ADS

US Army Camouflage Improvement Effort Update – US Army Awards Contract to Crye for OCP – MultiCam Is Now Your Principle Camo Pattern

Recently, we surmised that the US Army was going to abandon the Camouflage Improvement Effort and adopt the current issue Operation Enduring Freedom Camouflage Pattern (OCP) known commercially as MultiCam and worn by troops serving in Afghanistan. According to the Justification and Approval (J&A) published yesterday by the Army Contracting Command on Fed Biz Opps, a contract was in fact awarded to Crye Associates on September 24th, 2013 for a license for OCP. Furthermore, according to details in the J&A, OCP will be the Army’s principle camouflage pattern for the “…” Unfortunately, the PDF left out a few key details like what OCP actually will be used for. But, based on what I am hearing, it’s for all US Army, regardless of unit of assignment or operating location. Meaning…goodbye UCP, hello OCP.

20131012-073957.jpg

I’ll add additional credence to my assertion that this is the Army camouflage by citing paragraph 8 of the J&A.

20131012-074335.jpg

While the J&A discloses that a license was contracted we still have no DoD contract notice to determine the exact value of the contract. However, we do know, based on the J&A that the value is somewhere between $150,000 and $650,000 which is much lower than the street value of this contract. But the exact estimated value has been redacted in the online announcement. Currently, no contracts award notices are being issued by DoD due to the shutdown so this is odd that a notice was not issued in September. I am quite interested in seeking what the Army paid for the license as they were getting three patterns (that the Army insisted in needed for readiness) for a song under the Phase IV contract. By licensing OCP, the Army (and by extension DoD) gets just one, albeit true, universal pattern.

20131012-072122.jpg

At this point, the Army has not announced the cancellation of the Camouflage Improvement Effort but based on this information, I’d say that the fat lady is backstage warming up. They all but tell the four finalist vendors for Phase IV, that is over as they’ve chosen an alternate course of action.

So not with a roar, but a whimper, the US Army announces their new camouflage pattern. Let the run on everything MultiCam begin!

Update: A couple of points here. This COA means the Army will not be purchasing rights to a family of patterns. Although, I’ve never been a fan of the multiple pattern requirement because it’s a logistical nightmare. Additionally, the Phase IV finalists haven’t been notified one way or another. The Army had no issue with halting the Individual Carbine program so I’m not sure what the hesitation is here. All of the companies have stiff armed multiple opportunities to sell their patterns to other customers pending the Army’s decision so this is costing them money. However, do not expect to see some of these finalist patterns available commercially for a variety of reasons. There are many in industry watching what the Army is doing here and taking cues about participation in future programs.

Tags:

261 Responses to “US Army Camouflage Improvement Effort Update – US Army Awards Contract to Crye for OCP – MultiCam Is Now Your Principle Camo Pattern”

  1. Paralus says:

    So, Multicam:

    Not effective in arid regions…too dark
    Not effective in temperate areas….too light.

    Only excels in semi-arid/transition areas. The original program that led to OCP proved that already.

    In other words this decision is just as dumb as UCP.

    It’s a rushed, half-assed compromise that only works in certain climates.

    good Christ, could Big Army have f***ed this up anymore? They had a f***ing R&D program to tell those brain-dead asshats what actually worked best and instead of picking a family of patterns that works, they compromise and get something that doesn’t work in half of the world.

    wankers

    • Tech1 says:

      Really guy??

      Jeezus… everyone bitches about ACU’s (with good reason) and 9 out of 10 grunts prefer and ask for multicam, now we get it, and you bitch about it.

      Lincoln was right… please some of the people, some of the time….

      • Kevin V. says:

        .
        If 11B is not bitching then 11B is not happy.
        .

      • Greg says:

        It’s simple. You will need a greener and lighter version of Multicam if you want to get through deployment in Korea, Europe or South America. The current version of OCP works well ONLY in Central Asia, and not that effectively anywhere else! The “one size fits all” is happening again as it did when you guys got stuck with UCP. So if you like multicam. You will love woodland and desert variations of it.

