GORE-TEX Professional

SSD Exclusive – MultiCam Creator Crye Precision Speaks Out Regarding US Army Efforts to Adopt New Camouflage

Recently, Soldier Systems Daily published a story detailing the three latest courses of action that the Army is considering to adopt a new camouflage pattern. After reading that story, Crye Precision contacted me and said that they were considering providing SSD with some information that would clarify their position on the matter. Heretofore, Crye Precision has been very tight lipped about everything Army camouflage related and my questions have been met with a pat, “we can’t talk about that.”

While no one in the US Army has made an official statement on the current state of the effort, it has definitely gone way off schedule and seems to have lost its focus. Unfortunately, the Army has abandoned its own plan and along with it the transparency that Phase IV of the Camouflage Improvement Effort once enjoyed. Facts are difficult to come by. Crumbs of information appear here and there. Sources leak confidential info to the press. In the process, we begin to see a distorted view of what is going on. From the Army’s standpoint, it seems that Crye Precision is asking for the moon. But based on what I’ve read from Crye, a new picture begins to take focus and I am beginning to feel that the Army and Crye Precision aren’t really in negotiations at all. In fact, I’d go as far as to say that the Army’s actions suggest they don’t seem to be negotiating in good faith. Hopefully, the Army and Crye can work this out. I remain incensed that no one in the US Government can seem to pick up a pencil and paper and work out the math on this. After investing over $1 Billion in equipment in the effective Operational Camouflage Pattern (OCP)/MultiCam since 2010, the Army should be happy to pay Crye Precision a fair and reasonable fee in order to negotiate a cost savings over the next decade or more.

Early this morning I received the following information in an email from Caleb Crye. It contains some very significant pieces of info. At least now we have one side of the story and hopefully, the US Army will be more forthcoming regarding their position on this.

MC in Combat

Ultimately, the goal is to provide the American Soldier with the most effective equipment. Let’s hope that institutional momentum, bureaucracy and personal agendas haven’t made the Army lose sight of this.

I have published the contents of the memorandum below and you can download your copy of the document here.


Over the past fourteen years, Crye Precision has produced millions of protective items for the US Army and other branches of the Department of Defense. We are proud of our work and are honored to serve those who put their lives on the line to ensure our freedoms. As a business, our focus and internal challenge has always been to develop innovative designs that help our warfighters survive and succeed on the battlefield. We have offered countless products, from body armor to protective apparel to simulation software that reduce casualties and save lives, however, it is our MultiCam® camouflage pattern which stands above all of our products as having done the most to safeguard our troops. Though it is impossible to accurately calculate the number of casualties reduced and Soldier’s lives saved as a result of being well concealed from the enemy, the overwhelming number of direct accounts from warfighters citing MultiCam’s® undeniable performance advantage in combat are the truest testaments to MultiCam’s® effectiveness.

Crye Precision rarely weighs in publicly but in light of recently released confidential information that has misrepresented Crye Precision and the situation surrounding the Army’s efforts to develop new camouflage patterns, we feel compelled to correct the record on behalf of our company, our industry partners, the taxpayers and the warfighters who deserve nothing less than our best efforts.

Key Facts

– On June 14, 2004, the Army officially adopted its familiar “pixely” blue-gray Universal Camouflage Pattern (dubbed “UCP”). Alarmingly, this pattern was adopted without scientific or operational testing.

– From 2005-2006, the Army tested MultiCam® against UCP. The Army’s official side-by-side test report confirmed that MultiCam® rated significantly higher than UCP in all environments, meaning that Soldiers wearing UCP were being put at significantly higher risk than if they were wearing MultiCam®. Despite this UCP remains the Army’s official camouflage pattern and is still being issued to this day.

– In 2006, after seeing the ineffectiveness of UCP on the battlefield in Iraq, U.S. Army Special Operations units independently tested MultiCam® against multiple patterns and adopted it. MultiCam® has been proven effective by these units during thousands of combat operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters. To this day, it remains their issued camouflage pattern for organizational clothing and individual equipment.

– After numerous complaints in 2009 from Soldiers about the ineffectiveness of the Army issued UCP putting troops at risk in Afghanistan, Congress ordered the Army to take swift action to improve the situation. In response, the Army developed another program to test new camouflages. The Army tested sixteen patterns, including newly introduced Army developed patterns in a “Pattern-In-Picture” test against MultiCam®. Results: MultiCam® was cited as best overall performer.

– In early 2010 the Army conducted yet another camouflage test. This time testing five patterns against MultiCam® in numerous Afghanistan environments. Again, MultiCam® outperformed all others. The Army began a limited fielding of MultiCam® in 2010 to serve as an “interim solution” for Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), all the while continuing to issue UCP to all troops not deployed to OEF. (The Army re-named MultiCam® as “OCP”.)

– 2011, the Army decided that it wanted to adopt a “family” of camouflage patterns (i.e., in addition to a multi or “transitional” environment pattern), and initiated yet another camouflage testing program. The Army program was launched under the name “Phase IV”, representing the fourth and final part of its most recent camouflage improvement effort. After two years of yet another expensive and exhaustive evaluation, the Crye submission, which was based entirely on MultiCam®, was again selected as the top performer. Crye was advised by PM-CIE leadership via teleconference on May 1, 2013 that its submission had won the final program phase of the camouflage improvement effort, and that a formal announcement would be forthcoming.

– Following the notification about winning phase IV from PM-CIE, Crye assumed that the Army would continue to take advantage of the already well-established manufacturing base for MultiCam® raw materials and end items, as it had been doing for years, as the Army does not currently license MultiCam® from Crye Precision, nor does it pay Crye Precision for its use.

– Instead, Army representatives approached Crye to discuss the market’s pricing of MultiCam® gear (such as uniforms) and told Crye that it would have to deliver “significant cost savings”. Since Crye does not supply the Army’s uniforms, Crye informed the Army that it, just like any other supplier deep in the supply chain, has no visibility on or ability to mandate the prices the government is charged by any of the uniform or gear makers. Crye agreed to do its part in the only way it could, which was by reducing already nominal fees it receives from its licensed fabric printers. Significantly, those fees represent only a very small part of the end-item cost and are deeply embedded in the supply chain (just as a fiber manufacturer or a dye provider is, for example.) Crye asked for nothing in return for offering this fee reduction. Crye’s proposal, which offered the Army a path to achieve immediate cost savings, was rejected outright by the Army.

– During negotiations with Crye, in October of 2013, the Army released a Justification and Approval (J&A) that it planned to issue MultiCam® as the Army’s “principle camouflage pattern”.

Continuing its efforts to reduce costs to the Army and in an attempt to eliminate the Army’s concerns that MultiCam® was more expensive than UCP, Crye submitted several formal proposals which proved that the Army could procure MultiCam® gear at prices within 1% of UCP gear. Crye’s proposals additionally showed that this could be accomplished with no upfront cost to the Army.

The Army rejected all of Crye’s proposals and did not present any counter proposals, effectively saying that a proven increase in Soldier survivability was not worth a price difference of less than 1%.

