Army To Recommend Multicam for the Entire Force
Thoughts? I think this may be yet another press gone wild, as it the article does mention the Army camo phase IV and all that jazz. Of course adopting Multicam for the entire force is an option.
On another note, I'm dyin to see what family of camo Crye produced for the competition.
I'll wait til an actual Army message comes out...but heres' hoping. We've got a lot of Soldiers running around post in OCP, and I've become a fan of it for "lighter" environments...scrub brush, etc. I'd also love to see the "family" of patterns they came out with, especially whatever pattern they'll use on our OCIE. Maybe I'm just not that smart, but I don't see the logic of a separate pattern for equipment. Personally I'd be fine with a muddy brown or dark green/OD color, and leave it at that.
The fix is in.Originally Posted by JTP709
If it's true then I think it's a solid decision. If they make the current multicam pattern Army wide then they will save a ton of money. They could then slowly release environment based variations over time.
But it sounds too good to be true....
Update from SSD:
http://www.soldiersystems.net/2012/0...-going-strong/US Army Camouflage Improvement Effort STILL Going Strong
Despite anything you might have read elsewhere, the US Army has not abandoned their Camouflage Improvement Effort. If you haven’t heard of this before, then do a search for the term ‘effort’ here on SSD and catch up.
Here is the latest update from PEO Soldier -
As part of the ongoing effort to improve Soldiers uniforms, the Army continues to research new camouflage patterns to be printed on the existing Army Combat Uniform (ACU) design.
The ACU was presented to Senior Army leadership in December 2003 for potential Army fielding. The ACU was developed based on many months of research and development. It decreased the out-of-pocket cost burden on our younger Soldiers by replacing the three types of Battle Dress Uniforms with a one-weight, wash-and-wear uniform with improved functionality and ergonomics.
I'm sorry, but I call shenanigans on PEO's statement. If they had a pattern picked in 2003, then why did Soldiers from 1/25 SBCT spend weeks in the field testing potential patterns, none of which were UCP, in 2004? Over the years, PEO Soldier has impressed me less and less with the work they do to the point I have reached now, which is a rather complete lack of faith in their ability. Nothing that has come out of that office in the past half a decade has made me think "oh, thats a great idea!" instead, its been more like "really, how did they screw this one up!?!?" the new patrol pack, the soldier plate carrier system, combat shirt, ACUs, the list goes on.
Overall, I'd still advise Soldiers out there to hold fast on that $600 multicam order from tactical tailor they've got waiting in the shopping cart, patience padawans.
I'll take PEO Soldier's word on it...whether brass takes the final recc...is the difference.
Agreed, even the Mil times article reads as a recommendation, not final decision. I just felt like going on a wee bit of a PEO Soldier/UCP rant there. My BN spent a lot of time in the field testing uniforms only to find out that the "winner" was something we hadn't seen. It was a bit of a collective WTF moment for us
How will paying licensing fees for every piece of equipment/clothing with a contractor owned pattern printed on it save a lot of money over the long run? Especially when the US Gov owns an almost identical pattern (Scorpion) that would not incur the same costs?
Last edited by PMI; 06-30-2012 at 02:42 PM.
I'd assume he simply meant that we've already produced tens of thousands of sets of kit in OCP. Not sure how licensing will come into play if Crye is submitting the pattern for production by the gov't, I'd think that would be something the acquisition branch would handle in the contracting process. I certainly hope that the individual uniforms will be no more costly than the current ACUs are, I've spent enough dinero on new uniforms (BDU, DCU, ACU, IPFU, ASU....this is becoming a trend), but we'll see
http://www.stripes.com/news/army/the...flage-1.182240
mostly a story about the woes of UCP, but it also references the Army's pending official decision to go with MC. Enjoy!
I saw this on MSN.com http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...-flawed-design
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but i thought that Crye was a devlopment partner for scorpion.
Which would explain Natick not owning the rights to the derivative works.
The original work was done under contract so the US government should have first rights to it (that is the standard language in these contracts). Crye modified Scorpion before marketing it commercially as multicam. That fact alone means either a) Multicam & Scorpion have different licensing (and the US owns first rights to Scorpion) or b) Natick royally screwed up the contract.
Ugh. Just ****ing stop it already. Just put everyone back in goddamn BDU's.
Oh, and bring back the old khaki Class B too.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote