Camo Uniforms slammed

Pima

10-Year Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
13,900
http://www.military.com/daily-news/...flage-uniforms.html?comp=7000023317828&rank=1

It seems the only ones that received praise from the GAO were the Marines
Marines still wear the Marine Corps Combat Utility Uniform the service started fielding in June 2002. The Corps spent $319,000 to develop the MCCCU uniform -- significantly less than the Army and Air Force, which spent $3.2 million on the ACU and $3.1 million on the ABU respectively.
All four services universally wore the Army Battle Dress and Desert Camouflage patterns before the Corps introduced their own pattern and branded the Corps symbol into it. The Corps' initiative left Army, Air Force, and later Navy leaders scrambling to provide their troops service-specific camouflage patterns.
The report did not address the Navy's blue working uniform, which is referred to by troops as "aquaflage."

It goes on to say
The GAO commended the Marine Corps for using "credible, reliable, and timely data" to choose their camouflage pattern and implementing it "using clear policies and procedures." The Army and Air Force failed to do the same when it developed the ACU and ABU causing their uniforms to "not meet mission requirements" and forced the services to replace them.

Way to go Marines!
 
The Marines were the only ones who actually designed a camo pattern that worked :)thumb:), but now they're too prideful to let others use it. That's a nice big "F YOU!" to their "brothers in arms." :unhappy::thumbdown:
 
The Marines were the only ones who actually designed a camo pattern that worked :)thumb:), but now they're too prideful to let others use it. That's a nice big "F YOU!" to their "brothers in arms." :unhappy::thumbdown:

Anymore, the Marines spend more time worrying about their brand image than actually doing anything.

The SecNav could easily fix that.
 
DS just got the brand new Army camos which are replacing the 12 sets he has in his closet. But these will be replaced by the universal set. Army just go back to green it looked so good on these guys except Klinger

cast-of-mash.jpg
 
My opinion is that combat uniforms should be the best camo pattern and cut available, in order to conceal people and gear, carry stuff and protect those doing the carrying. I don't see how that can be accomplished by giving out various patterns, based on service image. Further, having the same "team" wearing different patterns increases the chances of being spotted and the chances that a smart enemy will target specific members based upon known functions.

Leave distinctive uniforms to the Class A/Service dress uniforms, not the stuff you wear into combat.
 
The Marines were the only ones who actually designed a camo pattern that worked :)thumb:), but now they're too prideful to let others use it. That's a nice big "F YOU!" to their "brothers in arms." :unhappy::thumbdown:
Your assumption on their motives is incorrect. MARPAT includes an integrated EGA in its pattern. The method used to integrate it actually makes it difficult to remove. There were discussions several years ago about removing the EGA and letting the Navy have it but since the Navy wasn't asking too strenuously and the process wasn't as easy as first envisioned the idea was shelved. The Marines and the Army work very closesly on the acquisition of most similar type items (helmets, packs, etc.), the army was more interested in doing their own thing.
 
Your assumption on their motives is incorrect. MARPAT includes an integrated EGA in its pattern. The method used to integrate it actually makes it difficult to remove. There were discussions several years ago about removing the EGA and letting the Navy have it but since the Navy wasn't asking too strenuously and the process wasn't as easy as first envisioned the idea was shelved. The Marines and the Army work very closesly on the acquisition of most similar type items (helmets, packs, etc.), the army was more interested in doing their own thing.

I'm guessing it would cost less than $6.3 million to just remove the EGA... this is the federal government and I've been wrong before.
 
I'm guessing it would cost less than $6.3 million to just remove the EGA... this is the federal government and I've been wrong before.
From the conversations I had with the Lead Engineer for that specific program office, my understanding is that cost was of no consideration.
 
Engineers are finding their way into evverrywheeere ... We can be considered an invasive species.

The trouble with us engineers (besides not being able to spell) is that we can do anything we are asked. And we don't always question it...You want a car a to failure after the warrantee fails but not too long after..no problem...you want that devices to made for $1.00 and it currently cost $100.00 no problem...you want a $1,000 dollar hammer no problem...etc.
 
