If only we could kill the weapon systems, planes, etc. that the military doesn’t want but Congress does because of voter jobs there would be plenty of money for crap like this.

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.”
[...]
Army brass interfered in the selection process during the last round, letting looks and politics get in the way of science.
[...]
“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.”



  1. So what says:

    May I suggest a visit to the nearest Bass Pro or Cabela’s, take a look at the realtree AP. I am not a textile technician but the guys who are making millions selling camo to make hunters invisible might be on to something.

    • mharry860 says:

      Yeah, but forest camo doesn’t work in the desert or in rocky terrain. Those guys look like they’re headed to the woods.

      • So what says:

        True, but these companies also make desert and upland camo as well, for hunters in the south west.

        • Robert pope says:

          So do what wasn’t done eyeball it in the terrain of use under differing light conditions. Have more than one color, design, pattern. Put congress in the present design and put them out in the desert opposite enemy. See if they can understand the problem.

    • Seal Lawyer says:

      “invisible” to a deer is different than to another human. In any case, most of those commercial camos use real leaf patterns that will look out of place when you move to a different woodland environment.

      • So what says:

        “invisible” to a deer is different than to another human.” Yes, fooling a deer is much harder then fooling a human.

      • dusanmal says:

        Actually, the main mistake of hunting camo makers is exact opposite – they make them invisible to humans, partly because like that they can show-and-sell. Humans should be able to see camo made to trick deer (because: deer are dichromates with only blue and green “sensors”, each centered at somewhat lower wavelength than human blue and green “sensors”. As wavelength goes up, deer see colors of yellow, orange, red …. as darker and darker shades of muddy greenish-brown. So, absolutely no need for green/brown/… typical camo for deer. It should be patterns of yellow, orange and red, obvious from miles away to any human, muddy and concealing to deer… )

  2. jpfitz says:

    Politics in the defense dept., who’d of guessed. Politics killing our servicemen and women, same as it ever was.

    Five billion on computer generated camo. Now there’s a paycheck.

    “Brand identity trumped camouflage utility,” Graves said. “That’s what this really comes down to: ‘We can’t allow the Marine Corps to look more cool than the Army.’”

    • Seal Lawyer says:

      And that was exactly the problem. The Marine Corps changed their utility uniform to be more distinctive from the old woodland pattern used by the other service, and when everybody else went to Iraq and saw the Marines, decided they needed to be special too. Now you have all the services with different camouflage uniforms, including the Air Force’s silly tiger stripes to the even more retarded blueberry uniform of the navy. Really it just illustrates how much penis envy there exists between the services.

  3. Likes2LOL says:

    Hmmm… Desert camo?
    Maybe it should be the color of sand???

    Dessert camo, on the other hand, should be chocolate or strawberry.

  4. ± says:

    That camo falls into the same category as the M16 and the Osprey. Two turkeys that should have been killed off 10s of billions of dollars ago. If I were a soldier I’d want an AK47 or an SKS as my basic combat rifle. Or some other weapon that a bullet comes out of the front every time you pull the trigger. And I’d like to be transported to the front in an aircraft that hasn’t killed more of my comrades in training exercises than it will ever help kill enemies.

    • pedro says:

      AK47? Really?

      • ± says:

         

        Yes really. It is the best mass produced combat rifle made in the world. Why couldn’t the US issue a rifle which can claim this mantle?¹ The M16 is a pathetic basket case compared to the AK47 which will work long after the M16 has wimped out from sand, mud or lack of attention or other real world conditions encountered in combat.
         
        ¹I know why, because politics awarded the rifle design to someone’s brother-in-law.
         

        • I'm ugly and my mother dresses me funny says:

          I had a genuine Izhmash (ИЖМАШ) AK-47 and it wasn’t all that great. I mean, it was ok, for a cheaply made gun. I think when people qualify it as a world-changing weapon, that’s what you have to take in to account… it’s effective and reliable considering that you can build/buy 10 of them for what one bushmaster made M16 cost.

          Pretty much anything made in the US or Europe is higher quality.

          I pretty much stick with SIG nowdays.

        • jpfitz says:

          Give me an AK any day for an assault weapon. Best short range assault weapon.

          • Randy Johnson says:

            No, the best short range assault weapon is a shotgun, SBR, or SMG. The AK is much too long to be appropriate for close quarters.

          • pedro says:

            The “Allure” of the AK is that is cheap. But it jams like crazy

          • ± says:

            Depends what you mean by “jams like crazy”. Compared to the M16, the AK47 barely jams at all.

          • jpfitz says:

            Pedro, You’re dead wrong about the AK jamming. Not the most accurate weapon but at 75 meters deadly. Sand and dirt will muck most automatics but the AK will keep firing with minimal maintenance.

          • pedro says:

            75 meters. Less than a block. Yeah, very useful!

            I grant you this, its accuracy is worthy of your typical non-trained, corner-shooting, with-the-eyes-closed African or Muslim or latin druglord/guerrilla-man that use them.

        • Dallas says:

          Oh how adorable. A bunch of fat ass amateurs with camouflage boxers compare who saw the most Military Channel shows.

          • jpfitz says:

            Lol.

            Or played a FPS before.

          • pedro says:

            How adorable! A gay idiot who has no idea why he’s the “way he is” trying to demean others to feel normal.

            Go back to watching Bravo

    • Robert pope says:

      Sounds reasonable.

  5. McCullough says:

    How fucking hard can this be, sheesh? What a bunch of morans.