        Ask yourself this. Would you wear current multicam on a snow covered battlefield? No. You would wear a much whiter version of it. The same goes for places with far more green than iraq, and more tan than korea. That was one of the reasons for the C.I.E. Tech1.

        There is no doubt that Multicam is way more effective than UCP by a mile. The point being, is how well it should actually work in places besides just Afghanistan.

        • travis says:

          you want a lighter version…wear em in the field about a day and then wash them… guaranteed lighter.

          • Greg says:

            Lol. You can wear and wash a typical set of OCP/Multicam coat and trousers 100 times and they still won’t work effectively in another place besides Wackystan.

            • Gary says:

              The comment about it not working in South America is basically wrong. I’ve worn it in South American jungles and it performs better than woodland, woodland MARPAT, and definitely better than ACU. Finally a smart decision by BIG ARMY.

      • Paralus says:

        Yeah, ‘guy’, really, it isn’t about what grunts want or if Multicam looks cool, it’s about what works best.

        Multicam is being shoehorned into the same role UCP was. There is no indication that they selected the Crye family of patterns, all it says is they selected Multicam. So, Multicam is going to be used for Desert, Woodland/Jungle and everything in between….even if it doesn’t work very well in anything besides a semi-arid/rocky environment.

        If they had released the study and the study stated the Crye family was indeed the best, I’d be fine with that. But that isn’t what Big Army is doing. What this indicates is that the new pattern is going to be Multicam….and only Multicam. Which really means they are shitcanning the camouflage replacement testing and doing something that is popular, but not necessarily the best.

        • That Guy says:

          Ok, let me break that down for you. Most of us don’t care what looks cool or is the newest fad in the camouflage industry. We care about what actually hides us from prying eyes. So yeah, in that respect, though it is often not true, it kinda does matter what the Grunts want since we’re the ones who have to fight the enemy in the bush in it.

          • Paralus says:

            I’m not talking about an obvious aversion to being spotted and shot at, I’m talking about whether soldiers favor a certain camo pattern for aesthetic reasons rather than for pragmatic reasons i.e. not being see and therefor not being shot at by the enemy.

          • SSD says:

            You are absolutely right. And by that argument should insist on the best performing camouflage. Not something that is the path of least resistance.

      • Sal says:

        Everyone’s bitching since the Army (as well as industry) spent time and resources developing camo that is significantly better…only to shitcan the whole program.

        If they wanted multicam service-wide, then they should have done it back in 2010. Instead, they jerked industry around for three years, and the soldiers will be the ones paying for it.

        • USMColddawg says:

          Logistical nightmare? Please, the Marines do well with multiple patterns. Yes, OCP was a good temporary solution and US4CES seemed to be the real winner due to overall testing. Greasing the wheel….

          • Mac says:

            “US4CES seemed to be the real winner due to overall testing”

            Proof? Have you seen the test results?

            I enjoed Guy’s articles too, but I don’t take them as valid test result data. I do remember SSD saying that all the patterns performed similarly, except in one test where one family of patterns stood out in performance, it was the one chosen. I’m guessing that test was compatibility with Multicam (and I could see that as a cost saving measure since we’re already producing our TA50 in it). I don’t see that as a predetermined winner, albeit, it is a potential bias towards Crye, but Crye could have submitted with a completely different geometry too.

            • SSD says:

              That factor was not compatibility with OCP and that test was added after the down select because the Army wanted to see how these patterns would perform with existing PPE. That stuff is going to be around for awhile on OCP as well as UCP.

        • JBAR says:

          That would have been at a time where it would have been a significant egg in the face for the Army and those who chose UCP over all-Over-Brush.

        • straps says:

          1. Marines struggle with multiple patterns. Seen it happen. Plenty of gear for the ‘stan, which would be AWESOME for some of the other areas they work–where it’s the wrong color–so it stays packed.

