US Army gets new Camo Pattern...$5 billion later.

Technarchy

macrumors 604
Original poster
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
Budget cuts. Benefit reductions. Witch hunts to get down headcount among enlisted and officers down...$1 TRILLION for the F35

And here we are, the Army has finally selected a new camo pattern to replace the abhorrent ACU UCP (Universal-LOL-Camo-Pattern).

That new pattern is Scorpion W2 or OCP.

And here it is...



It replaces this cluster...



The cluster of UCP and adoption of OCP is interesting because back in 2004 the Army had the chance to use something very similar to Scorpion W2 called Multicam.

Army didn't want to paying a licensing arrangement to the pattern owners so they went with their own 3 color digital UCP.

AND IT SUCKED!!!! It flat out doesn't work in most environments. So what does the army do? Double down and spend $5 billion on UCP uniforms and gear. Well soldiers keep bitching because it still doesn't work. All operators start buying Multicam, while the big army rabble are saddled with the digital nightmare.

Well here we are...doing in 2014 what we had the chance to do in 2004. UCP was supposed to save money, well it's already $5, billion in the hole as far as I am concerned.

Tax dollars at work.
 

Chundles

macrumors G4
Jul 4, 2005
11,981
363
Wait, so the US army has been in Afghanistan/Iraq since 2001 in a uniform made mostly of different shades of green?
 

rdowns

macrumors Penryn
Jul 11, 2003
27,345
12,408
Wait, so the US army has been in Afghanistan/Iraq since 2001 in a uniform made mostly of different shades of green?

And? You think we go places and blow **** up without having our uniforms matching the money we spend?
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
Budget cuts. Benefit reductions. Witch hunts to get down headcount among enlisted and officers down...$1 TRILLION for the F35

And here we are, the Army has finally selected a new camo pattern to replace the abhorrent ACU UCP (Universal-LOL-Camo-Pattern).

That new pattern is Scorpion W2 or OCP.

And here it is...

Image

It replaces this cluster...

Image

The cluster of UCP and adoption of OCP is interesting because back in 2004 the Army had the chance to use something very similar to Scorpion W2 called Multicam.

Army didn't want to paying a licensing arrangement to the pattern owners so they went with their own 3 color digital UCP.

AND IT SUCKED!!!! It flat out doesn't work in most environments. So what does the army do? Double down and spend $5 billion on UCP uniforms and gear. Well soldiers keep bitching because it still doesn't work. All operators start buying Multicam, while the big army rabble are saddled with the digital nightmare.

Well here we are...doing in 2014 what we had the chance to do in 2004. UCP was supposed to save money, well it's already $5, billion in the hole as far as I am concerned.

Tax dollars at work.

I am not a military man, I'm a drinker and a lover, not a fighter.


But I never got the digital camo thing, I mean how CAN"T you see it in almost every environment?
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
Original poster
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
I am not a military man, I'm a drinker and a lover, not a fighter.


But I never got the digital camo thing, I mean how CAN"T you see it in almost every environment?
You don't say...

 

VulchR

macrumors 68020
Jun 8, 2009
2,327
10,221
Scotland
I think the pixelated camo was meant for urban environments. In any case, there is still a lot of research on what makes good camouflage. Seems to me that many armies in Asia were onto something - wearing actual branches on their helmets and uniform.

In any case, is the 5 billion for the research or for replacing the uniforms? If it is the later, then let us hope the uniforms last awhile...
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,004
16,439
The Misty Mountains
Budget cuts. Benefit reductions. Witch hunts to get down headcount among enlisted and officers down...$1 TRILLION for the F35

And here we are, the Army has finally selected a new camo pattern to replace the abhorrent ACU UCP (Universal-LOL-Camo-Pattern).

That new pattern is Scorpion W2 or OCP.

And here it is...

Image

It replaces this cluster...

Image

The cluster of UCP and adoption of OCP is interesting because back in 2004 the Army had the chance to use something very similar to Scorpion W2 called Multicam.

Army didn't want to paying a licensing arrangement to the pattern owners so they went with their own 3 color digital UCP.

AND IT SUCKED!!!! It flat out doesn't work in most environments. So what does the army do? Double down and spend $5 billion on UCP uniforms and gear. Well soldiers keep bitching because it still doesn't work. All operators start buying Multicam, while the big army rabble are saddled with the digital nightmare.

