Congress « Soldier Systems

Archive for the ‘Congress’ Category

Update on the Congressional Fascination with Camo

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

Last year we reported that in addition to the Congressionally mandated search for a new camo pattern for Afghanistan, they were also going to add language to the Defense Authorization Act for 2010 that would require the services to begin to work toward a common camouflage pattern as well as combat uniform. That requirement is now section 352 of Public Law 111–84. Last week, the Government Accounting Office released the report below as an interim response.

GAO Report: Observations on DoD’s Ground Combat Uniforms

Additionally, here are some recent comments from the House Armed Services Committee:

Ground combat uniform research and development Section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) established, as a policy of the United States, that the design and fielding of all future ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms of the armed forces may uniquely reflect the identity of the individual military services, provided that the ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms, to the maximum extent practicable:
(1) provide members of every military service an equivalent level of performance, functionality, and protection commensurate with their respective assigned combat missions;
(2) minimize risk to the individual soldier, sailor, airman, or marine operating in the joint battlespace; and
(3) provide interoperability with other components of individual war fighter systems, including body armor and other individual protective systems.

The committee notes that part of the rationale for section 352 of Public Law 111–84 was to reduce the multiple research, design, development, and fielding efforts for military ground combat uniforms being undertaken by the military departments and to improve the overall combat capability of those assigned to ground combat missions.

In an interim response to section 352 of Public Law 111–84, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found no performance standards for specific combat environments, no criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of camouflage patterns, and no requirements for the services to test interoperability between their uniforms and other protective gear. Furthermore, while GAO found some examples of uniform technology being shared across the services, the committee emphasizes the importance of sharing new technologies, advanced materials, and other advances in ground combat uniform design and development between the military services. The committee notes that some of the military departments have used the Army Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center during development of their ground combat uniforms to test the effectiveness of the camouflage, and, in some cases, camouflage effectiveness of ground combat uniforms and protective gear. The committee believes, however, that Natick’s resources could be better utilized for joint research and development. Because of its expertise, the committee urges the services to consider expanding their use of the Army Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center as a center of excellence for uniform research and development to guide their development of camouflage effectiveness and performance criteria and testing.

Additionally, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to consider designating an executive agent (EA) to oversee Department of Defense activities related to research and development of ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms. The committee envisions that such an EA would be similar to the functions performed by the executive agent for operation of the Department of Defense Combat Feeding Research and Engineering Program.

Overall, not a whole lot of shocking news here but lots of good costing data has been provided. However, check out the second bullet on slide 33 of the GAO document. A bit of a surprise there. Also, of interest is slide 45 which shows the new Navy Type II and III camo based on the AOR patterns.

Posted in Camo, Congress | No Comments »

Warrior Protection and Readiness Coalition Members to Brief Congress on Need for Warfighter Equipment

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

Members of the Warrior Protection and Readiness Coalition (WPRC) will meet this week with more than forty Congressional offices as part of their ongoing effort to educate Members and staff on Capitol Hill about the need to adequately fund Individual Equipment programs for America’s Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. This is an issue that is very dear to Soldier Systems Daily.

The WPRC is an industry-led coalition comprised of many of the leading manufacturers and suppliers of combat clothing and Individual Equipment for the American warfighter. The WPRC provides a unified voice for a key component of America’s domestic industrial base and is actively engaged in advocating for policies that ensure that our warfighters are outfitted with the clothing and equipment they require to ensure battlefield superiority. This week, the WPRC’s primary goal is to educate Congress and the Administration on the importance of meeting warfighter needs during times of war, as well as during times of relative peace.

Luke Hillier, the Chief Executive Officer of WPRC founding member ADS Inc., explained the WPRC’s mission, noting that “Operational readiness is not just a wartime concern. We need to make absolutely certain that when Congress stops providing supplemental appropriations to fund overseas conflict, our warfighters do not lose access to the best possible clothing and Individual Equipment available. Building the WPRC’s relationship with Congress is a critical step in raising awareness of the warfighters’ needs, and preventing a funding vacuum that our Armed Services and our country cannot afford.”

The founding members of the WPRC include ADS Inc., Darn Tough, Insight Technology, Integrated Wave Technologies, London Bridge Trading, Milliken, New Balance, Otis, Pelican, Sperian, Surefire, Wiley X and W. L. Gore. Additional leaders in the Individual Equipment industry are expected to join as this effort gains momentum. For more information on the Warrior Protection and Readiness Coalition please visit www.warriorprotection.net.

Tags: ADS, Warrior Protection and Readiness Coalition
Posted in ADS, Congress, Industry | No Comments »

MultiCam – Who Pays?

Monday, March 15th, 2010

The easy part is done. A camouflage pattern has been selected for use in Afghanistan in accordance with the wishes of Congress. The hard part has now begun. Specifications have to be prepared, contracts let, and new equipment fielded. All in rapid fashion if the Army is going to meet its own deadline this summer. Fielding of a new pattern won’t come cheap. According to COL William Cole, the Program Manager for Soldier Clothing and Individual Equipment at PEO-Soldier, thus far everything has been paid for with offsets meaning the money used to purchase FR ACUs in UCP will be used instead to procure MultiCam FR ACUs. Unfortunately, this won’t make up for everything. TA-50 such as MOLLE lasts a lot longer than uniform items. With over one million sets of MOLLE already fielded, equipment in MultiCam will have to be purchased.

U.S. Army photo by Spc. Albert L. Kelley, 300th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment

An additional issue, particularly for industry are ancillary items such as gloves, hats, and even the webbing tape on load bearing and armor systems. What color will it be? With the switch to UCP came Foliage Green. What color will the Army specify for use with MultiCam? PEO-Soldier officials have stated that they are still considering the issue but with the new Army Combat Shirt in MultiCam sporting a Coyote Brown torso, ~~chances are good that will be the accessory color~~ (UPDATE: It’s sounding like Tan 499 will make the cut). Additionally, industry is already producing a wide variety of raw materials and finished goods in Coyote for the Marine Corps, SOCOM, as well as the secondary market.

