Tactical Tailor

Replacing UCP – The Truth of It All

I think one thing needs to be made crystal clear. The main stream media is beginning to pick up on the story that the Army is evaluating camouflage as part of the PEO Soldier sponsored Army Camouflage Improvement Effort. It must be made brutally clear that this effort may not result in a new family of camouflage patterns at all for the Army and the sponsor has not made any claims to the contrary.

What is supposed to happen is that the effort should result in a set of recommendations for Army leaders. It’s up them to decide the Army’s course of action. In fact, earlier this year I had the opportunity to ask a single question of MG Tony Cucolo, the Director of Force Development at the G8. Naturally, my question involved the replacement for UCP and whether the Army was ready to program $5 Billion over the FYDP to recapitalize camouflage. The answer didn’t do much to instill confidence. “They’re working on something down there at PEO Soldier,” came the reply.

Think about that.

7 Responses to “Replacing UCP – The Truth of It All”

  1. straps says:

    Good stuff, thanks. And yeah, the lamestream media (and responding posters claiming to be watching the issue) show just how much is NOT understood about this.

    Whatever happens, a rollout of UCP’s replacement, WHENEVER it happens, will NOT be like the one for UCP, which if memory serves was completed service-wide in something like 2 quarters give or take. Junque pattern, awesome logistical effort–far superior to the effort to get 3-Color Desert IBA covers and 2nd line pouches to the troops in the 2001-2004 timeframe.

    It will likely be way more like the phased implementations of days past–USASOC, 82nd/101st, Strykers, BCTs, Task Forces, with miscellaneous and sundry pogues bringing up the rear.

    I imagine the E-9 mafia will be running around with wireless CAC readers checking on clothing records of renegade UCP holdouts–like they wished they could have done during the transition from OG-107 to BDU ;).

    Which brings us to the BURNING question… any scoop on the Crye pattern?

  2. Marmatt says:

    In “The Daily” article linked in the MSN article above, the “lamestream” media shows an example of 1980’s woodland camouflage. It is actually an example of the Brookwood woodland submission to the ACIE. You would think it would have been easier to find an example M81.

    Also, it looks like one of the scale models, hunkered behind a pile of sandbags, is wearing the Marine’s elusive “T” urban pattern.

    Useless aside finished.

    • straps says:

      Good catch on the Brookwood. That pattern always reminds me of the paint on the 151s that our TOW gunners drove WAAAY back in the day…

  3. Greg says:

    As easy as it would be the army can’t just outfit all with multicam. Or else you will have another UCP, except in multiple bands on clown colors rather than grey pixles.

  4. Greg says:

    Again keeping in mind there is no such thing as a UCP. Witch Crye says their great camo is, but like the UCP it isn’t universal. And if crye comes up with a desert and woodland versions then they basically just lead eveyone on for years into believing that Scorpion was effective as a single pattern to blend in everywhere as they said it would when it really wasn’t. So spending $5B as compared to the $16 or 20B in eight years trying to outfit everyone in blocks and swathes should be no big thing.

  5. Mario says:

    Scorpion, not many people know MC by that name!