US Army acquires rights to M4

Farmboy said:
If military procurement was based on the desire for something new, I would be extremely happy.

However having dealt quite a bit with military procurement it's based more on what was purchased in the past. Obsolete patrol slings, aluminium wash basins, melamine plates and cups, tac vests etc.

For new items, sometimes it's based on only seeing one product without seeing other options.

There are few times when a variety of items are tested fairly against each other, however sometimes one item might be excluded due to the wrong sized paper used on the quote (No $hit, this has happened).


Dammit, now I'm starting to rant...........
Click to expand...

Darren,

The point being of course, that we just don't update something if the current item meets the defined requirements. The equipment that is purchased is based on the user defined requirements which are captured in the bid. The prioritization of the critiera can sway what type of product is purchased particularly if the solicitation is written poorly.

I have bid on work overseas that turned out to be very lucrative because the contracting officer did not write a good solicitiation. Same goes for firearms. If for example, you use accuracy at 300m as the sole discriminator between the systems as submitted. You could have the best shooting rifle at 300m but equipped with a bushnell scope with alumuium rings. Using a tapco stock and grip. If the solicitation does not articulate the requirement or standard, the manufacture or bidder can use whatever they like. Sometime we get crap gear in DND because the soliticiation was written so badly. That is why it is important to have professional contract guys to support solicitations...
 
Leibermuster said:
I completely agree with this as far as replacing parts as needed!

But I think having some 416 in stock for front line use is the best overall idea.

The other problems is what about ammunition?
Do we change the round from 5.56 to something else or is 5.56 just fine.
I personally think 5.56 is not going anywhere any time soon!

I definitely agree PMAGS should be more accessible too troops on a side not though!
Click to expand...

Is this a percieved need or a real need? Is this really an issue for operational troops? Or is it more the latest and greatest piece of shiny kit. Same with 5.56 ammo. The problem lies with gun mags and internet generals who look at it from a singular perspective. War fighting is the big picture, all the weapons, systems, teams and equipment. There are lots of needs and never enough cash. What gives the most bang for the buck in terms of winning a campaign?
 
The "defined requirements" are out of date then & obsolete. I'm sorry here but the real reason we have these problem literally has to do with the people that are making the decisions are not the people with real world experience. My time in the CF showed that the powers to be had a reluctance to improve or change. It was almost communists in the sense that we literally thought we were the best at everything, and system was untouchable.

Everyone was so happy with our 82 pattern rucksack and substandard gear! It was horrible, fellow soldiers would make remarks that the "Canadian issued kit is the marvel of the World" I kid you not. It was as if we were serving in the Red army before the storm!

The answers to about obtaining new gear were all worded the same, with the usually Ottawa mind trickery used. The bureaucracy that delayed for new equipment to be issued was unbelievable slow and stupid. I realize the liberals had much to do with this, but we were our own worst enemy as well.

The idea that our "Canadian standard" and by the book mentality which was so outdated, and irrational was touted by so many idiots. i found the RCR guys were the worst for this back in the day.

There were so many useless arguments against improving with new equipment it was amazing, if all this energy was put into something productive at the time as in implementation we would have been better off.
 
The point being of course, that we just don't update something if the current item meets the defined requirements.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The prioritization of the critiera can sway what type of product is purchased particularly if the solicitation is written poorly.
Click to expand...

Sometime we get crap gear in DND because the soliticiation was written so badly. That is why it is important to have professional contract guys to support solicitations
Click to expand...

Bingo. I've won contracts because they were "written" for our product, and I've lost others due to some very silly stuff.



The "defined requirements" are out of date then & obsolete. I'm sorry here but the real reason we have these problem literally has to do with the people that are making the decisions are not the people with real world experience. My time in the CF showed that the powers to be had a reluctance to improve or change.
Click to expand...


Hense the three point "patrol sling" and non MOLLE vest.
 
Thanks for the diatribe. Are you in uniform now? As noted before, we have more war fighting equipment now than ever before. In the last 4 years we have seen the improvement of every major weapon system the army uses. If you want to base your arguement on 10 years ago, then state that. We have tanks, new guns, new sniper weapons, new helicopters...heck the list goes on and on.

