RSM's duty to enforce it, no matter what he thinks.
Like I said, try to take any TF RSM on.....go ahead.

 

[Loachman]

HOWEVER, there is far too much complaining and whining.

And, in the good for the goose/good for the gander department, one could readily point out that you are "complaining and whining" too, just about something different.

I really do not think that you mean that we should not constantly seek improvement in all matters - personal performance, tactics, training, and, yes, kit, but it does rather sound like that. Improvement generally starts with an acknowledgement of a deficiency, more commonly referred to as a "complaint".

Had people not complained about that kit from the seventies, we wouldn't have the better kit that we have now, would we? And if people do not point out the deficiencies of current kit - and there are many - now, then we'll never see anything better over the next twenty to thirty years. Nobody will be saying on Starfleet.ca in 2038 that "Maybe you should be issued with the kit from the 2000s. What I see is a bunch of spoiled children who aren't happy with anything given them, but want more more more. If  you don't like the kit, get out. Stop whining and get on with the job." because they'll still have the same non-modular TV that won't carry the fuel cells for their30 GigaWatt Plasma Rifles and a thirty-year-old rucksack that weighs twenty pounds empty, requires a four-hour course, is miserable to wear over body armour, and falls apart in the field.

You are, essentially, advocating for the end of innovation and improvement. And if everybody who wants something better in order to make their job easier, more effective, or more readily survivable took your advice and got out, we'd be left with mindless drones more suitable for forming squares and fixing bayonets rather than modern warfare.

We need people at the pointy end today who can think. The problem that goes along with that is that they think.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

George Bernard Shaw

 

[Sig_Des]

Maybe you should be issued with the kit from the 1970's.

In the 1970's, I would have worn this goalie mask on the ice :

Today, I wear something like this:

It's a natural evolution. I understand and am aware that in the 70's, the equipment was different, and that today's is different. I respect the guys that had to use that older equipment. But I don't think the "you should see what we had to use back the day" argument is fair here. The nature of warfare, like hockey, has changed. But I'm willing to bet, that even in the 70's you had guys *****ing about the equipment, and buying some of their own stuff.

What I see is a bunch of spoiled children who aren't happy with anything given them, but want more more more. If  you don't like the kit, get out. Stop whining and get on with the job.

Oh, I'll do the job with what's given me. And I'll do it as effectively as I can with what I'm given. But I can be more effective, and more comfortable, with a lot of aftermarket kit. And I'm not talking PPE. I'm talking basics, such as:

-a holster that actually properly fits the pistol issued to me
-a load carriage system that efficiently carries all the rifle magazines issued to me
-desert boots that are not only more comfortable on my feet, but have a higher standing composite safety toe than anything else I'm issued.
-a sling that actually slings my weapon in a proper way, and doesn't have cords that fray and break in a matter of a couple weeks.

How is that gonna bode with me on my next go, I'm not sure. We'll see in Feb. But the way I see it is, if I'm gonna spend 9 more bloody month in theater, I'm gonna try to make sure I'm as comfortable and effective as possible. Confidence in my equipment is a big one for that.

 

[noneck]

LOACHMAN-

"You are, essentially, advocating for the end of innovation and improvement. And if everybody who wants something better in order to make their job easier, more effective, or more readily survivable took your advice and got out, we'd be left with mindless drones more suitable for forming squares and fixing bayonets rather than modern warfare."

+1 I couldn't have said it better.

Noneck

 

[OldSolduer]

You have misread me.
There comes a time when we have to shut up and do the job with the kit we're issued. If you have any doubts about my thoughts, you haven't read my past posts.
I am for improvement and efficiency. Kit is a priority, and as such we should pursue improvements.
Rome  was not built in a day, and no TV, BEW etc is going to make everyone happy. Best thing you can do is work with the CoC and not against it.
Now as a CSM, if my OC says only issue TV are to be worn, that's an order from a Major to his company.....I have to enforce it, despite what I have said to him/her.  One day many of you will be in that position.

 

[Loachman]

I have read your posts, which is why I said "I really do not think that you mean...", and I am fully aware of the imperfections of this medium, but that's the way that it came across.

I see no indication that anybody is not "doing the job", but people are still allowed to comment on deficiencies or shortcomings of anything job-related.

I appreciate your position in the chain-of-command regarding this issue. I do not like being "caught in the middle" as you must feel sometimes.

Good luck with your balancing act...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Allowances (such as footwear allowances) have been discussed in threads on the site before.

It's a grand idea, but one must take into consideration that each and every piece of kit that you want to make it onto that "authorized list" MUST be put through the exact same process to determine it's "ballistic" capabilities, it's compliance IAW with mil specs etc. It'll have to go through all the rig-a-ma-rolls of "certification" and acceptance by the system before anyone is "officially" going to "authorize" it's compliance and use by Canadian soldiers by placing it on a list of "authorized OTS".

There are a few OTS items currently undergoing trials with the above suggestion in mind, but again - it's not the CF that ultimately gets to decide. It's a world of policy and obtaining the proper "authority" and consent to go outside the system like this. It's a RARITY and the capability to to meet and obtain approval for "authorized to purchase outside of law [ie: outside of federal contract]" is extremely limited and hard to come by. Authority for that flows from the respective CF sections and outwards of the CF and onto TB and PWGSC. If they say "no" - then it's "no" (such as was the case for footwear allowances). Contracting law is contracting law; like I said before, it would take an Act of Parliament to change it (in this case, to change the Treasury Board Act and the Financial Administration Act).

You want to effect change to those Acts - you'll have to talk to your local political representatives and get them involved, and all your friends and fellow soldiers too -- it's just a small CF in the big world of Canadian vote counts and taxpayers money being spent.

