B5 Systems

Archive for the ‘PEO-Soldier’ Category

FR ACU Trouser Product Improvement Program Update

Friday, November 6th, 2009

Originally called the Army Combat Pant and for a short period referred to as the Fire Resistant Ruggedized Pant, the program has transformed into the FR ACU Trouser Product Improvement Program. Ultimately, what this means is that PEO-Soldier is working hard to transform the FR ACU into an even more combat focused garment rather than developing yet another garment.

ACU Trouser Product Improvement Program

In an interview yesterday with LTC Mike Sloane, Product Manager Soldier Clothing and Individual Equipment, his Deputy PM Mr Todd Wendt, Mr Jeff Myrhe, Assistant Product Manager w/in PM SCIE and Mr Jed Watkins, Contract Support we discussed the latest information on this exciting project.

In addition to name changes, there have been some big changes in the goal of the project. But first let’s delve into the history of the project and then find out where it is going.

PEO Soldier identified issues with the seat, crotch, and knees of the ACU trouser based on feedback from Soldiers returning from theater. Specifically, in fall 2007, elements of the 173rd Airborne Brigade presented PEO Soldier with information describing failures of the ACU trouser and they began a full court press to correct these issues. Natick Soldier Research, Development & Engineering Center and industry partners prepared several solutions.

The evaluation process for these solutions is a journey that began in FY 2008 and will be completed later this year. In April 2008, seven variants of the trouser were issued to units in Hawaii, Alaska, and Vermont for a limited user evaluation. Unfortunately, none of the seven variants completely addressed the failures, but did provide valuable information for further improvements.

Massif Mountain Gear and Crye Precision collaborated on the next step, which resulted in the Massif Army Combat Pant Version 4.0A, which employed various weights of Defender M fabric and Defender M stretch fabric to make the seat and crotch more durable. At the same time, Crye Precision’s adjustable-height, integrated hard-shell knee pad design greatly improved the durability of the knee, providing greater protection to the Soldier. This feature in particular has been the most important solution in the project. External knee pads require constant adjustment and lightweight pads slipped into the knee pad slot of the trouser result in extra abrasion and worn knees.

This trouser was evaluated in two phases. Phase I was a human factors evaluation, conducted with 38 Soldiers from the 3d Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment at Fort Benning from 11 January to 23 February 2009. Phase II involved 222 Soldiers from the 150th Armored Recon Squadron of the West Virginia National Guard, who evaluated the pant for dismounted functionality and vehicle compatibility during pre-deployment training at the National Training Center from 4 March to 2 April 2009.

Based on lessons learned from the previous phases, a new full and open competition was recently held to allow manufacturers to submit their version of the trouser. Five companies competed. Crye Precision won that competition and is producing 7,020 pairs of combat pants. The Crye trouser is a bit of a departure from previous incarnations as they have replaced the mechanical stretch fabric with a gusset design. These will be tested during Phase III of the evaluation. Testing will be conducted beginning in the 2nd quarter of FY10 with an infantry brigade deployed to Operation ENDURING FREEDOM and each Soldier will receive two pairs of the Crye trouser in addition to their normal complement of FR ACUs. This evaluation is more than a simple test and will deliver actual enhanced capability to the Soldiers involved as the enhancements are refinements of earlier solutions.

Additionally, the focus of the evaluation will no longer be to determine user acceptance of the whole garment. Instead, PEO-Soldier wants to determine which features of the garment are most effective in fixing the problem areas. The Infantry School drives requirements and will make the recommendations to the Army Uniform Board as to which improvements will be integrated into FR ACU. The Chief of Staff of the Army is the final approving authority for these modifications.

When asked if there were plans to remove the FR ACU from service and transform to an ACU for garrison use and ACP/ACS combo for combat operations, the answer was a simple “No”. However, PEO-Soldier officials caveated this statement by relating that the FR ACU will undergo a transformation in the future, making it a much different garment than we see today. In the interim, once approved by the CSA, the improvements to the FR ACU will trouser will greatly enhance the capability of our troops operating in Afghanistan and other regions around the world.

