
Military uniforms – Expense and stupidity too big to camouflage - couchand
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21600700-expense-and-stupidity-too-big-camouflage-out-sight
======
pjc50
This is the "it doesn't matter if it actually works" factor rather than the
"CDI" factor.

America is not fighting a war of national survival on a limited budget. It's
fighting some wars of choice and maintaining a defence procurement industry on
a seemingly unlimited budget. There is no way even the total failure of the
war will personally affect the people doing the producement, and there is no
need for them to economise because they can't run out of other people's money.

So, everyone involved is free to have endless meetings. Senior management can
commission studies at great expense then ignore the result on a whim. They can
engage in turf wars and internal empire building; after all, the real enemy is
the people you're competing with for promotions.

The procurements that _have_ been successful are mostly those resulting from
urgent operational requirements, when losing to insurgents with a tiny budget
became embarrassing.

(The UK is not immune to this; we've built an aircraft carrier that's supposed
to use the F-35, which may not be available and we can't really afford)

~~~
001sky
I'm not sure what this comment is supposed to say. The article submitted here
is pretty weak, but the operational issues about the subject were quite real
and genuine problems in the "field".

That has largeley been solved with the adoption of a new series based on
improved color-temperature of background tones--something overlooked when all
the focus was on the _patterns_.

The deployment of coyete in lieu of green/olive and the current multi-cam is
pretty good stuff. The problem with marpat and some of the other ACU stuff was
that the color temps (ie, too much blue-ish undertones in a desert) can make
you stick out more than having the wrong pattern.

This was a problem that resulted from trying to have a rural/urban combination
that would work for troops fighting terrorist cells in cities and not just in
classical land-warfare scenarios in open-country.

You can read some more background here:

[http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/06/28/army-to-
recomm...](http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/06/28/army-to-recommend-
multicam-for-entire-force.html)

And if you dig it up you can find the comparison field tests that illustrated
the weaknesses in the field of the earlier designs.

~~~
pjc50
My comment was about the political and economic process that produced the
choice of uniform, not the uniform itself. Of course the problems were
genuine. What I am saying is that it's very likely that the problems could
have been spotted and worked out before billions were spent, because the
institutional culture is not good at spotting problems.

------
chrisseaton
People are scathing about the USMC's desire to look distinctive, and about
senior officers' desire for soldiers to look good.

Obviously fashion shouldn't trump everything, but looking and feeling the part
is a considerable part of the moral component of fighting power. I think
denying that is denying some basic human psychology. Why do armies spend money
on flags, dress uniforms, buglers, horses, mascot dogs, medals, bands and so
on? It's because the ethos they create is a seriously important part of
building a group of men who can operate together in extreme situations.

The USMC and other branches are worried about how their uniforms look and how
distinctive they are because it's one essential part of preparing to fight a
war.

~~~
walshemj
Looking good is what dress uniforms are for in a fight you are concerned about
other things than the CDI (chicks dig it) factor.

~~~
chrisseaton
My experience was that my soldiers took a huge amount of pride in looking like
a British Army soldier from their particular capbadge - especially in an
operational environment. Part of my unit's cohesion and pride when operating
in joint environments was being smart in their own particular unique way.

That pride and attention to detail then carries over into their fieldcraft and
tactics.

Young men don't fight for the Ministry of Defence, they fight for their
regiment and their mates - a group created by looking and acting just a little
bit differently to other people.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
The US Military, surprisingly, survived for years with everyone wearing the
same combat uniform (BDUs).

~~~
angersock
Yeah, but that was before 9/11, and since then we've won so cle--oh. Well
fuck.

------
chiph
The Navy's camo looks bizarre (it doesn't blend with trees, ships, or office
equipment), but turns out it's main purpose is to hide the stains that a
sailor picks up during their duty day, from oil & grease to paint drips. So as
a duty uniform, it succeeds.

The Air Force camo was introduced as a pure ego move. It doesn't blend, oil &
hydraulic stains can't be wiped off the boots, and it's too hot. And unlike
the green polyester duty uniforms of the 70's & 80's you can't shorten or
roll-up the sleeves.

My understand why they don't all buy the multi-cam is that the design is
copyrighted and the DoD and the owner couldn't come to an agreement on the
licensing fees.

~~~
badlucklottery
According to Caleb Crye the DoD reps just didn't want to come to an agreement:
[http://soldiersystems.net/2014/03/18/ssd-exclusive-crye-
prec...](http://soldiersystems.net/2014/03/18/ssd-exclusive-crye-precision-
speaks-regarding-us-army-efforts-adopt-new-camouflage/)

tl;dr:

> Continuing its efforts to reduce costs to the Army and in an attempt to
> eliminate the Army’s concerns that MultiCam® was more expensive than UCP,
> Crye submitted several formal proposals which proved that the Army could
> procure MultiCam® gear at prices within 1% of UCP gear. Crye’s proposals
> additionally showed that this could be accomplished with no upfront cost to
> the Army.

