PDA

View Full Version : Right tools for the right job?


SEABEEINDC
01-05-2009, 09:33 AM
The right tools for the job

Better equipment allows for better performance
By Rob Kruger


Have you ever wondered why it takes so long for the Corps to issue gear that works exactly as it’s advertised? I think of all the times I either deployed or went to the field and ended up purchasing my own equipment that was either lighter or more efficient than its military counterpart. I mean, how many of us bought a minipenlight to carry in theater instead of the clunky L-shaped “moonbeam” that has been issued for more than 20 years? I am sure you can think of many more examples.

Even before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq began, it was all too common to see Marines spending large amounts of their pay on high-speed-low-drag tactical equipment that was more functional than what we were issued. It was frustrating, to say the least. But now, it seems, the Corps is finally doing a better job delivering the top-of-the-line equipment we need and deserve.

When I attended the Modern Day Marine exposition this fall at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., I was impressed by all the products that solve some of the simple problems associated with our military-issue gear. For example, there was a new flashlight on display that is currently being fielded to the Corps. It is about the size of a deck of cards and has a halogen light with four LED lights, including infrared.

It was built for the Marines and tested so the end product is as Marine-proof as it could be. It can be clipped on any piece of gear or worn on a helmet and allowed to rotate, shining light in any position a Marine requires.

Certainly, this flashlight is better than even that minipenlight, which most of us would hold in our mouths when we needed to use both hands. But why did it take all these years to get a light that works as we need it to?

I regard this light as a metaphor for the old days, when we were rarely issued good gear. Most of us who have been in the service for a few years will remember the old field jacket and rain gear: Neither worked as they should have, but we had no better options at the time.

We now have GORE-TEX gear that is lighter and works better. Too bad it took so long to get this superior replacement.

But since the wars began, more products have been fielded in a shorter amount of time. During my time at I Marine Expeditionary Force, for example, there were many “urgency of need” requests that circumvented the normal time frame for fielding. And while these items might have been specific to a particular unit or major command, it seemed like the sky was the limit. We identified civilian products that worked better than what we were using, and in many cases received better gear through the UNNs process.

I was joined at the expo this fall by my chief warrant officer. As we looked at certain items, many of which dealt with improvised-explosives detection, I was amazed at how “common sense” they were — I wished we had them when I was deployed to Iraq with 1st Reconnaissance Battalion in 2003. He told me that his unit had many of the items and that they worked really well. That validated for me how the system seems to be working better than before.

As the warfighter is weighed down with more and more equipment, lighter gear that functions better should be the norm. And while a flashlight might be one of the smaller items Marines need to worry about in combat, it sets a precedent. I hope we Marines — and those who support us both internally and externally — continue to improve all the tools we need to fight.

———

The writer, a master sergeant, is the maintenance management chief at The Basic School.

I agree with this article, we must seek out the best equipment for the job and not get stuck in a rut with the "we have done it this way or years" attitude, but we must also not jump on the bandwagon and procure items that fill a need but are not fine tuned. A good example of this would be the Modular Tactical Vest (MTV), the Seabees got them but are they really the best solution, fitting the needs of the Seabee community? Uniformity in equipment is a good thing for supply, it reduces the supply chain, but equipment also needs to fit the person and job. Not everyone can fit one size of rucksack for example, some Sailors and Marines are taller and shorter than the norm. The suck it up attidude only takes things so far before injuries can occur.

Thoughts on this article?

SeaChicken
01-05-2009, 12:46 PM
I agree with you and I hate the suck it up attitude. To me that just says that I am too lazy to help you and is poor poor poor leadership.

I am familiar with both the flashlight discussed (it is a pretty cool gadget), and the MTV. The MTV functions exactly as designed and meets the need that is was designed to meet. It is heavy, but it was decided that that was a worthy tradeoff for the increased ballistic protection it gave. That decision was made in response to a very specific threat. That specific threat isn't as much of a specific threat as it once was and combined with different operating environments and mission sets it may not be the best option any more. If you read todays early bird, you will see an article talking about the next MTV.

sp4rt4n_ii7
03-21-2009, 03:47 AM
seachicken, go get your mtv and do buddy rushes with a saw and 400 rnds of ammo plus comm plus a dapack filled with your water supply and all your "extra shit" like e tool, poncho, extra 117f batteries and so forth. then try to tell me that the extra wheight is worth it. the damn thing wheighs around thirty pounds before you start putting shit on it like ammo and grenades.
that and you try to "relive yourself" with that thing on. like attending to the call of nature wasnt hard enough while out in injun country.



go haze youself.:mad:

jeffersj
03-23-2009, 07:49 AM
Yes, in many cases there are products on the open market, that, if they work as advertised, are superior to what is in the supply chain.

