Camo | Soldier Systems Daily Soldier Systems Daily

Archive for the ‘Camo’ Category

A-TACS

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

This is gong to be a first. In the recreational side of the outdoor business you often see a concerted launch of a new material among several companies. But in the firearms side of things, this is the first time so many companies have come together for a simultaneous launch. What makes this even more interesting is that it is for a camouflage pattern and it will be unveiled at SHOT Show 2010 in Las Vegas.

I had an opportunity to view the Advanced Tactical Concealment System at last year’s SHOT Show in Orlando. I was impressed. It is unlike any other pattern out there. Apparently, I’m not the only one who liked what he saw. The list of companies who will be participating is a veritable who’s who of the tactical industry and everyone has been sworn to secrecy until the launch date. It is amazing it has been kept under wraps this long. So sorry, no sneak peeks here, at least not yet.

The team has been hard at work all Summer long bringing in vendors and working to avoid duplication of effort. When you take a look at the website I think you will be surprised at who is involved. New brands are being added all the time.

Manufacturers interested in licensing A-TACS should contact them through the site.

Tags: A-TACS
Posted in Camo | Comments Off on A-TACS

Camo and the 2010 Defense Authorization Bill

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

A few months ago we broke the story on how Congress was inserting language into the 2010 Defense Authorization Bill to force the Services to develop joint combat uniforms. Well, almost three months later, here it is.

In Sec. 352. Policy on ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms, this is the language verbatim from the bill, except that we have deleted line numbers in order to improve the readability of the data.

“(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF POLICY.â€”It is the policy of the United States that the design and fielding of all future ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms of the Armed Forces may uniquely reflect the identity of the individual military services, as long as such ground combat nd camouflage utility uniforms, to the maximum extent practicableâ€”

(1) provide members of every military service an equivalent level of performance, functionality, and protection commensurate with their respective as signed combat missions;

(2) minimize risk to the individual soldier, sailor, airman, or marine operating in the joint battlespace; and

(3) provide interoperability with other components of individual war fighter systems, including body armor and other individual protective systems.

(b) COMPTROLLER GENERAL ASSESSMENT.â€”The Comptroller General shall conduct an assessment of the ground combat uniforms and camouflage utility uniforms currently in use in the Department of Defense. The assessment shall examine, at a minimum, each of the following:

(1) The overall performance of each uniform in various anticipated combat environments and theaters of operations.

(2) Whether the uniform design of each uniform conforms adequately and is interoperable with currently issued personal protective gear and body armor.

(3) Costs associated with the design, development, production, procurement, and fielding of existing service-specific ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms.

(4) Challenges and risks associated with fielding members of the Armed Forces into combat theaters in unique or service-specific ground combat or camouflage utility uniforms, including the tactical risk to the individuals serving in individual augmentee, in-lieu of force, or joint duty assignments of use of different ground combat uniforms in a combat environment.

(5) Implications of the use of patents and other proprietary measures that may preclude sharing of technology, advanced uniform design, camouflage techniques, and fire retardence.

(6) Logistical requirements to field and support forces in varying combat or utility uniforms.

(c) REPORT REQUIRED.â€”Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the congressional defense committees the results of the assessment conducted under subsection (b).

(d) REQUIREMENT FOR JOINT CRITERIA.â€”In support of the policy established in subsection (a), the Secretaries of the military departments, consistent with the authority set out in subtitles B, C, and D of title 10, United States Code, shall establish joint criteria for future ground combat uniforms by not later than 270 days after the Comptroller General submits the report required under subsection (c). The joint criteria shall take into account the findings and recommendations of such report and ensure that new technologies, advanced materials, and other advances in ground combat uniform design may be shared between the military services and are not precluded from being adapted for use by any military service due to military service-unique proprietary arrangements.”

So essentially, this gives the services a little over a year to figure out how they will go about establishing “joint criteria”. To me, the most important statement in all of this is the last bit about “service-unique proprietary arrangements”. This is an obvious shot at forcing the services to share.

On a side note, according to the conference report, the bill also “Requires DOD to establish specific budget line items within the procurement and research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) accounts for body armor. This will improve accountability and increase transparency into long-term investment strategies for body armor as well as facilitate the advancement of lighter-weight technologies.”

Posted in Armor, Camo, Congress | Comments Off on Camo and the 2010 Defense Authorization Bill

UCP-Delta Did Someone Else Get There First?

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

According to an article published today on Strike Hold!, it looks as though the Kazakh’s may have come to a similar conclusion as the US Army that UCP needs a little browning down to be more effective in the high desert of Central Asia.

