Posted on 06/25/2012 4:53:08 PM PDT by JerseyanExile
The Army is changing clothes.
Over the next year, America’s largest fighting force is swapping its camouflage pattern. The move is a quiet admission that the last uniform — a pixelated design that debuted in 2004 at a cost of $5 billion — was a colossal mistake.
Soldiers have roundly criticized the gray-green uniform for standing out almost everywhere it’s been worn. Industry insiders have called the financial mess surrounding the pattern a “fiasco.”
As Army researchers work furiously on a newer, better camouflage, it’s natural to ask what went wrong and how they’ll avoid the same missteps this time around. In a candid interview with The Daily, several of those researchers said Army brass interfered in the selection process during the last round, letting looks and politics get in the way of science.
“It got into political hands before the soldiers ever got the uniforms,” said Cheryl Stewardson, a textile technologist at the Army research center in Natick, Mass., where most of the armed forces camouflage patterns are made.
The researchers say that science is carrying the day this time, as they run four patterns through a rigorous battery of tests. The goal is to give soldiers different patterns suitable for different environments, plus a single neutral pattern — matching the whole family — to be used on more expensive body armor and other gear. The selection will involve hundreds of computer trials as well on-the-ground testing at half a dozen locations around the world.
But until the new pattern is put in the field — a move that’s still a year or more away — soldiers in Afghanistan have been given a temporary fix: a greenish, blended replacement called MultiCam. The changeover came only after several non-commissioned officers complained to late Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha, and he took up the cause in 2009. Outside of Afghanistan, the rest of the Army is still stuck with the gray Universal Camouflage Pattern, or UCP. And some soldiers truly hate it.
“Essentially, the Army designed a universal uniform that universally failed in every environment,” said an Army specialist who served two tours in Iraq, wearing UCP in Baghdad and the deserts outside Basra. “The only time I have ever seen it work well was in a gravel pit.”
The specialist asked that his name be withheld because he wasn’t authorized to speak to the press.
“As a cavalry scout, it is my job to stay hidden. Wearing a uniform that stands out this badly makes it hard to do our job effectively,” he said. “If we can see our own guys across a distance because of it, then so can our enemy.”
The fact that the government spent $5 billion on a camouflage design that actually made its soldiers more visible — and then took eight years to correct the problem — has also left people in the camouflage industry incensed. The total cost comes from the Army itself and includes the price of developing the pattern and producing it for the entire service branch.
“You’ve got to look back and say what a huge waste of money that was,” said Lawrence Holsworth, marketing director of a camouflage company called Hyde Definition and the editor of Strike-Hold!, a website that tracks military gear. “UCP was such a fiasco.”
The Army’s camouflage researchers say the story of the universal pattern’s origins begins when they helped develop a similarly pixilated camouflage now worn by the Marine Corps. That pattern, known as MARPAT, first appeared in 2002 after being selected from among dozens of candidates and receiving plenty of input from Marines on the ground at the sniper school in Quantico, Va. The Marines even found one of the baseline colors themselves, an earth tone now called Coyote Brown.
“They went to Home Depot, looked at paint swatches, and said, ‘We want that color,’ ” said Anabelle Dugas, a textile technologist at Natick who helped develop the pattern. That particular hue, she added, was part of a paint series then sold by Ralph Lauren.
Around the same time, the Army was on the hunt for a new camouflage pattern that could solve glaring logistical problem on the ground in Iraq. Without enough desert-specific gear to go around, soldiers were going to war in three-color desert fatigues but strapping dark green vests and gear harness over their chests. At rifle distances, the problem posed by the dark gear over light clothing was as obvious as it was distressing.
Kristine Isherwood, a mechanical engineer on Natick’s camouflage team, said simply, “It shows where to shoot.”
The Army researchers rushed to put new camouflages to the test — several in-house designs and a precursor of MultiCam developed by an outside company. The plan was to spend two years testing patterns and color schemes from different angles and distances and in different environments. The Army published results of the trials in 2004, declaring a tan, brushstroke pattern called Desert Brush the winner — but that design never saw the light of day.
The problem, the researchers said, was an oddly named branch of the Army in charge of equipping soldiers with gear — Program Executive Office Soldier — had suddenly ordered Natick’s camouflage team to pick a pattern long before trials were finished.
“They jumped the gun,” said James Fairneny, an electrical engineer on Natick’s camouflage team.
Researchers said they received a puzzling order: Take the winning colors and create a pixilated pattern. Researchers were ordered to “basically put it in the Marine Corps pattern,” Fairneny said.
For a decision that could ultimately affect more than a million soldiers in the Army, reserves and National Guard, the sudden shift from Program Executive Office Soldier was a head-scratcher. The consensus among the researchers was the Army brass had watched the Marine Corps don their new uniforms and caught a case of pixilated camouflage envy.