          2. 230K Marines vs. over a million Army. Different logistical scale.

          But I envy you for having gotten it right the first time.

          • jarhead11 says:

            Marines don’t struggle. We have the best uniforms and thats a fact. There’s either desert, tropics or artic environments. We have all 3 camos without the Armys budget for only 1. More with less. The Army fucked up again. Don’t get me wrong, we’re all brothers and I like the Army, but their logistical bullshit is over the roof.

    • I put this news out about Multicam in a video MONTHS ago and no one seemed to believe me…
      Multicam does have serious weaknesses. That’s why man invented A-TACS AU and FG.

      A-TACS patterns are perfect in their own environments

      SEE SOME PICS HERE and CLICK TO BUY
      http://sssa-tacs.blogspot.com/2011/05/tacs-vs-arid-environment.html

    • Mac says:

      Could it be that he also realizes that we could have something better and the Army basically half assed the decision?

      It’s a step up from UCP, yes, but it’s also a decision that they spent 4 years and millions more to come up with, when they could have made this change anywhere in the last 10 years but especially when Multicam became OCP.

      -Mac
      A grunt

    • smoking gun says:

      Multicam was developed with the SOF in mind, and their input to make what Multicam is today… that was in 2005-6, the combat shirt was in place about the same time. The people at Nantick did there testing on the Multicam and other camo patterns and was surprised then that Multicam was not selected. The Multicam pattern did very well in many types of environments, backgrounds, and lighting. The one big complaint is that the Marines digicams were developed by the Army, and scraped by the Army. The cost to the Marines getting their new uniforms was at a major discount (did not pay for R&D). An issue that is overlooked is that patterns seen through the eyes of NODS are way different, so keep that in mind. The other issue with new all Camo in the eyes of people is that some patterns are way ahead of their time. The Army scraped digital before the gains could be realized, and the Marines capitalized on this mistake. The Army shot down Multicam to adopt UCP, just to realize that this was a mistake. The special wash detergent instruction should have put a halt to the UPC.

  2. Anthony Paez says:

    Just digitize/pix-elate the blotches and keep the shaoes and colors of the Multicam….digital Multicam uniform and you’re done.

    • Greg says:

      I think that was some kind of experimental SOCOM camo. It’s already been done.

    • Henry says:

      multicam is a dated pattern so pixilating some elements in it will not improve it much.

      but to comment on other patterns which were not i the trials are off topic, especially those that exist only in one person’s head.

  3. ATACORION says:

    Paralus sounds like somebody who has never worn MC in any environment. Ive worn it in A-stan, Africa, and All over the Continental US, and it straight up beats out any other pattern on the market, except MArpat Desert Digital in Desert regions, throw any amount of vegetation into the mix and MC excels.

    About a Year ago Recoil Magazine did an Article on MC and how it works with the eyes and brain, or rather tricks them. I suggest you read it.

    I for one am glad the Army and Military in general have done something right for their people as rare as it is these days. now if we can just improve soldier marksmanship and weapons manipulation and issue some proper slings for rifles that would also be a huge step in the right direction.

    • Paralus says:

      Paralus doesn’t need to wear MC to see it doesn’t work in woodland/jungle or desert. So it works great at Fort Hood or Afghanistan, what about Panama? What about Kuwait? what about South Korea?

      For certain environs, Multicam is great, but it is hardly ideal for all environs, hence the stupidity of selecting it and dismissing the Phase IV tests. That’s the same the mistake they made when they selected UCP as a pattern. Granted MC works better than UCP in more environs, but it falls short in woodland/jungle and desert. It’s why there was a Camo Improvement Program.

      If Big Army just pulled its head out of its ass and followed the science, they could have the best camouflage in the world.

    • Mac says:

      And a friend from 7th Group has told me Multicam doesn’t work well in jungle… I’m gonna take a stab in the dark and say the same applies to other heavily green environments either.