– The Army then requested that Crye provide a buyout price for MultiCam®. Crye advised the Army that a full buyout of MultiCam® was unnecessary, pointing to the fact that MultiCam® was readily available for competitive purchase and that the Army could simply continue its use of MultiCam® service-wide, with no new costs to the Army. In addition, Crye pointed out that this course of action would require Crye to cede quality and brand control to the Army, effectively undermining Crye’s commercial market permanently. As such, this option would have required the buyout price to include the entire lifetime value of the MultiCam® brand, and would have been prohibitively expensive.

– Crye declined to provide a buyout figure, which would have to be well into the tens of millions of dollars, because it was likely that any figure presented by Crye could be used out of context to misrepresent and mischaracterize Crye. It was only after continued requests from the Army, coupled with an acknowledgement from the Army that it fully understood that the cost would be in the tens of millions of dollars, and a promise that all information would be kept in strictest confidence, that Crye then agreed to provide a full valuation for the MultiCam® brand, along with a deeply discounted price to the Army for the buyout being requested.

– As Crye predicted, and despite the Army’s assurances to the contrary, Crye’s offer was rejected outright by the Army. No official counter offers to any of Crye’s proposals were ever provided to Crye by the Army.

– Confidential information provided by Crye to the Army has been released out of context, in a manner that misrepresents Crye as having been unwilling to negotiate with the Army and help it find the cost savings it indicated was its goal. In truth Crye has worked exceptionally hard to help the Army meet its stated goals and continues to so.

– Recent information suggests that the Army is now planning to yet again develop, test and field yet another new multi-environment camouflage pattern.


In Summary, MultiCam® is one of the most thoroughly-tested camouflage patterns in existence. It has been proven in combat and lab evaluations for the better part of a decade and is currently issued within multiple branches of our Armed Forces. It has been the top performer in every major Army camouflage test of the past decade and has been verified time and time again to provide a significant and undeniable Soldier survivability advantage. Its continued use by Soldiers in Afghanistan and Special Operations Forces is a testament to its effectiveness. MultiCam® materials and end-items are readily available today within the competitive market, and MultiCam® products have been proven to be available for nearly the same cost as UCP items. Despite all this, the Army remains on a persistent quest to replace MultiCam®, all the while it still issues UCP to this day, a camo pattern long-proven to put Soldiers at unnecessary risk.

A sincere thank you to all of you who risk your lives serving in defense of freedom. We remain unwavering in our commitment to you.

Examples of official feedback from Special Operations Forces:

“The MultiCam pattern is an excellent camouflage pattern that truly manages/reduces an individual’s signature on the battlefield. I firmly believe that more Rangers would have been seen
and shot during hours of daylight, if they hadn’t been outfitted with the MultiCam uniform. It’s a true force protection measure!”

“The camouflage pattern saved me and my gunner’s life by concealing us long enough to shoot first.”

“On specific missions where other members of the force were in ACU’s, they were specifically shot at or “drew fire” compared to members wearing the Crye pattern. The camouflage was amazing and
probably confused the enemy. It was very hard to see people at any distance with this uniform.”

“While taking fire in an area with moderate vegetation, the Soldiers wearing ACU’s stood out and received a higher volume of fire at their positions.”

“The MultiCam pattern is a must for combat operations in Afghanistan. We blended in perfectly with mountains of OEF.”

“We were ambushed on 3 sides by Taliban fighters. There was nowhere in my immediate vicinity that offered effective cover, so I dropped to the ground and fought from there. I was able to continuously spot and engage fighters approaching the rear of our formation before they were able to spot me despite the fact that I was laying in the open. I truly believe that your MultiCam uniforms kept me from being shot several times that day.”

And the list goes on…


167 Responses to “SSD Exclusive – MultiCam Creator Crye Precision Speaks Out Regarding US Army Efforts to Adopt New Camouflage”

  1. SSD says:

    Please keep the comments on topic.

    • Russ Anderson says:

      Unfortunately this seems to be the way the world truly works. Its not whats in the best interest of others but whats in it for me. Someone somewhere does not want to loose the gravy train. I do not fault Crye at all. Think the blame is with the people who are benefiting under the current cammo scheme. They do not want the change in income. And do you really blame them, its probably a lot.
      It just sucks that no one seems to care about the guys downrange!

    • Adam says:

      Outrageous, I notified my congressman I urge others to do the same.

    • SSD says:

      I see several very important takeaways.

      1. According to this document, there is no true negotiation.

      2. The Army informed Crye Precision that they had won Phase IV. This is going to be a major problem for the Army.

      3. The Army no longer dominates the IO campaign regarding Camo. With Crye Precision engaging the press, it’s no longer just the Army working through leaks.

      4. Decision makers and those that hold them accountable now have access to information that may have preciously been kept from them. If anything, they now have a more balanced view of the situation.

  2. Soopah Troopah says:

    This says that the Army informed Crye that they won phase 4 back in May of 2013. WTF? Way to go Army. I’ve had to buy two replacement ACUs since then.

    • SSD says:

      Don’t hold your breath that whatever the Army decides will be rolled out soon. If it isn’t an existing pattern it will take some time for the dwindling industrial base to ramp up production.

      • bloke_from_ohio says:

        SSD speaks the truth. It took years for the 50/50 NYCO ABU to become availible after the decision to make them. And that was a much smaller change than a complete uniform overhaul. My guess is some units will still be using ACU print gear if not uniforms well into the middle of the 21st century. The kids at bootcamp right now might just get issued the new pattern the week before they retire.

  3. Sgt. B says:

    I’m happy that Crye stepped up and gave us some perspective about this ordeal. If what Crye said is true, and I believe it to be, then the Army has been wasting a ton of money shelling out UCP’s to everyone for a very long time.

    Crye wants to make money, Army wants to save money. But I can’t see them not pulling the trigger if it was within %1.

    • Chris K. says:

      Seconded, the stupidity of higher right now would be hilarious if this was just a Duffel Blog post. Too bad it’s real. Thanks for speaking out, Crye.

  4. Alex says:

    Wow, this is ridiculous. Army is screwing up, big time.

  5. Lucky says:

    What the actual fuck? Why can’t the Army just pull the trigger on this?? Claiming the NDAA as a stopper is a bullshit, non-excuse, the type of which would get any PVT smoked until their CAC Card passed out from exhaustion. Congress needs to mercilessly SMOKE Army leadership. Every Soldier in the Army prefers Multicam BECAUSE IT WORKS. Do the right thing for once!

  6. AJ says:

    Why am I not surprised

  7. This Gentleman says:

    If only Crye had offered a reflective pattern, this situation would have been avoided, and we would be wearing new uniforms that would also save millions we would otherwise be using to purchase reflective belts…but in all honesty this is just awful.

  8. Shame says:

    I wish the Army would just adopt MultiCam already. It seems like we have to buy our own gear now and I’ve done that. It works. I’ve spent MY money on the equipment I use. Multicam is effective. The Army knows it. Why won’t they just adopt it!

  9. Jason says:

    PM-CIE leadership should be ashamed of themselves. They are the very definition of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse and should be thrown into the USDB at Fort Leavenworth.

