SIG SAUER - Never Settle

Archive for the ‘Congress’ Category

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; MultiCam® 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.

Universal Camouflage Patten (UCP) Variants

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.

UCP Delta with IOTV UCP Delta
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 MultiCam® and Universal Camouflage Pattern – 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 MultiCam® 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 MultiCam® 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, MultiCam®, 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.

Camo for Afghanistan – The Rest of the Story

Monday, September 21st, 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.

Read the rest of the story after the jump

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.

Number of Observers Evaluating Each Pattern by Scene

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.

Urban Scenes

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.

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:

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

Woodland Patterns
Four Woodland patterns were included in the test.

Desert Patterns
Four Desert patterns were used for testing.

Commercial Patterns Tested
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.”

Patterns Eliminated

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:

Overall Performance Chart

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.

Afghanistan Camo Testing Announced

Tuesday, September 15th, 2009

*UPDATED* Natick has been busy developing several new variants of UCP which retain the base pattern but replace individual colors. Word has it that some of them are down right ugly. It has recently been revealed by Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, PEO-Soldier that the new “UCP-Delta” which integrates Coyote Brown into the pattern along with Multicam will be evaluated in Afghanistan beginning in October. In response to the Congressional directive to field a new camo pattern for operations in Afghanistan two Battalions worth of uniforms will be tested.

Below are two photos of UCP-Delta. One with an IOTV and one without.

UCP Delta with IOTV UCP Delta
Photos courtesy of PEO-Soldier

According to sources at Natick, 30% of the pattern of the UCP-Pattern is Coyote Brown. One advantage exhibited in the photos is that UCP Delta offers the perception that current UCP field equipment will not need to be replaced.

Media Picks Up FR Fiber Story

Monday, August 10th, 2009

In Mid-July we wrote about concerns over the sunset of the Berry waiver afforded FR-Rayon fibers produced in Austria. Now CNN has picked up the story. Unfortunately, the waiver extension has been defeated in the Senate. However, the House will consider the measure when they return from recess. It’s still not too late to weigh in with your Representative in support of the waiver extension.

Camo Rumors

Tuesday, August 4th, 2009

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.

Rumored Trials Patterns

Based on a series of evaluations documented in the report and briefing slides Natick developed the variant of All Over Brush pattern.

desert brush variant 3

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.

Multicam in Afghanistan

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.

GAO Report on Helmet Pads

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

Last week the Government Accounting Office released a report on helmet pads intended as a backgrounder for members of the Senate and House Armed Services and Appropriations Committees. While it was fairly thin, there were a few jewels of information buried in the document’s 12 pages (including covers).

One interesting section covered by our friends at DefenseTech discussed the military’s interest in alternative helmet suspensions and more stringent requirements.

Team Wendy's ZAP Pads

Also of note in the report is the timeline detailing the chain of events that brought us the current pad system. However, most interesting to us were the sections that dealt with the intent of the report which was to determine who currently provides the pads used in Army and Marine Corps ground combat helmets, and how they were chosen. The short answer repeated numerous times was Team Wendy.

To quote the report:
“To date, based on the results of the testing performed, the Army has approved pad systems made by two manufacturers—Team Wendy and Mine Safety Appliances—for use in its Advanced Combat Helmet, while the Marine Corps has chosen to limit its approval to one pad, and has approved only Team Wendy pads for use in its Light Weight Helmet. The approved pads used by the Army and the Marine Corps are consistent with the 2006 U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory testing results in that they showed the best performance relative to the other pads tested.”

However, Ability One (A JWOD service provider) under contract with DoD to provide helmet pads has chosen to only procure the ZAP pad from Team Wendy. Consequently, Team Wendy currently has the only authorized issue pad for the MICH, ACH, and LWH. To confuse matters, several alternative pad systems are available for local purchase as well as on GSA and are manufactured to the Mil Spec for pads. While they do meet shock mitigation standards they are not the issue item and to curb their use, both the Army and Marine Corps have issued directives for troops to inspect their equipment and replace unauthorized pads.