      It’s an improvement, yes, but a dated one when better is available.

      Notice by your own argument you said MC loses to Desert MARPAT in arid environs, you just proved the argument behind environmental specific patterns and why we were looking for 3 patterns instead of 1.

      • SSD says:

        There is a reason that they continue to use classic Woodland.

        I don’t see OCP as horrible, but it’s not tuned for that environment.

  4. JBAR says:

    What happened to All-Over-Brush? It beat Multicam initially, correct? Was it thrown out because it ended up looking the the British DPM?

    • Paralus says:

      Didn’t make the grade:

      “Initially the Government was looking to put two of it’s own families in the finals against three industry submissions but the Army decided after the initial 2011 Phase IV testing to only put one family forward. I would expect it was the All-Over-Brush pattern (also known as Multibrush and a Desert coloration Version known as Desert Brush), as Natick testing showed Desert Brush was beat(sic) Desert MARPAT in Desert Environments in their first test and then was beat by AOR-1 in the second test, so as good as it was, it was not good enough. Multibrush tied with AOR-2 in Mountain Environments in 4th place being beaten by Multicam, Universal-AOR and Woodland Scorpion. If the early Phase IV testing confirmed these results then the Brush pattern did not meet the baseline requirements to move forward. Thus one of the industry families made it into the finals due to the Army pulling one submission out at that time. ”

      http://www.hyperstealth.com/scorpion/

  5. moped1967 says:

    Quick question I haven’t read or seen asked here yet … On the original fedbiz doc, It states the funding source would come from ” Other: Research, Dev, test and eval.” If this really is a end all step to overall adoption, would it really come from R&D funds rather than Operational (OMA) funds? I would think that something as big as an army wide adoption, even the rights to use it, would come out the operational “need it” funds. Just a thought.

    • SSD says:

      The contract that this J&A pertains to is for a LICENSE not the gazillion uniforms and OCIE that will be purchased in OCP.

      RDT&E funds are a great fit for this. In this resource constrained environment you use what you’ve got. There’s no stretch here.

  6. 51C says:

    Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched…I write these contracts everyday. There is a reason J&A’s are redacted before they are posted on FBO. Just like there’s a reason the Army is using the color of money that they are for this project. If I were you, I wouldn’t go around telling everybody to buy up all your multicams stuff just yet, that is, if the J&A is all you have to go by. That is but one of hundreds of documents involved in the contract And doesn’t tell the whole story. Sorry for the flame post, but someone who posts a blurb about market research and another blurb about competitive actions from a J&A they found on FBO then goes on to tell a story about something they really have no idea about really irks me. I do, however, know these contracts and your article is way off with your opinion about the use of camo. Respect the legal process as it pertains to contracting.

    • SSD says:

      This is great. Since you are familiar with this contract, tell us. What is the Army’s plan? If they are still going to execute the Phase IV Camouflage Improvement Effort, why did they just purchase a license for OCP that they won’t need?

      By the way, if you read the entire article and follow the links to the other, recent posts on this subject you’d realize that this J&A is yet another piece to this puzzle.

  7. m5 says:

    What a f*ck up, the Army never ceases to amaze.

    Crye’s pattern, which was later dubbed Multicam, finished third out of four in the U.S. Army universal camouflage trials in 2002-2004. Of course, the Army chose none of the camo patterns trialled, but UCP, which, arguably, was probably worse than any of the four.

    This time we don’t know (yet?) how Crye’s pattern(s) did in the current Army camouflage improvement effort. Pretty well, obviously, as it made it into the four finalists. But what we do know is that the Army is repeating history, dismissing the results of its study – this time the most elaborate camo study ever – and adopting another pattern, in this case OCP (=Multicam, which is rumoured to be close to the transitional pattern of Crye in the trials).