Well here we are...doing in 2014 what we had the chance to do in 2004. UCP was supposed to save money, well it's already $5, billion in the hole as far as I am concerned.

Tax dollars at work.
Obviously lunatics are in charge of the asylum. :(
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
Original poster
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
Obviously lunatics are in charge of the asylum. :(
Given the constant budgetary issues guys on the ground deal with, watching $5 billion get pissed into the wind certainly grinds my gears.

The new camo will be great, it's just a decade and two wars too late.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,004
16,439
The Misty Mountains
Given the constant budgetary issues guys on the ground deal with, watching $5 billion get pissed into the wind certainly grinds my gears.

The new camo will be great, it's just a decade and two wars too late.
That price tag, if it is just for the development of new camo is so offensive it's another strike against the military-industrial complex. If it is to supply new uniforms, I'd like to know how much that works out per an individual set- shirt, pants, and hat. Our financial priorities are going to be this nations undoing.
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
Original poster
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
That price tag, if it is just for the development of new camo is so offensive it's another strike against the military-industrial complex. If it is to supply new uniforms, I'd like to know how much that works out per an individual set- shirt, pants, and hat. Our financial priorities are going to be this nations undoing.
That $5 billion was the cost for deploying the old pattern. One can assume the new pattern will be another $5 billion to get fully deployed.

That's a lot of money. Criminal potentially considering we had the chance to use scorpion W2 in 2004 and the army passed on it.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
May 5, 2008
17,004
16,439
The Misty Mountains
That $5 billion was the cost for deploying the old pattern. One can assume the new pattern will be another $5 billion to get fully deployed.

That's a lot of money. Criminal potentially considering we had the chance to use scorpion W2 in 2004 and the army passed on it.
I guess when you give people an unlimited budget, this can be the result. I still want to know what that's works out to be per set.. :mad:
 
Last edited:

citizenzen

macrumors 65816
Mar 22, 2010
1,433
11,628
The U.S. military spends and wastes a crap-load of tax dollars?

Who knew?

But for anyone interested, here's a short article from The Economist on the subject ...

... [UCP] camouflage cost the army millions to create, and then at least $5 billion in uniforms and equipment. Replacing all this kit could cost another $4 billion over five years, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

This choice brings to an end a multi-year, multi-million-dollar search for a better pattern. But some are already wondering if the army is making another mistake. Both Scorpion and MultiCam were created by Crye Precision, a Brooklyn-based manufacturer, and many assumed the army would stick with MultiCam, as the pattern tests well and has proven effective in Afghanistan. But talks with Crye Precision to scale up the relationship reportedly broke down over costs earlier this year. (Despite the armed forces' investment in research and development, the intellectual property of camo patterns is owned by the manufacturers.) Scorpion did not test as well in trials, but the licence for the pattern is presumably more affordable. Remarkably, the Defence Department lacks a single office for developing and procuring the best possible uniforms for all American troops. And that is why soldiers in the field are often outfitted differently, unsure which camouflage offers the best way to blend in.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/06/economist-explains-0#sthash.KZKi42on.dpuf
So the same company, Crye Precision, makes both versions and wants to charge more for the one that actually works? Considering the money at stake it's amazing to me that this can't be negotiated. If I were to guess, I'd say it's connected to the 2012 GAO investigation into uniform costs. There are now more eyeballs watching the process and working to keep the cost down ... at the expense of the soldier.
 

Southern Dad

macrumors 68000
May 23, 2010
1,532
547
Shady Dale, Georgia
After the initial issue of uniforms in BASIC training, our ARMY service members purchase their own replacement uniforms. Enlisted are given an allowance each year to do this, it's currently $306 for males and $327 for females. Officers purchase their own clothing after the initial allowance without reimbursement.

While I was in the service, the uniforms changed from the green utility uniforms to the woodlands camouflage uniforms. There was no exchanging the old for new. You simply purchased your new ones to replace the old during the phase out period.

Old uniforms won't just be gathered up and replaced with new ones wasting all that money. There are exceptions where uniforms are swapped such as deployment into a hostile theater of operations, uniforms destroyed due to a combat injury, uniforms that are destroyed when rendering aid to another. This is all covered by the AR 670-1.
 

Happybunny

macrumors 68000
Sep 9, 2010
1,752
1,351
You don't say...

Image
That might all be true but the US forces main threat now in Afghanistan are their own allies!