Your argument is mute given that we are getting the gear and equipment that the troops need and are using in combat. Please note the purchase announced yesterday.

As I say to many people when the discussion of the CF comes up. The CF of today is not the same one of 8 years ago. Things are improving constantly.

Back in the day is not today. So your argument is mute.
 
Morpheus32 said:
Is this a percieved need or a real need? Is this really an issue for operational troops? Or is it more the latest and greatest piece of shiny kit. Same with 5.56 ammo. The problem lies with gun mags and internet generals who look at it from a singular perspective. War fighting is the big picture, all the weapons, systems, teams and equipment. There are lots of needs and never enough cash. What gives the most bang for the buck in terms of winning a campaign?
Click to expand...


I agree the shinny kit syndrome has gone way to far! There are so many products that are being offered by so many companies these days it has reached insane levels.

As for 5.56 people complain about the knock down power so much these days as we both know!

I also agree with your point that we need a general perspective and not so much of a singular perspective in making decisions.
 
Morpheus32 said:
Thanks for the diatribe. Are you in uniform now? As noted before, we have more war fighting equipment now than ever before. In the last 4 years we have seen the improvement of every major weapon system the army uses. If you want to base your arguement on 10 years ago, then state that. We have tanks, new guns, new sniper weapons, new helicopters...heck the list goes on and on.

Your argument is mute given that we are getting the gear and equipment that the troops need and are using in combat. Please note the purchase announced yesterday.

As I say to many people when the discussion of the CF comes up. The CF of today is not the same one of 8 years ago. Things are improving constantly.

Back in the day is not today. So your argument is mute.
Click to expand...

Also you keep bringing in the CF as your argument I'm really not talking about that army, but as far the "New weapon system debate" in regards to the US

My point is that your are applying that same mentality here, I know all this.
 
Leibermuster said:
I agree the shinny kit syndrome has gone way to far! There are so many products that are being offered by so many companies these days it has reached insane levels.

As for 5.56 people complain about the knock down power so much these days as we both know!

I also agree with your point that we need a general perspective and not so much of a singular perspective in making decisions.
Click to expand...

Canada has been in combat since basically 2002. The knock down power of the 5.56mm has not been even noted as an AAR or concern at any level. It is a percieved problem thanks to the internet and gun mags. Machine guns win battles and are the integral firepower for our troops. Seriously, the types of issues of concern or enhance optics, more mags, better armour, hearing protection, better boots..things that have been progressively addressed.

The requirements for equipment are routinely generated by the users but the problem becomes in the production of the solicitation.
 
I served with the US Army for close to a year in Afghanistan. There were not percieved need to replace the M4. Same with Iraq. I had close contact with the same unit I served with while I was in Baghdad and I asked the question to the leadership and troops. Again, not an issue. Special Forces might very well have a need different from line infantry and combat arms but that is not the focus of discussion.
 
Morpheus32 said:
Canada has been in combat since basically 2002. The knock down power of the 5.56mm has not been even noted as an AAR or concern at any level. It is a percieved problem thanks to the internet and gun mags. Machine guns win battles and are the integral firepower for our troops. Seriously, the types of issues of concern or enhance optics, more mags, better Armour, hearing protection, better boots..things that have been progressively addressed.

The requirements for equipment are routinely generated by the users but the problem becomes in the production of the solicitation.
Click to expand...

I agree Sir.

The Cf has improved massively, but i must say it was made possible that it did improve a great deal because of the guys out west the most. PPCLi did a great job adapting their gear themselves in the early days to help push the winds of change.
 
HAHAHAHA, so true :D.

I talked with an NCO who was involved with the TacVest development. He submitted a practical design which had 8 or 12 mag pouches at the bottom and all the rest of the pouches were mission configurable etc etc. What most would consider a practical effective design. DND came back with the abortion we see now. Needless to say he was pretty pissed.

Anyhow maybe there is no good way to predict what they will do.

Talking to the troops and delivering what they want certainly isn't happening, well not as much as it should...

:D

Farmboy said:
If military procurement was based on the desire for something new, I would be extremely happy.