    Using a transtional (or ‘universal’ or ‘multi’) pattern for environments ranging from desert to jungle, is necessarily a compromise. And a bad one, as non-optimal camo is paid for in blood.

    Sure, there are places, where a compromise pattern is good. Places, where the environment is highly variable, or just semi-arid, where transitional isn’t a compromise at all.

    Motivating the choice of a universal pattern on the simpler logistics is moot. With the best logistics around, the US Army can manage multiple patterns. As can other armies, with much lesser resources. And so can the USMC.

    Why the hell has the US Army settle on a compromise, again?

  8. Peter Russell says:

    In the UK we all thought that the introduction of Personal Clothing System Combat Uniform (PCSCU) in MTP was mad for the European theatre of operations, but it turns out that it works very well. DPM, by contrast, now looks really obvious in most day-time European areas, only being slightly better than MTP in really dark conditions. Camouflage will always be a compromise between needs and cash!

    • Bman says:

      Good to get your perspective. I thought it was silly deeply tan/brown colored camo pattern a country with very green features. Perhaps if DPM used the lighter brown in MTP as well as the white slugs and the pattern itself was based on the multicam, I think it would be really good. As it is, DPM is a really effective camo pattern.

      • Norbis says:

        I have always been impressed with brown based camo in the woods. Soldiers are on the ground with mud, sticks, dead foliage, logs, bases of trees, rocks etc. All the commercial hunting patters are largly shades of browns with splashes of green. When you see the camo clothing section at a sporting goods store from a distance; all the equipment looks like shades of browns. Most sniper ghillie suits are made from brown shaded materials with some vegitation sprinkled in here and there.

        • JBAR says:

          Totally agree Norbis. Not too many green rabbits and deer wandering around. Nature knows best.

  9. DatGuy says:

    The US military is always about 5 years behind the commercial trend of CAMO products. 5 Years ago the commercial side was having multiple orgasms over Multicam. Don’t get me wrong, I love the stuff. However; I do see some other products out there showing promise, perhaps more than Multicam. I personally am a fan of Mirage and A-TACS. I know people have their own opinion so me even saying what I like is going to start a crazy argument and people will tell me I’m ignorant and blah blah. I like what I like. Now when It comes to the army, they have to like what suits their needs, what they hear back from Ops groups, and yes…money. I think Multicam is a fantastic upgrade from AC…CU…AP…UCP what ever they are calling it now adays. It might not be where we want to be, but it has been in use and it’s still a step up.

    Oh, and there’s a little factor that I think influences their choices. The US is in the buisness of looking like “The good guys”. Ever since WWI our troops have looked advanced yet friendly at the same time. Our weapons, uniforms, even our tanks and plans look like “Good guys”. Now we could go the other route like Germany who always looks like they are going to stab you or electrocute you with any number of aggressive intense accessory items! :)

    • SSD says:

      Prior to the war there wasn’t a “commercial” trend for camouflage.

    • Paralus says:

      Even if your premise was true, there is no need to be five years behind if they followed the actual Phase IV results. Those tests have patterns that would be the state of the art, so to speak. They could leapfrog from UCP, over MC and into to whatever pattern was objectively shown to be best.

      • DatGuy says:

        The 5 years behind is refering to when one of these evaluations begin, they have entries. The EVAL goes on for so long that better developments are made and new patterns are created, but since there are no new entries they have to test the patterns that started the EVAL. Basically, after a very long and undoubtedly technical EVAL is completed, they don’t have the most cutting edge patterns that they are allowed to pick from.

        I was just saying that during the time of the EVAL, more patterns come out that people latch onto and have opinions about and are then upset when those aren’t picked.

  10. 32sbct says:

    Well Multcam my not be perfect but it far better then what we have. Also I think everyone is forgetting about the recently passed defense appropriations bill specifying a common uniform by 2018. It also states “The amendment restricts the creation of any further camouflage patterns for combat uniforms unless the intention is to share it.” So here is what I think happened. The Army was stuck between sticking with UCP or picking something that they already had. So in order to avoid getting slapped by congress for trying to introduce another new pattern, they picked the only other uniform they already had in production – multicam. Just my opinion of course. I think multicam is too light and fades too fast. But I’ll finish as I started…anything is better than the current UCP. I just hope this transition does not take forever.

    • Sal says:

      1) the 2014 NDAA (including the Enyart Amendment) has not yet been passed by the Senate

      2) The Army isn’t the USMC. I doubt if the other services wanted to use the pattern they’d throw a bitchfit. In fact, that would be fantastic if the Enyart Amendment is signed into law.

    • SSD says:

      All they had to do was adopt the new Phase IV pattern before 1 October. The Army has been dick dancing around for a year. Although the 2014 NDAA is not yet law, it will most likely contain “Camo” language and would take effect 1 Oct retroactively.

      • Sal says:

        At this point I’m tempted to wish that Hagel cleans house with the senior brass of all branches. The incompetence and stupidity demonstrated over the years is astounding :(

      • JBAR says:

        Perhaps the same people who authorized UCP from out of thin air have returned and have held up the Phase IV results.

  11. 32sbct says:

    One other item. A big thanks to Soldier Systems for keeping us up to date with what is happening through the whole process. Without these updates we would know nothing. Great job!

  12. BobTheBuilder says:

    SSD you usually have all the answers that make sense, any speculation as to a time frame, could be a very short one considering the uniform is already printed, and half of us have them?

  13. Mike79ger says:

    Is MC the right solution? Well, the Army is already equiped with MC and US government is short on money. Currently the us military is operating in terrains, where MC works better than UCP, woodland or DCU. Temporary it is the right solution. I don’t understand why Marines and Army needs different patterns? I really liked the US4CES patterns. What happened to them?

    Choosing an universal pattern is always a problem! My only real experience with camo is from playing Softair (Big respect to all of you doing the real fighting). Im from central europe and was surprised that MC is working great even in forrests! I saw woodland or green marpat working perfectly in one place, ten meters away MC is nearly invisible.
    The problem is that a pattern works only if you know how to use it. Ok, UCP is not working at all.
    What about adding paint? Putting some green on MC if you are operating in “green” terrain?

  14. JohnB says:

    “There are many in industry watching what the Army is doing here and taking cues about participation in future programs.”

    One wonders if this was the whole point of the exercise?

    • SSD says:

      To turn companies off from supporting the military?

      • JohnB says:

        To turn companies off from competing with the Army’s in house developers. The Army will tell industry what the Troops need, do not develop any thing that competes with our perfect designs.

        Remember Multicam is very similar to the camo pattern developed before UCP. But then Sensicki (sp?) said DIGITAL and UNIVERSAL, and then there was UCP. If I remember the development slide show, lots of slides resulting in multicam and then a blank slide followed by UCP.

  15. That Guy says:

    I give up. Everybody else on here is obviously much smarter and more experienced in the current operating environment than I and I should never have dared voice my humble opinion in the company of such giants. I do, however, have just one question for such esteemed, learned scholars: If all of those other patterns are so much better than OCP, and the top of the line SOF units can purchase off-the-shelf as needed in order to ensure that they always have the best equipment with which to accomplish their missions – then why, oh why, are they ALL still wearing second-rate OCP to the man? Now, I’m not one of these guys, but I do have eyes. Please, enlighten me, oh ye gods of Olympus. If they went to OCP because UCP obviously sucked, and the DCUs just weren’t good enough, why are they still wearing the OCP now?

    • Doc Rob A says:

      Thank you, if its good enough for them, then it should be good enough for the rest of us. Though this is yet another complete waste of moving conducting a study for no reason, but at least its a step in the right direciton, however a step too many years later.

    • Paralus says:

      Hey, don’t take it personally. It’s a discussion thread and we’re trying to hash out issues. No need to make it nasty or ridicule others.