  10. Dustin Downard says:

    It sounds like the Army never intended to get rid of UCP and was attempting to push Crye into being a scape goat. Given that and their strange fascination with only digital patterns I’d see who has to gain from keeping UCP and they should be charged. I honestly wouldn’t be supprised if the Army brass supported the NDAA because it would allow them to claim that they “have” to keep UCP now. It was awfully suspicious when the test concluded and no one could figure out why they wouldn’t announce a winner. The Armys top brass has gotten so corrupt it’s disgusting. The cost of clothing is nothing compared to other equipment and programs, not to mention it’s a recurring cost regardless of the pattern. Congess needs to get involved and they need to do it before we pull out of A-stan.

  11. Helmets says:

    Who developed UCP?

    • Reverend says:

      No one knows.

    • bloke_from_ohio says:


      The Canadians developed the underpinning pixaleted pattern for UCP, AOR, and MARPAT when they developed CADPAT. They all have the same pattern (minus micro the branding in MARPAT) but different colorways. NWU may follow the same pixelated pattern as well, but I dont know for sure. ABU is a unique pattern with the same colorway as UCP.

      Somebody took the CADPAT/MARPAT screens and changed the colorway to gray, blueish, and green. Those colors apearently did well in a study of NIR reflectivity or some such. I think SSD posted a slide deck with those colors on it as being good for NIR a while back. The billion dollar question is who decided that picking a new colorway in that manner was a good idea? Or more importantly, who signed off on it?

      I am willing to bet if we look through all the OERs that came out around the time it ACU was decided on we would find a bullet about how an intrepid officer saved the Army $X by picking a new colorway sans science.

      • SSD says:

        BG Jamie Moran was PEO Soldier at the time and GEN Peter Schoomaker was CSA at the time.

  12. Don’t even get me started on MTP!! 🙁

  13. Canal Street says:

    That open letter was co-written by their attorney.

    • SSD says:

      And? What’s your point?

    • JayfromVA says:

      I’m sure it was. Generally speaking, when going public about closed negotiations, you should consult with an attorney. Or you could do it the Army way and leak information from “sources” to discredit the other side…

    • straps says:

      At this level, with this much money on the table, it would be idiotic to do it any other way. If it takes litigation or other legal maneuvers to get Army to move in the right direction, good for everyone.

      Me, I suspect Army’s response to this will be to double down and turn the stupid up to 11. Perhaps with its “own” pattern (UCP, then UCP-D; what could be worse?) It helps not at all that USMC will be hanging on to MARPAT long after it’s been obsoleted by newer technology.

  14. CAVstrong says:

    This is a very interesting letter. Thank you SSD for posting it here.

    I wonder if this letter has made it into the hands of any members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. If not it should. And to Fox News. And to CNN. And to everyone and their grandma. Somebody needs to force this issue.

  15. JayfromVA says:

    So the Army wanted a fixed price for Crye to turn over all control of their most profitable item, and it’s associated family (Black, Arid, Tropic), and seems surprised that Crye wasn’t OK with that, or that it would be expensive. I agree with SSD, it sounds like the Army was looking for an excuse not to buy. The fact that Crye was willing to lower their fees and get within 1% of UCP, not to mention that there are already hundreds of manufacturers producing in Multicam should have been an easy sell. Whatever, government contracting at its best.

    • KiNEtIX says:

      I don’t even think you can call this government contracting. The whole effort seemed designed to not produce any real winner. The idea of 4 different patterns is just too much, too complicated. I can maybe see three, maybe. What would have happened if one company totally dominated one category, and another dominated another, how would they pick a winning pattern? Pick both? What if three different vendors won or tied separate categories?

      They wanted it to sound like they were trying yo replace UCP but that was never thr real goal. When Crye won, (something I doubt they thought would happen, not for lack of a quality product on Crye’s part) they decided that not announcing it could postpone while they scrambled to find an excuse. Honestly, what the Army is putting Crye through is complete crap.

  16. 10thMountainMan says:

    There is Stupid, and then there is Army Stupid.

  17. Steven S says:

    Why would the Army leadership do this? What is their thought process?

    With all of this available information out there on the net. I still don’t understand their motives.

    Hopefully, this DTP the Army put together will be very effective.

    • matty says:

      Probably because approving Crye won’t get some their star(s).

      • Philip says:

        I want to know WHO in the Army made or authorized the decision to adopt UCP (a bastardized variation of the CONSISTENTLY WORST-PERFORMING PATTERN in the original 2002-2004 trials) without any sort of testing, research or proven scientific justification. Someone got some kind of kickback, either promotionally or financially…and since they Army’s still using UCP, they’re raking in the money. The blatantly obvious nepotism running rampant within the bureaucracy of the DoD (and DC in general) is disgusting.

        Soldiers already know they get tend to get shafted by senior leadership’s policies or blatant inaction… but to see it highlighted as plainly as Caleb did, over what appears to be nothing more than an argument about dollars and cents rating higher than people’s lives is appalling.

        We can inject a trillion-plus dollars into the piece of shit flying brick known as the F-35, (although the same style of nepotism and agenda-driven politickin’ that brought us UCP is no doubt keeping the lifeblood flowing to that program as well) but they want to give Crye a hard time about procurement costs that equate to a less than 1% price difference between an obsolete, politically-motivated pattern and a proven performer? I know the F-35 and OCP programs are funded from different pots of money, (obviously) but the main point I’m making is that leadership is horrible about choosing its battles. Or about making any kind of decision in general.

        Given the propensity of people that high in the food chain to just do whatever the hell they want regardless, could it all boil down to something as petty as “Well I like that one, so everyone else can pound sand.” ?

    • Popcorn Eater says:

      Hopefully? Why even bother with this new pattern at all? They have a pattern that is effective. It’s been proven in test after test after test as well as in combat. This is ludicrous.

    • Helmets says:

      Somebody high up in the Bush administration had a financial incentive to get UCP pushed through before testing. They maintain that financial incentive to keep UCP in use

      • Philip says:

        Are you really trying to use the “blame Bush” excuse for this?

        Who said it was an administration official? What’s not to say it wasn’t just a self-serving Army official with connections in both the R & D and defense textile industries?

        • Strike-Hold says:

          As I understand it, it was Gen. Moran, head of PEO Soldier at the time.

          Correct me if I’m wrong…

          • RockofMarne says:

            I would agree. Back with Multicam was being touted as “Scorpion Camo” the deselect and then abrupt change to UCP roads all appear to lead back to James Moran. Wonder how is retirement nest egg is doing…

      • AJ says:

        Yep, and this was all being done while the BHM (Bush Hurrican Machine) was in R&D too right?

  18. CTF says:

    The regular Army has a horrible track record of trying to reinvent something that has already been tested and proven by SOF R&D efforts. It’s as if they want to take credit for the “project.” I’ve worn Crye products when it wasn’t cool yet and they stand heads and shoulders above everyone else.

    Thanks Caleb and the folks at Crye for telling your side of the story.

    Pride consumes the weak.

