Discussion in 'Military Clothing & Boots' started by sixty_three, Dec 24, 2007.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Has anyone got pictures or details on this please
I've googled and search but can't seem to find anything other than that there is a plan to change the clothing and QinetiQ has been awarded a contract
PECOC is its assessment phase, which means:
or in other words, before we start buying lots of gucci kit, various technological solutions are being tried out to achieve 'best fit' for the requirements. Hopefully Kitmonster will see this and comment, as not many people know more about this programme than him.
I have been trying to trickle out some of the so whats from PECOC, mainly in answer to other peoples threads, for a couple of months. I bow to napiers position as first amongst equals and promise to do more in the future. PECOC is about to kit the streets and finally move out of the initial kit gathering and technical evaluation phase so I can make sure that what information is openly given to some can be pushed out on Arrse. To wet the appetite and to set the scene see below a replay I just penned regarding the rumours of the demise of CS 95.
The rumours about CS 95 revolve around 2 issues (a weak pun I know):
Firstly Future Army Dress (FAD): 2 variations
1. A new all ranks service dress, out to contract now and due into ATRs first by mid 2008.
2. New Barrack dress, based on the service dress trs but in a lightweight material (non-iron they say!) accompanied by a ton of fawn shirts, a modified JHW and the standard clerks shoes. Funding is being pursued by the centre boys but resisted by the Front Line Commands who feel they have a bit more pressing issues to use their cash on and are the ultimate maintainers of any new clothing.
Do a search for more info if you have a burning desire there is a load about. Personally I have a burning desire to burn it.
Secondly Project PECOC: Replacement for all combat clothing and personal protection equipment on general issue. That means combats, boots, gloves, load carriage, ballistic armour, helmet and all the way down to underpants. Due into service as a mass issue in 2010/11 but likely to trickle in sooner where cost neutral replacement is possible. So
. the combats bit of PECOC is about the same price as CS 95 so there is no argument for bringing in FAD barrack dress as a cost saving measure. FAD was the result of a few individuals and committees deciding that the troops would all look smarter and be happier in barracks dress; form your own opinion.
FAD and PECOC have no link apart from the fact that DC IPT is providing the textile and contracting experts for FAD and the component boffins for PECOC. The programme funding for each project is completely different, the high level customers are different and the initial buy accounts are different.
I will start to post some PECOC titbits at http://www.arrse.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=85182.html
That said this thread has a life of its own with the thorny issue of two tone lightweights finally getting the airing it deserves. Personally after 5 years in CS 95 my old LWs seem to have shrunk to the point of no return; I of course remain as trim and lean as ever. My JHW however still carriers enough starch in the shoulder pads to deflect a small nuclear weapon and may yet see the light of day as part of the PECOC ballistic package.
Barrack dress = waste of money, keep the dress the same for barracks and ops and issue extra for ops as required. The only ones who used to wear the old barrack dress were clerks anyway.
As for starch on JHW hta's just wrong, Clear is much better.
Non iron uniform will mean the lazy chav's we get through will look even worse.
How does that work for the RRS jocks????
It's worked for me; I confirm that no tactical nuclear weapons have exploded anywhere near me for a couple of decades!
its a witch hunt that will lead to questions being asked about expensive issues, and us then being issued with cheap, crap yet 'fit for purpose' kit
ie - fit if your, say, a retired officer sat in Whitehall.
Absolutely useless everywhere else.
Sounds gayer than a poofs convention on gay island.
Why try to fix something that's not broken?
I agree with Strima "keep the dress the same for barracks and ops and issue extra for ops as required"
I can't see why we are planning to change (unless this is a wind-up...Project PECOC sounds just a tad too implausible... ).
CS95 has encouraged uniformity on a massive scale across the Army since it was introduced, which was the whole point. In fact, it was so successful that the TRFs were subsequently introduced at a huge cost!
My working dress is CS95; my regimental embellishments include a stable belt, a TRF and a capbadge. If I deploy into the field, I use the Norgie, woolie pullie, Field Jacket and the long-johns (and stockings if it is really cold... ). If I have to go posh, I fight my way into Service Dress; half-posh involves the shirt, tie, woolie pullie and SD trousers.
Three basic sets of clothes have covered all that I have had to do over the last ten years, with additions and subtractions as necessary.
I cannot see how they can improve on that!
Think back to macs flasher, trs barrack, shoes naff and working dress that you couldnt work in as opil went through your coverfeckalls onto them and stained them permanently and the 1985 issue of detachable pocket combats were absolutely nuns tits.
Yes the Army looks better now in its dressed to kill kit. DPM is the Battle Dress of its time so why waste money on new old kit that wont be as good (quality rather than use) as the stuff that was withdrawn as unneccesary back then.
SD should look good and everyone should have a set but why cheap and nasty. If it has to be a balanced budget item then issue it centrally as needed. The most important thing here is to allow those units that still feel the need to stick knives in their socks and wear half a sheep as a jersey with a chip bag on their heads with tails then let them. They didnt join that unit to look like RLC chefs now did they?
The Gunners are behind this..mark my words.
Separate names with a comma.