      To answer your question: where are the SOF units that purchase MC operating? If they are in Afghanistan, then it only makes sense to wear MC in that environ since it works very well. Plus, many non-US SOF and non-SF forces are adopting MC or MC color pallet (e.g. Brits MTP, Danes, Aussies, Kiwis) for use there. MC is becoming a standard in Afghanistan.

      But, that isn’t to say that all SF units only wear MC. And as it as has been alluded to in this thread, MC isn’t suitable in woodland/jungle or in deserts as other patterns might be.

  16. SSG Wolf says:

    there is always the possibility that there is more to come. maybe they are going to introduce the regional paterns as the need arises or over time who knows our bosses in DC work in mysterious ways

    • SSD says:

      They may, but if they purchase any of them without concluding phase IV then they open themselves up to litigation. They can’t touch any of those area patterns without awarding a contract.

  17. Wayne says:

    Has anyone realized that we have never won a war wearing camouflage? Sure Greneda (not a war), Panama (not a war), Gulf War One (ok, I will give you that one, but 100 hours….really?), GWOT….. one out of four means it doesn’t really matter what we wear. The old OG’s were good, UCP not so good, BDU’s good, OCP better than UCP. But in the end the issue is we need to relearn how to win wars, not be fashionable. Lets focus on what is important.

  18. Mick says:

    Well, if I could snap my fingers…

    The army would pick the winner, which SSD previously reported is the MultiCam variant family.

    Then, they’d say “Oh yeah, Old School, Afghan War Multicam? That counts as transitional until those stocks are expelled.”

    That way, a bunch of multicam uniforms and TA50 is available out of the gate, adn then, through attrition, just replace it with the new Crye transition. SOme units would bitch and absolutely want everyone int eh same camo right away, but the guard and reserves (which I’m a member of) can use that older stuff for a generation before it needs to get replaced, so we’d be good.

    That way:
    -Most advanced, helpful and flexible family of camouflage patterns
    -Fiscally responsible way to do it, using existing hardwear and stuff already in stock and supply chain.

    It seems like a common sense, logical solution to me.
    But then, maybe that’s why I’m not riding a desk at the pentagon…

    Mick.

  19. Redleg says:

    SSD – first, thank you for all of your work not only on this topic but all of the information on this website that gives great insight to the common war fighter without inside industry knowledge.

    I cannot help but think this decision is financial based on the significant possibility of full sequestration effects. Thoughts?

    • Sal says:

      IMO the sequestration argument is a cop out by Army. The cost of camo is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Hell, one F-35A could pay for multiple sets of clothing and PPE for every single member in all branches.

  20. C GOOKIN says:

    Any chance when an announcement is expected…?

    Keep up the good work.

    V/R

  21. marine guy says:

    the army got this right! multicam does great in just about any environment especially the middle east and we all know we will be in some kind of war in the middle east till the end of time.

    anywhere with dirt rocks or trees multicam blends in.

    the chances of us fighting a war in the tropics or the snow are very slim and if we do they will give us a temporary uniform for the situation.

    if the army really does change to multicam it should be the last camo change forever. hopefully they get rid of the Velcro crap too.

    So every branch should get used to mulitcam because the air force and navy will probly adopt it too since there ground troops also where it while deployed. supposedly every branch has to have same uniform by 2018

    marine corps is smallest branch with no money to argue so say goodbye to marpat

  22. Jim says:

    Can you include quotes, comment on your sources or provide links so that readers can verify the statements made in your blog with regard to this subject?

    • SSD says:

      The only reason you would need that is if you are a reporter and have no knowledge of this subject.

