B5 Systems

Crye Precision’s 2001 Scorpion Development Contract Calls Into Question Army Claims Of “Appropriate Rights To Use” New OCP Variant

Many have questioned the US Army’s right to use a recently announced camouflage pattern, so a few weeks ago we decided to put it to bed and asked the Army about it. They offered us a rather curt, but confident, answer. But then DLA began a quest to fund a new printer that didn’t pay commercial printing royalties to Crye Precision for Scorpion. So last week, we ran a story regarding the US Army’s statement that they had “Appropriate rights to use the Operational Camouflage Pattern” and, in the process, exposed a major controversy that had arisen over printing royalties for OCP.


The US Army uses the name Operational Camouflage Pattern to refer to the Scorpion W2 camouflage pattern which is a 2010 modification of the so-called Scorpion pattern originally introduced by Crye Precision in 2001 and patented in 2004. What is at question, is whether or not the Army can use the pattern, royalty-free.

We know that Crye filed for, and was granted, a patent for this camouflage by the US Patent and Trademark Office, Camouflage Pattern Applied to Substrate US D487,848 S, March 30, 2004. We also know that not long after the patent was granted, the Army asked the PTO to insert the following addendum into the patent:

After claim, insert the following:
–Statement as to rights to inventions made under federally sponsored research and development.
The U.S. Government has a paid-up license in this invention and the right in limited circumstances to require the patent owner to license others on reasonable terms as provided for by the terms of contract No. DAAD16-01-C-0061 awarded by the US Army Robert Morris Acquisition Natick Contracting Division of the United States Department of Defense.–

From this, we surmised that the US Army’s assertion of appropriate rights is based on the funding of the Scorpion project via contract (DAAD16-01-C-0061) in September of 2001. This 13 year-old contract has remained the missing piece to this puzzle. Does this contract, in fact, prefer rights to the camouflage to the US Army?

Now, SSD has obtained a copy of that Natick contract as well as Crye’s formal proposal to accomplish the task which was accepted in its entirety as part of the contract. As you will see, both documents must be used in concert with another to determine whether the US Army’s claim of rights to the patented camouflage technology are valid.

It is important to note that while we refer to Crye Precision throughout this article, the actual contract was between Natick and Crye Associates. Crye Precision, who we generally think of when we are talking military issues, didn’t yet exist, and was stood up later as a manufacturing subsidiary.


Additionally, although the camouflage pattern is known as ‘Scorpion’ it gained this nickname due to its association with the Scorpion ensemble, which was initially part of the Objective Force Warrior and later the Future Force Warrior initiatives. Scorpion components were also produced in other patterns such as Desert All Over Brush and the 3-color desert camouflage seen below.


From the outset in their proposal for the work to Natick, Crye specifically called out several technologies that it had already been working on, and although they would be willing to demonstrate as part of the project, would retain full ownership of. This list included “novel camouflaging technologies.” Remember, when the contract was written, there was no such thing as ‘Scorpion Camouflage’.


As you can see, Crye’s language in the proposal is very specific and very restrictive. It is obvious that they intended to protect their rights to their preexisting ideas.


Several times, Crye Associates makes their point. This is obvious to anyone that reads the document.


At the actual contracting stage, Crye references the proposal in the Army contract, which not only makes it germane to the discussion here, but also a vital addendum to the actual contract between Crye Associates and Natick. The Army signed the contract after Crye, without changes, thereby executing it. That tells us the Army read the contract as well as the proposal which was referenced in the contract, and agreed to the terms. Now, they seem to be singing a different tune.


The contents of these official documents not only calls into question the Army’s assertion of rights to use the pattern, but also their modification of Crye’s patented baseline Scorpion pattern in 2010 to create the W2 variant which more closely resembles the patented MultiCam pattern, and is currently adopted as OCP. One would wonder why Crye Precision has remained silent through all of this until the realization hits that the Army’s actions have all been behind the scenes. They have only become public knowledge because of our reporting. It is our understanding that Crye Precision initially found out about Scorpion W2 and its adoption by the Army at the same time as everyone else, by reading about it in the news. When the Army has been asked about these issues by the press, they either ignore the inquiries or offer very generic statements with no explanation.

Ultimately, while this question may well have to be answered in court, it is our opinion that Crye Precision obviously intended for their preexisting technologies (including camouflage) to remain solely their property. They disclosed this in their proposal and backed this up with specific wording in the contract which was not challenged by the Natick contracting office. By executing the contract, the Army agreed. This is evident in the executed contract we’ve shared here on SSD. What remains to be explained is the government’s position, in spite of the language in the contract, to rights to the technology. The Army has not been forthcoming regarding this issue but rather offered, what comes across as a very flippant statement, asserting that they possess “appropriate rights”. Perhaps the Army is hanging its hat on the rather lengthy boilerplate in the Patent Rights section of page 13. The issue with this argument is that the Contracting Officer agreed to Crye’s terms as well. Someone will surely come forward and say, “The FAR says ‘X’ regarding IP rights.” In this case, the Army chose to sign a contract that included these specifically negotiated rights that exempt Crye’s camouflage as well as other technologies from Government ownership. This agreement between Natick and Crye takes precedence over the FAR.

52dot227-11 5b

You have to wonder if the Army bothered to actually look at these records at all, or if someone simply verified that a contract existed and just applied standard procedure. Time after time, throughout the Army’s process to identify a new camouflage, issues have arisen that should have been identified had only PEO Soldier conducted a thorough due diligence. Once again, it appears that such a thorough review did not take place. Perhaps the Army has additional documentation that further clarifies their position but sat this point, we doubt it. Getting answers out of them is like pulling teeth. They have yet to substantiate these claims to rights, while our investigation into the matter continues to paint an entirely different picture. At SSD, we believe in government transparency and feel that everyone deserves an accounting for the Army’s actions throughout this rather protracted camouflage improvement effort. Industry is also watching this situation very closely to determine how they will proceed with government in the future.

It’s time to check the egos at the door and deal with this head on. We urge the US Army to cease its schemes to avoid paying Crye Precision for use of their intellectual property and to enter into good faith negotiations to bring this issue to a conclusion that is satisfactory for both the American taxpayer and Crye Precision.

Feel free to read the full proposal and contract. They are offered here so that no one will question the extracts that we have included in the story, and so that the entire documents are available in order to spur informed debate. Some information has been redacted such as Privacy Act info. We encourage you to read them, but we have used pertinent screen captures of the information at hand, to illustrate points throughout the article.