So where will the money to pay for all of this come from? The Army hasn’t prepared any reprogramming actions moving funds from one account to another to pay for this. And if it is forced to, where will those funds come from? PEO-Soldier’s portfolio? Will the Army be forced to rob Peter to pay Paul? If this ends up being the case, the Soldier loses either way. As I see it, it is Congress’s bill to pay. Congress asked for it, the Army complied, and they have the facts to back up their decision. The Army’s leadership should approach Congress with a funding request to field adequate amounts of clothing and individual equipment in MultiCam. Congress should happily appropriate these monies. In fact, if anything, it will leave a lasting legacy in honor of the man who got this ball rolling in the first place, the late John Murtha.

Posted in Camo, Clothing, Congress, Contracts, Multicam, PEO-Soldier | No Comments »

Rep. John Murtha Dead at 77

Monday, February 8th, 2010

Rep John Murtha U.S. Rep. John P Murtha from Pennsylvania’s 12th District died today of complications from gallbladder surgery at a Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, Va. He was 77.

An officer in the Marine Reserves, he became the first Vietnam War combat veteran elected to Congress in 1974. He served for two decades as the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Appropriations subcommittee where he was able to garner a great number of earmarks that attracted numerous defense contractors to his District.

Murtha joined the Marines in 1952 eventually serving as a drill instructor at Parris Island, S.C. After his discharge Murtha moved home to Johnstown, PA and remained with the Marine Reserves until he volunteered to go to Vietnam. There, he served as an intelligence officer there from 1966 to 1967 and received a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. In 1990, he retired from the Marine Reserves as a Colonel. Ironically, he later drew criticism from many service members for accusing Marines of murdering Iraqi civilians “in cold blood” at Haditha, Iraq in 2006.

His degree in Economics from the University of Pittsburgh earned in 1962 apparently came in handy. He barely survived the Abscam scandal by the skin of his teeth and for some reason campaign contributors seemed to regularly enjoy healthy earmarks.

During the Abscam corruption probe the FBI caught him on videotape in a 1980 sting operation turning down a $50,000 bribe offer while holding out the possibility that he might take money in the future. “We do business for a while, maybe I’ll be interested and maybe I won’t,” Murtha said on the tape. In the Government’s case six Congressmen and one Senator were convicted. Although he was not charged, he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator and he testified against two other Congressmen.

However, his involvement with the lobbying firm specializing in defense contractors, the PMA Group has garnered his most recent attention. During 2007 and 2008, Murtha and two fellow Democrats on the appropriations subcommittee directed $137 million to defense contractors who were paying PMA to get them government business. Between 1989 and 2009, Murtha received more than $2.3 million in campaign contributions from PMA’s lobbyists and corporate clients, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Shortly after the 2008 election, the FBI raided PMA’s offices as part of a criminal investigation but Murtha himself has now escaped any investigations into wrongdoing.

Many of my readers will recall that Murtha is behind the current Afghanistan Camouflage testing being conducted by the Army. After speaking with several Army NCOs he challenged the Army to investigate more effective camo patterns for use in Afghanistan. The Army was supposed to have rendered a decision by now but it has been inexplicably delayed.

Rep Murtha will be remembered as much for his service as his challenged sense of ethics. I wonder how his passing will effect the defense contractors in his district.

Posted in Congress | No Comments »

The Plastic Rucksack Letter

Sunday, December 27th, 2009

This letter is priceless. Take a moment to read through it.

Letter to SefDef

It seems as though members of Congress have taken to talking to any old yahoo they can round up when they are on “fact finding” trips to exotic locales. It doesn’t seem to matter if any of what said yahoo complains about makes any sense.

Nothing like talking to GIs who have no idea what they are talking about. Of course the Soldiers were referring to the MOLLE rucksack. Somehow, the “plastic” frame is now an entire rucksack with matching plastic straps. Newsflash, I had the same problems with my arms and hands falling asleep back in the bad old days before we had high tech “plastic” rucksacks. The ALICE pack, affectionately known as the “big green tick” would put your arms to sleep just the same. This has much more to do with the load and a lot less to do with the pack.

Camo issues? Hello! The Army is knee deep in it. How about you give them a chance to at least bust their own time line before calling them out?

I am still scratching my head over the comments about needing a larger clothing allowance. I was under the impression that the Army is issuing FR ACUs to deployed troops for free. I guess the Overseas COLA isn’t enough to cover beer these days in Vincenza.

Interestingly, the letter wants to know what the Army is doing to “procure a superior replacement rifle, such as those used by our Special Operations forces (sic).” Do they mean like the SCAR? Excuse me while I guffaw. What wonder weapon are they talking about exactly?

Ok, so what do we have here? GIs want MultiCam. GIs hate their “plastic” rucksacks. GIs hate the M4 and want SOF weapons. GIs want even more of a clothing allowance (aka beer money). Hell, they could have found all of that out by spending five minutes on an internet message board.

Leadership and training are going to fix some of these issues long before the material developer can intercede. Until that happen clean your weapons and employ them properly, take a serious look at your load and accept some risk to lighten it, and use basic soldier skills to camouflage yourself and your equipment.

Posted in Camo, Clothing, Congress, Load Carrying, Packs, weapons | No Comments »

Camo and the 2010 Defense Authorization Bill

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

A few months ago we broke the story on how Congress was inserting language into the 2010 Defense Authorization Bill to force the Services to develop joint combat uniforms. Well, almost three months later, here it is.

In Sec. 352. Policy on ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms, this is the language verbatim from the bill, except that we have deleted line numbers in order to improve the readability of the data.

