Navy joins the pack and adopts Digital Camouflage

[Uncle Fester]

I also kind of doubt some of hteir claims on that site. One pattern for two environments with markedly different color pallettes? Color me skeptical, but it seems liek a cheapo "Jack of all trades, master of none" solution.

Yes, indeed...how could that ever work?

Seriously, though - the ACU pattern was one thing that came out of OIF/OEF. The soldiers on the ground observed that in most places in Iraq and Afghanistan, you were never in "desert" areas for very long. Even on a short patrol, you could go from flat-brown sands to gray-green river marshes to an urban environment in a matter of minutes. Most places, the DCU pattern made you actually stand out.

I wore DCUs on my IA, but from what I could see of the ACUs, they seemed pretty practical. Zippers and velcro (vice buttons), wash-and-wear, you could get at all your pockets while wearing Kevlar, and one camo pattern to rule them all.

Honestly, if they just made this thing in blue and otherwise kept the material and pattern, it'd be a perfectly suitable Navy uniform. But, where's the fun in just using a wheel when you can invent a whole new one?

 

[DanMa1156]

As usual, HeyJoe is right. There are little EGA's in the digital pattern of both woodland and desert. MARPAT is also copyrighted I believe.

Great, copyright it and all so you don't see hunters using it and whatnot, but why wouldn't they be cooperative and let other SERVICES use the pattern? I don't see why the Navy shouldn't be allowed to take the design, modify it as needed and safe the taxpayers $$$$.

Just seems frustrating that a service wouldn't let another use its ideas to better everyone.

I might be missing the point here and I hope that's the case...

 

[ea6bflyr]

Great, copyright it and all so you don't see hunters using it and whatnot, but why wouldn't they be cooperative and let other SERVICES use the pattern? I don't see why the Navy shouldn't be allowed to take the design, modify it as needed and safe the taxpayers $$$$.

Just seems frustrating that a service wouldn't let another use its ideas to better everyone.

I might be missing the point here and I hope that's the case...

The Marine Corps did ask the other services if they were interested and when they said no, they paid for the R&D out of their already small budget. Remember the story about the The Little Red Hen? It seems to apply to the USMC's DigiCamis. I think the Marines were smart in trademarking/copyrighting their uniform. USN has no claims to the uniform.


Interesting sidenote: The USMC has yet to go into full production of the Urban (grey) MARPAT.
-ea6bflyr

 

[phrogpilot73]

^^ What he said. Our budget is tiny. Navy + Marine Corps is about 28%, our green dollar stuff is ~6%. The way we normally work is going in joint with the Army for the landfighting stuff, Navy for aircraft. When we gotta go it alone, our attitude is "F-You, where were you when we needed the help?"

Edit - can't find the most recent numbers, but in 2007 the Marine Corps got 4.3% of the budget pie.

 

[lmnop]

Those remind me of some of the weird flecktar patterns used by EU countries.

I also kind of doubt some of hteir claims on that site. One pattern for two environments with markedly different color pallettes? Color me skeptical, but it seems liek a cheapo "Jack of all trades, master of none" solution.

Course, the Nav has gone that route before for even more high-dollar equipment. . .

Multicam is already in use by several US units that don't share your skepticism. It isn't the end-all be-all, but it's a good product and blends in more environments than ACUs.

 

[Brett327]

I think the Marines were smart in trademarking/copyrighting their uniform. USN has no claims to the uniform.

Trademarked? Really? So if any other service uses it, the DOD is going to sue itself? Right.

Brett

 

[squorch2]

It's patented, not trademarked or copyrighted. At least, not that I could find. Copyrights of work done by government entities are tricky at best, since work done by the government "belongs" to the people.

 

[DanMa1156]

Trademarked? Really? So if any other service uses it, the DOD is going to sue itself? Right.

Brett

This is kind of what I'm getting at. I mean, hell, if they're really that pissed about it, force the Navy to pay a royalty or something, but I think it's ridiculous to think that one service would be up in arms with another service using their technology to save lives. I at least can understand arguments over mission assignment (i.e. the debate between the AF and the Army over UAV's, USMC trying to be assigned to an Army operational area, etc.) but with something that could actually save lives and money it seems ridiculous to me, espcially with all the ties of the Navy and the Marines. It's this type of BS political infighting that makes the American public shake their heads at us sometimes. How much do the Marines spend when the Navy purchases Amphib ships to transport them (semi serious- I assume it's none or minimal)? What about the O&S Costs of said ships - do the Marines pay for that too? Just seems a little over the top for me.