    • Middle Man says:

      Jealous bureaucrats? Un-possible! Could well be the best explanation/interpretation of the situation.

  19. PrincessPeaches says:

    “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it”!! I can’t for the life of me figure out why our Gov’t is hellbent on ruining our Military, as if 1% makes any difference! It protects our Men and Women, stop screwing with what works and protect our people, why not pull the $$ out of somewhere else, like Congress’ pay? They don’t earn it anyways.
    I am so sick of the current administration, makes me sick to my stomach!
    God bless ALL our men and women who have served, are serving and will serve!
    Mother of a Marine

    • Sal says:

      Lol wut?

      So the clusterfucks that are LCS, JSF, FCS, JLTV, EFV, DDX, GCV, and of course UCP Obama’s fault? Do you live in Colorado? Since you must be high.

      No one in Congress or any presidential admin forced UCP on anyone. If anything it’s been Congress trying to slap the Army straight via the phase III and IV camo trials. Troops in Afghan would still be using UCP if it wasn’t for Congress.

      Regarding the OP:

      now that Crye has spoken on the situation, I’m a lot more sympathetic to their situation (not that I wasn’t before, after all if the Army wanted to save money they would’ve followed through phase IV), but this seals it.

  20. BigRed says:

    My heart aches for the future Soldiers.

  21. DanW says:

    Anyone else thinking of calling their Congressman tonight on this?

  22. Nunn Ya says:

    Crye is Brooklyn STRONG!

  23. Strike-Hold says:

    Oh man….. This is beyond FUBAR….

  24. Middle Man says:

    Aside from possibility of an attempted scapegoating of Crye, the negotiations could also be interpreted to demonstrate a motive on the part of Army bureaucracy to totally control the pattern/product. Unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle commercially… Perhaps the Army wanted a revenue stream of their own if they were able to acquire total control. A really farfetched interpretation could be that some within the bureaucracy saw the situation as an opportunity to purchase a very successful brand via tax payer funds, then later (say after retirement) acquire control from the Army (putting the brand back in private hands).

  25. Robert B. says:

    It sounds like the Army is apprehensive about getting into another situation like it had with Colt and the patents they held on the M4. As soon as the Army started testing and XM8, Colt put pressure (ie money) on influential congressmen and hired retired generals to pressure the Army into scrapping the XM8. Buying the patents and exclusive rights for MultiCam makes a lot of sense in that light. If they can’t get the patents outright they should look for something else.

    • Buckethead says:

      From the letter, it sounds like Crye was willing to sell Multicam to the Army in toto, for “in the tens of millions of dollars” (of course they don’t state the actual price), and still the Army rejected it without even making a counter-offer.

    • Sal says:

      Then they should’ve just followed through with phase IV. They would’ve had control of the pattern for far less than $1 million.

  26. Mike says:

    Help me here,

    The NDAA effectively killed the camoflage improvement program unless all branches are willing to adopt the winner. We can safely assume that will not happen, so the Crye submission, which I assume is different than the OCP pattern in some way, cannot be adopted. A recommended course of action was to make the switch to OCP and thereby enter into a sole source environment, but the cost doesn’t look llike it will be acceptable.

    Instead of being pissed off with the Army, Why not be pissed off with congress who passed this bill late in the 4th quarter of the competition?

    COA#1 Change the NDAA and get 3 Crye patterns for a paltry $640,000.

    COA#2 Keep NDAA since convincing congress will be like herding cats and get SECDEF to tell all branches (make an exception for Marines to keep MARPAT if they want) to adopt the winner. Air Force guys will rejoice, Navy probably won’t care since they don’t wear that stuff unless in theatre anyway.

    COA#3 Pay $20 Million (ish) to use a pattern we already use, but have to find other patterns for the 2 other environments which were part of the requirement.

    Is that about right?

    • DanW says:

      If the Army had announced the winning pattern on June 14th like originally planned, they would have been fine. If they had announced the winning pattern at AUSA in October, they would have been fine. The Army had their chance to begin the phase in before the NDAA passed, and they blew it. It is within perfect reason to blame the Army.

      Regarding COA #2, why should Marines have the option to keep MARPAT? That’s what landed us in this mess. Go with COA #4, the Army pays Crye, and everyone uses Multi-Cam.

      • Mike says:


        I assume they were planning on using FY14 funds to make the award.

        And since we are all going to a common uniform anyway:

        “States as the policy of the United States that, by no later than October 1, 2018, the Secretary shall require all military services to use a joint combat camouflage uniform, including color and pattern variants designed for specific combat environments.”

        My COA#4 is: Issue an amendment so the license will cover all branches to use the winning family, evaluate prices, present the winner to a joint panel for buy-in from each branch, sign the contract, pop the bottles, never do this again.

        • Mick says:

          I actually think the Army could still justify MultiCam… it is a pattern that is CURRENTLY in “common use”. They have a pretty good argument that tens of thousands of soldiers in A-stan wearing it is “common”… that legislation is just about adopting any new patterns.

          • SSD says:

            It’s an existing pattern currently in use by the Army, Air Force and USSOCOM. It is well,within the limits of the NDAA.

    • Bman says:

      You guys make good points. If Congress could do something to amend the NDAA, there would be some savings and you would have the best pattern. I agree the AF. Marines, and Navy should not be allowed to keep inferior patterns for the sake of being different looking. The goal is for American Servicemen regardless of branch to have the best protection I would hope. I think from then on, the military should have the ability to test new patterns against the current ones and then make a decision on them jointly or leave it up to the SecDef based strictly on the test results.

  27. 32sbct says:

    It sounds like the Army is going to do whatever it takes not to approve MultiCam. I am baffled by that position but it sure looks that way. If not, why spend the time and effort to conduct yet another field test over the next few months?

  28. Mike says:

    I really wish someone involved in this fiasco would be held criminally responsible for wasting the Army’s time, money, effort, and most of all, lives.

    • SSD says:

      I wish that the parties currently involved would have to explain their actions, under oath, and in public to someone who could hold them accountable. The Army has the opportunity to learn from the past and correct the issue. Instead , they are repeating the behavior in a similar way.

      • Waynoooo says:

        SSD, What makes you think they would tell the truth? They obviously do not give 2 shits about the Constitution, or the oaths they swore as officers. My faith in the integrity of the system has declined to the point that I am really considering other options, like emigrating to Australia or something.

        I have watch the US military BUGGER itself through careerist, nonsensical policies, very similar to the one being cited in this article, and NO ONE is held accountable. What the ever-loving fuck!?!?! How did we get here? More importantly, how do we fix it? I have been struggling with this for several years, and I cannot come up with a workable solution, because of the corruption and Policy of Non-Accountability for Flag officers.

        • SSD says:

          I have to maintain confidence in the institution and process. Unfortunately, from time to time bad actors, whether by design or incompetence, subvert things. I know it looks like a trend, and JCIDS was crafted to keep stuff like this from happening but the Army hasn’t exactly followed the template here. If they had, an AoA would have driven them to adopt something already.

