TYR Tactical

Archive for the ‘Camo’ Category

Congress Loves Camo – Maybe A Little Too Much?

Thursday, June 6th, 2013

As we understand it, Retired Major General (IL ARNG) and Rep William Enyart’s (D- IL) amendment to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act was introduced to the full House Armed Services Committee and passed 32-30. If enacted it will…

require all military services to use a joint combat camouflage uniform, including color and pattern variants designed for specific combat environments.

First off, for those of you unfamiliar with the legislative process, this is just the first hurdle and it’s still quite a way from becoming law. It’s not as bad as I had feared but I’m concerned it still ham strings the individual services. Below is a simplified version of what has to happen.

In order to become the law of the land, it must first pass a vote in the full House of Representatives. Then, the Senate will vote on their version of the NDAA which may or may not include similar language. Either way, the two versions of the NDAA will most assuredly contain differences which will have to be hammered out in Conference Committee made up of members of both chambers of Congress. Once those differences are worked out, a conference report detailing what is in the final legislation is voted on by both the Senate and House of Representatives. After approval, it goes to the President to be signed. Barring a veto it becomes law. At any point in this process expect the services to weigh in.

This is by no means a quick process. The NDAA will become law some time after the Army’s June 14th announcement.

I find this language shortsighted. Service leaders need the latitude to accomplish their mission and at some point, that may require different uniforms. Despite assertions to the contrary, prior to the adoption of the MARPAT MCCUU in 2003, the services did not all wear the same uniform. For example, the Navy wore a work uniform that was not camouflaged and was unlike anything the other services used. But, It was the right uniform for their mission.

And lastly, while the services should work together, Congress telling them that they have to use the same individual equipment to accomplish their missions sets a bad precedent. In the past we have seen Congress force unwanted combat systems on the various services that place undue burdens on force structure and readiness. The services are the experts at defending the Nation and they should decide what tools are required to make that happen.

Congress Shouldn’t Make Rules Regarding Camouflage

Wednesday, June 5th, 2013

I’ve been mulling this over all day. I don’t think it’s a good idea for Congress to tell the military services which camouflage they should be using or how they should equip their troops.

First off, they’ve got more important things to worry about. That’s a given.

Second, they have their lane in the road and the military services have theirs. Even retired two-star General turned Congressman William Enyart, (D-IL) doesn’t seem to have the bubble on camouflage. If a guy with that kind of pedigree doesn’t understand the issues at hand, how can we expect someone to who has never served? Representative Enyart has stated that he plans to introduce an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would require all services to adopt the same camouflage pattern by 2018 and would ban the services from developing new camouflage patterns for their own use.

While I’m all for the separate branches of the US military adopting the same camouflage patterns for a variety of reasons, doing it because Congress said so is not even on the list. Aside from the operational and logistical advantages of a common uniform, this budget environment alone should be the precursor to a more common sense approach to field uniforms. Dress uniforms Remain a great way for the services to express their individuality. I’m advocating for the military to do the right thing for the right reasons.

As for a moratorium on camouflage development, I strongly disagree with this idea. Based on the poorly written legislation I see coming out of Washington, such a move will assuredly have negative second and third order effects. For example, what about USSOCOM? While it isn’t a service, it has service-like budget authority and regularly has unique requirements. It uses its budgetary and acquisition authority to fulfill those requirements under MFP-11. Would a poorly written law preclude SOCOM from the fulfillment of unique camouflage requirements that are not shared by conventional forces? Based on Congress’s batting average, my guess is “yes.”

Congress needs to put the services in the hot seat for sure and make them explain why they can’t play nice together but telling them how they should equip individual service members oversteps their mandate.

Spot the F.E.A.R. Camo

Wednesday, June 5th, 2013

Looking’ pretty good!

20130605-130531.jpg

www.fear-gear.com

US Army Camouflage Improvement Effort Update – Meanwhile in Washington

Wednesday, June 5th, 2013

You literally cannot make this stuff up. Apparently, Illinois Freshman Congressman Rep. William L. Enyart (Dem), came up with a great idea. He read an article last month in the The Washington Post about the US military’s multitude of camouflage patterns and intends to introduce legislation today that will require all of DoD to share a common camouflage pattern.

Apparently, living in a city where you regularly see military personnel from all services strutting around in their individually branded uniforms like so many third world militaries didn’t attract his attention. It took a newspaper article to garner his attention. Ironically, Rep Enyart retired just last year as a Major General from the Illinois Army National Guard where he served from 1982 – 2012. Prior to that, he served in the US Air Force from 1969 to 1973. Somehow, that didn’t wake him up either.

And it seems, he is oblivious to previous public law regarding camouflage and field uniforms. His proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act would require all of the services to adopt a common pattern by 2018 and would forbid any of them from producing a pattern for its own sole use. Horse left the barn on that one I’m afraid.

On one hand, I’m glad to hear about this new found interest Rep Enyart has for camouflage but I’m deeply saddened that, as usual, a Congressmen is going to run blindly uninformed into introducing redundant legislation. Instead, hopefully he’ll do a little research, take a look at what comes out of the Army Camouflage Improvement Effort and perhaps hold DoD’s feet to the fire on previous legislation.