Your assumption on their motives is incorrect. MARPAT includes an integrated EGA in its pattern. The method used to integrate it actually makes it difficult to remove. There were discussions several years ago about removing the EGA and letting the Navy have it but since the Navy wasn't asking too strenuously and the process wasn't as easy as first envisioned the idea was shelved. The Marines and the Army work very closesly on the acquisition of most similar type items (helmets, packs, etc.), the army was more interested in doing their own thing.

How so?

"Over the past decade, Marines have worn the best camouflage pattern in the world. There are tactical and psychological advantages unique to our [uniform] in terms of morale and culture," said Marine Corps Sgt. Maj. Micheal Barrett, the corps' top enlisted man, in a written statement this week.

Barrett said that, if Marines no longer wore a distinctive camouflage pattern, something crucial would be lost. "It's part of our Corps' identity. Where we (Marines) walk or sail, people are safer — unless you screw with us!" Barrett said.
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/hous...ranches-share-one-camouflage-pattern-1.225978

So, basically, the Marines claim to have the best uniform, but if anyone else in the DoD can wear the best uniform, the Marines lose their identity. Therefore, no one else can wear the best camo pattern.

The maturity of that line of reasoning for denying other services a camo pattern is not something I can easily describe in a manner fit for print. :unhappy:
 
The trouble with us engineers (besides not being able to spell) is that we can do anything we are asked. And we don't always question it...You want a car a to failure after the warrantee fails but not too long after..no problem...you want that devices to made for $1.00 and it currently cost $100.00 no problem...you want a $1,000 dollar hammer no problem...etc.

And yet with simple directions and billions of dollars, engineers screwed up how many Coast Guard cutters?
 
How so?

http://www.stripes.com/news/us/hous...ranches-share-one-camouflage-pattern-1.225978

So, basically, the Marines claim to have the best uniform, but if anyone else in the DoD can wear the best uniform, the Marines lose their identity. Therefore, no one else can wear the best camo pattern.

The maturity of that line of reasoning for denying other services a camo pattern is not something I can easily describe in a manner fit for print. :unhappy:

That is the opinion of the current SMMC. They have nothing to do with disucssions and efforts to share the pattern with other services that took place 5+ years ago. I agree with your sentiments regarding his sentiments as expressed. There are plenty of ways to be distinctive without changing the pattern.

There should be one camo pattern for everyone. Lets keep in mind the purpose of the uniform, its designed to be worn in the field where we are all on the same team and we really don't want to be confused with the other guys. Instead of having different camo patterns to show our service identities, how about we just stop wearing utilities when the service uniform is appropriate.
 
And yet with simple directions and billions of dollars, engineers screwed up how many Coast Guard cutters?

This is what I mean...You may have thought they had simple direction, but I can promise you their management was more worried about keeping the billions then spending it on a correctly engineered cutter. So here is what an engineer is told "Do just enough to get us the next contract and not a penney more. And since the same people get the contracts ever year the engineers did what they were told...Your cutter screwed up...just bunch of swabs complaining...(not me talking but company during contract talks)

Easy to blame the engineer, we do screw up often as the rest, but to truly screw up requires management.
 
This is what I mean...You may have thought they had simple direction, but I can promise you their management was more worried about keeping the billions then spending it on a correctly engineered cutter. So here is what an engineer is told "Do just enough to get us the next contract and not a penney more. And since the same people get the contracts ever year the engineers did what they were told...Your cutter screwed up...just bunch of swabs complaining...(not me talking but company during contract talks)

Easy to blame the engineer, we do screw up often as the rest, but to truly screw up requires management.

Except that when a cutter starts to buckle, that screw up ends careers and contracts...and then, engineers do not do whatever they're told because no new contract was coming. A law suit did follow however, so if we're talking "absolute value" I guess you could consider it a "contract."
 
The DoD acquisition system is severly disfunctional. The USCG is even worse because they do it the least ... or does that make them better?, Hmmmmmm

In truth, it is very little to do with individuals (by person, or by billet) within the system. The overall, departmental approach is designed almost solely to prevent protests from the vendors in the awarding of the contract and is not designed to produce a quality product.

How long has the Chair Force been trying to replace their tankers? Look at the overlap in the design/build timeline for a Navy ship and you will be scratching your head.
 
Back
Top