Army gives up ACUs...AF next?

[Stonewall]

Just like Pete Blaber said in his book "The Mission, The Men, and Me", trust the guy with boots on the ground. Apparently no one asked the soldier with boots on the ground if ACUs provided adequate camouflage, because the resounding answer would have been "HELL NO".

From the article..."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.' "

Click here for the article --> $5B CAMO SNAFU


(Clearly, AF Green Boots would have completed this cammo illusion)


Stand by to see how the AF Uniform Board deals with the backsplash from this pissing contest.

[a2capt]

Fixed Link - Take a pick:http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/06/24/062412-news-camouflage-fiasco-1-5
Or
$5B CAMO SNAFU

[Eclipse]

So we can retire the whole "When will CAP get ABU's?" question, since ABU's clearly dead.  Not only are they hated, if not universally, then certainly "widely". 

It's not a process that can occur overnight, but the services will be in a combined field variant again inside ten years, with the new one
approved inside 5.

This writing's been on the wall since day-1, and has been highlighted in ANSI-Yellow for about the last 3-4 (ish).

I'd say "I told you so...", but I only told CT & CS, so the scope is more limited then others on the ITYS front.

I'd say the NWU is on life support as well.  I've spoken to more than a couple Navy guys who have pointed out that at sea, the boats they are
on stand out pretty well (vs. the camo'ed sailors), but when someone in the NWU falls in the water, they effectively disappear.

[Stonewall]

Fixed Link - Take a pick:http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/06/24/062412-news-camouflage-fiasco-1-5
Or
$5B CAMO SNAFU

Sorry, got called away before I could check my link...

[PHall]

So we can retire the whole "When will CAP get ABU's?" question, since ABU's clearly dead.  Not only are they hated, if not universally, then certainly "widely". 

It's not a process that can occur overnight, but the services will be in a combined field variant again inside ten years, with the new one
approved inside 5.

This writing's been on the wall since day-1, and has been highlighted in ANSI-Yellow for about the last 3-4 (ish).

I'd say "I told you so...", but I only told CT & CS, so the scope is more limited then others on the ITYS front.

I'd say the NWU is on life support as well.  I've spoken to more than a couple Navy guys who have pointed out that at sea, the boats they are
on stand out pretty well (vs. the camo'ed sailors), but when someone in the NWU falls in the water, they effectively disappear.

So, do you have a cite for your "infomation" or is this your personal opinion?
If it is an opinion it should be labeled as such to prevent confusion.

[Eclipse]

There's a number of conversations here and on the old CS that cited news articles and personal conversations in this regard.

[Pylon]

There's a number of conversations here and on the old CS that cited news articles and personal conversations in this regard.

I don't see the services going back to one pattern again.  The issues are only with certain service branches.  Just because the Army and the Air Force didn't field uniforms liked by their boots on the ground doesn't mean that applies to other branches.  We're pretty happy with our cammies in the Marine Corps.  And while we've extended (with limitations) MARPAT to the green-side Navy, who also uses the same digital pattern for the blue utilities, I don't see the Marine Corps giving that pattern up to the other services.  And I don't think the other services are looking into picking MARPAT as an option anyway.   I don't buy the argument of the central pattern for all uniformed services.  Why make a branch which has a pattern that works just fine change to a better or worse option at GREAT expense simply because other services couldn't make good decisions?

[abdsp51]

To clarify this article was about the Army Combat Uniform not the Airman Battle Uniform.  A solid citation from either the CSAF or the CMSAF preferred and not a news story from a times publication or a personal convo.  Sorry as of May 2011 per the CSAF and the CMSAF the ABU was here to stay.

[NCRblues]

  Sorry as of May 2011 per the CSAF and the CMSAF the ABU was here to stay.

Seconded, and heard by me in person from CMSAF at wing all call.

[Eclipse]

To Pylon, who says the Marine uniform wouldn't be the choice for all?

What's more important, marketing or force protection?  If the Marines have come up with a good pattern, give to everyone.

  Sorry as of May 2011 per the CSAF and the CMSAF the ABU was here to stay.

The Army would have likely said the same thing last May as well...

[abdsp51]

Can't say for the Army.  I have heard verbatem from the CSMAF and news releases as well the ABU is here to stay for the time being. And with the amount congress wants cut uniforms are not going to change anytime soon

[a2capt]

Isn't it all done with appropriated funds anyway?

What's to say the DoD doesn't just use the same pattern and substitute colors for the working environment?

[Eclipse]

That's the part I really don't get, why should the cut and materials be different between the services, even if the color has to be?

[AngelWings]

There's a number of conversations here and on the old CS that cited news articles and personal conversations in this regard.

