Author Topic: Bill Would Block a New Army Camouflage Pattern  (Read 368 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SPQR

  • Guest
Bill Would Block a New Army Camouflage Pattern
« on: December 13, 2013, 07:50:07 PM »
Military.com| by Matthew Cox

Lawmakers from both sides of Congress may have torpedoed the U.S. Army's exhaustive effort to adopt a new camouflage pattern with a bill that forbids the use of service-specific camouflage for the entire U.S. military.

Language in both the House and Senate Armed Services committee versions of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 2014 calls on the Pentagon to stop fielding service-specific camouflage patterns and instead develop a common pattern for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.

The strong language, if approved as part of the 2014 NDAA, could prove to be major setback for the Army's multi-year effort to replace its embattled Universal Camouflage Pattern.

Despite the proposed legislation, an Army official said the service is "studying the suitability of the uniform that soldiers currently wear in Afghanistan."

"This appears to be the most effective uniform and is effective in a variety of scenarios that we've reviewed. We expect that we'll make a decision soon on whether we adopt this uniform for the entire Army," said William Layer, an Army spokesman, in an e-mail to Military.com.


Layer said the Army would not comment on the language in the proposed bill that blocked service-specific camouflage patterns and how it would affect the Army's pursuit to replace UCP.

"The Army has no comment on the Congress' stance but seeks the best for its soldiers," Layer said.

Earlier this year, the Army concluded an extensive, four-year camouflage improvement effort, but it has still not announced the winner.

Army uniform officials launched the effort after Pennsylvania's Democratic Rep. John Murtha, got involved in the issue in 2009. Murtha was then chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. He pushed the service to look for a better camouflage pattern after receiving complaints from sergeants about the UCP's poor performance in the war zone.

Murtha died in 2010, just before the Army selected MultiCam as the clear winner over several other patterns to issue to soldiers deploying to Afghanistan.

Some test community officials maintain that the 2004 adoption of the UCP was a mistake that could have been avoided, saving the Army billions of dollars on uniforms and matching equipment.

Two separate studies performed by Army scientists from Natick Soldier Systems Center, Mass. -- one completed in 2009 and the other in 2006 -- showed that the UCP performed poorly in multiple environments when compared to other modern camouflage patterns.

In both studies, MultiCam, a pattern popular with Special Operations Forces, outperformed UCP, the pattern the Army adopted nearly 10 years ago to replace

But the Army wasn't the first to adopt a unique camouflage pattern. The Marine Corps unveiled its MARPAT desert and woodland digital camouflage patterns in early 2002, prompting each service to adopt their own brand of concealment.

Lawmakers have become much more critical of service-specific camouflage efforts as it continues to wrestle with the massive defense spending cuts under sequestration.

The House Armed Services Committee voted in June to end service-specific camouflage in an amendment that would push the military toward creating joint combat uniforms by 2018.

The latest version of the House-approved NDAA includes an Oct. 1, 2018 target mandating that the Defense Department "shall require all military services to use a joint combat camouflage uniform, including color and pattern variants designed for specific combat environments."

The bill also "prohibits the adoption of individual military service camouflage uniforms except under specific limited circumstances."

The Senate Armed Service Committee has also included similar language in their version of the NDAA.

SASC leaders said in a press release that the defense bill "directs DoD to reduce the separate development and fielding of service-specific combat and camouflage utility uniforms and families of uniforms in order to adopt and field a common combat and camouflage utility uniform, or family of uniforms, for specific combat environments, to be used by all members of the armed forces."

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/13/bill-would-block-a-new-army-camouflage-pattern.html?comp=1198882887570&rank=1

Offline andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,104
Re: Bill Would Block a New Army Camouflage Pattern
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2013, 07:53:55 PM »
I should think that decisions affecting the efficacy of military operations ought to be made by military leaders and officers, not by politicians.

What am I missing here?
Liberalism isn't really about making the world a better place. It's about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: Bill Would Block a New Army Camouflage Pattern
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2013, 07:55:40 PM »
I should think that decisions affecting the efficacy of military operations ought to be made by military leaders and officers, not by politicians.

What am I missing here?

They hold the purse strings.

Offline andy58-in-nh

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6,104
Re: Bill Would Block a New Army Camouflage Pattern
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2013, 08:02:43 PM »
They hold the purse strings.

That's always been the case. Determining force requirements and operational imperatives has traditionally been the role of the JCS and their senior field commanders, no?
Liberalism isn't really about making the world a better place. It's about reassuring the elites that they are good people for wanting to rule over it.

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: Bill Would Block a New Army Camouflage Pattern
« Reply #4 on: December 13, 2013, 08:06:15 PM »
That's always been the case. Determining force requirements and operational imperatives has traditionally been the role of the JCS and their senior field commanders, no?

Yes, but they still have to go through the committee process to explain to Congressman and women what they want and to provide them with the necessary funds.

Offline truth_seeker

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 18,858
  • Common Sense Results Oriented Conservative Veteran
    • The place where argument addicts can go
Re: Bill Would Block a New Army Camouflage Pattern
« Reply #5 on: December 13, 2013, 08:59:41 PM »
I should think that decisions affecting the efficacy of military operations ought to be made by military leaders and officers, not by politicians.

What am I missing here?
Stop pissing away money on never ending four year studies.
"God must love the common man, he made so many of them.”

Abe Lincoln

SPQR

  • Guest
Re: Bill Would Block a New Army Camouflage Pattern
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2013, 12:32:59 AM »
Stop pissing away money on never ending four year studies.

Exactly. Including the public hearing of trivial issue process in Congress
« Last Edit: December 14, 2013, 12:34:11 AM by SPQR »

Offline 240B

  • Lord of all things Orange!
  • TBR Advisory Committee
  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,069
Re: Bill Would Block a New Army Camouflage Pattern
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2013, 12:48:10 AM »
So completely and typically American. All of this.


Do you know what the average Taliban, Iranian, or general Arab camouflage is? you know, after a four year study and millions of dollars?


It is his shirt, (because they usually only have one, or two maybe), and the pants he got when his brother or father died. That's it. That is their 'uniform'.


And they have kicked our butts out of Iraq and are on the way to kicking our ass out of Afghanistan.


American leaders care about war, but only if it is boutique and chic' and politically correct, while we kill people. You can kill them, but you cannot curse at them. You can kill them, but you cannot disparage their religion. You can freakin' KILL them, but you cannot ever expose them to second hand smoke from a cigarette. This is the insanity of America today.

You cannot "COEXIST" with people who want to kill you.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf