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.

 

$5 B Wasted on Army camo uniforms that make trooops Stand Out

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Maluhia
 


Wth the advance of OLED tech and printable display surfaces... a fully active camo system should already ahve been completed.

The only reason our standard infantry doesnt have this technology is because theres no current reason to rapidly accelerate the progression of deployed millitary technology. Everyones holding their cards.




posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   







posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
So that's about 8k per soldier...
I wonder who got that contract and who profited from it?

Probably overseas and the profits, well, they won't be spent inside US borders.
What a scam...

And NOW, they are saying they STAND OUT with those uniforms?
I kinda doubt this but still, it's written fail all over it.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by theMediator
 

Found this info regarding the manufacture of the uniforms -


The "Berry Amendment," 10 U.S.C. 2533a requires that the Department of Defense give preference in procurement to domestically produced, manufactured, or home grown products. This specifically applies to metals, food, fabrics and clothing. Congress originally passed the restrictions in 1941 in order to protect the U.S. domestic industrial base during time of war.

Although the law has been revised several times since then, the provisions concerning clothing and fabrics remain the same requiring all U.S. Military uniforms be manufactured in the United States by U.S. firms.


blog.militaryuniformgouge.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Here's the camo comparo chart

op-for.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 1825114
 


Those are very interesting. Are they going to be hiding in tacky living rooms on these super secret missions?

I'd like to see pics of these guys trying to use these uniforms to blend in. I'm sure their spotters could tell them how visible they are.

Hey, any ex-military wanna answer? Were these things that bad?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
makes the troops stand out?
As I have been saying:
the government doesn't particularly seem to like the soldiers and the vets
something about heath care, benefits, and pensions and insurgentcy traing and stuff



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by GD21D

Originally posted by Maluhia
reply to post by GD21D
 

So basically, no different than the corporate mentality of "screw everyone as long as I get ahead?"

If you think the ACU was a poor uniform, I could blow your mind with my impressions of the FRACU (fire resistant army combat uniform) currently being used in theater.


As a future Army enlistee I would like to say....

Please...blow my mind
edit on 7/1/2012 by PlausibleDeniability because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by PlausibleDeniability
 
I'm obliged to. The FRACU or Fire Resistant Army Combat Uniform does have some anti flammable capabilities. It's easy to tell with one of the most common methods of removing excess thread from the material when you first receive the uniforms. Using a lighter to burn the excess thread you will automatically notice a discernible difference from the general issue ACU.This sounds lovely at first. What they don't tell you is how it begins to lose it's resistance after about five cycles of wash. Even better is the fact that if you have a physical job of any sort that puts stress on the uniform, you'll be lucky to make it through five cycles before the uniform has visible wear. You can tell exactly how someone carries their weapon by the wear on their uniform. Oh yeah, and the uniform costs about $80 for the trousers and top, that's just one set. Depending on the unit you may be paying for extra uniforms if you put major wear on the four original issued uniforms. Any more questions about the 5 billion dollar price tag?



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Reply to post by GD21D
 


5 billion dollars is still too much. There are about 600,000 active troops in the army. I did 5 uniforms per soldier at 80 dollars and still only arrived 240,000,000.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1825114





Awesome!, looks like they'll be safe next time they visit grandma!



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Reply to post by GD21D
 


5 billion dollars is still too much. There are about 600,000 active troops in the army. I did 5 uniforms per soldier at 80 dollars and still only arrived 240,000,000.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 

Yep and you're not counting all the material for magazine pouches, grenade pouches, canteen pouches, first aid pouches, body armor (not counting the plates), FLC's, helmet covers, camelbacks. There is more, but I find no reason to name every piece of equipment issued. Grab any active duty soldier and look at his clothing/issue record, now run the nomenclatures for pricing. I would guess the average active duty soldier has about $12,000-$15,000 worth of equipment. Of course there is still some basic woodland camo, so not all of the equipment is ACU pattern.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Reply to post by GD21D
 


Um....ok. Thats irrelevant. This is not about equiptment. That number is just for the basic camo uniforms-thats it.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Reply to post by GD21D
 


Um....ok. Thats irrelevant. This is not about equiptment. That number is just for the basic camo uniforms-thats it.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 

That's irrelevant? You obviously don't understand how military equipment issue works. There is no difference between uniforms and the equipment, it's one and the same, and issued as such. When the Department of The Army changed the camo style, they had to change the camo style on all of the equipment. I think it would look a little strange to have digicam uniforms and woodland camo body armor. Somehow you figured in your own mind that the price only included the actual uniforms, and not any of the equipment. When you were presented with an explanation in contradiction to what you were looking for, you completely dismissed it because it doesn't fit your someone was skimming off the top theory.Is there a possibility that someone could have pocketed some cash? Sure, but I maintain the 5 billion is not that much by military standards.But what do I know? I only worked in a supply section for my last two years in service.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   
Reply to post by GD21D
 


Firstly, I never said I thought anyone was skimming of the top of anything. So yea have fun with that strawman. Secondly, you're wrong. The equpitment such as body armor and helmets are not purchased with the same funds the camo uniforms. If you can provide me with a source that shows they are you are more than welcome to prove me wrong.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by acmpnsfal
 