“(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY.—It is the policy of the United States that the design and fielding of all future ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms of the Armed Forces may uniquely reflect the identity of the individual military services, as long as such ground combat nd camouflage utility uniforms, to the maximum extent practicable—

(1) provide members of every military service an equivalent level of performance, functionality, and protection commensurate with their respective as signed combat missions;

(2) minimize risk to the individual soldier, sailor, airman, or marine operating in the joint battlespace; and

(3) provide interoperability with other components of individual war fighter systems, including body armor and other individual protective systems.

(b) COMPTROLLER GENERAL ASSESSMENT.—The Comptroller General shall conduct an assessment of the ground combat uniforms and camouflage utility uniforms currently in use in the Department of Defense. The assessment shall examine, at a minimum, each of the following:

(1) The overall performance of each uniform in various anticipated combat environments and theaters of operations.

(2) Whether the uniform design of each uniform conforms adequately and is interoperable with currently issued personal protective gear and body armor.

(3) Costs associated with the design, development, production, procurement, and fielding of existing service-specific ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms.

(4) Challenges and risks associated with fielding members of the Armed Forces into combat theaters in unique or service-specific ground combat or camouflage utility uniforms, including the tactical risk to the individuals serving in individual augmentee, in-lieu of force, or joint duty assignments of use of different ground combat uniforms in a combat environment.

(5) Implications of the use of patents and other proprietary measures that may preclude sharing of technology, advanced uniform design, camouflage techniques, and fire retardence.

(6) Logistical requirements to field and support forces in varying combat or utility uniforms.

(c) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the congressional defense committees the results of the assessment conducted under subsection (b).

(d) REQUIREMENT FOR JOINT CRITERIA.—In support of the policy established in subsection (a), the Secretaries of the military departments, consistent with the authority set out in subtitles B, C, and D of title 10, United States Code, shall establish joint criteria for future ground combat uniforms by not later than 270 days after the Comptroller General submits the report required under subsection (c). The joint criteria shall take into account the findings and recommendations of such report and ensure that new technologies, advanced materials, and other advances in ground combat uniform design may be shared between the military services and are not precluded from being adapted for use by any military service due to military service-unique proprietary arrangements.”

So essentially, this gives the services a little over a year to figure out how they will go about establishing “joint criteria”. To me, the most important statement in all of this is the last bit about “service-unique proprietary arrangements”. This is an obvious shot at forcing the services to share.

On a side note, according to the conference report, the bill also “Requires DOD to establish specific budget line items within the procurement and research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) accounts for body armor. This will improve accountability and increase transparency into long-term investment strategies for body armor as well as facilitate the advancement of lighter-weight technologies.”

Posted in Armor, Camo, Congress | No Comments »

Camo for Afghanistan – The Rest of the Story

Saturday, September 26th, 2009

On Friday September 18th, Soldier Systems Daily was granted an exclusive interview with PEO-Soldier’s COL William Cole, Project Manager Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment, Todd Wendt, Deputy Product Manager Soldier Clothing and Individual Equipment, and Cheryl Stewardson, Team Leader, Soldier Integrated Protection, at the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development & Engineering Center. The topic of our conversation was alternative camouflage patterns. Our goal at SSD for the interview was to cut through the misinformation and conjecture currently permeating the web on this subject and get to the facts. Up to now no one, including us, has adequately told the story of what is actually going on.

As a result of a photosimulation study conducted in 2007 by Natick as well as recent Congressional language directing the Army to provide an enhanced camouflage capability for Soldiers on operations in Afghanistan, the Army is undertaking a four-phased initiative to explore alternate camouflage patterns for the Army Combat Uniform (ACU). Additionally, the Army regularly conducts post combat surveys and had noted several comments that Soldiers were most dissatisfied with UCP’s performance in Woodland environments. Based on this information, the Infantry School suggested that perhaps a Brown shade should be added to the UCP color palette.

The Army’s objective is twofold: to identify an ACU camouflage that will provide effective concealment for Soldiers serving in Operation Enduring Freedom, and to evaluate a long-term camouflage plan for the Army. When COL Cole made his initial decisions on developing a course of action one of the main considerations was Fire Resistance. Whatever was going to be tested and fielded had to be FR. Additionally, they had to meet military specifications for infrared identification and be Berry compliant. Two patterns that met these specifications were readily available; MultiCam® and the Army’s Universal Camouflage Pattern. Recently, many have called for the complete elimination of UCP yet touted the performance of MARPAT. As we will discuss later, the patterns are the same, just with different pigments. If MARPAT performs well, UCP could be tweaked in order to enhance its characteristics and that is exactly what the Army did.

In conjunction with this interview, SSD was provided an exclusive look at the five alternative patterns named UCP-Alpha through Echo developed for the wear test.

Oddly enough, immediately after the story broke, strange conclusions began to surface around the internet that there was a significance to the UCP-Delta moniker. We can assure you that the Delta designation denotes no affiliation to any particular unit but rather is the phonetic alphabet for the letter D. PEO-Soldier used the alphabet since they were not sure initially how many variants they would need to work on. As it turns out, due to time constraints and some solid rudimentary research, they only produced five patterns. Of the five, only Charlie and Delta showed significant promise for further testing. Initially patterns were developed in .jpg format and then fabric was printed on a dot matrix printer.

According to Cheryl Stewardson, Natick researchers then conducted a modified photosimulation test similar to the one conducted in 2007. However, in this test 200 Soldiers at Forts Hood and Campbell with recent combat experience in Afghanistan were shown images of Afghani terrain that had been altered by superimposing photos of ACUs in the Charlie and Delta variants on them. During this testing, UCP-Delta was selected as the most promising pattern.

Some interesting facts about the US digital patterns were revealed during this interview. The digital camouflage is printed using a screen process. MARPAT, UCP, and the AOR patterns all use the same screens. Current UCP utilizes only three of the four screens required to produce MARPAT and AOR but UCP-Delta will add the fourth screen to apply the Coyote to the pattern.