Crye Associates Scorpion Proposal

US Army Contract DAAD 16-01-C-0061

As for our readers, you’ve now read the documents. What do you think?

Tags: , ,

159 Responses to “Crye Precision’s 2001 Scorpion Development Contract Calls Into Question Army Claims Of “Appropriate Rights To Use” New OCP Variant”

  1. Buckaroomedic says:

    Amazing . . . Thanx for the investigative work!

    It seems the Army is now being completely run by dishonorable people who would trade their souls for a good OER bullet.

    Too many Generals and not enough Privates!

  2. Matthew P. says:

    I don’t mean to bring this up, again, but, if it turns out that the Army does not have the right to use “OCP” royalty free and Crye will need to be paid to use it, wouldn’t it be better for the Army to cough up the needed cash and just go Multicam?
    FYI – I’m not a vet not active duty so my understanding of the military is from family and my armchair.

    • Eddie says:

      The way I’ve seen PEO posting pictures on their flickr, they seem pretty proud of the Scorpion, doubt with all the tweaking they’d give it up. XD I think Scorpion would actually help us stand out (not on the battlefield. >_>) from all the other militaries using straight Multicam. You have to take into account we started using it first, then countries like Chile, Ukraine, Russia, Poland, and so on started using it for their troops and/or special units. Scorpion is the army way to go as far as I can tell, and nobody else will have it.

      • Matthew P. says:

        Okay, I see. I guess I can understand not wanting their “pattern” being widly available. And it seems that everyone has their own variation of Multicam (see Australia’s newest pattern). I just wished they would have left some vertical elements in.

  3. Ryan says:

    Maybe I missed something, but where in the contract does Crye reference a specific pattern?

    Moreover, where is there mention of any pattern similar to what we now know as “Scorpion?”

    What I don’t understand is how saying “Oh, we have some camouflage we are working on” lets them off the hook for any camouflage that came out of the effort.

    • SSD says:

      You’re missing the point and perhaps not reading the article because it’s explained in there.

      According to the BAA proposal, Crye was working on a Camo pattern prior to the contract. In their proposal they told the Army that they had camouflage technology which they would share as part of the program but that they owned. The Army accepted this.

      There weren’t any named patterns and the Army agreed when they executed the contract that they had no expectation of a camouflage pattern as a part of the contract by the way it is written.

    • majrod says:

      Good point Ryan…

      • mike says:

        But it’s not a good point, though.

        • majrod says:

          Mike you’re assuming Crye was only working on Scorpion. Crye also had gear on other patterns and colors. Who is to say those unique items were not camo technology? Not naming your pattern is a problem as well as not specifying the camo tachnology which could be colors, matte application, blending of colors, shape of equipment, covers to break up shapes etc.

          You’re talking everything from helmet covers to the boot laces on ones boots. Wanting “camo tech” to equal “scorpion” is a VERY forgiving and nuanced understanding for one side no matter how much one wants to believe the opposite.

          It’s like General Dynamics referring to locomotion technology and understanding that’s everything from the M1 tank to a map.

          • SSD says:

            This whole naming of camouflage phenomenon is a recent thing. This Camo market didn’t exist in 2001. Claiming rights to categories of technologies you possess was the right way to go.

            I look at it from the opposite point of view. It’s the government’s burden to prove that Crye possessed a camouflage that wasn’t scorpion, it’s also the government’s burden to prove that public funds were used to fund its development. They are the ones who want it. Placing that claim in the scorpion technology patents is certainly worth looking at.

          • SSD says:

            I thought about this comment a little more. What this contract demonstrates is that the Army understood that they were NOT paying for camouflage of any type when they signed it.

            That was never a deliverable. The Army didn’t ask for it and Crye Associates specifically told the Army that they weren’t offering them a piece of that pie. When the U.S. Army signed the contract, it agreed to those terms.

            • Rob says:

              This is exactly as I read the contract and remember from conversations within industry around 2003.

      • SilverDragon says:

        Multicam will not succeed for the US Army and I’m waiting for multidoge uniforms to be demonstrated in real life.

  4. SubandSand says:

    It’s shit like this that makes my happy to be in the Navy.

    • Pat says:

      But then, we sadly have Navy uniforms. It’s also important to remember than sailors deployed in combat zones may well have to wear what the Army adopts, according to what Congress intends.

      • ReverendSpecialK says:

        You will still be wearing NWU in an AOR pattern for a long time to come unless you are a corpsman or someone else who is attached to a Marine or Army unit.

        • Eddie says:

          With the thousands of Navy personnel embedded with both
          Army and Marine units, it would be quite an issue that shouldn’t be blown off with time windows.

          • SubandSand says:

            Oh I’ve worn the gas station attendant Utilities, loved the change to Type 1’s (just wish they would hurry up on the light weight version), ACUs in UCP for Warrior Training at Ft Dix New Jersey, day before leaving for Afghan had to turn in all our gear to get reissued ACUs in Multicam, and I’m in Type 3s at my current command. My favorite uniform of all time will always be my submarine coveralls, but the Multicam ACUs and Type 3s are a tie for second. The cut of the ACUs is IMHO better but the button and Velcro options on the Type 3s pockets is much better then the Army Velcro only.

  5. Uniform223 says:

    Always a well written article. This answers so many questions I had.
    Reading this and keeping track ( as best I could ) of the whole camouflage cluster fuck has really made me sour about the subject. This whole issue completely flies in the face of one of the US Army’s core values…. INTEGRITY! TO DO WHAT’S RIGHT BOTH LEGALLY AND MORALLY!!! ( yes I still carry my Army Values Card ) They should practice what they teach.

  6. GearMonkey says:

    Good Stuff SSD!

    A Possible Line of Attack for the Army? On Page 4 (Section C1) the Contract states “The Government hereby accepts this proposal in its entirety unless otherwise revised herein this contract”. The Incorporated Clause for Patent Rights starting on page 13 does potentially revise the original proposal and therefore potentially trumps any Patent language written in the Crye proposal.

    • SSD says:

      Actually, the rights asserted by Crye Associates would have to be concretely addressed. Generally, boilerplate doesn’t trump specifically negotiated rights. Their terms are the exception to the norm.

  7. CAVstrong says:

    Here is the actual bottom line. The army is whining about having to pay a little bit of royalties when they operate a monopsony. Kryptek, US4CES, Pencott, ATACS, Tiger Stripe, MARPAT, AOR, let the race to the bottom begin!!