This is off topic but why are your post cut in two and displyed off center? no other post are like that



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GD21D

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
Reply to post by GD21D
 


Um....ok. Thats irrelevant. This is not about equiptment. That number is just for the basic camo uniforms-thats it.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 

That's irrelevant? You obviously don't understand how military equipment issue works. There is no difference between uniforms and the equipment, it's one and the same, and issued as such. When the Department of The Army changed the camo style, they had to change the camo style on all of the equipment. I think it would look a little strange to have digicam uniforms and woodland camo body armor. Somehow you figured in your own mind that the price only included the actual uniforms, and not any of the equipment. When you were presented with an explanation in contradiction to what you were looking for, you completely dismissed it because it doesn't fit your someone was skimming off the top theory.Is there a possibility that someone could have pocketed some cash? Sure, but I maintain the 5 billion is not that much by military standards.But what do I know? I only worked in a supply section for my last two years in service.

Sorry, but the number is for the equipment also, "uniform" by definition means matching.
So, your MOLE, is made from the same fabric, made in the same factory(most likely) than the pants are. They don't differentiate between the fabric used on a pouch, and the fabric used on pants. They are just sewn into a different shape.
Why is that so hard to understand?



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Maluhia
 


Well you can dye them. I guess they should have checked with us first.
Or better still, keep them and get some more. The equipment can match those.
The uniforms we want are non-combat uniforms so they can be visible in society and not look like foreigners.

I see a lot of Canadian military since we have a large Canadian base here and both those guys sometimes walk around town in their combat uniforms. And basically they look seriously out of place.
I don't think we want to make them stand out to the degree that they do not look like they should be on the street in public.

Probably we are going to be sending them around to various countries and locations for war games, so they should have some type of uniform that looks good but blends in a bit.
edit on 1-7-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Just so we are clear on this now, if we create a global trade network, of 90, 5 billion dollar trade hub projects, funded by the IMF, we will be able to employ a lot of military people there. But not people on active duty.
They could be reserves, or ex-military.

Part of the reason for doing this plan this way, creating a shipping company as well like FedEx is to employ them.
In communications, driving, flying, logistics etc.

Gates has stated he has a plan for reform, and part of that is to reduce the number of people on active duty.


In a statement of 6 January 2011 Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates stated: "This department simply cannot risk continuing down the same path - where our investment priorities, bureaucratic habits and lax attitude towards costs are increasingly divorced from the real threats of today, the growing perils of tomorrow and the nation's grim financial outlook." Gates has proposed a budget which, if approved by the Congress, would reduce the costs of many DOD programs and policies, including reports, the IT infrastructure, fuel, weapon programs, DOD bureaucracies, and personnel.[64]


Ok, so thats pretty radical. But the world is changing and we need to keep up with it. Now some of that policy there is political. So people shouldn't get too excited about having their budget trimmed drastically. But we are heading into different times, and yet we want to maintain a standing army.
So to accomplish that we have to make it look smaller. By spreading it out a bit.
And making it look useful.

So I am not talking about delivery uniforms and not talking about camo, but street wear that is military, but doesn't shout military.

You know we cannot employ active service personnel in the trade depot plans because they would be attacked just because there are military personnel there. Not to mention although this is an IMF project with 188 countries they don't want foreign military on their soil.

edit on 1-7-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
You know I have some big name designer friends who would love to tackle this but we don't plan on targeting a market in Paris.

So I hope they will forgive me for not calling them, you want pirate belt buckles? Ok then so we know what we are looking for, I will give you the basic philosophy of our endeavor, and how the military fits in with that strategy.

So now I had said at the start of the global conferences we were going to try to share some of that load, that expense that America shoulders for its military. And well of course the IMF would love to help with that and they appreciate the good things the military does.

So we can help by employing some when they are finished their tour of duty. And we can help by using the military in some ways that are not militaristic. For instance the IMF, and the UN well the UN is heavily involved in global relief efforts and when there is a disaster people look to the military for assistance. So we want to use our cloud based trade network to better manage global food production, and reduce waste, and so we will have an organization in house that will procure some deals when they present themselves to be turned in MRE's.

Well the military uses MRE's so we will also work to develop better MRE's.

So these are the kinds of things we intend to do to support our troops without getting them attacked for being in the wrong place at the right time, or right place wrong time or wrong place wrong time.

To accomplish that we need nonthreatening uniforms, that will not draw attention or fire or car bombs etc.

So if they were to show up at a site somewhere for consulting, or anything of the sort, then they should be able to be walking around the site and even in the city visiting shops without people thinking too much about it.

So then if we try to coordinate that effort, and maybe have similar uniforms for different countries, then the chance of people targeting you for no reason is greatly diminished.

So let us know what you come up with.

Keep the new ones for war games, but have some for other tasks that are important, but less threatening to your average person in places where they are nervous about these sorts of things.

Even in Canada though, in a city which has a couple bases, there is no reason to ostracize the troops as they just walk around town with their wife if they are on leave. If they wear their dress uniform to an occasion ok, but walking around town in camo you stick out like a sore thumb and its not necessary.
In Bagdad camo is not camo. You would need pictures of people and goats and buildings for it to be camo.



edit on 1-7-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join