Photos courtesy of PEO-Soldier

Phase I By the end of September 2009, the Army will provide two alternate uniforms to designated battalions of Soldiers serving in Operation Enduring Freedom. The two alternate uniforms will utilize the MultiCam® and Universal Camouflage Pattern – Delta (UCP-D). The UCP-Delta pattern was derived from the standard UCP by reducing the Urban Grey and Sand colors, and adding Coyote Brown which constitutes 30% of the pattern.

One battalion will receive the MultiCam® uniform, while the other will receive the UCP-Delta uniform. In addition to their test uniforms and equipment both battalions will also be issued a full complement of standard UCP equipment. This will allow commanders to outfit their troops based on METT-TC. While PEO-Soldier plans to use the IOTV in standard UCP for this test, they will provide test forces with the Tactical Assault Platform in UCP-Delta. The TAPS is similar to a chest rig that attaches to the IOTV. Additionally, PEO-Soldier is fast tracking a UCP-Delta solution for the rear of the IOTV. The battalion outfitted in MultiCam® will receive a full complement of TA-50 in that pattern including IOTV, Plate Carrier, MOLLE, and TAP.

Phase II By the end of October 2009, the Army will begin collecting data in theater to measure the suitability of various camouflage patterns. This phase will include feedback from Soldiers in Operation Enduring Freedom; photosimulation of uniform colors and patterns, along with associated Operational Clothing and Individual Equipment (OCIE) such as body armor, helmets, and rucksacks, against a variety of backgrounds common to Afghanistan including foliage, high desert, and mountains; and a photographic study in theater. Specific emphasis will be placed on ensuring accurate RGB values. The Army will analyze the data throughout the collection period in preparation for Phase III.

The next round of Photo simulation studies will include six patterns. However, not all of the patterns have yet been released. COL Cole confirmed that UCP-Delta, MultiCam®, AOR-1 and 2 and a newly developed pattern based on the UCP pattern with an entirely new colorway will be tested. The new pattern retains the four screen process but replaces even UCP-Delta’s colors with a pallet based on a photometric study of Afghanistan.

Another goal of this photosimulation study is to measure the effects of a variety of field equipment colors including UCP, Coyote, Khaki, and Ranger Green have when used with different uniform patterns.

Phase III By the end of January 2010, Army leaders will make a decision whether or not to produce and field alternate uniforms and OCIE to selected units in specific regions of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Phase IV At a date to be determined, the Army will establish and evaluate a long-term plan for ACU camouflage. If a new pattern is selected, even for limited use in Afghanistan, it may very well promulgate throughout the Army if it is demonstrates improved camouflage traits.

Once again SSD would like to thank the folks at PEO-Soldier and Natick who made this interview possible.

Posted in Camo, Congress, Multicam, PEO-Soldier | No Comments »

Camo for Afghanistan – The Rest of the Story

Monday, September 21st, 2009

Read the rest of the story after the jump…

Posted in Clothing, Congress, FR, PEO-Soldier | No Comments »

Natick Camo Study – Making Sense of It All Part II

Saturday, September 19th, 2009

Much has been made of the Photosimulation test. It is important to note that this test was not perfect and ultimately serves a data point, and not the data point. Overall, the testers did a good job but if the test was conducted again, some patterns would most likely see different results. This is due to a variety of factors which include the actual test subjects. For example, the Bulldog Mirage pattern did not have as many test samples due to a lack of Woodland environmental imagery early in the test. Instead, the test authors accepted the statistical sample as indicative of a full test and extrapolated the results.

Another issue which may have resulted the “Syrian” pattern performing better is scale. The test photo indicated that the wearer of the Syrian camo is female and this may mean that the test article was smaller than others. It may not have been detected at as great a distance as other patterns worn by larger individuals. Additionally, all of the test subjects were wearing green Advanced Combat Helmets which in some cases may have led to premature detection of the test subject rather than the actual camouflage pattern.

Another issue that probably skewed the results was that the urban environment was based on Tan colored buildings. This resulted in desert patterns performing better than they probably would have in a grey-centric environment. Conversely, patterns such as UCP and Bulldog which should have shined in an urban setting didn’t do so well.

Lessons have been learned from this round of testing and will be applied during a new round of photosimulation testing to coincide with the upcoming Afghanistan wear tests. Be sure to visit us again on Monday for an exclusive interview with COL Cole, Program Manager Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment on this testing and the development of UCP Delta.

Tags: Natick
Posted in Camo, Congress | No Comments »

Natick Camo Study – Making Sense of It All

Friday, September 18th, 2009

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, or failing to read Soldier Systems Daily, you know that in response to Congressional calls for a new camo pattern for operations in Afghanistan, the Army announced that they would test two patterns in October. The Army Times obtained a Natick test report for a camouflage study conducted from 2007 – 2009 of 18 different patterns. This report has now been released by the Army to the press and Soldier Systems Daily has extracted some of the major points from this test report. This is the first in a series of reports that attempt to make some sense of the report and cut through much of the conjecture and hyperbole found on the internet.

The following patterns were actually tested:

The Army’s current issue UCP was used as a baseline.

Four Woodland patterns were included in the test.

Four Desert patterns were used for testing.

Natick also included four commercial patterns, all of which have been seen limited use by US troops.

The following patterns were eliminated from testing for a variety of reasons but mainly due to poor performance. In some cases the performance was low but this combined with limited accessibility for US forces or similar factors the patterns were eliminated.

From the report:
“Although detection data were collected on 18 patterns, five patterns (i.e., Sweden, Spec4 Woodland, Spec4 Urban, North Korea, and Woodland British) were eliminated from the final data analysis. The two Spec4 patterns were not available for desert image collection; therefore, they did not have a complete data set. Sweden, North Korea and Woodland British were eliminated, due to being the worst performers in two out of the three environments. Their similarity to other woodland patterns was further justification, although it must be noted that detection data are available for further analysis, if desired.”