    At this point any new pattern would be a victory….

    • SilverDragon says:

      CAMO WARS Episode 1

      In a galaxy far, far, far away, there were many planets in the western galaxy and the most notorious planets were UCP, NWUI, MARPAT, ABU and MULTICAM. At some point, UCP, NWUI, MARPAT and ABU declares war on each other and the first planet to attack was MARPAT. Several JEDI Knights from MARPAT sabotaged planet Harold an ally of UCP by manipulating the governing system on the planet surface.

  8. Sean says:

    I understand that this site is heavily in bed with the gear industry, but all this does is further prevent a good camouflage pattern from getting in the hands of soldiers in a timely fashion.The crye company is still going to make a mint from every other gear manufacturer making gear in thier pattern.

    • Overwatch says:

      That’s right. Never mind the government lying and trying to steal from a company. All that matters is that you might not get a new uniform. Nothing like focusing on the wrong things. Let me guess, you’re 20 and play video games all of the time?

      • Sean says:

        I’m 31 and I’m a SFC platoon sergeant (11b) who wore multicam for over a year in afghan. Who the fuck are you?! And I honestly don’t care for all this political and business wrangling. The government is broke and they are trying to find away around paying more tax dollars in license fees. Is that where u want your tax dollars in Caleb cryes pocket? I just want to have pattern that can’t be seen clear as day in all environments (ACU) and to be able to invest in some gear in a pattern I will have for awhile before I deploy next. I don’t think that’s the “wrong thing” to focus on.

        • SSD says:

          At some point in the next 10 years you are going to look at leaving the Army and starting a business or going to work for someone. Your livelihood won’t automagically flow twice per month into your bank account. At that point, you’ll want to ensure that you get paid for the work you do. You’ll have a keen interest in protecting ideas and receiving just compensating for them. You’ll also want others to honor contracts they enter into with you.

          Right now, your comments are extremely self-centered and naive. You’re willing to compromise the Army’s integrity as an institution over a paint job. If the Army feels that it needs an invention from Caleb Crye then it needs to honor its contracts with him. That may mean that it has to pay to use that invention. That’s the right thing to do in business and it’s the right thing to do in public service.

          • Mark says:

            Private property rights matter.

            Needs do not trump the rights of others.

            If need trumps individual right, then the needs of your Service would trump your individual rights to a paycheck. Just because they say so.

            Rather than as a contract between you, and the government.

          • majrod says:

            SSD you have a good point about the gov’ts assault on private property and capitalism. I’ve commented previously about an incident I had with a SOCOM unit (it wasn’t the only one).

            Then there’s another side of the coin. John Garand the inventor and patent holder of the M1 GAVE his invention to the US! He received no royalties for his invention. One that no other than Patton complimented as the greatest implement of war during WWII.

            The Gov’t might be acting crappy. The patent wording isn’t without merit and could have been addressed by Crye Precision. But as amazing as the gov’ts behavior might be so is how strange John Garand’s behavior is considered against today’s standards.

            • SSD says:

              It was a different time.

              • mike says:

                and a different situation all together as Garand was an engineer kept on staff by the Army as a consulting engineer for Springfield Armory because of that design. Garand developed the idea, which wasn’t used, and then while he was on the Army’s dime in a position they created for him to basically keep him around he gave the M1 to the US.

                Caleb showed up to the party with his own toys and should get to leave with his toys. The pattern is his, he wasn’t on staff or working for the Army, and is contractually protected which is why the Army jumped through hoops to make something that could be argued as “different”. Caleb owes the Army nothing and built the Multicam brand and the combat shirts and pants with his own efforts after the Army sent him home from that program with no contracts and nothing to show for his investments. I’m tired of people sucking the big green weenie, talking about how good it tastes, and saying Caleb is a jerk for not doing the same. Crye has been MORE than fair with what it’s offered the Army and the Army has time and time again done what it could to spit on them and push them aside.

                • majrod says:

                  John Garand as a consulting engineer owned the M1 Garand patent. It’s why his name is on it. He made the conscious decision to not pursue royalties. It’s for this reason Congress considered giving him $100k as a gift for his unselfishness (it didn’t pass). How many times does Congress consider a monetary gift to a gov’t employee?

                  Caleb has his own toys. He maintains all his manufacturing capability and has a slew of products to include multi-cam.

                  As I said elsewhere if he didn’t want the gov’ts claws in the patent for Scorpion he could have contested the language. In the meantime he continues going to the bank depositing royalties from the printers he has contracts with.

            • SilverDragon says:

              Since you are proponent of one camo uniform for all US Military branch, why didn’t you buy DDC and DWC uniforms? (just joking)

              • majrod says:

                That’s two uniforms and ehobbyasia told me you bought out the last airsofters sets. (just joking 😉

                For accuracy’s sake I’m a proponent for common patterns. You know back for when a name tape was all one needed to satisfy an ego and we actually worried about OPSEC because the enemy had the same lethality as we did.

          • Gregory says:

            Well put. Those who know nothing but suckling on the g-tit lose sight of things at times.

          • m5 says:

            SSD, shame on you!

            Extremely self-centered? A secure livelihood? And a platoon sergeant? This is beyond ridiculous.

            Sean may be blown out of existance on his next deployment. Somehow I find this damn more disturbing than the possibility that Caleb Crye didn’t get his one dollar for the uniform Sean wore.

            • SSD says:

              I’ll stand by what I said. I served fir 21 years and I can assure you that your perspective alters greatly once you are out. You become aware of a lot of things.

              Being a platoon sergeant doesn’t infer any special personality traits. I’ve seen as many good as bad.

              The fact that his job is inherently dangerous right now has nothing to do with the fact that he won’t be guaranteed a steady job when he gets out.

              I’ll finish by reiterating that I find these general attitudes of America’s young people toward innovation, hard work and capitalism most disturbing.

              • Mark says:

                I agree SSD, the attitudes of some is troubling. I was tempted to write more, but will have more productive things to do. Looters anyone?

        • Chairforceone says:

          Would you rather the Army pay costly legal fees and possible compensation/royalties to Crye, further delaying the uniform roll out, or just pay the royalties and move on?

      • CAVstrong says:

        Please tell me in objective terms which is more morally reprehensible. A company attempting to squeez everyone single sent out of an idea they had once and monopolistically force every other competitor out of the market. Or allowing our soldiers to die because we were do noble to do what was necessary to protect them…

        I don’t support either side in this argument. I’m just trying to point out that this whole issue is more complicated than you seem to think it is.

