Mystery Ranch celebrated the ribbon cutting for their new facility in Bozeman, Montana yesterday. On hand was Sen Max Baucus (Dem, MT).
If you happen to be in Bozeman today from 3-5 PM be sure to stop by 1750 Evergreen Drive for their grand opening!
Congrats guys!
“Army conducting ‘full-court press’ to reduce weight Soldiers carry” – That’s the title of latest story from the Army News Service discussing testimony provided last week by Army officials before the House Armed Services Committee on the Army’s budget and modernization. Afghanistan as you know is a very Soldier-centric environment and the Soldier serves as our most important combat system. Since the onset of hostilities in 2001 the Army has made huge strides to improve the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) of our Soldiers but it has come at a cost.
However, the article leads the reader to believe a couple of things that are untrue and hopefully, the article is incorrect and these same misstatements weren’t provided to Congress as testimony.
For example, according to the article the Army’s Vice Chief of Staff GEN Pete Chiarelli “said the Army has given Soldiers the option between the Improved Outer Tactical Vest and the new light-weight plate carrier. That provides a weight savings of 8 pounds…” Actually, the Army provides both systems but it is not up to the Soldier which he will wear but rather up to his chain of command. While it isn’t an out and out mistruth, it is a bit misleading. Individual Soldiers don’t get to apply METT-T and decide which PPE to wear.
He went on to state, “And the Army “continues to look at ways to further lighten body armor,” though he told lawmakers it’s not likely that the most common protective gear for Soldiers, the ceramic protective plates worn close to the body, could become lighter — because the technology isn’t there yet.
“I have not heard of any technologies now that will give us the required protection — as enemy capabilities continue to increase — at a lighter weight,” Chiarelli said.”
Once again, not entirely true. Industry can drop weight, but the Army doesn’t want to foot the bill associated with the reduction.
But, according the article GEN Chiarelli wasn’t the only one putting out incorrect info. LTG William N. Phillips, the military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology) apparently hailed the Army’s new “Danner” boot due to its weight reduction. Unfortunately for him, the Army chose the Belleville boot instead. While the boots are very similar, the fact that a senior Army leader is passing out bad info is a bit disconcerting. What else is he getting wrong? It might be the tidbit about the “added” $5.8 Million for armor R&D. Yes, it’s a new line item, but the money isn’t. Most of it was pulled out of the old single line item that covered armor as well as Organization Clothing and Individual Equipment. Now they are separate.
Soldiers are our most precious resource. When it comes to their protection, we’re not opposed to a little gold plating. But please, no sugar coating.
Last year we reported that in addition to the Congressionally mandated search for a new camo pattern for Afghanistan, they were also going to add language to the Defense Authorization Act for 2010 that would require the services to begin to work toward a common camouflage pattern as well as combat uniform. That requirement is now section 352 of Public Law 111–84. Last week, the Government Accounting Office released the report below as an interim response.
GAO Report: Observations on DoD’s Ground Combat Uniforms
Additionally, here are some recent comments from the House Armed Services Committee:
Ground combat uniform research and development Section 352 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111–84) established, as a 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, provided that the ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms, to the maximum extent practicable:
(1) provide members of every military service an equivalent level of performance, functionality, and protection commensurate with their respective assigned 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.
The committee notes that part of the rationale for section 352 of Public Law 111–84 was to reduce the multiple research, design, development, and fielding efforts for military ground combat uniforms being undertaken by the military departments and to improve the overall combat capability of those assigned to ground combat missions.
In an interim response to section 352 of Public Law 111–84, the Government Accountability Office (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 protective gear. Furthermore, while GAO found some examples of uniform technology being shared across the services, the committee emphasizes the importance of sharing new technologies, advanced materials, and other advances in ground combat uniform design and development between the military services. The committee notes that some of the military departments have used the Army Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center during development of their ground combat uniforms to test the effectiveness of the camouflage, and, in some cases, camouflage effectiveness of ground combat uniforms and protective gear. The committee believes, however, that Natick’s resources could be better utilized for joint research and development. Because of its expertise, the committee urges the services to consider expanding their use of the Army Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center as a center of excellence for uniform research and development to guide their development of camouflage effectiveness and performance criteria and testing.
Additionally, the committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to consider designating an executive agent (EA) to oversee Department of Defense activities related to research and development of ground combat and camouflage utility uniforms. The committee envisions that such an EA would be similar to the functions performed by the executive agent for operation of the Department of Defense Combat Feeding Research and Engineering Program.
Overall, not a whole lot of shocking news here but lots of good costing data has been provided. However, check out the second bullet on slide 33 of the GAO document. A bit of a surprise there. Also, of interest is slide 45 which shows the new Navy Type II and III camo based on the AOR patterns.
Members of the Warrior Protection and Readiness Coalition (WPRC) will meet this week with more than forty Congressional offices as part of their ongoing effort to educate Members and staff on Capitol Hill about the need to adequately fund Individual Equipment programs for America’s Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. This is an issue that is very dear to Soldier Systems Daily.
The WPRC is an industry-led coalition comprised of many of the leading manufacturers and suppliers of combat clothing and Individual Equipment for the American warfighter. The WPRC provides a unified voice for a key component of America’s domestic industrial base and is actively engaged in advocating for policies that ensure that our warfighters are outfitted with the clothing and equipment they require to ensure battlefield superiority. This week, the WPRC’s primary goal is to educate Congress and the Administration on the importance of meeting warfighter needs during times of war, as well as during times of relative peace.
