The much anticipated Lizard pattern Field Jacket (style 502) from EOTAC has finally hit the market.
In addition to the Lizard pattern shown, the Field Jacket is also available in Black, Coyote, and OD. To order visit EOTAC online. Get them before they are gone.
Pack manufacturer Mystery Ranch has launched a slick new website. Separate sections are available for Military and Tactical, Backpack Hunting, Fire and Trail, as well as recreation and Adventure packs.
Check it out including several new styles including the Tacticplane and SATL Assault Pack at www.mysteryranch.com.
CPGear by Wheelers has just launched the FASTmag Flap. Designed to fit the PALS version of the Gen III FASTmag, the Flap gives you some extra piece of mind when the FASTmag is mounted upside down or other similar instances. The Flap folds out of the way when not required. There is also PALS compatible webbing on the front of the FASTmag flap to facilitate the attachment of additional modular pouches.
The FASTmag Flap is available in CADPAT-AR, CADPAT-TW, Coyote Brown, Multicam, UCP, Olive, and Black. To order visit CPGear.
U.S. Army Photo by Staff Sgt. Gina Vaile-Nelson, 133rd MPAD
Strike Hold! has put together an excellent article on the challenges of providing effective camouflage for troops serving in Afghanistan. It seems the British are now starting to ask about their force’s patterns as well. An article appeared in the Daily Mail and one of the headlines was “Soldiers forced to dye their own camouflage gear in MoD blunder”. The photos in Stike Hold!’s story tell all and American readers should pay particular attention to very last one (shown here).
In it we see a US Marine in MARPAT-Desert, a very effective pattern; for the desert. This is the ultimate problem with specialized patterns. They are tuned for particular environments and once you are in another, you really stick out. It can be like showing up to a black tie function dressed for a costume ball, only deadlier. So answering Congressional concerns over Army camo in Afghanistan may not be as simple as “replace UCP”. It is highly likely that logisticians (and leaders) will look at Afghanistan and say “Desert”. The desire to field a desert uniform for a country with multiple environments will have similar consequences to what we see happening here with US Marine and British Army personnel. A universal pattern becomes very desirable in an operational area where troops could be in the city in the morning and an area with lush vegetation by evening.
Be sure to read the entire article.
In light of an impending directive from Congress to the Army to get their camo house in order, rumors continue to circulate about an upcoming test involving four camo patterns with the Army’s current Universal Camouflage pattern serving as a control.
The four patterns are MARPAT-Woodland, MARPAT-Desert, Multicam, and Desert All Over Brush (seen below). Originally, we had heard that the fourth pattern would be the 3-color Desert pattern issued to all services prior to adoption of their new distinctive uniforms. However, based on some recent, unverified information we believe it is actually the Desert All Over Brush which interestingly gave a very good showing during the Army camo trials of 2003-2004. According to a Natick report, a modified variant of the Desert version All Over Bush pattern performed best in all environments. You can also access a briefing presented on the subject at the 2004 International Soldier Systems Conference here.
Based on a series of evaluations documented in the report and briefing slides Natick developed the variant of All Over Brush pattern.
Having said all of that, the info on that particular pattern is old news. At some point in the Spring of 2004, the Army took a serious sidestep from all of its research and adopted UCP. if the rumors are true, looking at what is on the table, neither Marine patterns would really be considered serious candidates due to a variety of morale, and as we have discussed before, branding issues. You think the black beret issue was rough, imagine the outcry from two services if the Army adopted a Marine camo pattern. Consequently, while effective, we don’t consider the MARPAT variants as serious contenders. This leaves, depending on who is telling the story, either 3-color Desert which is still used by some US Navy forces (and a few others) or the prototype Desert All Over brush pattern in addition to Crye’s Multicam. While there are limited stocks of 3-color equipment still in the system, virtually none of it is in the configuration currently used by US forces. If it were adopted, the US Soldier would literally take a five year step back in capability until production of current issue equipment could be accomplished. Additionally, there is a political dimension to such a move. UCP was sold as a superior pattern to both Woodland and 3-Color Desert. Someone would naturally ask the question of why the Army discarded a pattern in favor of something less effective.
This leaves Desert All Over Brush and Multicam. Multicam has been used operationally by select US forces to great success and even more importantly, is currently supported by the US industrial base. A wide variety of Berry Compliant products (and raw materials) are available as COTS items. Additionally, industry already offers versions of current issue equipment in Multicam. Furthermore, there are numerous lightweight and multi-purpose Soldier Systems items designed specifically for environments like Afghanistan. Multicam is a mature, widely available, low hanging fruit. On the other hand, adoption of Desert All Over Brush would require long lead times as fabric mills first perfect and then produce sufficient quantities of materials. Only then could uniforms and equipment for our Soldiers begin to be procured.
We are waiting with bated breath to see if these rumors are true and what’s more, if they are, what will come of them. Naturally, Soldier Systems Daily will keep you updated.
Up to now information on Bulldog Equipment’s Mirage camo has been under serious wraps. To even look at photos, a perspective customer had to provide proof of affiliation with the US military. But apparently, that has all changed.
Our friends at Strike Hold! have additional photos of the camo in operational settings and information on a second generation of the uniform. According to the article, gone are the Superfabric knees and elbows and mesh panels have been incorporated into the design. We thought these had only been part of the Sniper uniform but it seems that troops wear testing the garments preferred the feature.
Check out the article here.
While no one has fessed up to backing the proposed legislation requiring a common camo pattern and combat uniform for all US forces, some in Congress have made their displeasure with the measure known.
Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO) initiated a letter last week that was signed by seven other members of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC). The joint letter was sent to HASC Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) and HASC Ranking Member Buck McKeon (R-CA) expressing strong opposition to a provision in H.R. 2647, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2010. The provision, Section 352, mandates that all future military ground combat uniforms be a single, standardized design.
Rep Coffman estimates this measure could cost in excess of $5 Billion if enacted. He brings a unique perspective on the issue to a Congress that only boasts just over 100 members who are Veterans. Rep Coffman has served in both the US Army and Marine Corps including service as enlisted as well as officer and in the first Gulf war and current operations.
Please see the contents of the letter below.
# # #
July 16, 2009
The Honorable Ike Skelton The Honorable Buck McKeon
Chairman Ranking Member
House Armed Services Committee House Armed Services Committee
2120 Rayburn House Office Building 2120 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515 Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Skelton and Ranking Member McKeon:
As Members of the House Armed Services Committee, we are proud that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, passed by the House of Representatives this June, provides for our nation’s warfighters in many ways. However, we respectfully write to express our strong concerns about a troubling provision for a common combat uniform that was included in the bill absent widespread notice and without any debate. This language, Section 352, calls for the Secretary of Defense to ensure that future ground combat uniforms be a single, standardized type.
Section 352, titled “Requirements for Standard Ground Combat Uniformâ€, lists several flawed rationales for mandating our military Services into a policy that all of the uniformed Service chiefs oppose. This is an expensive initiative that, while well-intentioned, neglects key tactical, cultural, economic, and practical considerations.
Although this provision is intended to increase interoperability of ground combat forces, thus far we have yet to hear of any mission, operation, or campaign’s failure due to uniforms that prevented interoperability. We are certain you will agree that training, leadership, doctrine, and trust cultivate interoperability – not clothing.
The proposed common battle uniform is also intended to eliminate any alleged “uniqueness†that could pose a tactical risk in a theater of operations. They know that all our servicemembers are well trained, well led, and well equipped. The enemy is not taking special care to target one Service over another.
A common battle uniform would also allegedly minimize production costs and the costs for issuing the uniforms. Current law (Title 10 U.S.C. § 5063, USC Section 771) provides for the existing policy of the Services’ uniqueness in their combat uniforms. As such, since 2001 each Service has created, tested, and distributed its own combat uniforms based on their unique mission sets, physical environments, and servicemember surveys. They have each invested the time and the money to outfit their respective Services.
Preliminary analysis by the Department of Defense estimates $4.85 billion to retrofit approximately 2.2 million DoD personnel to a single combat uniform. This initial cost analysis does not include development and sustainment costs. To force such a change after the Services have just completed fielding of their distinctive uniforms is an unconscionable waste of nearly five billion taxpayer dollars, in addition to wasting the funds that have already been spent on the fielding the individual Service combat uniforms.
Each Service has a proud tradition and reputation around the world and taking away their distinctive combat uniforms removes their connection with our friends and foes alike. The villagers in a suburb outside of Baghdad see ACUs and know that those were the Americans that pushed out the insurgents and restored their electrical power. The insurgents in Fallujah see the Marine Corps Combat Utility Uniform (MCCUU) and will tell you that there is “no better friend, and no worse enemy.†This connection is key to our nation’s warfighters accomplishing their missions.
At a time when our military faces so many critical missions, and our country’s defense budget is increasingly stretched thin, an unnecessary proposal such as this serves no practical purpose. It has an extensive price tag and takes away the individual military Services’ identity at home and abroad.
We look forward to working with you, and the Senate Armed Services Committee, to correct this provision in the upcoming conference for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Mike Coffman Duncan Hunter
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Vic Snyder Mike Conaway
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Robert J. Whittman Doug Lamborn
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Trent Franks Todd Akin
Member of Congress Member of Congress