Army Camouflage Industry Day

Tuesday, October 20th, 2009

UPDATE: According to solicitation ARMYCAMOUFLAGEINDUSTRYDAY posted yesterday on Fedbizopps, the U. S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development & Engineering Center (NSRDEC) and the Product Manager Soldier Clothing and Individual Equipment is sponsoring an industry dayrom 0900-1100 hrs on 28 October at NSRDEC in Natick, MA in the Carney Hall (Bldg#1), Hunter Auditorium. As you may have heard, the Army is assessing different camouflage patterns for use in Afghanistan (as well as other locales) and is seeking the expertise of the textile printing industry to determine the feasibility to consistently produce these colors and patterns in multiple substrates. All textile industry attendees (sorry looky lou’s) must have a US citizenship and register by email with Alison.spurr@us.army.mil by close of business on 26 October 2009. Contracting Office Address: RDECOM Acquisition Center – Natick, ATTN: AMSRD-ACC-N, Natick Contracting Division (R and BaseOPS), Building 1, Kansas Street, Natick, MA 01760-5011 Point of Contact(s): Stacey Smith, 508-233-5118

We updated Alison Spurr’s email address. We apologize for any confusion.

More on the Tactical Assault Platform

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

It appears that both the Marine Corps as well as Army both have similar systems referred to as Tactical Assault Platforms but at the recent Modern Day Marine expo, personnel from PM-ICE were quick to point out that the Marine version is decidedly different from the Army variant.

Tactical Assault Platform

This is a photo of the Army’s current TAP. PEO-Soldier is currently wrapping up an in-theater evaluation of the system developed at the experimental load carrying facility at Natick. As you can see it is intended to integrate with the IOTV and in particular the cut away feature. Additionally, it carries six 30 round M16 magazines internally as well as featuring two side pockets that will accommodate an M14 mag, MBITR radio, or DAGR. The internal pockets go flat so the TAP will accept SAW drum pouches. Versions are being provided to the two battalions conducting the Afghanistan camo trials.

On the other hand, the Marine version displayed at Modern Day Marine incorporated simple removable shoulder straps. Obviously, this further enhances the versatility of the TAP as it will work with the IMTV, PC, and as a stand-alone. There are a couple of other alterations from the Army’s baseline as well. For example, based on feedback from early testing all of the buckles are now self-tensioning like the buckles found on the Mystery Ranch 3-day assault pack. Interestingly, back when the ILBE program was still just a wee solicitation, the Marine Corps envisioned a two component system consisting of a pack and an assault load carrier to replace the MOLLE FLC. Many expected this to be a chest rig. Ultimately, the Marines decided not to field an assault load carrier in conjunction with the pack but the requirement remains on the books.

PEO-Soldier Gets a Face Lift

Friday, October 9th, 2009

PEO-Soldier recently unveiled a new look. Their new web presence is streamlined and simplifies navigation. It even features a blog.

PEO-Soldier's New Web Presence

Check it out at peosoldier.army.mil.

The Tactical Assault Panel

Monday, September 28th, 2009

Many of you noticed a reference to the Tactical Assault Panel or TAP being issued to the Afghanistan camouflage test battalions.

Tactical Assault Panel

Here is a little bit of background on this developmental item.

The bib-like TAP is a product improvement that attaches to the Improved Outer Tactical Vest (IOTV) or Outer Tactical Vest (OTV) giving Soldiers the ability to attach Modular Lightweight Load-bearing Equipment (MOLLE) basic fighting load pouches to the TAP, as opposed to directly to the IOTV or OTV. It is easily donned and doffed allowing the Soldier to quickly reduce the girth of his load by removing the TAP from his armor.

The intent is to issue the TAP in addition to or in lieu of the Fighting Load Carrier once an assessment has been completed. An in-theater User Evaluation began in 4QFY09 and PEO-Soldier will be making adjustments to the TAP based on that feedback.

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

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.