Finally, the report’s authors produced a very handy chart that show the overall performance of each pattern by environment. You are going to be genuinely surprised when you read the results. How they fared:

Ultimately, the entire report can be summed up very simply. As one reader who is a retired Special Forces Warrant Officer put it, “Nothing earth shattering; desert s@&* works great in the desert and green s@&* works great in the green area.”

Special Thanks to Defense Tech for the advanced copy of the report and for hosting it in PDF form for the public.

Posted in Camo, Congress, PEO-Soldier, Sustainment | No Comments »

Afghanistan Camo Testing Announced

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

*UPDATED* Natick has been busy developing several new variants of UCP which retain the base pattern but replace individual colors. Word has it that some of them are down right ugly. It has recently been revealed by Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, PEO-Soldier that the new “UCP-Delta” which integrates Coyote Brown into the pattern along with Multicam will be evaluated in Afghanistan beginning in October. In response to the Congressional directive to field a new camo pattern for operations in Afghanistan two Battalions worth of uniforms will be tested.

Below are two photos of UCP-Delta. One with an IOTV and one without.

Photos courtesy of PEO-Soldier

According to sources at Natick, 30% of the pattern of the UCP-Pattern is Coyote Brown. One advantage exhibited in the photos is that UCP Delta offers the perception that current UCP field equipment will not need to be replaced.

Tags: Congress, Natick, PEO-Soldier, UCP
Posted in Camo, Clothing, Congress, Multicam, PEO-Soldier | No Comments »

Media Picks Up FR Fiber Story

Monday, August 10th, 2009

In Mid-July we wrote about concerns over the sunset of the Berry waiver afforded FR-Rayon fibers produced in Austria. Now CNN has picked up the story. Unfortunately, the waiver extension has been defeated in the Senate. However, the House will consider the measure when they return from recess. It’s still not too late to weigh in with your Representative in support of the waiver extension.

Tags: Rayon
Posted in Congress, FR, Materials | No Comments »

Camo Rumors

Tuesday, August 4th, 2009

In light of an impending directive from Congress to the Army to get their camo house in order, rumors continue to circulate about an upcoming test involving four camo patterns with the Army’s current Universal Camouflage pattern serving as a control.

The four patterns are MARPAT-Woodland, MARPAT-Desert, Multicam, and Desert All Over Brush (seen below). Originally, we had heard that the fourth pattern would be the 3-color Desert pattern issued to all services prior to adoption of their new distinctive uniforms. However, based on some recent, unverified information we believe it is actually the Desert All Over Brush which interestingly gave a very good showing during the Army camo trials of 2003-2004. According to a Natick report, a modified variant of the Desert version All Over Bush pattern performed best in all environments. You can also access a briefing presented on the subject at the 2004 International Soldier Systems Conference here.

Based on a series of evaluations documented in the report and briefing slides Natick developed the variant of All Over Brush pattern.

Having said all of that, the info on that particular pattern is old news. At some point in the Spring of 2004, the Army took a serious sidestep from all of its research and adopted UCP. if the rumors are true, looking at what is on the table, neither Marine patterns would really be considered serious candidates due to a variety of morale, and as we have discussed before, branding issues. You think the black beret issue was rough, imagine the outcry from two services if the Army adopted a Marine camo pattern. Consequently, while effective, we don’t consider the MARPAT variants as serious contenders. This leaves, depending on who is telling the story, either 3-color Desert which is still used by some US Navy forces (and a few others) or the prototype Desert All Over brush pattern in addition to Crye’s Multicam. While there are limited stocks of 3-color equipment still in the system, virtually none of it is in the configuration currently used by US forces. If it were adopted, the US Soldier would literally take a five year step back in capability until production of current issue equipment could be accomplished. Additionally, there is a political dimension to such a move. UCP was sold as a superior pattern to both Woodland and 3-Color Desert. Someone would naturally ask the question of why the Army discarded a pattern in favor of something less effective.

This leaves Desert All Over Brush and Multicam. Multicam has been used operationally by select US forces to great success and even more importantly, is currently supported by the US industrial base. A wide variety of Berry Compliant products (and raw materials) are available as COTS items. Additionally, industry already offers versions of current issue equipment in Multicam. Furthermore, there are numerous lightweight and multi-purpose Soldier Systems items designed specifically for environments like Afghanistan. Multicam is a mature, widely available, low hanging fruit. On the other hand, adoption of Desert All Over Brush would require long lead times as fabric mills first perfect and then produce sufficient quantities of materials. Only then could uniforms and equipment for our Soldiers begin to be procured.

We are waiting with bated breath to see if these rumors are true and what’s more, if they are, what will come of them. Naturally, Soldier Systems Daily will keep you updated.

Posted in Camo, Clothing, Congress, Multicam, Rumor Mill | No Comments »

GAO Report on Helmet Pads

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

Last week the Government Accounting Office released a report on helmet pads intended as a backgrounder for members of the Senate and House Armed Services and Appropriations Committees. While it was fairly thin, there were a few jewels of information buried in the document’s 12 pages (including covers).

One interesting section covered by our friends at DefenseTech discussed the military’s interest in alternative helmet suspensions and more stringent requirements.

Also of note in the report is the timeline detailing the chain of events that brought us the current pad system. However, most interesting to us were the sections that dealt with the intent of the report which was to determine who currently provides the pads used in Army and Marine Corps ground combat helmets, and how they were chosen. The short answer repeated numerous times was Team Wendy.

