GORE-TEX Military Fabrics

Archive for the ‘Congress’ Category

Warrior Protection and Readiness Coalition Members to Brief Congress on Need for Warfighter Equipment

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

WPRC LogoMembers 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.”

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.

MultiCam – Who Pays?

Monday, March 15th, 2010

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.

Soldier Patrols Wearing MultiCam
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.

Rep. John Murtha Dead at 77

Monday, February 8th, 2010

Rep John MurthaU.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.

The Plastic Rucksack Letter

Sunday, December 27th, 2009

This letter is priceless. Take a moment to read through it.

Letter to SefDef

It seems as though members of Congress have taken to talking to any old yahoo they can round up when they are on “fact finding” trips to exotic locales. It doesn’t seem to matter if any of what said yahoo complains about makes any sense.

Nothing like talking to GIs who have no idea what they are talking about. Of course the Soldiers were referring to the MOLLE rucksack. Somehow, the “plastic” frame is now an entire rucksack with matching plastic straps. Newsflash, I had the same problems with my arms and hands falling asleep back in the bad old days before we had high tech “plastic” rucksacks. The ALICE pack, affectionately known as the “big green tick” would put your arms to sleep just the same. This has much more to do with the load and a lot less to do with the pack.

Camo issues? Hello! The Army is knee deep in it. How about you give them a chance to at least bust their own time line before calling them out?

I am still scratching my head over the comments about needing a larger clothing allowance. I was under the impression that the Army is issuing FR ACUs to deployed troops for free. I guess the Overseas COLA isn’t enough to cover beer these days in Vincenza.

Interestingly, the letter wants to know what the Army is doing to “procure a superior replacement rifle, such as those used by our Special Operations forces (sic).” Do they mean like the SCAR? Excuse me while I guffaw. What wonder weapon are they talking about exactly?

Ok, so what do we have here? GIs want MultiCam. GIs hate their “plastic” rucksacks. GIs hate the M4 and want SOF weapons. GIs want even more of a clothing allowance (aka beer money). Hell, they could have found all of that out by spending five minutes on an internet message board.

Leadership and training are going to fix some of these issues long before the material developer can intercede. Until that happen clean your weapons and employ them properly, take a serious look at your load and accept some risk to lighten it, and use basic soldier skills to camouflage yourself and your equipment.

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.—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.”

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.