GORE

Crye to Develop New Camo Pattern for Australia

Last Fall, Australian Minister for Defence Materiel Jason Clare announced that they would be adopting MultiCam uniforms for their troops deploying to Afghanistan. He also made mention of a deal in the works with Crye Precision to develop an Australia specific derivative similar to what Crye did for the UK when they produced Multi Terrain Pattern (MTP).

According to Defence Materiel Organisation chief executive Dr Stephen Gumley, the first 5000 sets of the new MultiCam uniforms are being issued to troops in Afghanistan. Australian SF have been using MultiCam for several years but this is a first for conventional Australian troops who most recently had been trialling a uniform in the so-called DPMU pattern based on the distinct Auscam pattern but with Afghanistan specific coloring.

Earlier today, BRIG Mike Phelps (Director General, Integrated Soldier Systems Division, Land Systems Division, Defence Materiel Organisation) announced that they had issued contracts with Crye in the amount of $US4.7 million for a license to manufacture in Australia and $US3.1 million for Crye to develop a uniquely Australian camouflage pattern. He went on to add that the first prototypes should be available in five weeks.

Tags:

13 Responses to “Crye to Develop New Camo Pattern for Australia”

  1. Emm says:

    We’re not talking Multicam variant, are we? Something totally new, with different colors? Sounds interesting.

  2. Administrator says:

    No specifics have been reveals but my guess is that you will see the MultiCam color pallet.

  3. I’d be surprised if the colour palette wasn’t altered a little to suit the Australian terrain. Multicam has proven a very effective pattern for multiple terrain and foliage types, but orur current DPCUs suit the Australian bush very well. I’m working on a post on this at the moment (securityscholar.wordpress.com)

  4. I says:

    No ‘Mid Point’ cammies roll-out?

    What do you bet they do as they did with MTP, and get the Multicam colours but in the distinctive Aussie jellybean pattern?

  5. GMK says:

    DPMU failed the trial. It was an absolute disaster for concealment, especially when observed through NVG.

  6. A.Lentz says:

    i have absolute faith that DMO will shaft us on this , get the pattern wrong get it in the wrong sizes and then pay through the nose for it… Defence department in Australia is a joke. the only thing we have to be proud of is the actual soldiers that seem to be able to continue doing great deeds despite the government taking every opportunity it can find to disown, discard, demoralise and neglect our fighting men.

  7. Johnny B says:

    How multi Multicam if everyone needs a variant?

  8. Bung says:

    DPMU never got enough development time (3 months) or a proper field trial. If Crye intend to submit a recognizably ‘Australian’ pattern, they will have to introduce their colours into the DPCU pattern, and slip their gradient colours between the DPCU pattern layers. About two hours work in photoshop, for which they will charge 3.1 million dollars! Any other pattern will be another MTP, which you will only recognize close-up, when it is way too late. If all versions look the same at normal distances, we have a problem. It is no wonder so many nations, including the US, are moving away from Crye. The only market to benefit here is the ‘trend’ driven commercial market, from which even the Taliban can get fitted out in Crye multicam.

  9. Johnny B says:

    I agree with you, Bung. If the color palette for all Crye MultiVariants remains the same, the overall concept of blending some color edges while remaining fixed with others remains the same, but the shape of those color patts changes slightly – what’s the real point? It serves only to give consumers – be they nations or persons – different patterns to call their own. If the eye ‘sees’ them all the same then I see no point. Here’s the thing: the only way to really ‘notice’ the differences is by recognizing and examining the garments. The goal of camouflage is NOT to have this type of examination happen. So why? Good camo is good camo. Unless you airsoft – than some camo is way cooler.

  10. Administrator says:

    Uniforms are used to identify a member of a group. Branding a very important issue for a nation state (or an individual service within a country).

    There is plenty of room for a pattern to be effective yet distinct.

    Don’t be hatin’.

  11. Bung says:

    Branding for ID purposes is important, but if Crye develop a pattern that does not have the ‘large majority’ look of the original multicam pattern, then it cannot be traded as Crye Multicam. This would be the reason that there are only subtle identifiers in the Brittish MTP. DPM in Crye’s colours will still be DPM. The same goes for DPCU in the multicam colours. Crye cannot hold IP to the colours alone as they occur in nature and it is reasonable that would be used by other developers, who came to them by natural conclusion. Crye can only protect the colours if used in conjunction with their proprietary pattern, the small homage to DPM in the MTP. If Crye were to use those colours in DPCU, they would need permission from the IP holder (Australian Defence) otherwise Crye would need to develop an entirely new pattern, that did not look like DPCU or multicam. One jellybean blob that cannot be discerned more than five meters away, will not make a Distinctly Australian pattern. And let’s be honest, unless the cam pattern looks totally different, soldiers will identify by weapon and equipment silhouettes as we have done for many years. The really big news in this is that local developers have been ignored in favor of a placation exercise, based on a report by the SASR that they use it and they think it’s good. None of what has been done with multicam or the midpoint pattern meet any of the UN criteria for trial of a camouflage pattern. I am sure that in a few years, this will be investigated as another watse of funds by Defence.

  12. Johnny B says:

    I understand branding and it’s importance, dont get me wrong, but what Bung says is valid. Using his example, DPM in Crye colors is still DPM. And branding should not be put ahead of effect.