Right now we are in a time of conflict (not war). During periods like this the research and testing process tends to accelerate to get items fielded. The trick is to make sure that even with the expedited testing making sure that it will work as advertised in the theater just as well as when it was tested in a field exercise at Quantico, the National Training Center, or wherever.

CDE
03-23-2009, 11:29 AM
I am not in any way defending "the system" but the reason part of the reason why things take so has to do with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), JCIDS, DODAF, PPBE. I don't think they were designed with rapid deployment of common sense products in mind. Additionally, I'm told that the FAR even states something to the effect that its primary purpose is to promote socio-economic policy. How many SWOs have purchased their own binoculars to replace the crappy ones provided by the supply system?

jeffersj
03-23-2009, 01:03 PM
I am not in any way defending "the system" but the reason part of the reason why things take so has to do with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), JCIDS, DODAF, PPBE. I don't think they were designed with rapid deployment of common sense products in mind. Additionally, I'm told that the FAR even states something to the effect that its primary purpose is to promote socio-economic policy. How many SWOs have purchased their own binoculars to replace the crappy ones provided by the supply system?

To some extent you are correct. There are certain rules and regulations designed to ensure the items purchased meet certain specifications with regard to performance, durability, etc. Testing to ensure they meet the specs takes time. Then the government has to do a QA check to make sure the manufacturer didn't make a mistake. I have a facility that does inspection on items received under government contract - we do reject items that are not within specs. In some cases if we didn't catch the error someone could die.

Also, you have to watch what the Code of Federal Regulations has to say on the subject - for example, there is written in there (don't have the citation handy) that US military uniforms have to be made in the US from US materials. It takes time to bid the contract, review the bidders to make sure they're eligible, and then get production up and running.

If you do use a company then you also may have to review who controls them to make sure a foreign national/company is not in a position to tell them to stop selling to us.

Yeah, it's a pain, but in some cases it's necessary to protect the national interest.

SeaChicken
03-24-2009, 10:45 AM
It is a daily fight to prevent $800 toilet seats and sometimes good products are collateral damage.

The acquisition system is has multiple moving parts, each with their own responsibilites and areas of influence. In order for the latest whiz bang gadget to be able to be procured, someone has to determine that there is a requirement for the capabilities of this gadget by the operating forces. Someone else has to determine what specifically the specifications of the gadget to be procured will be and then a third person has to go out and find the right gadget amongs dozens of similar gadgets that will meet all the specifications. Then after testing to ensure it can live up to the manufacturers claim you have to give it to a bunch of Marines to make sure they don't hurt themselves with it and that it actually functions int he field as designed. After all that you can finallly buy it and start handing it out.

It's amazing to me that it can happen at all much less so quickly to get good gear into the hands of Marines on the battlefield. It may not be the perfect solution, but as soon as the first ones are out the door, people are starting to look around for better versions of the same gadget. The ballistic vest as an example has gone through at least three iterations and will continue to go through more.

jeffersj
03-25-2009, 07:54 AM
It is a daily fight to prevent $800 toilet seats and sometimes good products are collateral damage.

The acquisition system is has multiple moving parts, each with their own responsibilites and areas of influence. In order for the latest whiz bang gadget to be able to be procured, someone has to determine that there is a requirement for the capabilities of this gadget by the operating forces. Someone else has to determine what specifically the specifications of the gadget to be procured will be and then a third person has to go out and find the right gadget amongs dozens of similar gadgets that will meet all the specifications. Then after testing to ensure it can live up to the manufacturers claim you have to give it to a bunch of Marines to make sure they don't hurt themselves with it and that it actually functions int he field as designed. After all that you can finallly buy it and start handing it out.

It's amazing to me that it can happen at all much less so quickly to get good gear into the hands of Marines on the battlefield. It may not be the perfect solution, but as soon as the first ones are out the door, people are starting to look around for better versions of the same gadget. The ballistic vest as an example has gone through at least three iterations and will continue to go through more.

It also depends on how the contract is written. If the contract is written so you cannot use COTS items then you have to design/make/test/certify items. Sorry, if I have a contract telling me to do that, I am going to recoup my expenses in researching and developing the items.