  6. Glenn E. says:

    “If only we could kill the weapon systems, planes, etc. that the military doesn’t want but Congress does because of voter jobs…”

    Don’t kid yourself. It’s never been about voter’s jobs. It always been about the Defense Contractors’ board members’ and major stockholders’ incomes. Congress couldn’t care squat about a few hundred, middle class jobs. All their campaign dollars aren’t coming from the rank and file employed. But from those who stand to gain the most, by Congress kicking back those juicy contract appropriations. And of course, then they label it as a “jobs thing”. But like everything else politicians do. It’s a total lie.

  7. NewformatSux says:

    Yea, what evidence do you have that this is about Congress’ desire for jobs rather than Pentagon desire for more money. The Pentagon, and all government agencies, try to distribute the jobs and subcontractors across many districts so that they can keep the money coming. You have reversed it. It was this process that made NASA’s International Space Station go from almost being killed in Clinton’s first year to easily getting funded. They spread the jobs around from Nasa’s districts, to over 100 congressmen with jobs in their district related to the space station.

  8. NewformatSux says:

    Jimmy Carter considers Obama to be a gross violator of human rights.

    • pedro says:

      Not to disavow your point but stupid Carter is in the other side of the spectrum. Wasn’t he the one that allowed Americans to stay hostages by doing nothing and when he did it was an utter failure?

    • pedro says:

      Forgot to add: And didn’t one of the hostage takers raise up to the current presidency of said country? I bet he defends Ahmedinahnut over Obama.

  9. Glenn E. says:

    When I was in the service, they had just gotten it into their heads to reduce the white of rank insignia, by making it dark blue stripes on a dark green background. The reasoning being so snipers could take aim on us. But 90% of the personnel were state side. So why change everyone’s rank patches, when only a tiny fraction were in any hostel locations. The rank patch change was mostly to add another step before one could become a sargent. This was because the lower ranks, that do all the dirty jobs, were running thin, back in the late 70s. You still got paid as E4, after three years service. But were not a non-commissioned office, for another six months delay. And a bogus “orientation” class, that nobody had ever had to take before, to be a sargent.

    Back then, at least they hadn’t decided to turn our dark green uniforms into these digital Jackson Pollack upchucks of gray and green. It makes one look like you climbed out of a shop vac. Totally killing any pride in the military uniform. Why is the camo design strategy always one war behind? Jungle camo, when fighting in a desert. And desert camo, when fighting in middle east cities and towns. I believe this is simply about turning military uniforms into a fashion parade. So some favored contractor (Cheney’s) can make a ton of money, restocking the whole clothing inventory, with every new war.

    • NewformatSux says:

      And what’s with the Army berets?

    • CrankyGeeksFan says:

      Around 1979 or 1980, the NATO member countries were switching their camouflage from a four or six (can’t remember which) colored pattern to a two colored pattern. It passed many tests though this pattern might have been to camouflage vehicles.

      Was this the pattern that David Bowie wore on his clothes in 1985 for his and Mick Jagger’s music video of “Dancing in the Street” during Live Aid?

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G4jnaznUoQ

  10. ECA says:

    Ya, I read this.

    I wonder what would happen if we REALLY got down to basics in the military.
    CHEAPER.

    Didnt we have good Desert Camo in the past??
    The Main problem I see, tends to be movement..NOT camo.

    You only need it at Medium to long range. Close up its not the same type of Camo.

  11. msbpodcast says:

    The best camo is “cuttlefish skin“.

    Its reactive sheets, woven into cylinders of various diameter, of black or white tissue with electrical/motor control over sacks of red/blue/green “chromatophores” with fiber-optics wires woven into them which let one side of a “cuttlefish” adapt to whatever is on the other side.

    It requires absolutely no intelligence or processing from the “cuttlefish“, uh, military asset/human resource, as it goes about.

    Its extremely expensive but its extremely effective at breaking up silhouettes. (But it is electronic so it can run out of power on you and it does tend to stick “sky” where it doesn’t belong so its less effective at short range outdoors.)

    (I don’t think I revealing any secrets here.)

  12. TooManyPuppies says:

    And to think this all could have been avoided if they just chose Multicam to begin with, which is what they’re transitioning towards now.

    The only reason why they chose ACU over Multicam was that Multicam was more expensive.

  13. Dallas says:

    Personally, I’d pick those Red British coats with the X on the front. Maybe a little obvious but boy are those outfits dapper!

  14. Sheila says:

    The part that got to me was

    FIVE BILLION DOLLARS ON A FAILED UNIFORM!!!!!!

    WHAT DO THEY SPEND ON OTHER THINGS??>>

    Sheila
    survivingsurvivalism.com

  15. Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

    With all the truly exciting and important events going on, this blog is irrelevant…to the bore.

    I’ll not be posting much, to the joy of some…its irrelevant, immaterial and truly DU is an incompetent to waste time.

    And the new format sucks.

    • Uncle Dave says:

      As we’ve said a hundred times, we post things of interest to us. Since so much is covered elsewhere, we don’t feel the need to always be on top of breaking stories.

      • Taxed Enough Already Dude says:

        You post what is interesting to anti religious liberals, period.

        There’s lots of new Tech, and truly episodic events taking place daily…but you won’t know about that until you leave here.

        Anti creation, anti Catholic, anti Christian but pro new age religious posts…get old after a while, the liberal bubble is boring.

        And irrelevant.

        • Dallas says:

          Your alias needs a refresh anyway. Come back with something shorter.

          I can see why you give up. Your defense of viewpoints is rooted on a circular explanation around a myth and it doesn’t add up in the rational world.

  16. overtemp says:

    Tailored, starched and pressed, it’s probably the most striking issue yet for headquarters wear.

  17. Somebody says:

    That’s nothing.

    The real camo is the fact that the DOD is never audited.

  18. pedro says:

    I need to know if we have to add insult to injury. Is it made in China?