28 November 2010

I posted this earlier to piggyback on Will’s “Issued kit…who needs it?” I focused on the Defensor Fortis Load Carrying System/DFLCS that Air Force Security Forces are currently being issued. There’s plenty to cover when considering issued kit and our opinions on the matter. Usually I like to keep my opinions to myself, but the DFLCS kit bugs me far too much to stay quiet. We can fill the entire Blog with opinions about issue kit so let’s get started with the DFLCS harness.

Below you’ll find my original input about DFLCS, and then a few specifics about the harness.

I happen to have a critique form specifically for the DFLCS. So I thought I’d weigh in on the matter using the questions the career field provided.

1. How Satisfied Are You With The DF-LCS Kits/Items? Somewhat Dissatisfied
2. Do The DF-LCS Kits/Items Function Properly As Designed/Intended (Meet Your Operational Needs)? See Attch 1, Para 3. Yes or No…If “No” Provide Specific Comments As To What Is Wrong And How You Would Change It.
Over all, it’s not a complete kit. I covers some of our jobs some of the time, but not any of them completely, all the time. Example: The riflemen’s kit doesn’t play well within a LE role. It doesn’t seem to even try to accommodate a classic LE style set up (belt base platform, with everything hanging from the belt). It doesn’t get along from transitioning from standard security work into more of a war fighting arrangement either. Re-sizing to fit over body armor is no easy task. Adding water and more kit is a struggle as well. It would appear that each piece was thought out as if it were the ONLY piece.
3. Are There Any Items That Need To Be Added To The DF-LCS Kits/Items? Provide Specific Comments.
Molder Holster
First line/LE set-up. (pistol belt/pad, low pro suspenders)
Shit can the current harness and use a fuckin FLC or rack
4. Are You Aware Of Any Quality/Construction Problems With The DF-LCS Kits/Items? See Atch 1, Para 1. NOTE: If There Are/Have Been Construction Problems, Please Identify The Item(s) Not Meeting Construction Requirements And Provide Comments On How The Item(s) Fail(s) To Meet Construction Requirements.
None yet
5. What Do You Like About The DF-LCS Kits/Items? Provide Specific Comments.
It’s a little better than ALICE.
6. What Do You Dislike About The DF-LCS Kits/Items? Provide Specific Comments.
When will we grasp the concept of ADJUSTABLE LIDS!!!??? We all have flashlights, multi-tools, and batons. Some have spray, some don’t, some have knives, and some don’t…whatever. Bottom line, there’s a lot of different flashlights out there ranging in size, there’s a lot of different baton sizes, types, with different accessories, etc. A simple solution to ensure that ONE pouch (instead of dumping the money to make 2 baton pouches) meets many different items is to make the lid adjustable.
7. Do You Have Any Other Comments (Good or Bad) Regarding The DF-LCS Kits/Items? Provide Specific Comments.
-The harness is dumb. The shoulders are too bulky. No one I’ve talked to likes them or think they’re comfortable.
-What the hell am I supposed to put in that mesh backing? – get rid of it.
-Do we REALY need our harness to be front open? I personally like a “rack” design (hydro carriers play better with em), but remain open to the idea of front open rigs. None the less, the Army and Marine Corp solved that problem with a little thing called Fighting Load Carrier. It works. It’s not broke, so stop fixing it.
-If we MUST be plagued with the cost of frag pouches, then GIVE US FUCKING FRAGS!! Otherwise, save the money.
-Can we please attempt to understand the logic behind shingle mag pouches? When we double arm, we are forced/encouraged to remove our side arm ammo from the place that we train from, and move them to a place that is mechanically foreign to us. Next time your overseas, count how many pistol mags you see mounted to a 6004. Bad juju. With shingles, we could mount all ammo in relatively the same place. The place that we train Speed and Tac reloads from.

Finally-if you can’t hear me from your desktop, I laughing hysterically at the Kydex lined 9mm pouches.

So that’s it, let the debate begin!

DFLCS Harness-

These pics show the first version we were issued, the current ABU version above the UCP version. The DFLCS harness has three panels that wrap around the torso. On this version the user could remove the back panel as I have pictured here. It’s center open, adjustable, and stiff. Basically the version two didn’t have any re-design enhancements. Just different material MODS and feature changes. Essentially the same harness except you can’t remove the back panel and its joining panels are four inch elastic embedded in material. Those joining elastic panels have velcro ends that crawl in the side panels to connect. This is a bitch to size due to the interior of the side panel being completely lined with velcro. As you can see, I cut off the mesh back panel. Oops. I realize it’s a PALS grid and would be handy when attaching water, but still too beefy. Basically this is what you get when a Fighting Load Carrier (army and Marine Corps issue), ALICE LBE, and a center open MAV all have a threesome. I loaned out some of the pouches that I complain about above so no pics. But I’m sure you get the idea. If I have pics, you’d see pouches without adjustable lids.

No comments:

Post a Comment