  23. Joe says:

    Glad to see the Army seemingly backpedaling from a decision that made sense 2 years ago (or 10 for that matter), but not with results in hand. The successful operational use of Multicam is impressive, and if Crye’s submission is chosen based on data that stands up to scrutiny, by all means select it. However, based only on open-source data, Guy Cramer/ADS has my full and undivided support. I feel Guy has made a strong argument for his product, especially when compared to other camouflages through night vision. My theory is that Crye could have bested US4CES by by using more than 4 colors (think Dick Tracy’s palette vs. a modern comic in full color), and by using colors/inks that address Multicam’s IR deficiencies. That said, if they follow the modern Army tradition of uniform excellence that includes Shinseki’s Beret, crotch-blowing ACU’s, “hook-loop”, UCP, the ASU, “digital” PT jacket (LMAO), sunlight/heat-absorbing new black PT’s…

  24. simon says:

    Since we are moving our attention our pivot to East Asia instead of the middle east… Shouldnt we be getting camos greener instead of sandy like? Its actually clear if you look at the camos of Asian countries,they all look nearly the same, all works for jungle area!
    Dont get me wrong, OCP is good camo for middle east countries…but simply not a good camo for east asian countries!

  25. Coltdogg says:

    No camouflage can be a universal pattern, impossible! However without question the kryptek patterns i.e. highlander, mandrake, etc work absolutely amazing, I have been stepped on by a mule deer in wyoming wearing kryptek I dont know who was more scared me or the muley, he was clueless I shot him with my colt 1911, never have I sern camo work that good I was a big fan of multicam back in 1997, come on army there is way better out there than multicam, I like crye and if they can tweak multicam a little I really ant to see it,

  26. DBACK says:

    What’s funny is that by 2017 it’s a possibility that none of this will matter. All armed forces…and you all know this is probably going to go down…will be going to a single uniform (or at least a single similar pattern) DC is trying to cut back on as much as possible…what’s one thing that congress can cut back on? The amount of money spent on “camo testing” and camo production. All this is crazy…all the hype, how much money was put into this for a “New” camo…it’s because they have so much of this crap already….that by 2017 they might actually put it to good use by then. I’m just saying what I’m hearing and what I’m thinking.

  27. DAN III says:

    Should have stuck with the Vietnam jungle fatigue. Then again that wouldn’t have been politically correct and a lot of retired flag officers wouldn’t have gotten rich.

    • Gary says:

      You are so correct. When I came into the Army we were still being allowed to wear the od green jungle fatigues. Great uniform on and off the field. Sturdy, dried quickly, inexpensive, and actually looked good in garrison when worn properly. 8 bucks a set back then. And it was more “universal” than UCP. In my 27 years in the Army, from the back 40 of Ft Campbell to the Jungle Operations Training Center in Panama, the best field uniform I was ever issued.

  28. Why?

    1. Cost, Multicam (MC) is already in the system.
    2. Commonality, our partners, GB and Australia have already got on the MC bandwagon.
    3. It doesn’t affect SF elements. SF will never conform to standard unit SOP. They already dumped MC in Afghanistan and use other camos so they do not look like standard Army elements
    4. We will likely have a big multi-service competition prior to the 2018 uniform camo push, where the technology will be drastically improved by then.
    5. MC is not universal, but a big improvement over our ACUs.
    6. Most Soldiers know nothing about the camo improvement effort or the result. Everyone knows MC and asks for it, not what scored best.

    Who knows, maybe they will have a woodland and dessert variant offered eventually. Or better yet, allow Commanders to bring back the old BDU for Korea, Europe and tropical environments.

    As a Soldier that uses camo downrange, this has been driving me nutts for years. I am checking your updates often. You can’t expect the Army to keep us posted on things like this, unless its the next social experiment being forced upon us.

    Thanks again SSD for keeping us informed!

  29. Lola Lacy says:

    Why do you all bitch so much. Does it really matter what you wear as long as YOU get the job done. You bunch of babies. Shut up, suck it up, and focus on doing your job.

    SSG Lacy

  30. I deployed all over the world for over 20 years in the active army. not one camouflage has really matched my arm chairs or any of yours.