I don't see the services going back to one pattern again.  The issues are only with certain service branches.  Just because the Army and the Air Force didn't field uniforms liked by their boots on the ground doesn't mean that applies to other branches.  We're pretty happy with our cammies in the Marine Corps.  And while we've extended (with limitations) MARPAT to the green-side Navy, who also uses the same digital pattern for the blue utilities, I don't see the Marine Corps giving that pattern up to the other services.  And I don't think the other services are looking into picking MARPAT as an option anyway.   I don't buy the argument of the central pattern for all uniformed services.  Why make a branch which has a pattern that works just fine change to a better or worse option at GREAT expense simply because other services couldn't make good decisions?

My one problem with this is the fact if the USMC is so selfish as not to offer an effective pattern to their brothers and sisters in other services, why the hell are they even in the military? That pattern is extremely effective, and the uniform design is nice. It's not like anyone is asking for them to share their dress blues.

[abdsp51]

It is also patented to the Corp.  The reason the AF went to the ABU was because the BDU was an Army gig we picked up.

[Pylon]

If every service can have all sorts of distinct varieties of service, dress & mess, flight, and special uniforms (like food service), why should the field uniforms be the sole banner cry for everything being made the same in the interest of "cost savings" (if there really are any to be had).  Everyone has different requirements for field/utility uniforms as it is.  Same-ness doesn't make sense.  For example:  The Navy uses their blue digital utilities because, for one, it hides stains from working aboard the ship really well; most sailors don't need to blend in with their terrain and the operators who do have usually done their own thing anyway.  Desert MARPAT for example wouldn't serve that function as well for most Navy personnel.

To Pylon, who says the Marine uniform wouldn't be the choice for all?

The stories I've read about the various patterns under review/testing by different research labs or departments have not mentioned MARPAT as one of the patterns they were looking into.

My one problem with this is the fact if the USMC is so selfish as not to offer an effective pattern to their brothers and sisters in other services, why the hell are they even in the military? That pattern is extremely effective, and the uniform design is nice. It's not like anyone is asking for them to share their dress blues.

Why are we even in the military?  Really?  There are a few current and former Marines on this board, myself included, (as well as probably most other Marines not on this board) who would take particular exception to your words.  I'd be careful making those kinds of comments going forward.

Besides, proprietary uniforms is not a unique behavior to the Marine Corps.  The Army "owns" the woodland BDU pattern and when they decided to move away from it, rescinded its permissable use for the other services as well.  If ACUPAT had turned out to be really effective, with all of the branding they put behind, I'm willing to bet the Army still wouldn't have shared ACUPAT.

[AngelWings]

If every service can have all sorts of distinct varieties of service, dress & mess, flight, and special uniforms (like food service), why should the field uniforms be the sole banner cry for everything being made the same in the interest of "cost savings" (if there really are any to be had).  Everyone has different requirements for field/utility uniforms as it is.  Same-ness doesn't make sense.  For example:  The Navy uses their blue digital utilities because, for one, it hides stains from working aboard the ship really well; most sailors don't need to blend in with their terrain and the operators who do have usually done their own thing anyway.  Desert MARPAT for example wouldn't serve that function as well for most Navy personnel.

To Pylon, who says the Marine uniform wouldn't be the choice for all?

The stories I've read about the various patterns under review/testing by different research labs or departments have not mentioned MARPAT as one of the patterns they were looking into.

I'm saying if it stops anyone from getting shot, then why stop them from using it? I don't care if it saves money or not, or makes us look uniformed. I'm worrying about if it will properly hide those who are heading to combat.

[Pylon]

I'm saying if it stops anyone from getting shot, then why stop them from using it? I don't care if it saves money or not, or makes us look uniformed. I'm worrying about if it will properly hide those who are heading to combat.

Body armor and cover keep you from getting shot.  Concealment (which includes worn camoflague) just aids in making you a more difficult target but will never stop you from getting shot.

[RogueLeader]

I'm saying if it stops anyone from getting shot, then why stop them from using it? I don't care if it saves money or not, or makes us look uniformed. I'm worrying about if it will properly hide those who are heading to combat.

Body armor and cover keep you from getting shot.  Concealment (which includes worn camoflague) just aids in making you a more difficult target but will never stop you from getting shot.

No, body armor stops you from getting hurt as bad.  It doesn't deflect them with a force field.

I know what you mean though.

[AngelWings]

I'm saying if it stops anyone from getting shot, then why stop them from using it? I don't care if it saves money or not, or makes us look uniformed. I'm worrying about if it will properly hide those who are heading to combat.

Body armor and cover keep you from getting shot.  Concealment (which includes worn camoflague) just aids in making you a more difficult target but will never stop you from getting shot.

You understand what I'm saying though. Maybe not the best choice of words but still.