        • Chris says:

          CAVstrong, I don’t track your comments. Assume you are suggesting Crye is trying to squeeze every cent out of multicam. Can you defend this? Do you not believe in intellectual property rights?

          • CAVstrong says:

            You’re right you didn’t follow my argument or at least weren’t willing to consider it.

            While I applaude SSD’s coverage and eagerly await the further development of this story the bottom line is this. The government is automatically the bad guys here and crye isn’t automatically the victim. Intellectual property rights only extend so far. You cannot patent a triangle no matter how unique of a triangle you invent. At some point camouflage derived from or inspired by scorpion or multicam will become a new thing in its own right.

            That is all a moot point however. Intellectual property rights arent at issue here. What is at issue is the existence of existing contractual agreements an the Army’s apparent attent to circumnavigate them in an effort to equip and modernize their force in the face of sequestration.

            So again if this all comes down to an issue of cost… Why doesn’t the Army or even the DoD and excersise its monopsonistic powers and force the industry to offer a solution for next to if not nothing?

            I’m sure there are companies out there willing to under sell crye for a chance at a government contract.

            • SSD says:

              I don’t know how the hell we got here or how many people within the Army did the wrong thing to get us where we are, but unfortunately, the Army hasn’t done a very good job of negotiating with Crye. If they had been a bit more energetic on that front we may well have not gotten to the point where I’m running around harassing the hell out of people to get copies of government documents.

              • Eddie says:

                Can’t Odierno write Caleb Crye a love letter? C:

                • SSD says:

                  I realize you’re trying to inject some levity in this but I have a funny feeling that GEN Odierno has no idea that the contract says the things it does. And, I have a sneaking suspicion someone is pulling this thing up and reading it for the first time so that they can explain what is going on. The decision to write this article wasn’t made lightly because I realize there are going to be repercussions for many people, including me. Nobody likes it when you point out their efforts to mislead.

            • Mac says:

              “So again if this all comes down to an issue of cost… Why doesn’t the Army or even the DoD and excersise its monopsonistic powers and force the industry to offer a solution for next to if not nothing?”

              Unless I’ve misinterpreted everything—which is a distinct possibility, they did. It was the Phase IV Camo Improvement Effort. SSD posted a link to the Fed Biz Ops site previously that showed the license fee for the Phase IV winner was under $1 million for the whole family of patterns.


              Unfortunately the information seems to have been taken down from FBO though. What we’re seeing, in my opinion, is the aftermath of the Army’s inability to make and announce a decision prior 30 September 2013.

    • JB says:

      If you’re actually in the Army, you may want to take out your Army Values card, read it (likely for the first time), and then reflect on them.

      • Sean says:

        don’t be insulting (check your army values,for the first time.) are u just being a troll? That’s such a blank answer also it could be argued that’s the first of the 7 army values, loyalty compels me to side with the army on this soooooo yeah it a bit more of a complex issue than merely referencing a card. Once again very trollish answer. Like cavstrong said above I see Crye as being greedy in this situation. If they were smart they’re would’ve licensed multicam to the army for a token sum knowing they could’ve hit every private company that wants to use a yard of multicam cloth hard to recoup the money. This is a complex issue and regardless of who is right or wrong on this little message board the american soldier is Losing

        • SSD says:

          There’s never anything complex about doing the right thing.

        • Sean says:

          Ps unless crye is building this massive legal case or has given up why no word from the company itself in the intervening 90 days? If the company has a legal foothold why haven’t they issued a “cease and desist” or a statement something to that effect?

          • SSD says:

            Quite frankly, Crye doesn’t have to do anything right now. The printers that are printing Scorpion are paying a royalty. The only people who believe that they can get Scorpion royalty-free is the Army and in spite of their assertion, they continue to pay the royalty.

        • CAVstrong says:

          I didn’t intend to say, nor do I think that Crye is specially being greedy. I just wanted to point out that there are two sides to every argument and nobody I’ve ever met at least is truly pure and innocent.

          That being said, I AGREE WITH SSD!! transparency on this particular issue is important in order to prevent UCP from happening all over again.

          • SSD says:

            So, what has Crye done? I’m open and willing to write something about it if anyone wants to come forward. But don’t come at me with some “Caleb Crye is greedy” BS. Americans are capitalists. He invented something of value. I still believe in the system.

            • Chris says:

              agreed. that’s what I was asking about in the original comment I responded to. Your statement included:

              “A company (Crye) attempting to squeez everyone single sent out of an idea they had once and monopolistically force every other competitor out of the market.”

              Besides me giggling at the thought of Crye as some sort of monster company like BAE or Microsoft, I don’t see any evidence of monopolistic behavior at all. or greediness.

        • matty says:

          Someone has drank the kool-aid.

        • JB says:

          $24 million was a token sum.

        • Mac says:

          So you stopped at Loyalty? Further down it says Honor and Integrity….which the Army seems to not be showing in this fiasco.

        • Steve says:

          Sean, if you’re truly concerned with the fiscal welfare of the Army, you can always put your money where your mouth is and set up an allotment to send half of your pay to the Army G3/5/7 to augment their O&M fund. Since you’re implying that Crye should donate time, effort and IP for the Army’s benefit, perhaps you should step up and do the same.

  9. Overwatch says:

    You got the contract. Hot damn! Did it say what you expected?

    • SSD says:

      Actually, no it didn’t. The key was the BAA proposal. That spelled things out in ways I didn’t expect.

  10. Chris says:

    Great job bringing this important issue to light. Beyond a worthwhile legal fight for Crye, where do we go from here with PEO-Soldier? It’s been pretty obvious for a while that Natick has developed a real arrogance in dealing the with industrial base, particularly with smaller companies and their IP. I have my own opinions, but beyond changing leadership, do you have some suggestions on how contracting/procurement (in this case PEO/DLA in the Army) can be made to serve the warfighter better while working with the interests of the capitalist system they are charged to protect?

    • SSD says:

      I just don’t know. There is an inherent, institutional prejudice against commercial innovation. They rely on it but they don’t want to pay for it.

  11. SSD says:

    Where are all of the contracting guys who were quoting the FAR last week? I’d love to hear your opinions on this contract.

  12. Mark says:

    It seems fairly simple to me. The Army needs to do the right thing. Provide the best camoflauge pattern possible for their soldiers and meet their legal obligations (if they exsist) to pay for that pattern. I’m no lawyer and I’m not even going to attempt to figure out if the Army owes Crye or not. As a former soldier and the father of a current soldier I want the best for our troops. The Army needs to do what it expects of it’s soldiers and lead by example.

