Congress | Soldier Systems Daily Soldier Systems Daily

Archive for the ‘Congress’ Category

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

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.

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.

Tags: Congress, Natick, PEO-Soldier, UCP
Posted in Camo, Clothing, Congress, Multicam, PEO-Soldier | Comments Off on Afghanistan Camo Testing Announced

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.

Tags: Rayon
Posted in Congress, FR, Materials | Comments Off on Media Picks Up FR Fiber Story

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.

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.

Posted in Camo, Clothing, Congress, Multicam, Rumor Mill | Comments Off on Camo Rumors

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.

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 manufacturersâ€”Team Wendy and Mine Safety Appliancesâ€”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.

Tags: Team Wendy
Posted in Congress, Helmets | Comments Off on GAO Report on Helmet Pads

Congressional Camo: The Opposition Speaks

Sunday, August 2nd, 2009

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 nationâ€™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 â€œRequirements 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 campaignâ€™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 â€œuniquenessâ€ 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. Â§ 5063, USC Section 771) provides for the existing policy of the Servicesâ€™ 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 â€œno better friend, and no worse enemy.â€ This connection is key to our nationâ€™s warfighters accomplishing their missions.

At a time when our military faces so many critical missions, and our countryâ€™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 Servicesâ€™ 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

Tags: Congress
Posted in Camo, Clothing, Congress | Comments Off on Congressional Camo: The Opposition Speaks

Congress Proposes Common Ground Combat Uniform

Thursday, July 30th, 2009

In the 2010 House Defense Authorization bill there is a section that would require standard ground combat uniforms.

“Section 352â€”

Requirements for Standard Ground Combat Uniform This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Defense Logistics Agency, to require that future ground combat uniforms be standardized in order to ensure increased interoperability of ground combat forces and reduce tactical risks encountered when military personnel wear a different uniform from their counterparts in the other military services in a combat area.

The committee notes that, previously all the military services used the same desert camouflage uniform or the standard battle dress uniform, both in the temperate and enhanced weather versions. However, the Defense Supply Center Philadelphia of the Defense Logistics Agency, which is responsible for the manufacture of all U.S. military uniforms, now procures unique camouflage utility uniforms for each of the military services: the Army combat uniform, the Airman battle uniform, the Navy working uniform, and the Marine Corps combat utility uniform.

The committee is concerned that the recent move toward unique service camouflage uniforms has resulted in increased costs and production inefficiencies. For example, problems with consistency in fabric shading have required remanufacture of some uniforms. In addition, the costs for the unique uniforms are substantially more than for the standard battle dress uniform because of the differences in design, camouflage pattern, and type of fabric.

Most importantly, the committee is concerned that this uniqueness poses a tactical risk in theater, especially for those assigned to combatant commands or as individual augmentees who may be wearing a different uniform from those they are serving with in combat.

The committee also notes that service-specific battle dress uniforms magnify the challenges and costs associated with procuring personal protective gear and body armor that conform to the design and coloration of the basic uniform”

Well, Congress pretty much hit the nail on the head, just six years too late. This horse has been out of the barn for awhile but it does seem that the hoopla over the Army’s use of UCP in Afghanistan has attracted some thoughtful analysis. Interestingly, these are essentially the same arguments made by Robert Strange McNamara when he was Secretary of Defense during the Kennedy administration. At his direction, in the early 1960s the services moved to a standard uniform including boots and at one point, even T-shirts. However, this proposed legislation also references an issue that has been a major concern in the field and that is fratricide and OPSEC.

The services rely heavily on their individual uniforms for branding purposes so it is unclear how the departments may react to such a directive. Although, according to the document, there is some wiggle room including a reference to “future ground combat uniforms” which might allow the services to delay any changes to coincide with the fielding of future individual equipment ensembles. Another issue is that the bill references both utility uniforms as well as combat uniforms. Interestingly, Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps have all adopted FR combat uniforms that closely resemble one another except in the area of camouflage. The real differences come to play in the utility uniform realm. Such distinctions might make implementation difficult.

There have been calls within industry for some time for the services to adopt a single color scheme in order to simplify production and realize cost savings. While the implications of such legislation are very deep for the military as well as industry, it is important to note that this is still just a bill and not yet law. In fact, it may not even make it out of committee.

Thanks to ADS Ventures for alerting us to this legislation. It will be interesting to find out who is promoting this particular measure.

Posted in Clothing, Congress | 1 Comment »

Isakson Amendment

Saturday, July 18th, 2009

Ok, so you are asking yourself, “What’s the Isakson Amendment?” Well, if you are a Soldier or Airman deploying to combat in the future this may be one of the most important pieces of legislation ever. Based on an urgent need for Fire resistant uniforms Congress passed a waiver to the Berry Amendment last year for the procurement of foreign produced fire resistant rayon fiber. Unfortunately, the waiver runs out in 2013. In budget years, that’s right round the corner.

Sponsored by Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga, this Amendment to the 2010 Defense Authorization Act permanently raises the sunset on the Berry waiver.

Photo: US Army

While some may assume that this foreign produced fiber might pose a threat to the US textile industry, this is not true. for one thing, the fibers cannot be produced here in the US due to EPA restrictions. Additionally, the material is shipped from Austria in bales and once it arrives in the US is spun into yarn. Only then is the FR rayon woven into cloth, printed, and cut and sewn. The use of this fabric supports over 10,000 jobs in 14 states. Obviously, it isn’t a threat to the American textile industry. In fact, the opposite seems true.

If the waiver is not renewed, critical FR ACUs like the one that saved 1SG Sather will come in short supply. Unfortunately, the US industrial base would not be able to keep up with the current and projected demand for FR fabrics which are made up of a combination of domestic materials augmented with 65% of the FR rayon fiber. This combination was chosen by the US Army as the best performer from among over 24 candidates as the rayon provides added strength to the fabric and helps our domestically produced fibers go further.

Please support this important legislation.

Tags: Congress
Posted in Congress, FR | 1 Comment »