It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

HASC Call for Standardized Camo For ALL Services

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Rep. Jack Murtha, spurred by conversations he’s had with troops in the field, wants the Army to make sure its camo works as promised. My colleague Christian Lowe at Defense Tech follows uniform issues closely from his days covering the Marines and he’s not sure the Army should make any change. I’m agnostic but think commanders should have the freedom to pick whatever camo pattern works best in the the environment in which they are operating.

Ironically, the House Armed Services Committee has taken the opposite approach. I got an email July 10 from the head spokeswoman for HASC, Lara Battles, noting that their version of the defense authorization bill calls for “standardized” ground combat uniforms. The committee’s report says the kind of unique camo that Murtha would promote “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.”

Also, the HASC report language says that the committee is “concerned” that the use of unique service camouflage uniforms means “increased costs and production inefficiencies.” The report also argues 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.”

This is what Christian says:

No one really understood why the Army picked the sort of old-school loden colored camo. Especially since the service had already developed the MultiCam pattern with Crye Precision and Natick.

And isn’t that what it all boils down to? Everyone wants MultiCam. “Spec Ops guys get to wear it…why can’t I?” I even scoped out some photos of Air Force PJs sporting MultiCam during a deployment to Djibouti. And practically every cover shot from our friends at Tactical-Life.com features a MultiCam clad “operator” firing the highest speed shorty carbine around.

Look, I like MultiCam like the rest of them. But I also understand why the Army did what it did. They spent millions of dollars and lots of time studying what would work best in a range of environments with an eye toward making the Soldier’s loadout easier — one functional combat uniform for a range of environments. MultiCam was tested alongside the current ArPat (I was at Army Times Co. when the service was deciding the pattern and was following it closely with my friend Matt Cox there) and several other options and the ArPat camo won out. It was new. It was revolutionary and it was unpopular. That’s what makes me think it might have been the right choice.

But I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.

Also, we don’t have a ton of cash lying around, and some in the Army argue that the service has spent billions fielding the new uniforms and other gear in the pattern. Unless it sticks out like a sore thumb, why spend millions more to inject another version? And keep in mind the flaming hoops the Army is being forced to jump through as a line inserted by one congressman forces them to evaluate all these uniform alternatives. Nothing’s going to come of it, I guarantee you that. But Petraeus, Casey and Stevenson will have to placate the Democratic bull by saying “that’s a very good idea. we’ll spend time, money and resources looking into it for you, but we’re still going to come up with the same answer…”

I liked the congressional intervention on the M4 carbine issue, but I don’t see the sense in this one.




[edit on 11-8-2009 by texasoutlaw]




posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
[img]http://www.dodbuzz.com/wp-content/themes/dodbuzz/thumb.php?www.dodbuzz.com...&w=300&h=200&zc=1&q=80[/ img]

here is a pic of the new camo



new topics
 
0

log in

join