  13. Colin says:

    Some days on my way to work, I pause and wonder who would still be alive if the ACU had never happened.

    • Eddie says:

      I wouldn’t say the pattern really killed anybody, in the theaters of operation it performed alright. In urban settings around Iraq, and the mountains in Afghanistan, Not horrible. Because, oh sure, roadside bombs and IEDs were seeking out soldiers for their camouflage. Soldier deaths were a result of enemy intelligence working against them, they knew when US patrols were going out and they knew where they would be, they didn’t just look for moving grey dots. Fighting a conventional force now, this camouflage would be a death sentence, but reflecting on the kind of warfare we have been fighting, you can’t blame the camouflage. IEDs have killed far more of our guys than bullets drawn from an ineffective pattern. The enemy is going to know there are Americans out there, regardless of what camouflage they are wearing.

      • Really?! says:

        Eddie… Have you ever even been to Afghanistan? If so, have you foot patrolled a village looking for the enemy?

        Ever try blending in with a line of foliage on the edge of a village? It doesn’t matter whether you were there in UCP, or after the Army wished up and gave us MC… Have you?

        UCP is at least 2-3 times more visible than Multicam. Any ground pounder who dismounted outside the wire (taking a piss between MRAPS doesn’t count) will tell you one of two things: “UCP is shit!” or “Multicam is money!”.

        I certainly WOULD say that UCP has gotten a large number of soldiers either shot or killed. It matches nothing, and shows the bad guys where the wearer is located.

        I swear to God I am not trolling here. But, before you start making statements about what gets troops killed, you might wanna get some experience first.

        • SilverDragon says:

          Do you think Woodland camo uniform and gear can provide effective camouflage in Afghanistan? (I’m not trolling and I’m asking a insightful question.) ( My dad is an USA ret. veteran and never had to engage in combat against NVA or other enemy combatants.)

          • SSD says:

            It’s used by the Afghan Commandos.

          • Really?! says:

            Silver dragon, that’s not what we are discussing here. The conversation at hand was whether or not UCP was so ineffective that people were engaged at a higher rate due to its use.

            To answer your question directly… Personally, I think it would be wiser to have both, three color desert and woodland in theater. Desert for daytime ops and woodland for nighttime (on nights without “a high level of lume”). Simply using the original desert camo would have saved us all Billions of dollars and countless lives.

  14. jrt says:

    One has to be careful.
    Remember what happened to Willys-Overland Motors.


    Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

  15. Mike says:

    Very interesting; thanks for the write up SSD. So as I understand it:

    – The Army made a half-hearted attempt to negotiate for multicam.

    – Someone (likely a senior staffer and most likely at PEO Soldier?) then came up with the bright idea of “hey, we “own” Scorpion…it basically looks like multicam, let’s just do that and save a bunch of money!”. This was likely seen as a very attractive option given the current fiscal environment.

    – They (PEO-Soldier) go with scorpion based on the false assumption of “ownership” (or, as they specified later, at least having the applicable rights to print it free of charge).

    – Crye did not take any measure to “squeeze” out any additional earnings from this; their contracts already in place with the textile industry continued as per normal, leading to the required payments (now for Scorpion, not just multicam) being made.

    – The Army – shocked to see the requirement to pay royalties, due to their own lack of research and poor staff work – is scrambling to find a workaround. The choice of scorpion was sold to the decisionmakers based on the financial “savings” that staffers claimed would be realized, and now they must find a way to achieve those savings in spite of the required royalties. All indications seem to be that they will pursue this COA regardless of any ill will it may garner with private industry.

    – Now we see the price difference between scorpion (which was almost certainly billed as a “free” pattern originally) and multicam narrow.

    – We will almost certainly not see scorprion ACUs’ implementation cancelled at this point given the widespread announcement of the transition. They will just cost big Army more than they had originally planned.

    – Regarding any legal ramifications for this whole debacle: that remains to be seen.

    What a mess…

    I can’t wait to get rid of UCP, but I also know that Crye should receive the compensation they are contractually entitled to receive for their work. Had the army done things right regarding camouflage from day one (or many other junctures in the intervening years) we wouldn’t be in this mess.

    • SSD says:

      That pretty much sums it up.

    • 10thMountainMan says:

      “We will almost certainly not see scorpion ACUs’ implementation cancelled at this point given the widespread announcement of the transition.”

      I hope that is true. Not that my input matters to anyone, but I’d rather keep wearing the abortion that is UCP than see an American company’s intellectual property stolen. I really hope it doesn’t come to that though. I’m tired of looking like an idiot when I put on a uniform I’m supposed to take pride in.

      • SSD says:

        I don’t know how this will play out on the contracting side but I do believe that the Army is poised to transition to OCP

        • Riceball says:

          Question is, which OCP will it be? Scorpion or Multicam? If things don’t work out in favor of the Army it might just be cheaper to pay royalties for using Multicam and save the hassle of printing up and issuing new uniforms and gear in Scorpion.

      • Mick says:

        my understanding… as long as the printers keep paying the contracted royalty to Crye, then nothing’s stolen, right?

        Based on that, my predicted outcome is this:

        (Army): You printers shouldn’t pay Crye a royalty. Stop paying that.

        (Printers): Um, actually we’re contractually obligated to. So we’re going to keep paying the royalty, and that’s going to be reflected in our price.

        (Army): What? We shouldn’t pay royalties to that greedy jackleg!

        (Army lawyers): Um, actually, the contract says we need to. If you make the printers stop paying royalties, Crye will sue, and they’ll win.

        (Army): Um, ok, well, we’ll just tell people that the printers are printing our proprietary pattern, and any royalty being paid is a private matter between two private companies. Just tell everyone it’s our pattern, and it’s royalty free since we’re not directly paying a royalty. Sound good to everyone?

        (Crye): As long as the printer’s keep paying us the royalty, we’re good.

        • SSD says:

          The Army lawyers have so far said that they shouldn’t be paying a royalty.

          • Mick says:

            Now that’s surprising… I’d like to hear tht rationale…

            • SSD says:

              The rationale is that they have “Appropriate rights to use the Operational Camouflage Pattern.”

              • 10thMountainMan says:

                Well that’s it people, the Army produced a set of talking points. Should be more than enough for the printing industry to put themselves at risk.

    • majrod says:

      Don’t forget the Army withdrew Scorpion because it felt it was too close to Crye’s submission in the recent camo competition.

