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

Yes $5 Billion for uniforms that were supposed to provide camouflage and did just the opposite!

Over the next year, America’s largest fighting force is swapping its camouflage pattern. The move is a quiet admission that the last uniform — a pixelated design that debuted in 2004 at a cost of $5 billion — was a colossal mistake.

Soldiers have roundly criticized the gray-green uniform for standing out almost everywhere it’s been worn. Industry insiders have called the financial mess surrounding the pattern a “fiasco.”

So ridiculous -

“Essentially, the Army designed a universal uniform that universally failed in every environment,” said an Army specialist who served two tours in Iraq,

“As a cavalry scout, it is my job to stay hidden. Wearing a uniform that stands out this badly makes it hard to do our job effectively,” he said. “If we can see our own guys across a distance because of it, then so can our enemy.”

Seems the army brass went for style instead of safety. Ego won out.

In a candid interview with The Daily, several of those researchers said Army brass interfered in the selection process during the last round, letting looks and politics get in the way of science.

They rushed the decision and didn't wait for the field tests to be completed, because the Marines new uniforms were so cool, they wanted the army to look cool too. The Brigadier General responsible for the decision has since retired and is not responding to questions.

“It was trendy,” Stewardson said. “If it’s good enough for the Marines, why shouldn’t the Army have that same cool new look?”

The fact that the government spent $5 billion on a camouflage design that actually made its soldiers more visible — and then took eight years to correct the problem — has also left people in the camouflage industry incensed.

“You’ve got to look back and say what a huge waste of money that was,” said Lawrence Holsworth, marketing director of a camouflage company called Hyde Definition and the editor of Strike-Hold!, a website that tracks military gear. “UCP was such a fiasco.”

So, one bad decision cost $5 billion. Our government makes bad decisions daily. Do the math. No wonder we're broke.

www.thedaily.com...

you'd think they would do a bunch of field studies with something like that.

i'm just me and if I were in command I would have ordered a sample of every kind, then went out on a bunch of exercises to test visibility in all-weather environments.

what were they thinking?

then there are the camo sellers, who it seems like just wanted to take that 5billion and run no questions asked.
surely they have a few people there who understand what it means to actually camoflague into the environment.

they must have thought they would be used in strictly urban scenarios is my best guess?

reply to post by yourmaker

They were doing field studies. They were in process and not finished before the decision was made by the General who seemed more interested in the Army being cooler than the marines.

I do not understand why it said it failed every field test. It sure looks like it would blend in good with Texas desert terrain.

Originally posted by Maluhia
reply to post by yourmaker

 

They were doing field studies. They were in process and not finished before the decision was made by the General who seemed more interested in the Army being cooler than the marines.

so it was a political decision over the safety of soldiers?

how incredibly irresponsible for someone in such a situation.

Tax dollars hard at work. Do people still believe it's their "duty" to pay taxes to a government run by morons and power-hungry and wasteful, that can't seem to live within its means? Didn't think so.

Civil disobedience 2012!

Originally posted by yourmaker

Originally posted by Maluhia
reply to post by yourmaker

 

They were doing field studies. They were in process and not finished before the decision was made by the General who seemed more interested in the Army being cooler than the marines.

so it was a political decision over the safety of soldiers?

how incredibly irresponsible for someone in such a situation.

edit on 29-6-2012 by yourmaker because: (no reason given)

If you don't know why the decision was prematurely made, I'll explain.The most important thing for senior leadership whether enlisted of officers, is their NCOER's (Non Commissioned Officer Evaluation Report) or OER's (Officer Evaluation Report) respectively. What is desired are accomplishments, also known as bullets. The more impactful the bullet, the more favorably you'll be looked upon when it comes to advancement.Now think about being able to put something like ·Senior Officer has successfully implemented uniform changes throughout U.S. Army. Now, in reflection it seems to be a poor decision, but I guarantee you that OES says different (it has already been written). It was nothing more than an attempt by a high level official to boost his professional resume. This is how most senior decisions are made, regardless of what others tell you. You have to carefully manage your professional reputation, and take every opportunity to boost it's appearance whenever possible.

What I find even more shocking here is that your Government spent 5 Billion on uniforms, never mind the fact they don't work. 5 Billion on Uniforms. You can buy 4 Aircraft carriers for that price. Shocking.

There was one way around the ACU problem, and that was allowing them to get dirty... Well, they got dirty whether you liked it or not - As did the rest of your gear. Once a good coat of middle eastern dust was embedded in it, you were for the most part more camo'd than when it was clean. It would actually take on an appearance comparable to the newer multicam style.