Camo doesn't help then.
Green on Blue attacks

It has been more than a decade since U.S. and allied troops rolled into Afghanistan to battle insurgents linked to al-Qaeda.

Violence is still rampant in the South Asian country of 35 million; ethnic divisions, political corruption and a still-active insurgency continue to threaten civilians’ safety. But a planned drawdown will have nearly all foreign forces out of the war-torn country by the end of next year.

International troops are still suffering casualties, even as the war draws to a close. For those soldiers, militant insurgents are not the only ones who pose a threat. Members of Afghan security forces, who are allies, are often the ones to point their guns at members of the coalition.

These insider attacks account for a significant percentage of ISAF deaths in Afghanistan; last year, the figure was 15 percent. The incidents are referred to as green-on-blue attacks, in accordance with a color-coding system used by the U.S. military where blue represents American forces and green represents allies. (Enemies are red.)

The frequency of insider attacks has become something of a yardstick for the international operation, which has the ultimate goal of entrusting Afghan troops with domestic security. As U.S. and other troops prepare to lighten their footprint, one question becomes increasingly important: Are green-on-blue attacks -- which should be inversely proportional to mission success -- on the decline?

It would seem so at first glance. The situation has certainly calmed down since 2012, which was the worst year on record for insider attacks.

Figures from The Long War Journal, which uses military data and media reports to keep a running tally of attacks committed against foreign troops by Afghan police or military members, indicate that 44 insider attacks occurred in 2012, up from 16 the year before and five the year before that.

The 44 green-on-blue attacks last year killed 61 members of the international coalition currently engaged in Afghanistan, including troops and support personnel. 35 people were killed by insider attacks in 2011, and 16 in 2010. Helmand and Kandahar provinces are the most dangerous by far, followed by Kabul Province -- which includes the capital city of Kabul -- and Wardak Province.

http://www.ibtimes.com/green-blue-fade-black-are-insider-attacks-drawing-down-afghanistan-1120935
 

Technarchy

macrumors 604
Original poster
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
So the same company, Crye Precision, makes both versions and wants to charge more for the one that actually works? Considering the money at stake it's amazing to me that this can't be negotiated. If I were to guess, I'd say it's connected to the 2012 GAO investigation into uniform costs. There are now more eyeballs watching the process and working to keep the cost down ... at the expense of the soldier.
Just some clarification.

Crye designed Multicam and Scorpion W2.

Crye owns Multicam. They didn't want to give up rights to the army. The army didn't wan't to pay licensing fees to use Multicam, which would increase the cost quite a bit.

The army did issue Multicam on a limited basis for use in Afghanistan as a stopgap measure.

Army then has Crye design Scorpion W2, which is similar to Multicam but not the same...it's close though.

The difference? The USA Army OWNS Scorpian W2, so Crye is not paid licensing fees per garment.

At a glance, you might fail to notice the difference. I wore Multicam in Afghanistan it works much better than ACU UCP.

The differences are subtle.



The Army is mimicking what the British did for their camo. They didn't want to pay Crye so they had Crye design something similar that they would own.

Here is Prince Harry in the Crye designed MTP (Multi-terrain-Pattern)



Subtle difference in looks. Big difference in ownership.
 
Last edited:

Technarchy

macrumors 604
Original poster
May 21, 2012
6,747
4,885
That might all be true but the US forces main threat now in Afghanistan are their own allies!
Everyone has an opinion. Not all opinions are equal.

I'll use my my own experiences in a combat zone over any keyboard commando-ing.
 

G51989

macrumors 68030
Feb 25, 2012
2,506
10
NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
After the initial issue of uniforms in BASIC training, our ARMY service members purchase their own replacement uniforms. Enlisted are given an allowance each year to do this, it's currently $306 for males and $327 for females. Officers purchase their own clothing after the initial allowance without reimbursement.

While I was in the service, the uniforms changed from the green utility uniforms to the woodlands camouflage uniforms. There was no exchanging the old for new. You simply purchased your new ones to replace the old during the phase out period.

Old uniforms won't just be gathered up and replaced with new ones wasting all that money. There are exceptions where uniforms are swapped such as deployment into a hostile theater of operations, uniforms destroyed due to a combat injury, uniforms that are destroyed when rendering aid to another. This is all covered by the AR 670-1.
So if soldiers have to pay for their own uniform?


Why are the taxpayers on the line for 5 billion dollars?