      That can be seen as an admission on either side of the argument.

      Interesting none the less.

  16. Mike Nomad says:

    Mr. SSD, this is an outstanding piece of reporting. You should be getting an award for this. Or, at least a pony. Unfortunately, you’ll probably get people who use shit as a weapon.

    I’m reading the documents now. DoD should be fucking ashamed of itself. They burn through more than a billion dollars a day, 24/365, while Big Army wants to put the screws to Crye for an amount that would qualify as Rounding Error.

  17. Chris K. says:

    Jeez, you’d think they’d consider just going back to Woodland after all this. Plenty of end-users wearing it today.

  18. SRez says:

    Hmm, is the FFW “Scorpion” ensemble per chance named so for its resemblance to the Mortal Kombat video game character Scorpion? Is this another intellectual property issue?

  19. GW says:

    We are in a tight spot here in the industry. Our printed goods suppliers are in a three point stance and ready to produce, the finished goods MFGs are ready to make kit, the Government is asking for OCP availability. We have OEM partners that are ordering UCP and the raw goods are drying up for that pattern.
    I do not know why I am surprised, it all starts with command emphasis on an issue. Soldier welfare and morale are whose responsibility? At the end of all of this contracting mumbo jumbo is a soldier, in an ineffective uniform pattern that he is forced to wear, have gear that he suspects will change in the ?Near? future and has little or no confidence that the soldiers at the highest echelons are going to fix it.

    • mike says:

      Hear, hear. Every step of the way the tax payer’s money is wasted, the Soldier is left having to buy a pattern that is someday(?) getting replaced, and that Soldier is also left wearing an ineffective pattern, and unable to buy into new and innovative gear because they don’t know what pattern to buy it in.

      How is the Army leadership able to live with this? Why isn’t this career suicide for them? (extreme sarcasm on that one)

  20. Angry Misha says:

    I think the question on everyone’s mind is “WWGCD?”

  21. Justin says:

    Oh no, we’re all going to die… what does it all mean?

    • Silver Dragon says:

      What does it all mean? I’m waiting for a movie called Camo Wars to come out in theaters and I’m also waiting for the mulitdoge camo uniform application.

  22. No the other Mike says:

    I’ll try to back up a bit and explain the way I am approaching this situation which, if nothing else, is a great study in government acquisition. The contract requires Crye to develop something in Phase I then, if Natick likes it or whatever the criteria is, Natick exercises Phase II and later Phase III. The contractor is to provide us with a DD 1423 CDRL and the associated technical data. The rights to that data depend on a few things, mainly who pays for the development of the technology. In the BAA proposal Crye claims that they have a “novel camouflaging technology”, but was it the Scorpion camo? If government money went into the creation and development of a technology then government owns rights to it. I assume the camo used in Scorpion was not 100% privately funded, which is why the Army has asserted their rights on the patent (see other SSD post). Those rights have been made public against the Scorpion pattern for almost a decade now with no dispute from Crye. Lastly, there may be some pages missing from the proposal .PDF. On page 55 you can see where Caleb Crye certifies the data furnished to the government but the rest of that clause is missing which I believe is 252.227-7017. I don’t think it is anything malicious since the table at the end of the PDF contains the data Crye is saying belong to him. One thing I will point out about that clause is the following:

    “Small Business Innovation Research Program, the notification and identification requirements do not apply to technical data or computer software that will be generated under the resulting contract.”

    Because, when you invent and develop with government money the rights to that invention belong to the government.

    When a proposal is accepted it becomes the contract as I am sure many of you know. If you look at paragraph C.1 it says the proposal is accepted in its entirety EXCEPT where provided herein. Those exceptions are found in the clauses that are contained on page 12 of the contract by reference. The reason why we do this is that sometimes contractors write provisions or exceptions into their proposals that contracting officers cannot bind the government to. I am looking at 252.227-7013 in particular which I believe this whole situation is centered around.

    So that is where I am coming from. I think they have it based on the -7013 clause. I could be wrong but that is my opinion.

    On another note I see alot of comments alleging everything from ineptitude to fraud and while I share your frustration with the uniform saga, I think some of your anger may be misplaced. Remember back to the Phase IV camo improvement and how great the results were. Just when we were rounding third base congress came along and ended it all. We had the best family of patterns on Earth (supposedly) for less than a Million each and lost it because of a sentence put into the NDAA. Then we checked out Multicam and they wanted $25M when we could have gotten 3 patterns for <$1M. Which decision would you make? Yes, the Army dragged their feet. Yes, it was self inflicted from all of these stupid uniforms we have. But if congress hadn't stepped in we would be on easy street right now and that is the gospel truth.

    I think Crye did an amazing job. Their camo is used by nations around the world and that camo is based, in part, on the work performed on this contract. Multicam morphed out of Scorpion and made Crye, which certified as a small business on their proposal, into the what it is today. Now there has been this notion that because they made lots of money they are not entitled to more and that is bogus. If there are no government purpose rights to Scorpion then Crye should receive some royalty just as they do with Multicam.

    • SSD says:

      Thanks for your analysis.

    • 10thMountainMan says:

      No sooner than I produce an ill informed, snarky comment and some jerk has to come along with a well researched, and thoughtful analysis which makes me look foolish. Keep this up and I might TP your house.

      • SSD says:

        It’s an analysis and does a good job of explaining the Army’s point of view. I know lawyers who would argue that the boilerplate is the norm and the exception is contained in the proposal. When looking at contracts you have to decide from a reasonable person’s perspective if Caleb Crye believed the Army was granting the exemptions for his predicting technologies when he and they signed the contract. You also have to decide if the Army agreed with his assertion or if they informed him that he would not receive an exemption, essentially if they were trying to “trick” him. Conversely, the government would need to attempt to establish that the novel camouflage technologies were developed using public funds and that Crye Associates understood that they didn’t have any protection for any of their technologies.

        • No the other Mike says:

          Sometimes small businesses may not have the time or the inclination to read all of the clauses. I believe I read in his proposal that he was relatively new to federal procurement.

          Learning point to all you business owners: get a lawyer to read your solicitation/contract/ proposal. I’m not saying it happened here, but it does seem plausible.