I appreciate where his heart is, but I wish he was better informed, especially as he is a retired GO.

HyperStealth Explains Why MARPAT Isn’t The Answer

Wednesday, June 5th, 2013

A lot of people look at the US Military’s camo wars and ask themselves, “Why not just adopt MARPAT?” That’s a fair question, especially when you take it one step further and ask, “Why bother with camouflaged PPE when using Coyote is good enough?”

HyperStealth’s Guy Cramer takes a look at the history and data available to explain why MARPAT isn’t the best answer. This is well worth the read.

www.hyperstealth.com/coyote

Project Honor Combat Uniform Available Now from LBX Tactical

Monday, June 3rd, 2013

LBX COMBAT UNIFORM

Last July, we gave you a sneak peek at a really cool combat uniform in the Project Honor camouflage pattern developed for the Medal of Honor video game to raise funds for military charities. Now, those uniforms are available for order. I know what I’m wearing to my next shooting class.

LBX Combat Uniform 1

LBX Combat Uniform 2

To download a pdf of these images click here.

I have a feeling these are going to go quickly. Whether or not you are a Medal of Honor fan, these are very well laid out combat uniforms and no one has ever offered a youth size combat uniform.

To order yours, visit lbxtactical.com/products/combat-uniform.

US Army Camouflage Improvement Effort Update – More On The Withdrawn Army Family

Monday, June 3rd, 2013

On March 6th, 2012, SSD reported that the US Army had withdrawn its family of patterns from the Camouflage Improvement Effort. We published this statement from PEO Soldier:

“On Jan. 10th, the Army announced that families of camouflage patterns from one government team and four commercial vendors were selected to proceed into the next step of evaluations. As part of a cost savings strategy and as a result of initial assessments, the government submission is being removed from further consideration as a replacement to the universal camouflage pattern. This decision has been made in light of the similarity between elements of the government and one industry submission and the higher score of the industry submission during the initial evaluation. We are excited about the four vendor patterns we are going forward with. We anticipate experiencing very positive results in our field trials and more advanced computer evaluations. We will continue to work closely with our industry partners and our government team, especially in terms of research, development and evaluation. The Army conducts extensive testing to ensure we provide Soldiers with the very best clothing and equipment.”

Based on that information (and a couple of tips), we surmised that the withdrawn pattern was indeed the Scorpion originally developed for the Objective Force Warrior program. Ultimately, OFW was never fielded and developer Crye Precision went on to great success by refining the pattern into MultiCam which was ultimately chosen for use in Afghanistan by the US Army and Air Force as the Operation Enduring Freedom Camouflage Pattern (OCP). Occasionally, Natick does some work on Scorpion so it wasn’t that far of a stretch to believe that they had created an entire family of patterns from it. But as it turns out, Scorpion was only part of the story.

Now that we are a week or so away from the Army’s anticipated announcement of a completely new family of camouflage patterns on 14 June, we’d like to tell you the rest of the story.

And now for the rest of the story…

That “family” of patterns submitted by Natick for the Army Camouflage Improvement Effort wasn’t really a family at all. Originally, the plan was that Natick was going to get two families of patterns but industry balked citing unfair advantage against their three allotted patterns and it was dropped to one government and upped to four commercial patterns. As we understand it, the engineers at Natick took a look at the requirement and what would work best in each environment and entered a most unanticipated candidate considering the Army’s public assertion that it wanted a family of camouflage patterns with a common geometry and specialized colors for each environment of Woodland, Arid, Transitional and an option OCIE/PPE pattern if needed.

The government solution?

Woodland – AOR2 or similar variant

20130602-204954.jpg

Arid – Desert All Over Brush

20130602-205031.jpg

Transitional – Scorpion

20130602-204309.jpg

Why the disparity? The camouflage experts at Natick analyzed previous testing as well as other data at their disposal and realized that these three patterns would perform best based on the overall requirement. One thing we do know, the team that developed the government entry was kept separate from the team that developed the evaluation strategy. They weren’t gaming the system, they were trying to offer the best solution at their disposal.

Ready to hear something else that will blow your mind? The Brookwood finalist family of patterns isn’t a true family either. If anything, you could call the individual patterns “cousins.” The geometries are similar but aren’t an exact match. Despite all of the talk, it wasn’t part of the selection criteria.

Worse yet, it shouldn’t be. Not if you want the best camouflage for each of those environments. The environments are each different and the patterns should utilize different shapes, sizes and orientations, as well as colors. Natick realized it but their entry was withdrawn. The question is, was it done to eliminate unfair competition or to conceal the common geometry shortcoming?

Kryptek Hats Coming Soon From Slangvel

Sunday, June 2nd, 2013

20130601-162536.jpg

Slangvel currently manufactures M43-styles, Bigeards, Recce Hats, 2? Brim Boonie Hats, Berets, and Rhodesian Kepis. All of his offerings are made via eBay as they come off the line so you have to check back regularly to ascertain available styles and patterns.

20130601-165509.jpg

He’s getting ready to release a run in Kryptek Mandrake (M43 seen here) as well as Highlander and Nomad.

20130601-165546.jpg

Those interested in his services should visit Slangvel on eBay. myworld.ebay.com/slangvel.