Yet the Federal government does this already with a boot allowance, the only standard is they must be CSA approved. The military could have a standard boot for issue and a allowance to purchase an approved option, removing the contracting requirements.

 

[amastermason]

This argument will go on for as long as there is an army, and as always, there will be people complaining about something.  As for the current TF RSM, this is not the first time I've worked for him, and hopefully not the last.  The man's eyes say "I'll swallow your soul", and he can be, tough.  I'm not going to take him on, but he is allowing some liberal allowances with kit, which I appreciate.  As for the "back in my day" crowd, shut up!  Back in your day you did the same thing, so cut the two faced banter.  It's always going to be like this, you did it, I did it, am doing it, and others will do it.  End of sermon.

 

[Loachman]

My last breath will probably be a rant at something.

 

[daftandbarmy]

As for the "back in my day" crowd, shut up!  Back in your day you did the same thing, so cut the two faced banter.  It's always going to be like this, you did it, I did it, am doing it, and others will do it.  End of sermon.

OK, I just blew a puttee off laughing at that one. Thanks.

 

[Loachman]

You have puttees already?

We'll be lucky if we see puttees in the next ten years, unless we buy them ourselves.

 

[Old Sweat]

If you're lucky, you will never see puttees in the next ten years. The major use of the puttee was to provide amusement in the troops when one began to unwind on parade, although the socks, circular also were neat for cutting off circulation and causing varicose veins. (Or so we believed at the time.)

 

[Haggis]

You have puttees already?

We'll be lucky if we see puttees in the next ten years, unless we buy them ourselves.

I still have mine.

When I leave KAF after my next tour, I'd be happy to hand them off...provided I get them back when we leave Afghanistan.

 

[armyvern]

Yet the Federal government does this already with a boot allowance, the only standard is they must be CSA approved. The military could have a standard boot for issue and a allowance to purchase an approved option, removing the contracting requirements.

There is no boot allowance. We buy boots for medical purposes & for pers who do not fit into standard sizes. Those pers don't often get a choice of what boots they want purchased either - they go to whatever store we have the SO with and then they get to choose from styles/models that store carries. There's a few more standards (mil specs) as well (black boot, black stitching, mid calf height, ...). Far from a boot allowance; it's very controlled and restricted to select pers meeting the above requirements.

Getting a boot allowance has already been tried - and the request was rejected ... that's already been mentioned before.    The only thing we currently have that's close to a boot allowance -- is the BTU (bra) allowance whereby women buy 4 bras per year at Crown expense.

I think though ... we need it. It will address soldier's footwear requirements/needs MUCH better than forcing 50 000 different sets of feet into 1 style of stocked boots. Someone out there just needs to realize that -- just as all boobs are different ... so are all feet different.

 

[Blackadder1916]

There is no boot allowance. . . .

He may have been referring to a "footwear allowance" paid to federal government civilian employees who may be required to wear safety footwear due to workplace hazards or a uniform, such as indicated at these sites.

http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/doc.php?did=267&lang=en

PROTECTIVE FOOTWEAR ALLOWANCE
The approved change, which will be found at Part XII of the new directive, has been approved for implementation no later than January 1, 2006. The Personal Protective Equipment Directive currently provides a rate for reimbursement for protective footwear. This rate will no longer be provided.

The following wording will be found in the new directive:

12.10  Protective Footwear

12.10.1            Protective footwear shall be provided, free of charge.

12.11  Purchasing Protective Footwear

12.11.1            Should the Department decide not to issue protective footwear directly, it may provide protective footwear that meets the appropriate standard by having employees purchase the protective footwear and receive reimbursement for the full costs of the purchase, upon presentation of proof of purchase.

12.11.2            If the Department wishes to have employees purchase protective footwear and be reimbursed, the Department shall establish, in consultation with either the Workplace Committee, Safety and Health Representative or the Policy Committee (as defined in Canada Labour Code), a price range appropriate to the type of protective footwear required.

It is recommended that departments who do not currently provide the footwear free of charge should address any questions to Caroline Proulx, Treasury Board Secretariat, at (613) 952-2966.

http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/plcy/cdshtm/351-1gl-eng.shtml#_footwear

Footwear Allowance
22. All uniformed CSC personnel, including officers working at Healing Lodges, will receive an annual footwear allowance of $100, payable during each fiscal year.

Any employee requiring special orthopaedic footwear must rely on the Public Service Health Care Plan (PSHCP) for additional financial support. The institutional liability is limited to the portion of expenses not totally funded by the plan less the $100 allowance that is already provided. For those staff not in the PSHCP, reimbursement will be limited to what benefits the employee would receive if they were a member of PSHCP.

The Service will consider and review all reasonable requests for the refit and repairs of orthotics, or the justification for additional devices prescribed in writing by a physician or podiatrist.

23. CSC personnel entitled to the annual footwear allowance who are seconded to a position where they are not required to wear their uniform, will be entitled to the allowance only when they return to their original position.

24. CSC personnel who are seconded to a position requiring them to wear the CSC uniform, will be entitled to the footwear allowance as part of the uniform issue.

 

[armyvern]

He may have been referring to a "footwear allowance" paid to federal government civilian employees who may be required to wear safety footwear due to workplace hazards or a uniform, such as indicated at these sites.

http://www.njc-cnm.gc.ca/doc.php?did=267&lang=en
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/plcy/cdshtm/351-1gl-eng.shtml#_footwear

Seen.

We refund the purchase price of our civ employee's safety boots in DND as well.

Unfortunately, the CF has a Supply system in effect, and we have been directed to use it.