    • DSM says:

      I only deal with contracts on the 254 and SOW side so I’m not so much in the weeds to give a proper analysis that this one would take. But since the interweb has given me a voice here’s how I see big Army’s thinking.
      The initial contract where Crye lists “novel camouflage” as their IP gives them a foundation for action if they can show what we refer to as Scorpion was developed prior to their involvement and they did not accept any government requests for altering or changing patterns or color schemes. If they brought it to the table but government testing or requests changed it then I think we’re getting into gray areas of who actually made what we know as Scorpion, either past or current. This may give big Army a lukewarm fuzzy if they intervened with tax dollars to tweak the design.
      Crye submits a patent for the Scorpion camo, but, also accepts the addition of the verbiage that states Uncle Sugar has paid up their licensing responsibilities for the pattern. Was there an actual exchange of money or did Crye accept the recommendations of the government testing laboratory as remuneration, if such an exchange of information and ideas actually occurred? Which brings us back to the first point, if government involvement “tweaked” their “novel camouflage” big Army isn’t in as actionable of a position because they do hold a claim to it. Maybe just by the fingernails, but it’s still a claim.

    • majrod says:

      Mike the other – Thanks for chiming in. Informative.

  23. ML says:

    I have been told we will be making the switch to “OCP” since I was deployed to AFG in 2010. I Fully expect to never transition to this pattern. So many speed bumps and restarts it’s time to shit can the idea and go to MARPAT or AOR and deal with it.

    If Crye finished developed of scorpion with a belly full of government cheese, then scorpion belongs to us. And someone should write an AAM for the SPC that modified it.

    If Scorpion was 100% done prior to the work with Natick and a group of people’s who’s job revolves around laws decided the Army should pay up then and decide if it wants to pay for MC or continue forwar with this Scorpion W2 circus.

    That’s not a decision I’m paid to make so I will just stand by the decision those above me make. Regardless of if I like it or not. I’m just going to keep doing what I’ve been doing for the last 4 years and buy MC kit in hopes that one day I will be issued it. If in the end the Army doesn’t go to MC or a love child concoction there of I will cut my losses and enjoy the four years of telling my wife “But babe it’s for work and I need it”

  24. Snake says:

    I think, for all obsessive reporting and coverage on the matter, that when OCP/Scorpion W2 is finally rolled out and issued standard, nobody in the Army from the bottom to the top is going to give a fuck where it came from, who made it, who got paid for it, what contract it was developed under, what technicalities applied, etc. They will be happy to replace UCP with something that’s vastly more effective such that Scorpion W2 is in comparison, and newcomers won’t know to question anything. Everyone will be content to have both a respectable and functional uniform/camo pattern, and that’ll be the end of it.

    • SSD says:

      The companies that support you “give a fuck” and are watching how the Army proceeds very closely. PEO Soldier currently enjoys an almost adversarial relationship with industry. In the long run, that is going to hurt you as a Soldier.

      You all need to be very concerned about that relationship. You can keep yourself fat, dumb and happy but that alternative leads back to what we used in the Cold War; government developed designs, that remained static for decades, manufactured by the lowest bidder.

      • No the other Mike says:

        It’s funny you bring that up. I still hear a lot about $500 hammers and such, but that hasn’t been the case since the FAR reform in the early 90’s. The gov’t had MILSPEC which dictated ever characteristic of a widget to the contractor, even if it was leaps and bounds beyond what was happening on the commercial side. As a result, contractors would have to procure materials and retool their entire shops for a military order. Hence $500 hammers. I heard the MRE brownie has 28 pages of specifications. Imagine that crap.

        • SSD says:

          I completely believe it. Thankfully, many commercial standards have been adopted.

        • Luddite4Change says:

          One of the original MRE brownies had the brownie made by a supplier who produced it to the max specification, but the container was made to the minimum. Darn think wouldn’t fit.

          Not much has changed.

          From reading some analysis here that supports both sides, I would not be surprised that there is some legal action (or threat of action) and Crye and the Army settle quietly.

          • SSD says:

            You are right. But it doesn’t need to come to legal action. Instead, they should negotiate the issue. No attempt has been made to make that happen. It’s shameful.

  25. FHRITP says:

    I feel conflicted about this, as i also feel many others do.

    On one hand, i feel like caleb crye can go screw himself and that he has made a metric shit load of money on overpriced kit and camo. The u.s. military isnt the only military organization or large entity that is paying out alot of money for his product. In that respect i do not feel sorry for him nor do i have any sympathy that he is getting screwed like everybody else by the government.

    On the other hand, that being said i hope he sues the army for literally every single penny that he can and our ‘leaders’ pay a heavy price. Im talking ucmj and seperations. They have put their careers before their subordinates for too long including needlessly putting them in danger with inferior camouflage. Obviously camouflage isnt the only determining factor in the level of danger a soldier faces, however changing to a camouflage (ucp) simply because…just because? Because somebody wanted to ‘leave his mark’?

    Finally, is say those things about our leaders because this isnt nearly the first time, or the hundredth, that they’ve fielded inferior kit when there are far better options that have already been figured out. Take our rifles for example. I cant remember the statistics or where i read them (it may have even been on this site) about the number of stoppages per so many rounds. The m4 was at the bottom. I understand the need for financial considerations, however is it cheaper to buy a rifle that costs a few thousand more to buy and maintain, or pay $500,000 for every dead service member that is frantically trying to keep his weapon from jamming every other round?

    I know i got off topic but it was to make a point in the same context. Somebody chose this option for the sole reason of making themselves look good and not for enhancing soldier survivability.

    • SSD says:

      Wow, yeah, screw that guy for working hard and being successful. How dare he?

      I used to laugh off that whole “liberal brainwashing” of our youth by our education system but I regularly run across young people posting on SSD who don’t have a lick of respect for innovation or capitalism. What else can it be than indoctrination?

      • FHRITP says:

        Nope. I simply will not feel sorry for some guy who charges $156 for what amounts to a fucking high speed long sleeve shirt. Ive worn it(lucked out and got it free from a buddy. He didnt like the way it fit him). Ive also worn $50 knock offs. Its amazing how both performed the same function and held up as best as a shirt can in afghanistan. Charging exorbitant amounts is not an indicator or guarantee of quality. Nor innovation for that matter.

        Im also not going to feel sorry for somebody who got fat from tax dollars and said “i KNOW i can scam ppl out of their money if i get the right ppl to wear my stuff!” Its not just him however. Its most of the ‘tactical community’, for lack of a better term. Charging outrageous prices for the smallest things and knowing it didnt take an eighth of it to produce. Ppl see a long tab wearing a shirt and certain gear and get starry eyed because they perceive them as high speed. The ppl who had to deploy with those clowns know better.