Photo: Chris Fletcher

Thanks to recent photographs taken of Exercise Steppe Eagle, a two-week Partnership for Peace exercise, involving British Territorial Army (reserves) soldiers from 7th Battalion The Rifles (7 RIFLES) and Kazakh airborne troops we get some close ups of the pattern. Also, note the Woodland PASGT vest on the paratrooper on the right.

Posted in Camo, Foreign | Comments Off on UCP-Delta Did Someone Else Get There First?

More on PenCott Camo from Strike Hold!

Thursday, October 1st, 2009

Strike Hold! has published some photos of PenCott camo being used in the field. Sure the users are MilSim but the photos still show the utility of the pattern in a rural environment.

Checkout the article.

Tags: PenCott
Posted in Camo, Foreign | Comments Off on More on PenCott Camo from Strike Hold!

Camo for Afghanistan – The Rest of the Story

Saturday, September 26th, 2009

On Friday September 18th, Soldier Systems Daily was granted an exclusive interview with PEO-Soldier’s COL William Cole, Project Manager Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment, Todd Wendt, Deputy Product Manager Soldier Clothing and Individual Equipment, and Cheryl Stewardson, Team Leader, Soldier Integrated Protection, at the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development & Engineering Center. The topic of our conversation was alternative camouflage patterns. Our goal at SSD for the interview was to cut through the misinformation and conjecture currently permeating the web on this subject and get to the facts. Up to now no one, including us, has adequately told the story of what is actually going on.

As a result of a photosimulation study conducted in 2007 by Natick as well as recent Congressional language directing the Army to provide an enhanced camouflage capability for Soldiers on operations in Afghanistan, the Army is undertaking a four-phased initiative to explore alternate camouflage patterns for the Army Combat Uniform (ACU). Additionally, the Army regularly conducts post combat surveys and had noted several comments that Soldiers were most dissatisfied with UCP’s performance in Woodland environments. Based on this information, the Infantry School suggested that perhaps a Brown shade should be added to the UCP color palette.

The Army’s objective is twofold: to identify an ACU camouflage that will provide effective concealment for Soldiers serving in Operation Enduring Freedom, and to evaluate a long-term camouflage plan for the Army. When COL Cole made his initial decisions on developing a course of action one of the main considerations was Fire Resistance. Whatever was going to be tested and fielded had to be FR. Additionally, they had to meet military specifications for infrared identification and be Berry compliant. Two patterns that met these specifications were readily available; MultiCamÂ® and the Army’s Universal Camouflage Pattern. Recently, many have called for the complete elimination of UCP yet touted the performance of MARPAT. As we will discuss later, the patterns are the same, just with different pigments. If MARPAT performs well, UCP could be tweaked in order to enhance its characteristics and that is exactly what the Army did.

In conjunction with this interview, SSD was provided an exclusive look at the five alternative patterns named UCP-Alpha through Echo developed for the wear test.

Oddly enough, immediately after the story broke, strange conclusions began to surface around the internet that there was a significance to the UCP-Delta moniker. We can assure you that the Delta designation denotes no affiliation to any particular unit but rather is the phonetic alphabet for the letter D. PEO-Soldier used the alphabet since they were not sure initially how many variants they would need to work on. As it turns out, due to time constraints and some solid rudimentary research, they only produced five patterns. Of the five, only Charlie and Delta showed significant promise for further testing. Initially patterns were developed in .jpg format and then fabric was printed on a dot matrix printer.

According to Cheryl Stewardson, Natick researchers then conducted a modified photosimulation test similar to the one conducted in 2007. However, in this test 200 Soldiers at Forts Hood and Campbell with recent combat experience in Afghanistan were shown images of Afghani terrain that had been altered by superimposing photos of ACUs in the Charlie and Delta variants on them. During this testing, UCP-Delta was selected as the most promising pattern.

Some interesting facts about the US digital patterns were revealed during this interview. The digital camouflage is printed using a screen process. MARPAT, UCP, and the AOR patterns all use the same screens. Current UCP utilizes only three of the four screens required to produce MARPAT and AOR but UCP-Delta will add the fourth screen to apply the Coyote to the pattern.

Photos courtesy of PEO-Soldier

Phase I By the end of September 2009, the Army will provide two alternate uniforms to designated battalions of Soldiers serving in Operation Enduring Freedom. The two alternate uniforms will utilize the MultiCamÂ® and Universal Camouflage Pattern â€“ Delta (UCP-D). The UCP-Delta pattern was derived from the standard UCP by reducing the Urban Grey and Sand colors, and adding Coyote Brown which constitutes 30% of the pattern.

One battalion will receive the MultiCamÂ® uniform, while the other will receive the UCP-Delta uniform. In addition to their test uniforms and equipment both battalions will also be issued a full complement of standard UCP equipment. This will allow commanders to outfit their troops based on METT-TC. While PEO-Soldier plans to use the IOTV in standard UCP for this test, they will provide test forces with the Tactical Assault Platform in UCP-Delta. The TAPS is similar to a chest rig that attaches to the IOTV. Additionally, PEO-Soldier is fast tracking a UCP-Delta solution for the rear of the IOTV. The battalion outfitted in MultiCamÂ® will receive a full complement of TA-50 in that pattern including IOTV, Plate Carrier, MOLLE, and TAP.

Phase II By the end of October 2009, the Army will begin collecting data in theater to measure the suitability of various camouflage patterns. This phase will include feedback from Soldiers in Operation Enduring Freedom; photosimulation of uniform colors and patterns, along with associated Operational Clothing and Individual Equipment (OCIE) such as body armor, helmets, and rucksacks, against a variety of backgrounds common to Afghanistan including foliage, high desert, and mountains; and a photographic study in theater. Specific emphasis will be placed on ensuring accurate RGB values. The Army will analyze the data throughout the collection period in preparation for Phase III.

The next round of Photo simulation studies will include six patterns. However, not all of the patterns have yet been released. COL Cole confirmed that UCP-Delta, MultiCamÂ®, AOR-1 and 2 and a newly developed pattern based on the UCP pattern with an entirely new colorway will be tested. The new pattern retains the four screen process but replaces even UCP-Delta’s colors with a pallet based on a photometric study of Afghanistan.

Another goal of this photosimulation study is to measure the effects of a variety of field equipment colors including UCP, Coyote, Khaki, and Ranger Green have when used with different uniform patterns.

Phase III By the end of January 2010, Army leaders will make a decision whether or not to produce and field alternate uniforms and OCIE to selected units in specific regions of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Phase IV At a date to be determined, the Army will establish and evaluate a long-term plan for ACU camouflage. If a new pattern is selected, even for limited use in Afghanistan, it may very well promulgate throughout the Army if it is demonstrates improved camouflage traits.

Once again SSD would like to thank the folks at PEO-Soldier and Natick who made this interview possible.

Posted in Camo, Congress, Multicam, PEO-Soldier | Comments Off on Camo for Afghanistan – The Rest of the Story

Natick Camo Study – Making Sense of It All Part II

Saturday, September 19th, 2009

Much has been made of the Photosimulation test. It is important to note that this test was not perfect and ultimately serves a data point, and not the data point. Overall, the testers did a good job but if the test was conducted again, some patterns would most likely see different results. This is due to a variety of factors which include the actual test subjects. For example, the Bulldog Mirage pattern did not have as many test samples due to a lack of Woodland environmental imagery early in the test. Instead, the test authors accepted the statistical sample as indicative of a full test and extrapolated the results.

Another issue which may have resulted the “Syrian” pattern performing better is scale. The test photo indicated that the wearer of the Syrian camo is female and this may mean that the test article was smaller than others. It may not have been detected at as great a distance as other patterns worn by larger individuals. Additionally, all of the test subjects were wearing green Advanced Combat Helmets which in some cases may have led to premature detection of the test subject rather than the actual camouflage pattern.

Another issue that probably skewed the results was that the urban environment was based on Tan colored buildings. This resulted in desert patterns performing better than they probably would have in a grey-centric environment. Conversely, patterns such as UCP and Bulldog which should have shined in an urban setting didn’t do so well.

Lessons have been learned from this round of testing and will be applied during a new round of photosimulation testing to coincide with the upcoming Afghanistan wear tests. Be sure to visit us again on Monday for an exclusive interview with COL Cole, Program Manager Soldier Protection and Individual Equipment on this testing and the development of UCP Delta.

Tags: Natick
Posted in Camo, Congress | Comments Off on Natick Camo Study – Making Sense of It All Part II

Natick Camo Study – Making Sense of It All

Friday, September 18th, 2009

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, or failing to read Soldier Systems Daily, you know that in response to Congressional calls for a new camo pattern for operations in Afghanistan, the Army announced that they would test two patterns in October. The Army Times obtained a Natick test report for a camouflage study conducted from 2007 – 2009 of 18 different patterns. This report has now been released by the Army to the press and Soldier Systems Daily has extracted some of the major points from this test report. This is the first in a series of reports that attempt to make some sense of the report and cut through much of the conjecture and hyperbole found on the internet.

The following patterns were actually tested:

The Army’s current issue UCP was used as a baseline.

Four Woodland patterns were included in the test.

Four Desert patterns were used for testing.

Natick also included four commercial patterns, all of which have been seen limited use by US troops.

The following patterns were eliminated from testing for a variety of reasons but mainly due to poor performance. In some cases the performance was low but this combined with limited accessibility for US forces or similar factors the patterns were eliminated.

From the report:
“Although detection data were collected on 18 patterns, five patterns (i.e., Sweden, Spec4 Woodland, Spec4 Urban, North Korea, and Woodland British) were eliminated from the final data analysis. The two Spec4 patterns were not available for desert image collection; therefore, they did not have a complete data set. Sweden, North Korea and Woodland British were eliminated, due to being the worst performers in two out of the three environments. Their similarity to other woodland patterns was further justification, although it must be noted that detection data are available for further analysis, if desired.”

Finally, the report’s authors produced a very handy chart that show the overall performance of each pattern by environment. You are going to be genuinely surprised when you read the results. How they fared:

Ultimately, the entire report can be summed up very simply. As one reader who is a retired Special Forces Warrant Officer put it, “Nothing earth shattering; desert s@&* works great in the desert and green s@&* works great in the green area.”

Special Thanks to Defense Tech for the advanced copy of the report and for hosting it in PDF form for the public.

Posted in Camo, Congress, PEO-Soldier, Sustainment | Comments Off on Natick Camo Study – Making Sense of It All

Syrian Camo?

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

*Soldier Systems Daily Exclusive*

We received an excerpt of the 2009 Natick report “PHOTOSIMULATION CAMOUFLAGE DETECTION TEST” in order to determine the origin of the so-called “Syrian” pattern.

The internet has been aflame with concern and indignation that a “Syrian” camouflage pattern is out performing UCP. Still others have taken recent articles printed on other websites as an indication that the Army is considering this pattern for issue but nothing could be further from the truth.

In an effort of clearing the air, Soldier Systems Daily offers these quotes taken directly from the report followed by some analysis. A couple of tidbits from the report:

“Eighteen patterns were included in the imagery collection and observer data collection.

Guidance for pattern selection was given by BG Brown, PEO-Soldier in March 2007. Guidance included patterns of foreign countries, patterns presently available on the commercial market and the UCP. Final pattern selection was controlled by pattern availability. The Woodland and Desert Battle Dress Uniforms (BDU) were not included in this evaluation because, at the time of pattern selection, they were not being worn by the U.S. Army.

All targets wore desert combat boots and a green Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH). Helmet covers were not worn because of the lack of availability of covers for most patterns. Deployment and training schedules limited the availability of observers during the short data collection period. Therefore, to focus data collection on the patterns of greatest interest, the patterns were prioritized into two tiers. When a complete data set was collected on the Tier 1 patterns, which are annotated in Figures 6-10 with an asterisk, observer data collection then began on the Tier 2 patterns.

Although detection data were collected on 18 patterns, five patterns (i.e., Sweden, Spec4 Woodland, Spec4 Urban, North Korea, and Woodland British) were eliminated from the final data analysis. The two Spec4 patterns were not available for desert image collection; therefore, they did not have a complete data set. Sweden, North Korea and Woodland British were eliminated, due to being the worst performers in two out of the three environments. Their similarity to other woodland patterns was further justification, although it must be noted that detection data are available for further analysis, if desired.”

“Given these environment-specific results, five patterns consistently performed better than UCP â€“ Syria, Desert MARPAT, Desert Brush, MultiCamÂ®, and Natural Gear.

Although the performance of the Natural Gear pattern was consistently better than UCP, it is not a viable pattern to consider for possible near-term military use because it does not have military near-infrared properties and the Government has no rights to the pattern. Natural Gear was also the lowest performer of this group of five patterns. Therefore, further discussion is focused on the remaining four uniforms â€“ Desert MARPAT, Desert Brush, MultiCamÂ® and Syria. Syria, although a foreign uniform and not practical for U.S. military use, yielded very favorable results in the environments tested and may be useful in future research on pattern / color effectiveness in multiple environments.“
italics added for emphasis (mine)

As you can see from the study, the now infamous “Syrian” pattern is not under consideration for issue to US troops but rather considered a “lab pet” to be used during future camouflage study.

This is the photograph of the “Syrian” camo from the Natick report. Unfortunately, we still do not know the true origin of this pattern. International camouflage experts have reviewed that photo and determined that it is not on general issue to Syrian forces. Furthermore, it has been suggested that it closely resembles the German Sumpfmuster (Marsh Pattern) issued to the Bundes Grenz Schutz from the late 50s on. This pattern in particular was based on a WW II German Army Marsh pattern and has been also worn by the Libyan military.

Notice that “British Woodland”, beloved Temperate DPM was eliminated due to being among the worst performers in the study but on the flip side, Desert DPM fared pretty well. Interestingly, this will be very big news across the pond as the British military struggles with PECOC and their efforts to field a more effective pattern for operations in the Middle East.

Tags: PECOC
Posted in Camo, Foreign, Multicam | Comments Off on Syrian Camo?