Luke Hillier, the Chief Executive Officer of WPRC founding member ADS Inc., explained the WPRC’s mission, noting that “Operational readiness is not just a wartime concern. We need to make absolutely certain that when Congress stops providing supplemental appropriations to fund overseas conflict, our warfighters do not lose access to the best possible clothing and Individual Equipment available. Building the WPRC’s relationship with Congress is a critical step in raising awareness of the warfighters’ needs, and preventing a funding vacuum that our Armed Services and our country cannot afford.â€
The founding members of the WPRC include ADS Inc., Darn Tough, Insight Technology, Integrated Wave Technologies, London Bridge Trading, Milliken, New Balance, Otis, Pelican, Sperian, Surefire, Wiley X and W. L. Gore. Additional leaders in the Individual Equipment industry are expected to join as this effort gains momentum. For more information on the Warrior Protection and Readiness Coalition please visit www.warriorprotection.net.
The easy part is done. A camouflage pattern has been selected for use in Afghanistan in accordance with the wishes of Congress. The hard part has now begun. Specifications have to be prepared, contracts let, and new equipment fielded. All in rapid fashion if the Army is going to meet its own deadline this summer. Fielding of a new pattern won’t come cheap. According to COL William Cole, the Program Manager for Soldier Clothing and Individual Equipment at PEO-Soldier, thus far everything has been paid for with offsets meaning the money used to purchase FR ACUs in UCP will be used instead to procure MultiCam FR ACUs. Unfortunately, this won’t make up for everything. TA-50 such as MOLLE lasts a lot longer than uniform items. With over one million sets of MOLLE already fielded, equipment in MultiCam will have to be purchased.
U.S. Army photo by Spc. Albert L. Kelley, 300th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment
An additional issue, particularly for industry are ancillary items such as gloves, hats, and even the webbing tape on load bearing and armor systems. What color will it be? With the switch to UCP came Foliage Green. What color will the Army specify for use with MultiCam? PEO-Soldier officials have stated that they are still considering the issue but with the new Army Combat Shirt in MultiCam sporting a Coyote Brown torso, chances are good that will be the accessory color (UPDATE: It’s sounding like Tan 499 will make the cut). Additionally, industry is already producing a wide variety of raw materials and finished goods in Coyote for the Marine Corps, SOCOM, as well as the secondary market.
So where will the money to pay for all of this come from? The Army hasn’t prepared any reprogramming actions moving funds from one account to another to pay for this. And if it is forced to, where will those funds come from? PEO-Soldier’s portfolio? Will the Army be forced to rob Peter to pay Paul? If this ends up being the case, the Soldier loses either way. As I see it, it is Congress’s bill to pay. Congress asked for it, the Army complied, and they have the facts to back up their decision. The Army’s leadership should approach Congress with a funding request to field adequate amounts of clothing and individual equipment in MultiCam. Congress should happily appropriate these monies. In fact, if anything, it will leave a lasting legacy in honor of the man who got this ball rolling in the first place, the late John Murtha.
U.S. Rep. John P Murtha from Pennsylvania’s 12th District died today of complications from gallbladder surgery at a Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, Va. He was 77.
An officer in the Marine Reserves, he became the first Vietnam War combat veteran elected to Congress in 1974. He served for two decades as the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Appropriations subcommittee where he was able to garner a great number of earmarks that attracted numerous defense contractors to his District.
Murtha joined the Marines in 1952 eventually serving as a drill instructor at Parris Island, S.C. After his discharge Murtha moved home to Johnstown, PA and remained with the Marine Reserves until he volunteered to go to Vietnam. There, he served as an intelligence officer there from 1966 to 1967 and received a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. In 1990, he retired from the Marine Reserves as a Colonel. Ironically, he later drew criticism from many service members for accusing Marines of murdering Iraqi civilians “in cold blood” at Haditha, Iraq in 2006.
His degree in Economics from the University of Pittsburgh earned in 1962 apparently came in handy. He barely survived the Abscam scandal by the skin of his teeth and for some reason campaign contributors seemed to regularly enjoy healthy earmarks.
During the Abscam corruption probe the FBI caught him on videotape in a 1980 sting operation turning down a $50,000 bribe offer while holding out the possibility that he might take money in the future. “We do business for a while, maybe I’ll be interested and maybe I won’t,” Murtha said on the tape. In the Government’s case six Congressmen and one Senator were convicted. Although he was not charged, he was named as an unindicted co-conspirator and he testified against two other Congressmen.
However, his involvement with the lobbying firm specializing in defense contractors, the PMA Group has garnered his most recent attention. During 2007 and 2008, Murtha and two fellow Democrats on the appropriations subcommittee directed $137 million to defense contractors who were paying PMA to get them government business. Between 1989 and 2009, Murtha received more than $2.3 million in campaign contributions from PMA’s lobbyists and corporate clients, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Shortly after the 2008 election, the FBI raided PMA’s offices as part of a criminal investigation but Murtha himself has now escaped any investigations into wrongdoing.
Many of my readers will recall that Murtha is behind the current Afghanistan Camouflage testing being conducted by the Army. After speaking with several Army NCOs he challenged the Army to investigate more effective camo patterns for use in Afghanistan. The Army was supposed to have rendered a decision by now but it has been inexplicably delayed.
Rep Murtha will be remembered as much for his service as his challenged sense of ethics. I wonder how his passing will effect the defense contractors in his district.
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.—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 practicable—
(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.—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.—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.—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.”