        Regardless of all that im somebody who has to wear this shit all the time and have filtered out all the bullshit. Some things you get what you pay for and others have doppelgangers that are just as good. Crye is such.

        • SSD says:

          Tell me all about the US based manufacturing company you run. Those “doppelgängers” that cost $50 aren’t made in the US.

          • FHRITP says:

            I run no company and have no plans to do so any time soon. Atleast until i get out. And honestly i could give a shit less where a SHIRT is made. Its definitely a plus that its made in America but not necessary because all it needs to do is keep the wind and bugs out and a layer between me and my kit.

            How about yourself? What company is yours?

            • SSD says:

              My company is SSD. I don’t manufacturing anything but then again I’m not the guy who can’t tell the difference between $150 shirt and a $50 shirt or the difference of running a company in China or in the United States.

            • chris says:

              Look up the Berry Amendment.

              And then think through why we try to have domestic capacity for national security goods. For a modern example, look into what’s happening to NASA/AF right now because are rocket engines are Russian.

              Also, tell me what major contracts Crye has with big army worth shit tons of money.

            • SSD says:

              FHRITP- you’ve been awarded the Internet expert badge. Make sure to call your mom and submit a hometown news release.

              • Dev says:

                People with thinking like FHRITP is preciselg why the spirit of innovation and pioneering is all but dead in the 21st century today.

              • FHRITP says:

                Lol thats funny. Especially coming from somebody who runs an internet company. The irony is not lost on me. Idk maybe i should be honored. People usually resort to these types of immature personal attacks when their opinion lacks solid ground from which to defend it. Next you’ll start correcting my grammatical mistakes and suggest/imply that it is indicative of how big of a “st00pid head” i am. Its ok though. Its only natural.

                Btw the difference between a $50 SHIRT and a $150 SHIRT is simply the name stamped on it. Im surprised i had to reveal that to somebody with extensive experience wearing different companies products and the associated kit in austere environments.

                I agree with most of the people on this forum that it is a great investigative report…a great biased investigative report on/for a company you endorse.

                But thats none of my business though

    • majrod says:

      You might want to google that M4 performance and what the actual differences are. You are forming an opinion on some bad info.

      • FHRITP says:

        At the bottom/near the bottom. Either way is the wrong answer.

        • Riceball says:

          The thing about the M4 is that while it may not the best rifle out there it certainly isn’t the worst and of all the rifles tested by the Army during the Improved Carbine Competition none proved so superior to the M4 that it was worth the cost to change to. When you switch small arms in the military you’re not just talking about paying a few thousand more for new rifles, but you’re not talking about spare parts, time (which is money) spent on training armorers on how to work on these new weapons, then time spent training all of the troops on how to use the new weapon. You also fail to consider just how large the Army is, a few thousand or even a few hundred per individual rifle doesn’t sound like much until you multiply it by the number of people in the Army.

          • FHRITP says:

            How many mags have you had to dump in a firefight? Of those mags how many was it before your rifle malfunctioned? And also how many times did it malfunction? Is this including having clean just an cpl hrs before rolling out?

            Its not just statistics that made me say that about the m4. Its personal experience.

            I do understand all the reasons you listed. I generalized them with the ‘and maintenance’ part of my comment. However i honestly dont care how much it costs to buy a rifle if it can save one American service members’ life. Like i stated before, is it cheaper to buy a more expensive weapon, or pay $500,000 per American service member killed?

            • Joshua says:

              Since your real life experience is zero, go check into COP Keating and read those open source AAR’s.

  26. JBAR says:

    Is it possible that someone in the Army is actually being the good guy and going out of their way to ensure that they will get Scorpion or Multicam and Crye will be paid? If the Army cannot get permission/funds to buy it, they could game the system and force it. If the Army adopts it first, then Congress would be forced to pay for it. They would be paying after the fact. In the end, Crye gets paid and the Army gets their camo. That could explain why Crye is laying low. Get it in place and irreversible, then open the can of legal worms. Messy, but everyone wins.

  27. FutureSapper says:

    Wouldn’t it be easier to adopt MARPAT and work with the Marines on a transitional pattern, I’d have to figure that the Corps is working on a 3rd pattern given the benefits of transitional have been made clear, and is being by almost every other fighting force.

    • Riceball says:

      If that were the case the Corps would have allowed the Army to use MARPAT back when they were first looking for a new camo pattern. As I understand it, the Army had asked the Corps if they could use MARPAT and they were told no and I don’t see that changing now. If anything, I imagine that there are those in the Corps who are laughing at all of this and thoroughly enjoying themselves and will continue to deny the Army the usage of MARPAT. Besides, as much as I like MARPAT it is an old pattern and there are better patterns out there now so the Army wouldn’t really benefit all that much by adopting MARPAT unless as a terrain specific uniform.

      That being said, someone (SecDef) really should have told the SecNav way back when the Army was starting to look for a new camo to order the Commandant to allow the Army to use a sanitized version of MARPAT. We could have avoided this whole stinking mess altogether and the entire DoD would be now wearing camo based on MARPAT. But if wishes were horses we’d all be eating steak.

  28. Backformore says:

    This site used to be an excellent source for info, but playing barracks lawyer with contract law is pointless. Industry and the military is like an onion…the more you peel the worse it gets.

  29. SigT says:

    I fear that this article may cause problems.

    The US ARMY has a big dick fellas. The US ARMY has a big dick.

  30. GearMonkey says:

    SSD, Has the Army Leadership actually signed and distributed an ALARACT message declaring Operational Camouflage Pattern (Scorpion/W2) as the Official Camouflage? Is there an actual published timeline that industry is driving towards? I ask this to see how painful it would be to switch to MultiCam, Woodland, or MARPAT or has the OCP/Scorpion shipped sailed and it’s just a matter who pays the royalties? Thanks again for your great reporting and insight!

    • SSD says:

      No ALARACT but they have made an official announcement and released photos. If Scorpion is an issue, MultiCam is right out as well. I don’t see the Army adopting MARPAT although they could. Woodland? They could, but the performance isn’t there compared to other patterns.

    • Silver Dragon says:

      Any attempts for the US Army to switch to MULTICAM will fail because the US Army is stuck with UCP and it was all part of the plan since day one. Although I am a civi, this is exactly going to happen this way and you can’t change it. For those current service US Army troops, you are permanently stuck with UCP camo and you can thank the US Army for that. I’m glad that I am civi and too bad I didn’t join the US Army to understand honor and service to country.