Okay fellas, been out of the loop for a minute but heres a go:

I have recently been actively engaged w/the AFSFC about the body armor requirments. I did however see and read the HAF Msg that dropped for us a while back.

Our new standard is the IOTV. If you have not heard, be sure to chk into this mess via your S4 shop. It is true and it is happening.

Now I am currently looking into another type of carrier. If you guys are interested in this feel free to get at me via PM and then we can take it AF.MIL e-mail.

I am looking for feedback from YOU all the end user on the pros/cons of the IBA or IOTV to have more ammo to try to get something better approved for us all.

unfortunately I cannot release a whole heck of alot of info over this but Im sure you all get the jist of what is taking place here. Let me know what you all think.

Sigh...here we go again.

You know what would be really helpful?

Not changing all my gear out every 3 months.

ZING...good one DefenderM. I take it you are content w/your kit. Good to hear, tell me why.

Thanks for the input....

Interesting, but here's the problem. The AF centrally funds body armor and a lot of other things now through the A4 community.

Somewhere in the AFMC world they set up a Combat Airman Program Office that is designed to buy "stuff." The office is structured (or is at least meant to be) along the lines of the Army's PEO SOLDIER.

So long story short, we (SF) shouldn't be buying any IBAs that don't come through the supply chain. This years flavor is IOTV.

quote:

Originally posted by 15713302:
Interesting, but here's the problem. The AF centrally funds body armor and a lot of other things now through the A4 community.

Somewhere in the AFMC world they set up a Combat Airman Program Office that is designed to buy "stuff." The office is structured (or is at least meant to be) along the lines of the Army's PEO SOLDIER.

So long story short, we (SF) shouldn't be buying any IBAs that don't come through the supply chain. This years flavor is IOTV.

And you are correct. Heres the issue, IOTV's were NEVER really ran through the proper chain. Just a little insight for you....

I am working diligently w/the AFSFC on a new far superior carrier for our Airmen. Unfortunately the IOTV debacle is here to stay for at least the following year. Nothing happens over night any longer and the A4 Community will be addressed accordingly upon approval of the AFSFC.

What approval chain? Do you somehow believe an AF level program (i.e., Combat Airman) requires approval from AFSFC to do something? Keep in mind they're just one of many customers.

As far as who does what to whom, A4 and the afore mentioned Combat Airman Program Office will be working the procurement issues. At best the customer base (again, AFSFC being one of many customers) can input requirements. But, and this is an important point, there is a big difference between stating requirements and having a vote on the final product. The final product only needs to meet the statement of requirements that it doesn't meet a piece of sales literature you picked up somewhere is another problem.

Now as for requirements, this is something we as SF are just horrible at. We're good at getting a piece of sales literature and deciding that is what we want. But we're real bad at sitting down with a blank piece of paper and describing the things we want a piece of equipment to do (i.e., requirements).

It's good you're working with the AFSFC, but if you're not working on a set of requirements that they can sent to the Combat Airman Program Office (or whatever its called) then you're probably pumping a dry hole. Also, is your requirement SF specific or does it have wider application? Keep in mind, they're (A4) is buying for the entire AF.

quote:

Originally posted by 15713302:
What approval chain? Do you somehow believe an AF level program (i.e., Combat Airman) requires approval from AFSFC to do something? Keep in mind they're just one of many customers.

As far as who does what to whom, A4 and the afore mentioned Combat Airman Program Office will be working the procurement issues. At best the customer base (again, AFSFC being one of many customers) can input requirements. But, and this is an important point, there is a big difference between stating requirements and having a vote on the final product. The final product only needs to meet the statement of requirements that it doesn't meet a piece of sales literature you picked up somewhere is another problem.

Now as for requirements, this is something we as SF are just horrible at. We're good at getting a piece of sales literature and deciding that is what we want. But we're real bad at sitting down with a blank piece of paper and describing the things we want a piece of equipment to do (i.e., requirements).

It's good you're working with the AFSFC, but if you're not working on a set of requirements that they can sent to the Combat Airman Program Office (or whatever its called) then you're probably pumping a dry hole. Also, is your requirement SF specific or does it have wider application? Keep in mind, they're (A4) is buying for the entire AF.

Okay first-
Approval Chain-- All equipment procured for SF needs to be approved through the AFSFC prior to submission to A4.
--The AFSFC was skipped in the chain. You know as well as I do it will be looked at and presented to ACC then presented at the Equipment Review Board that will meet annually for approval on kit.

Put it on paper--Point Paper-Trust me this has been back and forth w/MAJCOM. We have ID'd sound characteristics for the carrier where the IBA has fallen short. I did not just pick up a piece of literature and say "COOL, let's get this" if that may be what you are implying.
--I have done my research and again working w/the right folks at the right places to continue the ball rolling. The new Directorate has an ear for this right now as we have already face to face presented the issues and the possible new carrier to the Top Cop he's on board but of course needs the paper trail to reflect.