In hindsight, when you consider the nature of the asymmetrical warfare in Iraq for example, this was never a big problem. Roughly 80% of our casualties were the result of IEDS rather than dismounted troops being compromised because of uniform contrast. I could see where operations in Afghanistan demanded the new uniform, though.

There are still areas where the ACU pattern will out-perform the multicam style such as some urban settings, and there will never be a single pattern that fits all environments perfectly so don't count on seeing the ACU design disappear entirely.

reply to post by michael1983l

I thought the same thing - For $5 Billion those uniforms should come with Dior labels. But, from a country that buys $100 screws - what can you expect?

A "One size fits all" approach to camouflage is a joke. That what there were after and there is is no such thing. There wanted a camouflage that would work equally as well in multiple environments. Who ever even came up with the idea of a multiple environment camouflage must not understand much if any thing about camouflage. When I first seen this stuff I thought it was something from Walmart.

reply to post by GD21D

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

reply to post by Maluhia

Yea the amount of money spent on these uniforms is ridiculous, if it was for the entire military I might feel a little better...but this is 5 billion on just the army...which according to wikipedia doesnt have more than 600,000 active troops, not counting the reserves...this is crazy. And the Republicans say we waste too much money on social welfare programs....smh...

reply to post by acmpnsfal

You'll be even more incensed to know how much we spend on military bands

In a statement placed in the Congressional Record, McCollum said: “Over the past four years, taxpayers have spent $1.55 billion for the Pentagon’s 150 military bands and more than 5,000 full-time, professional military musicians….

twobirdsflyingpub.wordpress.com...

This was also the MENSA graduate took the Ranger's black beret and gave it to the rest of the army.They no longer want it but they aren't returning it either.
Apparently the idiot thought it would cause the rest of the army to fight on a superior level.Someone should have told him people had to QUALIFY to win the prestige,it's not found in a hat.
It's also not true the UCP doesn't blend in with anything,there is a famous picture of a guy wearing it and blending in with a couch.
Also it may do well underwater.

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?"

Unfortunately, for the most part yes. Isn't that how most professions or businesses work? What makes the U.S. military any different? You can't tell me you believe the military has an adherence to a value such as integrity when promotions are on the line. Just to clarify, I'm speaking from a level of experience with regards to OER's and NCOER's. This is not something I'm just making up. I've taken classes for writing these reports. Most military personnel above the grade of E-5 have taken such classes, they just don't pay attention, thus they may not remember the information given to them. Happens all the time.As far as the 5 billion goes. I see these comments implying it was completely wasted on uniforms alone. What is failed to be realized is the size of the U.S. Army. Now think about each soldier initially getting four uniforms, and all the equipment that needs to be matched (canteen holders, E-tool holders, FLC's, magazine pouches, ect, ect,). There is a good amount of equipment being produced for each soldier, so the 5B pricetag doesn't surprise me. With that being said, I see the Army wide implementation of an ineffective uniform as a failure moreso than the pricetag. 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.

reply to post by GD21D
[more

You can't tell me you believe the military has an adherence to a value such as integrity when promotions are on the line.

No I believe little adherence to integrity exists anymore. But perhaps it did once - or maybe I'm just waxing nostalgic. My grandfather was in WWII - he was integrity personified - but even he had issues with the "structure".

Thanks for your input and information - thanks for making me think!

reply to post by Maluhia

the decision was made by the General who seemed more interested in the Army being cooler than the marines.

Hmm.. $5b dollar contract.. something tells me it was far more than a single General wanting to be cooler than the Marines. More like someone had an inside deal with some stock options? I think even Generals in the Army know they could never be cooler than the Marines no matter what their cammo is?

reply to post by Rockpuck


Star for you. You hit the nail on the head.
It's this same thinking that accounts for most government spending. Cronyism and corruption greases the wheels, in return for "campaign" funds and, I'm sure, some undeclared money in an unlisted / undeclared account in the caribbean.
In the private sector, I am accountable for my decisions. I have to justify every penny I spend and back it up with lengthy reports and a solid business case for any capital spend I make. In other words, I am accountable. In the public sector, there is seemingly zero accountability, especially the higher up the food chain you are. Contracts are issued based on kickbacks and personal stock portfolio performance, rather than any business need or even value for money considerations. Hell, if the money is running out, just get the FED (or other central bank) to loan some more and we'll just shift the repayment, and interest, back onto the taxpayers!

Same here in the UK. I almost sprayed coffee on my keyboard and monitor the other day when Cameron stood there and said the Olympic spend was within budget... and was smiling when he said it. Fact is that corporate cronyism rules the day and it's not a party issue as they are all up to their eyeballs in the mess they have created for us.

can some post some refrence pics?