          Hopefully, by shining a light on this damaged process, someone with a calm head on their shoulders will ask the right questions of those who have attempted to reinvent the wheel yet again. Then, perhaps the Army, and DoD can put this behind itself.

          Remember, there’s yet another pistol program on the horizon.

  29. Crusty Groundpounder says:

    I maybe crusty and old but reading through the tea leaves on this one, it appears to me the Army has no desire to replace UCP at all. The stone walling, the rejections, the continual testing and now the fallback excuse that the NDAA has tied their hands only leads me to believe the Army had no intention to ever replace UCP at all. This is all a charade. Not to imply duplicity on the part of our leaders but someone is defending NATICK and its shit pattern.

    • Bman says:

      I wonder if what we have hear about the Army feeling like Crye owes them something, and their desire for a digital pattern outweighs the results. If the patterns that Crye now sales commercially are what they submitted, then I agree they aren’t as “pretty” as the US4CES and some of the other high speed pixelated patterns out there but what worked best the study is an inconvenient truth. I bet they would be ok with replacing it if it met the right conditions…

      • SSD says:


        • Strike-Hold says:

          Groundpounder – just to be clear and fair; UCP was not “developed” by Natick – from what I’ve heard from several sources, they were basically TOLD to create a pattern based on the CADPAT / MARPAT digital geometry and what color palette to use. These instructions allegedly came from Gen. Moran at PEO Soldier.

          Someone correct me if I’m wrong…

        • Bman says:

          With all its splotches and blotches it isnt high tech looking enough to match the cost and dont get me started on the slugs… No one in leadership wants to invite name calling from the other branches. They just wanted something fancier and they were let down. They need to just realize not everyone can attract recruits like the Navy and their blueberries… Ha ha

  30. AGL Bob says:

    Somehow I think this whole project is going south since Congress was ordered to intervene and initiate a joint services camo system.

    • SSD says:

      It was well on its current vector long before Congress interceded. Now, the Army is blaming Congress for their mismanagement.

  31. GW says:

    The losers are numerous, but it is a shame that the Trooper in the field and the small business that supports the supply chain are left in the cold. All along the supply chain we are in our runners blocks waiting on the Army to use the starters pistol. Once the gun goes off we will see the industry pick up and my beloved Army’s morale improve. Still Waiting…………any second now.

  32. Mr. Todd says:

    It’s the same with any gov’t contract since this war has started. Someone from higher is getting payed out to make sure this shitty UCP stays in circulation. Think of what an easy approach it would be to offer some big wig money and a job after their retirement to pick thier product.

  33. Philip says:

    “The Army rejected all of Crye’s proposals and did not present any counter proposals, effectively saying that a proven increase in Soldier survivability was not worth a price difference of less than 1%.”

    No words can describe how disgusted I was after reading that.

  34. Ryan says:

    I think I finally understand the Army’s thinking after reading this letter.

    What the army wants is a new pattern for the same costs as the old one, which is why they were squabbling at the 1% difference in price. That 1% isn’t a lot, but when it’s 1% on every piece of clothing and equipment that is in that pattern it adds up.

    So, the Army says no to Crye unless they can get the costs the same, which they can’t. Army then thinks “maybe if we buyout the pattern from Crye it will cost less than that 1% extra over the lifetime of the pattern.” Crye submits a number, it’s not less. The Army now realizes it can’t use Multicam for the same cost as UCP, and has abandoned going after it and is instead trying agin to develop a pattern which will in theory cost the same as UCP.

    Remember, since we are leaving wartime it doesn’t matter how long the Army takes to transition to a new pattern. $20 million spent on UCP this year and $20 million spent on a new pattern next year is still the same to them when we don’t have an immediate need for the new pattern. The Army already is having its budget severely cut. They just can’t afford to spend more money on camo.

    No, they aren’t considering long term costs, but I wager that this is their train of thought.

    • SSD says:

      But the numbers don’t work. Costs will go up over 1% annually anyway because of inflation. Plus, if you use the $5 Billion capitalization figure for UCP as a benchmark, then 1% is $50,000,000. Anything in the $20 million range is less.

      • Steven S says:


      • Ryan says:

        The 1% of inflation will apply across the board regardless of the pattern, so Multicam will still cost 1% more.

        $20 million was just a number I threw out there for sake of argument. I have no idea what a realistic figure would be. However, in your previous article you mentioned the Army spending $24 million between now and Sept. on UCP. For the sake of argument let’s double that and round up to $50 million and say that’s the yearly spending for UCP. If Multicam costs 1% more then that’s $500,000 per year more. If Crye was asking in the $25 million range for the Army to buyout Multicam then it would take the Army 50 years to see any money returned on the deal, which is far longer than Multicam would remain our camoflauge.

        Again, I’m not saying this makes sense, but I believe it’s what they are thinking.

        • SSD says:

          I think the Army owes us all an answer and needs to tell us what they are thinking.

  35. FGE says:

    Very well put by Crye. It’s interesting to get some facts and perspective from one of the other key players in this never ending effort.

  36. Terry says:

    As someone who works in the tactical nylon industry and is a veteran, I really should care about this but I cant. The Govt. wants what it wants, and it will get it from someone. Maybe not Crye, maybe not any of the other big names. Incredible sums of money have been spent by the government and each company who participated in the research and bidding phase of this fiasco. It amazes me the amount of press that this topic gets, and how it seems to be such a daily topic here at SSD.

    • SSD says:

      It has something to with that incredible amount of money.

    • Really? says:

      Your post makes me think you are longer serving. Whether or not that’s true, you would care if you were DEPLOYING to an area were OCP is needed, but all you were authorized was UCP. Your lack of concern, for those protecting this country, is troubling.

  37. majrod says:

    It’s a sad state of affairs and I fear it will get uglier befgore it gets fixed.

    I don’t underestimate the Army’s ability to be dumb when it comes to business. As a business owner that has done business with the Army and as a a former officer doing the research for acquisition I’ve personally seen some incredible situations. The Army doesn’t like proprietary solutions and I can understand why. Some businesses build things in such a way as to require the Army to pay through the nose for minor improvements.

    The “easy” solution is avoid ALL proprietary solutions. It takes no brain power. Some in gov’t even get a bias against businesses and set up programs for vendors to share their proprietary info in a manner that allows it to be stolen by other vendors or the gov’t itself (the ICC was set up this way).

    This situation is what happens in bureaucracies. Not acceptable but understandable and avoidable with thought and leadership the Army must provide.

    I applaud Crye’s disclosure. I hope it generates some real progress.

    On the downside Crye did “overstate” its case in one area. “It has been the top performer in every major Army camouflage test of the past decade…” In the ’08 test http://www.scribd.com/doc/19823845/Photosimulation-Camouflage-Detection-Test Desert MARPAT did as well as multicam in it’s performance over UCP and did better than multicam in 6 of 9 scene comparison and 2 of 3 environment comparisons (p15). When you add woodland MARPAT the performance of MARPAT is even more striking. (Not a fan of MARPAT as much as a fan of common patterns).

    • straps says:

      Avoiding proprietary solutions got Army UCP, then UCP-D. It also got us that dumbass duck hunter webbing when OCP (Multicam) was first selected for use in OEF-A.

      Army realized they had ZERO talent or skill in this when they initiated the Improvement Project.

      The camo restrictions in the NDAA read like ground rules for regulating middle school bake sales. Combine that with the synergistic weakness of Hagel and Dempsey and their inability to unscrew their Service Chiefs and you have what’s going on now: Army’s trying to unscrew itself, GEN Amos seems to have almost zero credibility on any other topic with his Marines so he’s riding hard on this (not gonna give it up, not gonna allow other services to remove the EGA from it and start issuing it to comply with NDAA), and the remaining services (Navy and Air Force) are kinda “meh” on this matter because VERY few of them work on land among enemy combatants.

      I’m all for a one team pattern. Not convinced of MARPAT’s superiority over the Crye family–especially after having seen the Tropic variant. But as long as some combination of Sec Hagel, GEN Dempsey and GEN Amos are still in play, I don’t see change for the better coming.

      • majrod says:

        Avoiding proprietary solutions also produced woodland, chocolate chip coffestain patterns, FBCB2, Falcon View, most of the small arrms ammo, Alice (load bearing components & ruck) PALS/MOLLE etc.

        No doubt the Army screwed the pooch with UCP but there are pros and cons to proprietary approaches. Like I said I’ve seen vendors design stuff with the follow on versions already designed and not supplied or offered only to nickel and dime the gov’t. There are no easy answers and neither side is innocent.

        I’ve got plenty of problems with leadership also.

        As for the EGA the law clarified that and from what I’ve read AOR is supposed to be better than MARPAT.

        • Reverend says:

          NWu still has the ACE in the pattern so you are still at square one.

        • SSD says:

          I’d like to point out that MOLLE/PALS was very much a proprietary design with a Natick employee enjoying patent rights.

          FalconView was created by GTRI and paid for by USAF and NGIA.

    • jose gordon says:

      MAJ Rod…again, you simplify the results. Crye didn’t overstate anything in saying that MC has consistently surpassed the requriement to be the closest thing to “universal” camo on the planet. In this report, Desert MARPAT performed slightly better than MC in the specific “arid environments”. You do the same when you compare the Woodland MARPAT results in the specific “single environment scenario”. It’s just as striking how overwhelmingly MC does when transitioning environments (which happens in the real world on a daily basis), over anyone single environment pattern. Please keep apples to apples and oranges to oranges

      • majrod says:

        jose – I’m a simple guy.

        Reread what I and Crye said. As a reminder… “It has been the top performer in every major Army camouflage test of the past decade…” That’s not 100% accurate.

        You are factually incorrect when you state “Desert MARPAT performed slightly better than MC in the specific “arid environments”. It also outperformed multicam in urban environments. The differences in performance is even more striking when one looks at pattern rankings by scene. Look at p15.

        Multicam might have strong transitional characteristics. Great. I am aware that in the real world environments change. I’m also aware and have been in environments that didn’t change that much (e.g. not much woodland in a desert, not much desert in a jungle).

        We have fundamentally forgotten what camouflage means. Camouflage is not what one buys but what one does. This is often lost in a lab and even a military that often de-emphasizes or outright forgets fieldcraft. As we are famous for, we as Americans tend to find one size fits all, convenient, materia/technological solutions. It was a mistake with UCP to apply it to too many environments as it would be with any ONE pattern.

        Seems you emphasize the transitional qualities of multicam over environment specific camo which is the most effective way to be camouflaged next to not moving and how we have approached camo for decades.

        It’s not so much a case of apples and oranges as it is experience vs. theory.

        • jose gordon says:

          And yet again you completely missed the entire point of this whole program and why your reference to that limited study only concentrated on testing patterns to specific environments…trust me…I’ve been involved in this from the beginning and know every evolutionary twist and turn – as the Capability Developer (ie…the operational perspective). Camoflauge iis not just what one does but it s limited by what one does if what they buy doesn’t provide the fundamental to build on. If you can transition, its easier to do the camo to the specific and then change it to another specific when necessity and time permits. What happens in the between time – which 80% of the operational envirornment – is what amtters. Thats where a specific lcamo like any of the MARPATS are overwhelmingly inferior to MC. I’ve been operational for over 30 years and have operated in every environment and have never been in one environment where I didnt transition at some point for a time to another environment in the same mission set/profile…

          • majrod says:

            No Jose, I get what you are saying. You aren’t understanding what Crye claims and we disagree a bit on the pro’s and con’s of transitional camo.

            From the above linked report p21

            Conclusions and Recommendations

            1. THE DATA SHOWS ENVIRONMENT SPECIFIC DATA CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ENVIRONMENT SPECIFIC PATTERNS PROVIDE THE BEST CAMOUFLAGE (emphasis added) i.e., lowest probability of detection, in their respective environments. These data clearly indicate that two patterntypes, woodland and desert/urban, will provide the best camouflage to the Soldier with missions inthese specific environments…

            2. IF Army leadership desires, for any number of reasons, TO MAINTAIN A SINGLE multi-environmentcamouflage pattern for combat missions, then one must first consider all possible environments that aSoldier can encounter during a mission set. For instance, IN PRESENT DAY THEATRES, Soldiers canmanuever from desert mountainous terrain to oasis to urban terrain during a single mission.MultiCam® provides a readily available alternative with good overall performance across all threeenvironments. (emphasis added)

            The Army is NOT looking for a single pattern. The Army will not always be fighting in Afghanistan

            Crye quoted it was “the top performer is every major camouflage test”. It didn’t win this one UNLESS we were/are selecting a single pattern. Again the quote with emphasis added “THE DATA SHOWS ENVIRONMENT SPECIFIC DATA CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ENVIRONMENT SPECIFIC PATTERNS PROVIDE THE BEST CAMOUFLAGE”

            I also disagree as to an over emphasis on transition capability. The over reliance on “do everything” patterns has a correlation to our diminished fieldcraft emphasis and skills. Convenience was what led to SOF ditching helmet covers and painting helmets to match the environment. Guess what? They are issuing helmet covers again… What changed? Nothing. The best of the best relearned that helmet shine and sound gives one away and is worth the extra bother of dealing with helmet covers…

  38. steveb says:

    Look like AOR or Marpat for all. Perhaps AOR2 for general issue, and AOR1 for specific Arid MOAs.

    • Hardchawger says:

      I agree steveb and have a gut feeling about this. If going with Marpat or AOR will provide cost savings over multicam; then this will happen. Nobody can dispute that Marpat works.

  39. Eric says:

    I am writing a speech for college about United States military camo, is their anyway I can get a full list of articles from SSD. thanks

    • AGL Bob says:

      At the end of this article check the tag and file names then do a site search. This should bring up all of the articles.

    • SSD says:

      Over 10,000 articles, use the search function.

  40. Ronald Moore says:

    Someone submit a whistle blower on PM-CIE for this travesty.

  41. RJ says:

    Hey SSD, what would your reply be if I travelled back in time and showed you this article, but back in 2009?

    • SSD says:

      I’d be amazed. I never would have expected the Army to ever actually consider Multicam for general issue. And then, I’d say, “figures they’d screw it up.”

  42. JBAR says:

    SSD & Cyre, thank you for providing the information.
    1. Is Crye speaking in terms of Multicam specifically, or the family? That is a factor in overall costs. How does that play in?
    2. I am still a little fuzzy about the Phase IV winner and costs. Wasn’t the $600k (roughly) an agreed upon condition of the test? Crye and the Army were in agreement (as were the others) at set pricing upon being rewarded as the winner? It does not seen to be a part of Crye’s memo. I understand the timing of the NDAA tied the Army’s hands after it was issued, or did it? It seems that the family would be new uniforms and not adoptable unless it is service-wide. Multicam is still able to be adopted by the Army since it was, and is, in use, and falls within NDAA standards. If these were all true, then the Army could have walked away with the entire Multicam family for $600k roughly. Again, I do not see that point addressed in Crye’s memo, unless I am missing it.
    3. PM-CIE and the Army (to what extent is still unclear) was ready to roll with the Phase IV plan, but went off of the rails with all of the Army, political, etc. BS. I do not have any insight or knowledge about the Army’s structure or the history of PEO Soldier. What I did find is an article with some background of PEO Soldier staff. General Moran’s name pops up frequently in regards to UCP. There is another person, PEO Maj Gen. Camille M. Nichols, who went over to become the first commanding general of Army Contracting Command.I bet she would know first hand what is going on. Also, it would seem that Ranger and Special Forces-tabbed Brig. Gen. Paul A. Ostrowski would be a strong supporter of the best product to help the soldiers. The article is a total iceing of shit upon shit with a third of the content stating how much they all are there for the soldiers’ common needs first.http://www.army.mil/article/79353/PEO_Soldier_celebrates_anniversary__welcomes_new_leader__unveils_new_logo/
    Sorry for getting side tracked. It just makes me fume even more. Thank you again.

    • SSD says:

      BG Ostrowski is the Current PEO Soldier. He has not spoken with the media since our press conference regarding the cancellation of Individual Carbine.

    • Mike says:

      It seems that there are two seperate issues:

      NDAA killed the camo improvement effort for the Army unless all branches will wear it as well. The requirement was for a family of camoflage patterns along with a compatible scheme for equipment as an option. If Crye is correct that they are the winner then we could have had their submission for a one time royalty of $638,xxx give or take a few.

      With NDAA that whole program is about to go into the toilet. We are negotiating, sole source, for OCP which is a completely seperate solution from the Camo improvement competition. This won’t satisfy the three environment requirement or the mandate that all adopt a common camo. Why not make the award for $640K, obtain the license and not formally adopt the camoflage until our ducks are in a row? Hell we could award to all 4 finalists and have the licenses to the 4 best camo pattern families on the market for less than what it will cost to adopt OCP.

  43. Chuck says:

    This is getting to the point where I have a genuine issue on the amount of waste that is happening with this entire project. I’ve already forwarded this article to my representative in Congress, and I’m ready to file a grievance with the IG on peo soldier for waste.

  44. Eric says:

    Thanks for the help, what the US Military really needs to do so that everyone can have truly effective camo and close the case is adopt Hypersealths invisibility suits. Because if the military doesn’t adopt it Guy Cramer will sell it to civilians.

    • Really? says:

      Do you have any idea how unlikely that is? The cost of such expensive equipment pretty much guarantees that only spec ops soldiers are issued their own “invisibility cloaks”. The current “leaders” are afraid to fund effective gear for a measly 1% more per uniform. I won’t hold my breath.

      • Eric says:

        I know. But think about it, what will make military camo ineffective, invisibility suits. It is only now a matter of time before other countries get their hands on this tech. Obviously I am just a civilian/student so I do not really know what I am talking about. HA!

  45. Jon says:

    It’s a shame the political drama that is going on with this. For a country that changes our camouflage pattern roughly every few decades we are re-inventing the wheel…again and again. Hopefully Crye doesn’t just decide not to do business with the army and we end up with UCP (D) or something dumb again.

    • Explosive Hazard says:

      Oh no, we will repeat the disaster that brought us UCP all over again. The Army has no short or long term memory. I predict they will create an abortion that is a transitional pattern that combines Scorpion and UCP-D. Or to put it this way, the same pattern screens as UCP, MARPAT, CADPAT, AOR etc. but with the color pallet of Scorpion+coyote brown. That way they could still somehow integrate the AOR/MARPAT patterns as there would still be enough commonality based on the screens and coyote color. But have a transitional camo of sorts to issue for CONUS and most military operations in a majority of environments. Doesn’t mean it will be good though and will likely be an under performer compared to all of the phase IV finalists by a big margin. Its gonna be UCP 2.0. Get ready.

  46. majrod says:

    SSD, way to stay on top of the story and thanks for the additional piece to the puzzle.

  47. LowSpeed says:

    Slightly off topic, I’ve been following the events of Crimea/Ukraine/Russia. Annnnd tons of the Russian “self defense forces” guys running around Crimea are in Mulitcams, the Russian regular Army and some of their police units wear em too, could this play a factor into big Army’s decision?

    • SSD says:

      Seriously? You’re giving them additional material to add to their bag of lameassed excuses. No, if that were the case, elements of the US Army, US Air Force and USSOCOM wouldn’t be running all over hell creation in them.

      • LowSpeed says:

        “Lameassed” or not you’re right..it could be used as a reason. The fact that most-likely adversaries uses the same or very similar uniforms must play a role or be questioned at some point somewhere. I’d say it’s a legitimate question to ask.. that being said I’m all for Crye, hopefully Big Army makes the right decision.

        • Strike-Hold says:

          Russian forces also run around in copies of DPM, Woodland, Flecktarn, Finnish M-05 and WWII WSS patterns.

          So, no – I don’t see this being a serious point of consideration in the Army deciding against MultiCam…

    • straps says:

      Yeah no.

      LAV has footage of certain Russian elements with MC (or knockoffs) who would be a significant threat in a fight on their turf no matter what they’re wearing vice what we’re wearing.

      And to be sure, preparing for armed conflict against professional soldiers once again will be a paradigm shift that GPF and SOF is no doubt considering (possibly to the exclusion of more navel-gazing about uniforms). But that’s the ONLY cogency in your post. Which was off-topic. So why?

      • Bronx says:

        It’s not off topic. In Denmark, we just adopted multicam, and there’s been a lot of talk about how we now look like everyone else. Granted, we had fairly effective camouflage patterns beforehand (one woodland, one desert, for the entire military – works fine), so there was little incentive, compared to UCP/MC. But still, the uniform used to be as distinctive as the flag on your shoulder, and for some people that can be a difficult and radical change. Maybe some of those people are amongst the decisionmakers in the US army leadership?
        Especially considering that some non-NATO forces are adapting it army-wide (say Georgia, or even Pakistan).