To quote the report:
“To date, based on the results of the testing performed, the Army has approved pad systems made by two manufacturers—Team Wendy and Mine Safety Appliances—for use in its Advanced Combat Helmet, while the Marine Corps has chosen to limit its approval to one pad, and has approved only Team Wendy pads for use in its Light Weight Helmet. The approved pads used by the Army and the Marine Corps are consistent with the 2006 U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory testing results in that they showed the best performance relative to the other pads tested.”

However, Ability One (A JWOD service provider) under contract with DoD to provide helmet pads has chosen to only procure the ZAP pad from Team Wendy. Consequently, Team Wendy currently has the only authorized issue pad for the MICH, ACH, and LWH. To confuse matters, several alternative pad systems are available for local purchase as well as on GSA and are manufactured to the Mil Spec for pads. While they do meet shock mitigation standards they are not the issue item and to curb their use, both the Army and Marine Corps have issued directives for troops to inspect their equipment and replace unauthorized pads.

Tags: Team Wendy
Posted in Congress, Helmets | No Comments »

Congressional Camo: The Opposition Speaks

Sunday, August 2nd, 2009

While no one has fessed up to backing the proposed legislation requiring a common camo pattern and combat uniform for all US forces, some in Congress have made their displeasure with the measure known.

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) initiated a letter last week that was signed by seven other members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC). The joint letter was sent to HASC Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) and HASC Ranking Member Buck McKeon (R-CA) expressing strong opposition to a provision in H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010. The provision, Section 352, mandates that all future military ground combat uniforms be a single, standardized design.

Rep Coffman estimates this measure could cost in excess of $5 Billion if enacted. He brings a unique perspective on the issue to a Congress that only boasts just over 100 members who are Veterans. Rep Coffman has served in both the US Army and Marine Corps including service as enlisted as well as officer and in the first Gulf war and current operations.

Please see the contents of the letter below.

# # #

July 16, 2009
The Honorable Ike Skelton The Honorable Buck McKeon
Chairman Ranking Member
House Armed Services Committee House Armed Services Committee
2120 Rayburn House Office Building 2120 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon:

As Members of the House Armed Services Committee, we are proud that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, passed by the House of Representatives this June, provides for our nation’s warfighters in many ways. However, we respectfully write to express our strong concerns about a troubling provision for a common combat uniform that was included in the bill absent widespread notice and without any debate. This language, Section 352, calls for the Secretary of Defense to ensure that future ground combat uniforms be a single, standardized type.

Section 352, titled “Requirements for Standard Ground Combat Uniform”, lists several flawed rationales for mandating our military Services into a policy that all of the uniformed Service chiefs oppose. This is an expensive initiative that, while well-intentioned, neglects key tactical, cultural, economic, and practical considerations.

Although this provision is intended to increase interoperability of ground combat forces, thus far we have yet to hear of any mission, operation, or campaign’s failure due to uniforms that prevented interoperability. We are certain you will agree that training, leadership, doctrine, and trust cultivate interoperability – not clothing.

The proposed common battle uniform is also intended to eliminate any alleged “uniqueness” that could pose a tactical risk in a theater of operations. They know that all our servicemembers are well trained, well led, and well equipped. The enemy is not taking special care to target one Service over another.

A common battle uniform would also allegedly minimize production costs and the costs for issuing the uniforms. Current law (Title 10 U.S.C. § 5063, USC Section 771) provides for the existing policy of the Services’ uniqueness in their combat uniforms. As such, since 2001 each Service has created, tested, and distributed its own combat uniforms based on their unique mission sets, physical environments, and servicemember surveys. They have each invested the time and the money to outfit their respective Services.

Preliminary analysis by the Department of Defense estimates $4.85 billion to retrofit approximately 2.2 million DoD personnel to a single combat uniform. This initial cost analysis does not include development and sustainment costs. To force such a change after the Services have just completed fielding of their distinctive uniforms is an unconscionable waste of nearly five billion taxpayer dollars, in addition to wasting the funds that have already been spent on the fielding the individual Service combat uniforms.

Each Service has a proud tradition and reputation around the world and taking away their distinctive combat uniforms removes their connection with our friends and foes alike. The villagers in a suburb outside of Baghdad see ACUs and know that those were the Americans that pushed out the insurgents and restored their electrical power. The insurgents in Fallujah see the Marine Corps Combat Utility Uniform (MCCUU) and will tell you that there is “no better friend, and no worse enemy.” This connection is key to our nation’s warfighters accomplishing their missions.

At a time when our military faces so many critical missions, and our country’s defense budget is increasingly stretched thin, an unnecessary proposal such as this serves no practical purpose. It has an extensive price tag and takes away the individual military Services’ identity at home and abroad.

We look forward to working with you, and the Senate Armed Services Committee, to correct this provision in the upcoming conference for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Mike Coffman Duncan Hunter
Member of Congress Member of Congress

Vic Snyder Mike Conaway
Member of Congress Member of Congress

Robert J. Whittman Doug Lamborn
Member of Congress Member of Congress

Trent Franks Todd Akin
Member of Congress Member of Congress

Tags: Congress
Posted in Camo, Clothing, Congress | No Comments »

Congress Proposes Common Ground Combat Uniform

Thursday, July 30th, 2009

In the 2010 House Defense Authorization bill there is a section that would require standard ground combat uniforms.

“Section 352—

Requirements for Standard Ground Combat Uniform This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Defense Logistics Agency, to require that future ground combat uniforms be standardized in order to ensure increased interoperability of ground combat forces and reduce tactical risks encountered when military personnel wear a different uniform from their counterparts in the other military services in a combat area.

The committee notes that, previously all the military services used the same desert camouflage uniform or the standard battle dress uniform, both in the temperate and enhanced weather versions. However, the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia of the Defense Logistics Agency, which is responsible for the manufacture of all U.S. military uniforms, now procures unique camouflage utility uniforms for each of the military services: the Army combat uniform, the Airman battle uniform, the Navy working uniform, and the Marine Corps combat utility uniform.