 

[ea6bflyr]

It's patented, not trademarked or copyrighted. At least, not that I could find. Copyrights of work done by government entities are tricky at best, since work done by the government "belongs" to the people.

That's the word I was looking for....patented. They didn't teach that stuff in legal officer's class. Damn.

-ea6bflyr

 

[CommodoreMid]

The one thing I do like about this heinous new uniform is that it will truly be worn "uniformly." Just walking around NASP you see pretty much all of the Marines in cammies or flight suits as applicable, but the Navy guys are in utilities, khakis, flight suits, new enlisted service uniform, summer whites, winter blues, SDBs, and SDWs (I don't think people around here listen for the uniform season switch or something). We look retarded. As much as I think the new cammies suck, at least we would all be looking retarded in the same outfit, vice 8 different ones in the same place.

 

[phrogpilot73]

This is kind of what I'm getting at. I mean, hell, if they're really that pissed about it, force the Navy to pay a royalty or something, but I think it's ridiculous to think that one service would be up in arms with another service using their technology to save lives. I at least can understand arguments over mission assignment (i.e. the debate between the AF and the Army over UAV's, USMC trying to be assigned to an Army operational area, etc.) but with something that could actually save lives and money it seems ridiculous to me, espcially with all the ties of the Navy and the Marines. It's this type of BS political infighting that makes the American public shake their heads at us sometimes. How much do the Marines spend when the Navy purchases Amphib ships to transport them (semi serious- I assume it's none or minimal)? What about the O&S Costs of said ships - do the Marines pay for that too? Just seems a little over the top for me.

We don't pay a dime (outside our wardroom dues, and giving up bodies for trash/mess crank, etc) for Navy ships.

The Navy has ~24% of the defense budget, the Marine Corps ~4%. As stated previously, when the Marine Corps saw a need to replace the current woodland pattern of camouflage, they approached the other services to help out. We got a big "F-U", what we've got is fine. So we pay an assload of money, roll them out - and lo and behold other services get jealous. Now they want our cammies, even though they weren't willing to pay for them in the beginning. So in turn we say "F-U" design your own.

It's not like we can just charge a royalty to repay the R&D costs - the contracting world doesn't work that way.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

Multicam is already in use by several US units that don't share your skepticism. It isn't the end-all be-all, but it's a good product and blends in more environments than ACUs.

I agree. ACUs also stain easier. In the sense that the big dirt stain doesn't blend in to the camo.

 

[Spekkio]

The one thing I do like about this heinous new uniform is that it will truly be worn "uniformly." Just walking around NASP you see pretty much all of the Marines in cammies or flight suits as applicable, but the Navy guys are in utilities, khakis, flight suits, new enlisted service uniform, summer whites, winter blues, SDBs, and SDWs (I don't think people around here listen for the uniform season switch or something). We look retarded. As much as I think the new cammies suck, at least we would all be looking retarded in the same outfit, vice 8 different ones in the same place.

This uniform is replacing WORKING uniforms ASHORE - ie, utilities, wash khakis, and coveralls. You will still see people in the aforementioned service and dress uniforms if that's what they are prescribed to wear. Perhaps the Navy is planning on authorizing working uniforms more often, but there's been no indication of that being the case.

 

[Lawman]

I really hope the Navy is avoiding tactical velcro. The stuff we have on the ACU's is pathetically cheap and wears out real quick. Hell most of the uniform wears out quick because of the stitching being crap. Ive already gone through 2 tops just wearing them in TRADOC for the last 6 months. Talking to buddies who have been there if you go outside the wire on a daily basis your going to need a full reissue of uniforms. They had some good come out of it like the pockets being in much more useful places than BDU's and the zipper on the top is great (though why the hell cant I have it on my pants).

 

[skidz]

Some help with rumor control?

Isn't the Army looking to use MutliCam as its secondary(probably turned primary) uniform to the ACU's?

I thought the digital design was originally in R&D by the US Army, they couldn't make it work. Then the Canadians took it and made it work for exactly what they wanted with CADPAT. Seeing the CADPAT, the Marine Corps easily adapted it to their specifications and then patented or whatnot their specific pattern. Then started the mad rush by the Army and AF to look "cool."