The Australian Army’s Defence Newspaper has released a special issue which features an extended piece on ANZAC Day 2015, as well as the Australian Army in Afghanistan, and the Soldier Combat Ensemble which includes a new range of packs:
The packs are tailored to the needs of various tiers of Soldiers, and include a purpose-made pack with straps to attach a sniper rifle for snipers, a medium assault pack for Tier 2 close combatants, and a dismounted field pack for infantry, combat engineers, joint fire teams, and Special Forces.
You can check it out here: armynews.realviewdigital.com/#folio=1
Tags: Australian Army
The Aussies have the tiered distribution done right. Canadian procurement has a lot to learn, especially as budgets shrink.
Absolutely, I believe this has been talked about in Ottawa, and might in fact be on the books for the (now shelved for several years) rollout of a new modular fighting rig and load carriage system.
Haven’t had time to read the whole article (I apologize before-hand), but at casual glance, that set seems to me to resemble our current 3-Day Assault Pack, Medium MOLLE Ruck and Large Molle Ruck system.
I like the fact that they have a tiered system so that the grunts get the equipment they need and you don’t end up like the US Army where the dental assistant has the same equipment as an 11B
Is Mystery Ranch no longer involved?
Unfortunately,
Mystery Ranch was not selected for the SCE tender.
The tender was awarded to ADA (Australian Defence Apparel).
RUMINT is suggesting some interesting things that occurred when their designs were first presented to end-users through Diggerworks.
You had my curiosity, but now you have my attention. Go on…
Dammit, my nerd-box is playing up.
Further to my last:
This news of this tender award was first aired in September last year at Land Forces Conference held in Brisbane.
I was able to examine the ADA designs.
Pics can be found on my blog.
ADA make terrible gear, end users have little say in what is chosen during the tender process, decisions made by useless officers and civilians. FACT
CrustyCam,
Let’s just say that the alleged story around the campfire that I’ve been told about the initial designs submitted by ADA were soundly and roundly rejected by Diggerworks and their test audience.
The initial sniper pack design was flat out rejected by blokes in that job description. Story goes that blokes from the School of Infantry, Battalion sniper cells and certain units from east and west had to be called in for a hurried confab to determine just what it is that specialty does and requires from a pack. What was finalised? In my amateur opinion, the finished product resembles nothing like any other serious contender for dedicated sniper use.
The pack intended for dismounted usage (ie. infantry) had at least five immediate design faults that I could identify without even trying, or detailed examination. It places the load in a very awkward manner, that could be bad for spinal health should it be loaded up the way it’s intended.
Funnily enough, the successful designs had features that are generally found on market leaders – features that weren’t widely known over here Down Under before the introduction of certain products into our market.
How do I put this nicely, without dropping anyone (especially me) into legal problems?
I’m wondering what features of certain market leaders are patented and copyrighted designs.
Thanks mate for your insight. Much appreciated.
Looks like I’ll be continuing to use my own packs so long the C/RSM turns a blind eye.
Thanks for the follow-up, checked out the blog as well. Good stuff. Sounds a lot like the conundrums your commonwealth Canadian cousins go through, but you guys actually get new kit instead of it getting bogged down in bureaucracy.
Completely agree with the previous comments, the Australian tactical market is at least a decade behind the US and UK, both in innovation of design and use of modern fabrics. After 24 years into the British Army and joining the Australian Army the equipments are worlds apart, import/shipping fees have stifled the tactical market which allows a couple of brands to dominate, not good competition!
Oh at least the dental assistant gets the gear!!! Only the ready Bde get the modern gear which is then rotated, once out of the cycle you get museum era web gear! and you don’t have a personal helmet/ respirator all gets turned in! Some say cost effective only buying 1 Bdes worth modern gear but as we know soldiers don’t really invest in the care of equipment if their going to turn it in after 12 months…… Very frustrating
Thanks for the kind words gentlemen.
I’ve been working with a group of people for the last ten years in an effort to improve ADF procurement systems of individual load bearing equipment.
It’s been a hell of an uphill battle trying to change attitudes and systems from a grass-roots level.
The team I’ve been working with has some good runs on the board, but a very long way still to go!