The committee is concerned that the recent move toward unique service camouflage uniforms has resulted in increased costs and production inefficiencies. For example, problems with consistency in fabric shading have required remanufacture of some uniforms. In addition, the costs for the unique uniforms are substantially more than for the standard battle dress uniform because of the differences in design, camouflage pattern, and type of fabric.

Most importantly, the committee is concerned that this uniqueness poses a tactical risk in theater, especially for those assigned to combatant commands or as individual augmentees who may be wearing a different uniform from those they are serving with in combat.

The committee also notes that service-specific battle dress uniforms magnify the challenges and costs associated with procuring personal protective gear and body armor that conform to the design and coloration of the basic uniform”

Well, Congress pretty much hit the nail on the head, just six years too late. This horse has been out of the barn for awhile but it does seem that the hoopla over the Army’s use of UCP in Afghanistan has attracted some thoughtful analysis. Interestingly, these are essentially the same arguments made by Robert Strange McNamara when he was Secretary of Defense during the Kennedy administration. At his direction, in the early 1960s the services moved to a standard uniform including boots and at one point, even T-shirts. However, this proposed legislation also references an issue that has been a major concern in the field and that is fratricide and OPSEC.

The services rely heavily on their individual uniforms for branding purposes so it is unclear how the departments may react to such a directive. Although, according to the document, there is some wiggle room including a reference to “future ground combat uniforms” which might allow the services to delay any changes to coincide with the fielding of future individual equipment ensembles. Another issue is that the bill references both utility uniforms as well as combat uniforms. Interestingly, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps have all adopted FR combat uniforms that closely resemble one another except in the area of camouflage. The real differences come to play in the utility uniform realm. Such distinctions might make implementation difficult.

There have been calls within industry for some time for the services to adopt a single color scheme in order to simplify production and realize cost savings. While the implications of such legislation are very deep for the military as well as industry, it is important to note that this is still just a bill and not yet law. In fact, it may not even make it out of committee.

Thanks to ADS Ventures for alerting us to this legislation. It will be interesting to find out who is promoting this particular measure.

Posted in Clothing, Congress | 1 Comment »

Isakson Amendment

Saturday, July 18th, 2009

Ok, so you are asking yourself, “What’s the Isakson Amendment?” Well, if you are a Soldier or Airman deploying to combat in the future this may be one of the most important pieces of legislation ever. Based on an urgent need for Fire resistant uniforms Congress passed a waiver to the Berry Amendment last year for the procurement of foreign produced fire resistant rayon fiber. Unfortunately, the waiver runs out in 2013. In budget years, that’s right round the corner.

Sponsored by Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga, this Amendment to the 2010 Defense Authorization Act permanently raises the sunset on the Berry waiver.

Photo: US Army

While some may assume that this foreign produced fiber might pose a threat to the US textile industry, this is not true. for one thing, the fibers cannot be produced here in the US due to EPA restrictions. Additionally, the material is shipped from Austria in bales and once it arrives in the US is spun into yarn. Only then is the FR rayon woven into cloth, printed, and cut and sewn. The use of this fabric supports over 10,000 jobs in 14 states. Obviously, it isn’t a threat to the American textile industry. In fact, the opposite seems true.

If the waiver is not renewed, critical FR ACUs like the one that saved 1SG Sather will come in short supply. Unfortunately, the US industrial base would not be able to keep up with the current and projected demand for FR fabrics which are made up of a combination of domestic materials augmented with 65% of the FR rayon fiber. This combination was chosen by the US Army as the best performer from among over 24 candidates as the rayon provides added strength to the fabric and helps our domestically produced fibers go further.

Please support this important legislation.

Tags: Congress
Posted in Congress, FR | 1 Comment »

Camo Wars: An Opportunity to Excel

Friday, July 10th, 2009

What with Congress prompting the Army to adopt a new camouflage pattern specifically for operations in Afghanistan this is the perfect opportunity to procure equipment that is tuned for use in harsh mountainous and high desert regions.

Since it seems that they will likely end up doing something in the camo arena, we certainly hope that the Army will look at this as an opportunity to procure some innovative products and not just buy more standard issue equipment in a new color. In addition to providing the Soldier with equipment that is as appropriate to the environment as the camouflage this would also give the industry a little bit of a kick in the pants since much of the out-of-the-box thinking happens in the smaller companies who are better suited to such smaller procurements.

While the American Warrior is better protected than ever, it has come at a price. Since the beginning of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM the load for the individual Soldier has increased over ten pounds. The Army is already working towards this goal with programs such as the Releasable Plate Carrier but other products can be manufactured from lighterweight fabrics such as 500D Cordura and multi-purpose equipment should also be considered.

Posted in Camo, Congress | No Comments »

Camo Conundrum

Wednesday, July 8th, 2009

After a discussion I had earlier today a thought struck me. Why did Congress tell the Army that UCP was unfit for service in Afghanistan yet give the Air Force a free pass with it’s Digitized tiger Stripe pattern? The colorway remains the same with one exception. The Air Force added Slate Blue to the Army’s three other colors. Sure it darkens the pattern up a bit but both patterns look all but indistinguishable at distances of more than 100 meters. So what gives? Is Air Force DTS good but Army UCP bad? And if so, what is this based on? See for yourself.

Posted in Camo, Congress | No Comments »

Camo Rumors – Some Observations

Sunday, July 5th, 2009

Ever since Congress told the Army that the Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) used on the Army Combat Uniform (ACU) wasn’t cutting it in Afghanistan, rumors and just plain old bad info has been swirling about the internet so I thought I’d share a few thoughts on the subject.