“It was trendy,” Stewardson said. “If it’s good enough for the Marines, why shouldn’t the Army have that same cool new look?”
The brigadier general ultimately responsible for the decision, James Moran, who retired from the Army after leaving Program Executive Office Soldier, has not responded to messages seeking comment.
It’s worth noting that, flawed as it was, the universal pattern did solve the problem of mismatched gear, said Eric Graves, editor of the military gear publication Soldier Systems Daily, adding that the pattern also gave soldiers a new-looking uniform that clearly identified the Army brand.
“Brand identity trumped camouflage utility,” Graves said. “That’s what this really comes down to: ‘We can’t allow the Marine Corps to look more cool than the Army.’ ”
When I went T.A.D. to Boat Crew {Liberty Launches} in ports where we anchored out we wore dark blue ones. They were highly functional. They could call it the Navy just say no to crack policy LOL.
I wear coveralls all the time now. I don't even own a pair of pants.
Yea our old ones look like airline pilots too. I was glad to see the traditional uniform restored and so were others.
Some of the other changes they made were pretty questionable, but I would have been more than happy to switch out the dungarees for BDU-type uniforms. Dungarees were hot, smelled weird, and were hard to maintain. If you brushed up against any recently painted surface (which I seemed to always find every single one of onboard ship), then they were ruined. With the new working uniforms, you don’t look like you just escaped from the pen, and if you happen to get a little paint on them, it just blends right in.
The Marine Corps got it right while the Army screwed up & I’m ex Army . The “digital” pattern is to help spoof night vision , the Multi-Cam pattern is excellent & is being used just not service wide issue yet. To many Pentagon types more interested in fashion statements rather than will this pattern help conceal GI’s in a combat zone.
Great we got camouflage that works in gravel pits & on ugly couches but if you are out in the woods you stick out like a sore thumb.
That pattern looks downright “Hawaiian” to me!
When the Marine Corps decided it needed updated utilities, none of the other services wanted to bear the R&D costs, but of course wanted to use the developed pattern. Bear in mind that most things the Marine Corps gets is second hand. So the Marine Corps developed MARPAT utilities.....the other services are welcome to use them; it ll just say USMC all over it.
But, if the Army ever decides to invade a gravel parking lot, their ACUs will blend right in.
MARPAT is a descendant of CANPAT and is essentially a different color set of CANPAT with some added elements like the USMC logo. The problem with ACU isn’t the pattern, it’s that they chose the wrong colors - ACU is MARPAT/CANPAT with yet another different set of color choices.
When the Navy started the wear testing of their new blue trouser and khaki a elderly lady was attending a ceremony at Pearl Harbor. Some of the people in attendance wore period uniforms and color guard was Navy. She wanted to know why the Sailors were dressed in SA uniforms, she thought it was disgraceful. The Navy “blueberries” are just plan stupid some Navy Master Chief had to have the cool digs just like the ground war fighters. Now the Navy blue digs are the butt of jokes and are certainly not cool.
Air Force is wear testing that pattern now, but just for camp at the Pentagon!
Air Force is wear testing that pattern now, but just for camo at the Pentagon!
My lord if they laid down on the asphalt behind them I might not see them in a parking lot, or falling out of an airplane, just curious what they are camouflaged for in the first place.
As a CHief if you had primer on your new blue digi uniform, you bought a new pit. They still wear coveralls to protect the damn expensive trousers.
Either I am having problems with spell check or one too many scotch, paint on a uniform is still paint it does not blend in and I would make my Sailors replace the uniform just like the dungarees.
Not the first time I’ve been made aware of substandard outfitting. No doubt the consequence of poor contracting and production planning; not to ignore the spontaneous nature of war.
LOL - that’s great!
I'm not sure if the pattern is produced any more, but it was great in fall grasslands and wheat fields.
The Army never wanted MARPAT.
When the Marines wanted a new uniform, they came to The Army (Natick Soldier Support Center) to do the design work. The US Army had already been working on digital camo since the early 1980s and did some experimentation on a large scale with the 14th ACR.
The Marines always let it be known that the uniform design was USMC only and the Army agreed to that at the very beginning. The Army was actually leaning towards Multicam, but a top NCO overrode the decision of the design team and selected ACP.
How could you get it so wrong.
The Army was working with digital camo since the early 1980s.
It was the Marines who came to the Army for help, and this was admitted by the two Marine scout-snipers who started the USMC MARPAT program. The Army designed the uniform and pattern for the USMC. But, when it came time to select The Army’s uniform, all the research was ignored by a single NCO on the project.
Please look around the USMC and find the second-hand equipment. Osprey’s, new M1A2 tanks, new rifles, gear, commo. The days of the USMC getting Army castoffs are long past.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.