However having dealt quite a bit with military procurement it's based more on what was purchased in the past. Obsolete patrol slings, aluminium wash basins, melamine plates and cups, tac vests etc.

For new items, sometimes it's based on only seeing one product without seeing other options.

There are few times when a variety of items are tested fairly against each other, however sometimes one item might be excluded due to the wrong sized paper used on the quote (No $hit, this has happened).


Dammit, now I'm starting to rant...........
Click to expand...
 
suprathepeg said:
HAHAHAHA, so true :D.

I talked with an NCO who was involved with the TacVest development. He submitted a practical design which had 8 or 12 mag pouches at the bottom and all the rest of the pouches were mission configurable etc etc. What most would consider a practical effective design. DND came back with the abortion we see now. Needless to say he was pretty pissed.

Anyhow maybe there is no good way to predict what they will do.

Talking to the troops and delivering what they want certainly isn't happening, well not as much as it should...

:D
Click to expand...

Again, that was years ago...the CF seems to be delivering kit and equipment to the troops. War time priorities seems to be trumping a number of factors including theories on how to conduct business. For the record, I submitted a chest rig design which I had built and prototyped at my own expense...so I understand completely the problems with the system. That being said, the troops have the gear they need these days...
 
Morpheus32 said:
Again, that was years ago...the CF seems to be delivering kit and equipment to the troops. War time priorities seems to be trumping a number of factors including theories on how to conduct business. For the record, I submitted a chest rig design which I had built and prototyped at my own expense...so I understand completely the problems with the system. That being said, the troops have the gear they need these days...
Click to expand...

Look Morpheus32, when i talk to a lot of my buddies that are still in about gear, the answers are still not exactly very good, yes much has improved. But for a country or actually the military that has been at war, there still way too many officers and higher rank troops that still don't get it.

The concept of standardization is still being used all in the wrong ways! Some troops think standardization means everyone looking exactly the same in regards to gear. Like were on the bloody drill square, looking for pictures, although that is finally fading, there is still the underlining logic of "Do Not Upgrade Kit"

look how long it took for them to come out with a rucksack, we should have just bought British kit , and be done with it years ago. Although our digital Cadpat is great, especially for Canada, the "Cloth the Soldier Program" was waste of time in the sense delaying for gear that was already designed and proven in other armies. We could have upgraded as we went, or just simply added some gear.

Many armies out there have fielded multiple weapon system, and there doing fine.

I enjoy debating with you Morpheus32, you definitely put a good covo together.
 
Some of you should keep in mind that very few organisations in the CF actualy does any buying of substance. PWGSC does all of the buying for all of the Government of Canada.

PWGSC is all about lowest complinant cost and avoiding litigation. In my mind, this is a comflict of interest with military procurement imperatives, but it is still the reality of what the CF has to contend with.

It would be like the average CGNer describing to his wife a 416 upper (without naming it), and leave her to do the shopping for it. What do you guys think she would return home with?

The procurement process as it is today is wrong for the military (in my opinion), but it isn't the fault of the guys trying to get the kit to the soldiers.
 
Last edited:
Harry Potter said:
Some of you should keep in mind that very few organisations in the CF actualy does any buying of substance. PWGSC does all of the buying for all of the Government of Canada.

PWGSC is all about lowest complinant cost and avoiding litigation. In my mind, this is a comflict of interest with military procurement imperatives, but it is still the reality of what the CF has to contend with.

It would be like the average CGNer describing to his wife a 416 upper (without naming it), and leave her to do the shopping for it. What do you guys think she would return home with?

The procurement process as it is today is wrong for the military (in my opinion), but it isn't the fault of the guys trying to get the kit to the soldiers.
Click to expand...

Your absolutely right, that's why we need a general with balls that can make major changes that cancel these people out of the equation.
 
KevinB said:
His point is that for the change to be required it would be the Cdn Gov't manadating a procurement change thru Public Works.
Click to expand...

Yes and even so the C7/C8 rifles the CF are using are so good there is no need for change other then a railed FF handguard which is pretty easy to spec out for procurement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom