Developed by Orion Design Group for the Ops-Core FAST Helmet, these covers are manufactured by LBT and will be available very soon through the ODG website.
Please note, the cover on the left is an Ops-Core Mesh Helmet Cover for the FAST helmet and there solely for comparison to the ODG cover on the right.
These incorporate a few features not found on other covers on the market.
In Part V, Guy Cramer continues on with his in depth examination of the US Army’s Camouflage Improvement Effort by discussing his take on the cause of delays, their cost and goes right into some rather interesting comparisons of various candidate patterns. Seeing them side by side in this manner is very enlightening.
This is just one example of what you have waiting for you at www.hyperstealth.com/c3.
It appears that the House of Representatives aren’t the only ones who want to hold the US military’s feet to the fire regarding their myriad camouflage patterns. The Senate version contains the following language which, while not exactly like the House’s Enyart Amendment, it is definitely in the same vein. Naturally, if it makes it through the remainder of the legislative process, any differences such as the Senate’s stipulation that an individual service (ie the Marines) can’t restrict their pattern’s use by the other services. At any rate, this ought to wake the Army up and get them to announce their camouflage decision before one is foistered upon them.
Subtitle F—Other Matters
Revised policy on ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms (sec. 351)
Section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (P.L. 111–84) required the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the performance, interoperability, costs, logistics, and patents involved in the services’ combat camouflage and utility uniforms. In April 2010, the GAO reported that since 2002, the services continued to develop unique combat and utility uniforms. The committee notes that prior to 2002, the services wore the same pattern and family of combat camouflage and utility uniforms. The GAO found no performance standards for specific combat environments, no criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of camouflage patterns, and no requirements for the services to test interoperability between their uniforms and other tactical gear, despite the DOD establishing a Joint Clothing and Textiles Governance Board in 2008.
The committee remains concerned that until this year, the Department of the Navy chose to equip its sailors and marines with different types of combat uniforms, providing significantly different levels of protection in combat environments. The GAO recently identified that the DOD’s fragmented approach to developing and acquiring combat uniforms could be more efficient, better protect service members, and result in up to $82.0 million in development and acquisition cost savings through increased collaboration among the military services.
The committee continues to strongly urge the secretaries of the military departments to explore additional methods for sharing uniform technology across the services as they develop their combat and utility uniforms. The committee continues to believe that combat and utility uniforms should incorporate the most advanced levels of protection and should be available to all men and women in uniform, regardless of the military service in which they serve. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision that would direct the Secretary of Defense to reduce the separate development and fielding of service-specific combat and camouflage utility uniforms in order to collectively adopt and field the same combat and camouflage utility uniforms for use by all members of the armed forces. The committee notes that the recommended provision would also restrict any military service from preventing another military service from authorizing the use of any combat or camouflage utility uniform. Additionally, after the date of enactment of this Act, each military service would be prohibited from adopting new designs for combat and camouflage utility uniforms, including uniforms reflecting changes to the fabric and camouflage patterns used in current combat and camouflage utility uniforms, unless the services adopt a uniform currently in use, all services adopt the same combat or camouflage utility uniform, or the Secretary of Defense determines that unique circumstances or requirements justify an exception to the policy.
Did the Royal Australian Air Force take a page from the US play book and develop a specialized Blue variant of the Australian MultiCam Pattern originally created by Crye Precision? If so, they are bluer than even the original USAF Tigerstripe Pattern.
Normally, we won’t publish something without at least two sets of verification. Unfortunately, we couldn’t get that for this one but we believe it to be real. We are still unsure if this is a trial pattern or a planned version for the RAAF.
AMP was developed by Crye Precision under contract to the Australian military for use in Afghanistan. It integrates MultiCam and its very effective color palette with some of the more traditional Australian camouflage elements found in the long serving DPCU pattern.
The above image shows SSFN’s Landcamo ABD/ALPINE pattern in use at a glacier beneath Skuta Mountain in the Slovenian Alps. Thanks to the www.specopshop.com/ for the photos.
www.survival-nature.com/english/index.html
The New Zealand Army’s 1st Brigade has begun to field the new Multi-Terrain Camouflage Uniform.
The new garb features incorporated knee and elbow pads and there is also an FR version for operational deployments. They are part of a new layered clothing system includes wet and cold weather layers which are designed to fit underneath and over top of the MCUs.
The NZ Army will be rolling the uniforms out over the next six months. The now ‘old’ uniform worn by NZ Army will be inspected and all serviceable items will be placed into a clothing pool to equip recruits, officer cadets and the NZ Air Force until stocks are exhausted.
One significant aspect of this new uniform and associated camo pattern developed by HyperStealth Biotechnology Corp is that it is not a pixelated pattern. Additionally, the Kiwis opted for a single pattern, acknowledging that troops find themselves in multiple environments over the course of an operation. According to Project Manager, Captain Ian Leabourne, “We have traditionally had our two patterns of uniform, one for the jungle and one for the desert. However, with the operational environments we face today, we can be operating in a variety of terrains within one area. We needed something which would do the job in whatever environment we deploy to. This uniform, with its unique NZ Defence Force pattern, solves this issue. The MCUs are a layered clothing system, so it is not just a case of a new look. We have included the full range of clothing which our soldiers need to perform well on operations and in training.”
Everyone knew that the tactical industry was bound to get smaller as the war winds down. At one point, business was almost too easy. It wasn’t just spearing fish in a barrel. If you had gear ready to deliver, the fish literally jumped into your boat. But those days are over. And, with them comes the inevitable. Companies are going to close. Others will change strategies and expectations and survive.
Yet, the are two additional stressors on industry that are avoidable, yet doing some serious damage. The first is sequestration. The Government and particular, the military, long industry’s largest single customer, isn’t buying much. Not for lack of need, but for lack of cash. And the blame for that lies with forces outside their control; politics. Reportedly, sequestration has caused the second stressor; the delay in announcing the US Army’s new family of camouflage patterns.
Many companies have figured out that they have to switch back to a pre-war, retail-based business model. But now, even that is fraught with problems. Normally, the purchase of many Soldier System items would fall back on the individual as the military itself stops buying. Individual service members would buy socks, boots, daypacks, eyepro, gloves, flashlights, knives, etc. with their own cash. Soldiers universally abhor the current issue Universal Camouflage Pattern and according to the Army itself, they don’t want it anymore either. But due to the delay Army’s in announcing new camo, Soldiers in particular are wont to spend money on anything lest they buy the wrong pattern. And this has many in industry worried.
The retail market isn’t the only side that is skittish over Army camouflage. For the Government, DLA has delayed several procurements in anticipation of a new camouflage. But even then, crunch time is coming for some commodities that will have to be purchased before the Army runs out. At the very least, Soldiers will need uniforms.
You see, no one wants to be left holding the bag, ie a huge inventory of fabric or finished goods in UCP. Already, it’s practically being given away in fire sales by vendors. Manufacturers are afraid to order fabric because they fear the few orders for UCP they have will be cancelled at any any moment as the client specifies delivery in the new pattern. As one industry insider put it, “the supply chain is getting crushed due to lack of orders on top of drawdown and sequestration.”
The longer the Army delays announcement of a new camouflage pattern, the more it hurts the industrial base it relies on. Additionally, the Army is forced to purchase clothing and equipment that will have to be abandoned after the switch. And finally, delays impact readiness. The American Soldier (as well as members of other services/organizations that must use Army camouflage) deserve to use effective camouflage.
This was originally published on 13 August, 2009. Unfortunately, nothing has changed in the ensuing four years.
U.S. Army Photo by Staff Sgt. Gina Vaile-Nelson, 133rd MPAD
