Military Load Carriage as a System

Military load carriage is most effective when it is designed as part of the complete soldier system, rather than considered as an isolated piece of equipment.

The idea of the soldier as a system is well established. Military organisations have long recognised that the effectiveness of individual equipment cannot be considered entirely in isolation, and that weapons, protection, communications, clothing and load carriage have to work together if the individual is to make effective use of them.

The US Army was formally examining the “Soldier as a System” concept in the early 1990s, subsequently establishing dedicated structures around soldier-system integration. Its approach has included managing standardised configurations for different roles and considering the integration, compatibility and interoperability of equipment worn and carried by the individual.

The British Army has adopted a similar philosophy. Its current SoldierWorks programme describes an Integrated Soldier System that starts with the soldier as a “human platform”, with the objective of bringing together capabilities that improve lethality, agility and resilience. The VIRTUS programme provides a particularly clear example of the principle in practice: the UK Armed Forces' integrated body armour, helmet and load carriage system was designed around the soldier, with survivability, mobility and sustainability identified as the relevant NATO soldier domains.

The principle is therefore not controversial. The more interesting question is what happens when the individual components of that system have to work together in practice.

For the soldier, the distinctions between procurement programmes disappear. Body armour, communications, weapons, sensors, clothing and load carriage are worn and used at the same time. The performance of one can influence the performance of another, while the overall configuration can determine how effectively the individual can move, access equipment and sustain the task.

Load carriage sits at the centre of this relationship.

A backpack is not simply a container that exists alongside the rest of the soldier's equipment. Its position, load transfer, capacity and accessibility are all affected by what the soldier is wearing and carrying elsewhere. The same is true in reverse: the way a pack sits and carries its load can influence the practical arrangement of the equipment around it.

That makes the interfaces between components at least as important as the components themselves.

Capability Has a Physical Consequence

The continuing modernisation of the soldier has made this more apparent. The individual can now carry and employ capabilities that were previously unavailable or considerably less accessible: more capable communications, night vision and thermal systems, improved medical equipment, power sources, sensors and small unmanned systems.

Each brings an operational advantage, but each also has a physical consequence.

Batteries occupy space and add weight. Controllers and ancillary equipment have to be carried. Additional medical capability requires storage. Specialist equipment can alter the distribution and geometry of the load. Even where individual components become smaller or lighter, the overall equipment configuration can become more complex.

The US Army has explicitly recognised this problem. Its Soldier Baseline Configuration Working Group has been used to document standardised equipment configurations for different infantry roles, with the stated purpose of supporting equipment modernisation and integration while identifying opportunities to reduce soldier load. The configurations include different requirements for roles such as squad leader, team leader, grenadier, automatic rifleman and rifleman.

This is an important distinction. The objective is not simply to make individual pieces of equipment better. It is to ensure that additional capability can be introduced without creating unintended problems elsewhere in the system.

The challenge is therefore not necessarily to carry less equipment. It is to carry the required equipment in a way that preserves mobility, accessibility and effectiveness.

The Interface Matters

For load carriage, many of the most consequential design considerations exist at the interface between pieces of equipment.

A pack may have excellent load-transfer characteristics in isolation, but those characteristics are experienced through the equipment worn beneath it. Body armour affects where the pack sits and how it can be adjusted. Chest rigs and other immediate-use equipment influence access and available space. Communications equipment introduces requirements for batteries, cables and antenna routing. Hydration systems, medical equipment and mission-specific stores all compete for physical space within the same overall configuration.

None of this necessarily represents a deficiency in any individual item. It is a consequence of the relationship between them.

The interface is therefore where equipment design meets operational reality.

This is particularly relevant when new capabilities are introduced into an existing equipment ecosystem. The soldier rarely receives an entirely new system in which every component has been developed simultaneously. More often, new equipment has to coexist with equipment already in service, while different roles and tasks require different configurations.

The resulting system needs to accommodate change without becoming unnecessarily complicated.

Configuration Rather Than a Fixed Load

There is no single load that represents every operational requirement. The equipment required for a short task will differ from that required for an extended patrol, while environmental conditions, role and mission profile introduce further variables. The availability of vehicles, resupply and supporting infrastructure can also affect what needs to be carried at individual level.

Adaptability is consequently an important characteristic of load carriage.

Modularity has a role here, but modularity is not simply a matter of providing more attachment points. The purpose is to allow a configuration to change while retaining a coherent relationship between the equipment being carried. Frequently required items need to remain accessible. The load needs to remain stable as its contents change. Additional equipment should be accommodated without unnecessarily compromising movement or the equipment already in use.

More capacity is not automatically a better solution, nor is unlimited modularity. Every additional item becomes part of the load that has to be organised, carried and managed.

The objective is to provide enough flexibility to establish an effective configuration for the task.

Beyond Weight

Weight remains an important consideration in any discussion of soldier load, but it is not the only measure that determines how a load performs.

Volume, distribution, stability and accessibility all have a bearing on the practical effectiveness of a configuration. A relatively light item can still be problematic if it occupies disproportionate space or interferes with the arrangement of equipment around it. Conversely, additional mass may be justified where the capability it provides has sufficient operational value.

The more useful question is therefore not simply how much a system weighs, but what capability is being delivered for the burden imposed.

This is where load carriage becomes an enabling capability in its own right. The pack does not generate the effect of a radio, sensor or weapon, but it allows those capabilities to be carried into the environment in which they are required. Its role is not merely to contain equipment; it is to support the way that equipment is transported, organised and employed.

Designing Military Load Carriage for the Complete System

This systems approach is reflected in the way KSFG Ltd develops its load carriage.

KSFG, the company resonsable for the design, manufacture & distribution of Karrimor SF load carriage equipment, describes its expertise in terms of understanding the relationship between the physical structure of the user and the load being carried, while also considering the environment in which the equipment will be used. Its stated design process considers weight distribution, integration with other equipment and the requirements of the particular application before a design is developed.

That approach is consistent with the wider evolution of military equipment. A pack cannot be considered entirely independently of the system into which it is introduced, because the requirements placed upon it are determined in part by everything else the user has to carry.

Karrimor SF's focus on military and law-enforcement load carriage has developed around that problem. KSFG works with defence and security organisations across a range of applications, from patrol and larger packs to specialist systems for communications, electronic countermeasures, medical and other mission-specific equipment. KSFG's current design process also places emphasis on prototype development, acceptance trials, materials and construction, with feedback from professional users informing continued development.

The significance of this is not simply that a backpack should be durable or comfortable. Those are prerequisites. The greater challenge is producing load carriage that remains effective as part of a wider equipment configuration and under the conditions for which it was intended.

That requires an understanding of the relationship between the user, the load and the equipment around it.

As military capability continues to develop, that relationship will become no less important. New technologies will continue to provide greater capability at individual and small-unit level. Some will reduce weight or volume; others will introduce new demands. Either way, every capability ultimately has to find a place within a system constrained by the individual carrying it.

For Karrimor SF, that is where load carriage begins: not with the question of how much a backpack can hold, but with an understanding of what the user needs to carry, how that load needs to work with the equipment around it, and what the complete system has to achieve.

The most effective load carriage is therefore not necessarily the equipment that performs best in isolation. It is equipment that continues to perform when the wider system is taken into account.