Nov 13 2009
Wardrobe Changes
Uniforms change—sometimes with good reason and other times with no apparent impetus other than change for the sake of change.
The camouflage utility uniform has morphed over the years and has gone through a number of iterations in the past decade. The Army debuted it its digital cammo pattern first, followed by the Marine Corps and the Air Force. We are sure very smart people determined a digitized pattern trumped the Woodland style any day.
Whether the same smart people determined each service needed its own designer togs is unclear. You can tell a member’s service by the blurriness of his tunic. Our guess is service chiefs, as well as manufacturers, like service design rivalry.
But all is not well on U.S. Army runways. The senior service is wrestling with pattern challenges. The Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) performed poorly in the “Photosimulation Camouflage Detection Test,” conducted by U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research. Four patterns blew the UCP off the battlefield in similar tests: Marine Corps desert digital, MultiCam, Desert Brush and a Syrian military pattern. In 2004, the Army rejected other patterns at a reported cost of $5 billion. It is unclear what savings would have been garnered using another style.
As reported by Army Times, the Army plans to “to evaluate more than 50 camouflage pattern and equipment combinations.” There has been talk the UCP may become a garrison uniform and other patterns would be used in combat. (Our guess is this would make some manufacturer very happy. Is he in Murtha’s district?)
But the Navy blows the competition out of the water. Yes, the U.S. Navy. If you caught coverage of the USS New York’s return to its name sake, you may have glimpsed the new Navy Blue. It’s ugly. It’s awkward, and it begs the question, “Why?”
The new Navy Working Uniform (NWU) is a digitized, mottled blue camouflage utility. It has been tested, approved and is being phased in by geographic region. The Navy is scheduled to complete its changeover by Oct. 2010. Why does the Navy need a cammo pattern? Well, officials admit it doesn’t, but the pattern hides wear they say (and we think dirt, grease, cigarette burns, coffee mishaps, and other hazards of shipboard life). Since this is a working uniform and not a tactical uniform (we’re unsure why they cannot be the same), sailors will be outfitted with the appropriate tactical uniforms when needed.
The NWU will “replace working utilities, tropical working uniforms, wash khakis, winter working blue, aviation working green, and non-tactical/environmental usage of camouflage utility uniforms.”
Imagine what sailors can jam into these pockets.
The NWU simply is a case of “Keeping up with the Joneses”–and an absolute waste of taxpayer dollars.
As to the Marine Corps and the Army–well they have been at it for years. Because the Army has more “muscle” (read that to mean money”, they quite often win the battles. Years ago (more than I care to tell you) I was a section head in the Marine Corps Development Center–yep, as a Navy officer–but that is a whole long story of its own. This was at the time that the new flexible Kevlar armored vest came out. The Army had touted this new vest as being “bullet proof”. One of the Marine officers in my section decided test out the vest. So off to the range he went and hung the vest up and fired off some rounds at it from the M1911A1 .45 caliber pistol at various ranges considered effective for this standard military sidearm. The results–holes all the way through the vest!
He took the results to our division head who said it needed to be officially reported to the Army folks at the Natick Test Lab.
Talk about a furor! We were accused of cooking the data and the test. It was considered “unscientific” and bogus. We took a lot of heat but stuck to our story. Eventually changes were made to improve the vest.
There was much tug and haul between the Army and Marine Corps over the early camouflage uniforms–sometimes as simple as pocket placement. And apparently nothing has changed in that regard. And what should be the standard combat boot was another contest that cost the taxpayer many dollars.
But lest we go to far, I would caution–remember the McNamara belt buckle. The Services were unable to settle on a design for a standard brass belt buckle, so then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara made a decision for them. The protest was unbelievable and for the most part the Services ignored him.
It does seem that it should be possible to reach an agreement on the best camouflage–the ones most effective, but human vanity, even among the Service chiefs, is difficult to overcome. And as to that, the new Navy Service Uniform is a joke–are they Sailors, Soldiers or Marines? You tell me…
I am admittedly not a huge fan of the new uniform. I would however like to know where they are made. It would be a shame if in today’s economy we transitioned to something made in a country other than our own.