  48. Angry Jarhead says:

    DOD IG Complaint Form

    Subj: The US Army (yes, I’d like to report the entire Army)

    Reason: Bloated, overfunded, lack of basic leadership principles, inability to put troop needs first, lack of discretion with taxpayer’s dollars, willing to overcomplicate the simple, deficit of common sense, worried more about trivial matters than equipment that will be worn by their soldiers in COMBAT. (Reminder- that’s when someone is trying to kill you, often based on VISUAL recognition)

    Evidence: See all posted above.

    • majrod says:

      You don’t want to go there. You do realize the Marines started this?

      First branch to EVER copyright and refuse to share a camouflage pattern after borrowing Army patterns for half a century. Yep, Army’s blown $5 bil (though this would have been spent on whatever pattern we selected).

      Considering we’ve lost over 4000 soldiers and their insurance policies were $.5 mil that’s $2 trillion and a lot of dead Americans. Wonder how many of those died because Marines thought having their own camo pattern was more important than sharing the best tools of war?

      I’m 110% for holding people responsible for absolutely stupid decisions. Do you have the moral courage to apply it to yourself?

      • Reverend says:

        I doubt the Army would have selected MARPAT anyways.

        • majrod says:

          Rev – Let’s assume your right for the sake of argument, does the bible teach it’s ok to wrong your brother if he was going to make the wrong decision anyway?

          Now, where’s your evidence that the Army wouldn’t have selected MARPAT because I have tons of the Corps saying no one could…

        • majrod says:

          BTW Rev, there is line about casting the first stone that’s also applicable

      • jose gordon says:

        MAJ Rod…THANK YOU…THANK YOU…THANK YOU!!!!! I am so glad you pointed this out. This is lost in the whole of this situation…THANKS!!!

      • SGT Gunner says:

        So if I read you correctly, just 1 or 2 lives saved and the new camo pattern pays for itself. Semper Stultos army, Semper Stultos.

        • majrod says:

          I guess Semper Fi means only “faitrhful” to oneself?

          Keep digging. You are making the case for why camo became so screwed up better than I ever could.

      • Angry Jarhead says:

        Yep, I can take responsibility for myself as a man and as a Marine. I don’t take responsibility for the entire Marine Corps, nor would I expect you to do the same for the Army. I disagree that the USMC shares blame in the Army’s mess, based on the litany of comments, the evidence, and the record (which speaks for itself) I find it HILARIOUS that one services’ record of failure on a specific issue gets blamed on another. That’s ridiculous. You fall to logic that says “I should have won but that other guy that was smarter, more innovative, and more efficient beat me. No fair.”

  49. Doc Ras says:


    Looks like the Army Times likes to read SSD but forgot how to cite their sources….

    • HOLLYWOOD319 says:

      I just read and noticed that too. That’s what you get when the “Army Times” has no affiliation with the ACTUAL Army. Plus, they clearly have someone in that office that is trying to play the Army side of the fence instead of actually being impartial.

      • Philip says:

        Did you see the comment from that clown who said that SSD was taking kickbacks from Crye to push a “MultiCam agenda”? Such a polarizing issue; feelings run deep on either side apparently!

        • Philip says:

          While I know SSD is doing no such thing, I find it interesting people are so quick to trash the guy who did nothing more than break the story…

        • Hardchawger says:

          Philip, I am only a clown on the weekends. And BTW, I stand by that opinion. I feel news reporting should be impartial to all parties and ever since I been reading about Phase IV from the start and seeing how some were favoring US4CES over Multicam; I just saw that this website was leading towards Crye. Granted, he allowed Mr. Cramer a forum to express his opinions and to pass on his findings. That is why I moved away from the liberal media because I am tired of biased reporting.

          • Hardchawger says:

            And for the record, I been serving my country since 1983 and fought in Iraq and Afghanistan and wore BDUs, DCUs, Multicam and obviously the current UCP. I agree with MAJROD that experience trumps theory any day of the week and find it laughable at reporters and so-called camo experts who never experienced combat to make these claims.

            I stuck out like a sore thumb with UCP in Iraq and not that impressed with multicam. Crap, it is just a modified version of the BDU. If that is the case; might as well go back to that.

          • SSD says:

            You really don’t know what your talking about. Too bad you’ve got an uninformed opinion. When you talk about reporters, consider this, I served in the Army from 1985-1996 and the Air Force from 1996-2006. I’ve held jobs in industry and as Editor of SSD since then. Thank you for your service but you’re not the only one with experience and I highly doubt it is as relative as mine to this subject matter.

            One more time for the folks who have to have everything tapped out on their foreheads.

            Based on the information available and the current situation that the US Army has placed itself in, I support that they adopt MultiCam or Scorpion if they can get away with it. The alternatives are unacceptable for a variety of reasons which I have laid put again and again. I am for the Army doing the right thing and this is the only viable COA.

            The American Soldier deserves a quality product. Right now they only have that while serving in Afghanistan. MultiCam works. You can look at it and tell it works. It works very well. It works when specialty patterns stick out in the wrong environment.

            The Army’s failure to act is killing the tactical industry. I am concerned about its health. The folks at PEO Soldier sure as hell aren’t. They plod along with no sense of purpose whatsoever. These businesses aren’t state run and won’t be there when they’re needed if they go out of business. They need to know what the Army intends to do.

            At this juncture, none of the Phase IV families of patterns are options so everyone who is pining for that to happen is living in a fantasy world.

            If you run into me and see me wearing camouflage for some reason or carrying a pack it is rarely MultiCam. It works very well but I’m not beholden to that brand although I’m very interested in the new Tropical variant.

            Close friends who spoke with me regularly throughout Phase IV, often accused me of being partial to Kryptek. I was and still am. It is unique and I like the guys behind the brand.

            I was the first writer to share info on Brookwood’s patterns but held off for years at the request of Brookwood.

            Over the years I have given HyperStealth a bully pulpit along with a wide variety of domestic and international camouflage developers. Some became advertisers, some have not. HyperStealth in particular has benefitted greatly from the coverage on SSD. They are not an advertiser but Guy Cramer and I speak regularly. I like his chutzpah.

            So if you take issue with the caliber of coverage on SSD, you are full of shit.

  50. HOLLYWOOD319 says:

    I just read and noticed that too. That’s what you get when the “Army Times” has no affiliation with the ACTUAL Army. Plus, they clearly have someone in that office that is trying to play the Army side of the fence instead of actually being impartial. Plus, according to the “Army Times” story, the Army wants a pixelated Multi cam. Why? Also, they are saying that after 25-50 meters the pattern doesn’t’ matter? ARE YOU SERIOUS?! What kind of illegitimate son of Zeus wrote/ performs tests/ approved/ oh wait… probably an LT… Never mind! No more mob!

    • Really? says:

      After 25-50 meters of what? I know. In dense jungle, during a rainstorm, at night. I dare someone to tell me that BS to my face.

      In 2010, in trash-canistan, I got shot at, while walking next to guys in MC (who were never targeted)! This happened three times, on two different patrols.

      • Really? says:

        …the shooters were about 125 meters away the first time, and 200 meters away the second and third time.

        • Reverend says:

          I completely agree but I think he was referring to the pattern geometry. But still the geometry of multicam is what makes it so effective.