Urban Legend 1 -Multicam Uber Alles. Despite internet hype and the military version of an urban legend, Multicam is not replacing UCP in 2011 or 2012. As best I can tell this rumor came about because the Future Force Warrior program was supposed to be fielded in, you guessed it, 2011. It so happens that all of the photos of guys suited up in the FFW garb were swathed in Multicam goodness. For some odd reason, folks couldn’t divorce the concept of FFW from Multicam. Hence the urban legend. Naturally, this new round of Congressionally driven controversy has only fanned the flames of this untruth. Think about it. The Army just spent a gazillion dollars changing everything to UCP. In fact, fielding isn’t even complete. So ask yourself this question. Why would the Army spend a “gazillion” dollars on a new camo pattern and turn right around a field a new one mid-stream? The answer? It wouldn’t. They want to buy FCS not new uniforms.

Urban Legend 2 – UCP is going away completely. It isn’t. The Congressional “suggestion” is only for forces in Afghanistan not the whole shebang.

Urban Legend 3 – The Marine Corps offered MARPAT to the Army and they turned it down. Total Fantasy. Here is a truth. These patterns are about branding. When you see MARPAT, you think “Marine”. When you see UCP you think “Soldier”. MARPAT was developed for the Marine Corps. General Jones, former Commandant of the Marine Corps wanted a uniform that would let his enemies know when Marines were in town. He got one.

Urban Legend 4 – The Army didn’t adopt Multicam because they would have to pay a license for Multicam / it was too expensive. Once again; False. The Army helped pay for the development of Multicam. There is no “license”. Also, the more Multicam printed, the cheaper it gets. The more you buy, the less you pay.

I feel for the Army. What a big poop sandwich. “Hey Army, UCP stinks, issue something else. But use the money we already gave you for OTHER stuff.” You can’t just change out uniforms. You have to replace all of the Soldier’s other kit as well or the contrast will just highlight the guy. So the Army is going to have to compute this huge cost for one theater. That was the point of UCP in the first place. One camo…universal. No more issuing two different patterns to guys…economize.

I feel even worse for the poor action officer at PEO-Soldier who has to develop the decision brief on this one. For example:
COA 1 – Do nothing…Tell Congress “Nuts”, I mean after all, UCP does work in some parts of Afghanistan.
COA 2 – Do Nothing…Beg Congress for cash
COA 3 – Stall…conduct study (Attn PEO-Soldier, I am available for contract to conduct said study)
COA 4 – Issue Woodland or Three-Color Desert
COA 5 – Adopt all new pattern – See pic above

Option 5? That is the fantasy option. Or is it? There are select US forces rocking Multicam all over the place. Oddly enough, so are Snipers. Aside from that, the Army spent a great deal of time and effort developing and testing several patterns any of which could be dusted off including the one in the photo.

However, I am voting for some combo of one or more of the first three with COA 4 as the ultimate outcome. There is already precedence with the Army’s G1 permitting USASOC forces to wear Woodland camo. Plus, there are stock of the older patterns that can be drawn from to get this thing rolling.

Do we love Multicam at Soldier Systems Daily? You’re damned right we do. Will it be adopted for use in Afghanistan? Who knows at this point, but it sure will be interesting watching whatever ultimately happens.

Tags: ACU, UCP
Posted in Admin, Camo, Clothing, Congress, Multicam, Rumor Mill | No Comments »

Congress Cares About Camo

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009

It seems someone clued Congress in on the fact that the Universal Camouflage Pattern issued to troops fighting in Afghanistan is far from the ideal. So Congress has told the Army to issue something better. Well, the first word in UCP is after all “Universal” and that makes it a compromise since it has to blend in everywhere. Oddly, Afghanistan is not monochrome and there are a variety of environments to blend in with so ultimately a “Universal” camouflage is what is called for after all. Maybe it just needs to be tuned a bit.

Here is the wording from the Conference Committee Report.
“The conferees understand that soldiers deployed to Afghanistan have serious concerns about the current combat uniform which they indicate provides ineffective camouflage given the environment in Afghanistan. Accordingly, the conferees direct that within funding made available the Department of Defense take immediate action to provide combat uniforms to personnel deployed to Afghanistan with a camouflage pattern that is suited to the environment of Afghanistan.

The conferees further direct the Secretary of the Army to provide a report on the program plans and budgetary adjustments necessary to provide appropriate uniforms to deployed and deploying troops to Afghanistan. The report shall be submitted to the congressional defense committees by the end of fiscal year 2009.”

So Congress wants the Army to reprogram money “immediately” to provide an alternative camo pattern for forces in Afghanistan and report to the Armed Services Committees before the end of the fiscal year on it will be accomplished. Can you imagine how this went over when word reached PEO-Soldier? “The jig is up, they’re on to us”.

Now please remember, that this still isn’t law. The President hasn’t signed it YET but is expected to soon.

So how will this play out? Interesting question, considering when asked just weeks ago at the Soldier Systems APBI about the possibility of alternative camouflage patterns, PEO-Soldier officials gave a curt, “No”. However, it has come to our attention that the 173d Airborne Brigade has been granted approval to wear Multicam during their OEF rotation. So that option seems open…maybe. Alternatively, it is highly unlikely that any new SOCOM patterns will be used by general purpose forces. 3-color desert pattern is still available but was replaced by the “superior” UCP so institutional momentum may veto its use. Desert MARPAT is a possibility, if the Army can wade through the interservice rivalry issues. And finally, what about an entirely new pattern, or old for that matter? Several promising designs were tested by Natick in the 2003-2004 time frame before UCP was adopted virtually out of nowhere.

Ultimately, it is going to be about cost. It isn’t just uniforms. There are a variety of other equipage and accouterments that must also be produced in an alternative pattern. And all of this while the Army is still in the throes of a complete roll out of the UCP pattern. Who will foot the bill? Congress has essentially issued budgetary guidance to the Army to reprogram funds.

Tags: Multicam
Posted in Camo, Clothing, Congress, Foreign, Multicam, PEO-Soldier, Sustainment, weapons | 7 Comments »