-SF Specific--It is SF Centric. The IOTV integration is SF Centric as well. I would like to know the EXACT office you may be speaking of that is the FINAL deciding factor on things. Is it the BAMS, you are speaking of?

Anyhow, this is not a piece of "gucci" kit as some would like to say its functional and fits needs of the SF Troop. I did not just see some OMFG-DELTA killer wearing this kit and thought, "I NEED THIS!" If you'd like to discuss further don't hesitate to get at me on PM.

On the approval chain, our good friends at the AFSFC and the EWCB is "supposed" to get a vote on stuff SF buys internally to SF...see DF-LCS for an example...in an attempt to standardize what is purchased across the career field.

What AFMC is doing and what A4 is distributing, in this case IBAs, (and what Mr H at the AFSFC just sent out a data call for) is an entirely separate issue and not something the EWCB gets a vote or approval on. If we, SF, think we have a special requirement separate from everyone else in the AF then I expect we can certainly try to make it...if we have that unique requirement I hope we have a good case.

As for ACC, don't get me started...ok, they're MEFPAK for about every UTC on the planet...but that's about it. One of the reasons the EWCB is dysfunctional (see DF-LCS) is due to the debating society process they've set up to get something approved. As a result MAJCOMs have gone out on their own and procured equipment without "approval." Hence the idea that things must be "approved" is generally wrong on its face.

How about staying with what they have. Is there a drastic need to replace the current system just to go to a RBAV or MTV? Too much money has been spent on constant changes. Find something that fits the mission template and stick with it for awhile. Maybe the people that actually wear the stuff should have more say in what is bought and used.

I'm a nosy forum lurker but how about some Dragon Skin? Too costly I imagine? Curious is there a reg that states SF guys, or ground pounders in general have to wear a certain kit? I would just think that folks would get issued a basic vest/battle rattle and if you wanted something more "high speed" you would personally procure the item as long as its mil approved. Is the higher ups worried about people buying stuff that isnt rated correctly,or looking like Delta Force in the field? I heard somewhere that Army folks were buying there own kit but had to forfeit SGLI in order to do so?

What has been identified as bad or wrong with what we have? Or is it improvement for improvements sake?
Not to be negative, but I really think the Center is out of touch with what is happening in the commands and the field. Until we have a centralized command and control structure that all Cops CCs are responsible too (Like a Provost Marshall...) there will be no continuity between bases, commands and troops in the field.

I just want stuff that works...

Cabo...too much change...correct. That would be one of the reasons the Combat Airman Program Office came into being under the 77th Aeronautical Systems Group. They will, along with HAF A4/7Z be part of the system that aggregates equipment requirements, procuement and sustainment across the wider AF.

PPRanger...DragonSkin. Web site Soldiers for The Truth (the late David Hackworth) has been flogging that issue for about 2+ years and has been beating up PEO SOLDIER over it.

67..."What has been identified as bad or wrong with what we have?" Which MAJCOM? In "theory" at least under Combat Airman "integration, functionality, certification and standardization" will occur.

Back to requirements and HAF A4/7Z. They will be integrating requirements from many customers (SF, CE, SG, Air Crew and Battle Field Airman) and in most cases seeking a common solution. Not a small task and in some cases not every one's every itch with regards to their desires will get scratched.

Its funny, or sad, but "back in the day" we had M 16s, with 3 and 4 digit serial numbers...VietNam era LBEs, flak vests and such. Even saw a steel pot here and there. Now they cant seem to field new gear fast enough. Progress...theres no stopping it.

At my unit, we just hit our 4th set of on-station duty gear since 2007. This week we transitioned to the "old" black LE belt. This transitioned from the DFLCS HSC, which transitioned from the DFLCS, which transitioned from the Blackhawk mesh tac vest. Our mission has in no way changed since I've been here, but man is it fun to watch leadership's vision of the week.

All that said, this was the first welcomed change from the actual patrolmen and flight workers.

As for IPE/ Alert Gear/ Battle Rattle/ etc., we are on our third different batch in as many years. We went from Interceptor, to something else last year, to something else this year. And we've gone through at least three different brand names of law enforcement 'concealed' body armor just the same. It's a different brand every time.

Great insight on everything fellas.

There are a few things that have been pointed out as far as the current IBA's being crap. As for the IOTV's not to sure what will come of this. This was in NO way trying to ruffle feathers here.

--The standardization thing is a long time overdue for sure. Now granted there will be some differences here and there.
--Now w/procuring your own kit. This is the reason for the standardization of kit amongst the AFSC. Every troop had something different. And I hate to say some did not even KNOW how to utilize or wear it correctly.
--Now the AFSFC being out of tough.....YES. Hence the reason I am attempting this battle. There are folks out there/here that are asking for something better. We'll see. Its just odd that I am NOT really getting that much cooperation from the career filed but (AFSC) are asking for something better.

I hear what has been said and noted.

It sounds like this thread is as good as closed.