> The Army rejected all of Crye’s proposals and did not present any counter
> proposals, effectively saying that a proven increase in Soldier
> survivability was not worth a price difference of less than 1%.

------
ZanyProgrammer
Nope, they are dead wrong. I was in the Army during both Bush
maladministrations, and the Marines doing their own thing was one of the
proximate causes of the horrible Army ACU (as well as the weird Air Force and
Navy blueish camo thingeys). From what I remember the Marines (RAWR, because
they are MARINES, TOUGH!) didn't want their camo licensed out to the other
branches, so the everyone went their own way. How is this cost effective? It
certainly makes getting uniform apparel that much harder on joint bases (where
they have to stock everything, like the Presidio of Monterey), or isolated
people in Guard/Reserve units, whose nearest active duty installation may not
be in their branch.

~~~
minikites
I believe the Marines are also responsible for ruining the F-35 to the tune of
$1 trillion over the lifetime of the plane.

> The Pentagon intends to spend roughly $399 billion to develop and buy 2,443
> of the planes. However, over the course of the aircrafts' lifetimes,
> operating costs are expected to exceed $1 trillion. Lockheed has carefully
> hired suppliers and subcontractors in almost every state to ensure that
> virtually all senators and members of Congress have a stake in keeping the
> program -- and the jobs it has created -- in place.

The Marines wanted VTOL and that made the plane worse in every other way.

~~~
ZanyProgrammer
The Marines have a mindset that they are SPECIAL. I mean that in a serious
way, despite the Marines rarely doing anything that's not also done by the
Army. It'd make more sense for Marine air units to fly off of Navy carriers,
rather than waste money on a VTOL version of the F-35.

~~~
bladegash
A Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) is not supported by Navy aircraft
carriers (see Marine Expeditionary Unit). A MAGTF is supported by Navy Landing
Helicopter Dock (LHD) class ships that require VTOL capable aircraft. The
AV8-B Harrier is the current aircraft that fits this role, which the F-35 is
meant to replace.

~~~
marknow
+1 correct. A carrier battle group can't be everywhere, and the immense
operational options available to a VTOL contingent make the program viable.
I'm a former Navy pilot, and agree that VTOL gets the job done in many tight
situations.

~~~
jfoutz
Yeah, if all 10 super carriers are tied up, I'm sure we'll have plenty of
resources to keep those hundred million dollar planes ready to rock.

I realize sarcasm is a poor excuse for humor, but if all ten are unavailable
(because of shooting and getting shot at), i think we (the US) would have a
pretty rough time getting those planes working.

If their not available because of non-war reasons, it seems like the mission
isn't really that big of a deal anyway.

I sort of think the US goes for the Cadillac solution for everything. Perhaps
that's my bias because i only hear about the expensive stuff. I'd sort of
expect there to be a nice gradient between really super high tech, down to
cheap simple and reliable. But whatever, armchair quarterback.

------
nbartlomiej
Cached version, without login wall:
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SZQxqxt...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SZQxqxtz9aIJ:www.economist.com/news/united-
states/21600700-expense-and-stupidity-too-big-camouflage-out-sight)

~~~
kephra
I wonder who upvoted this?

Are there really 53 hackers paying economist.com to read it?

" You have reached your article limit Register to continue reading or
subscribe for unlimited access "

~~~
CocaKoala
A useful trick is to google for the article titles; it seems like paywalls
tend to not pop up when google is in the referer header.

~~~
ghkbrew
my go to is: right click link -> "open in incognito window"

for chrome at least. Firefox has similar functionality, though I'm not sure if
it can be accessed from a right-click.

~~~
scott_karana
It does, "Open Link in New Private Window" via right-click.

------
AndrewKemendo
As a military member who has worn three separate uniform implementations over
the past 10+ years I can tell you that no-one who is serving thinks the
changes are anything but silly.

Everyone I knew thought that the introduction of multicam in AFG was a great
jumping off point for all the services to share a uniform - but of course that
will never happen with all the GO level pissing matches that happen.

------
rgbrgb
This has pictures of the described patterns:
[http://camopedia.org/index.php?title=USA](http://camopedia.org/index.php?title=USA)

------
Shivetya
This rivalry between branches is probably the leading cause to the excessive
military budgets the US has. Between the boondoggle that is the F35; the
rivalry amongst the branches they would not compromise on a design so it had
to do it all; to the ludicrous idea that super carriers have survivability in
a world of submarines and drones.

By being separate it introduces coordination problems, results in duplicated
systems, and an all around pissing contest.

Give them all one uniform, one set of regulations, and one source of funding.
Then retire off all the desk jockey O-6 and and above who simply serve no
purpose but to manage an acronym

~~~
wdewind
> to the ludicrous idea that super carriers have survivability in a world of
> submarines and drones.

Can you expand on that? Super carriers seem to be a central part of our
ability to exert influence globally. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

~~~
ef4
In an infamous 2002 wargame, an American carrier and much of its fleet were
destroyed by swarms of speedboats with missiles, simulating potential Iranian
tactics.

Also, anti-ship ballistic missiles keep getting better. It's not clear whether
the US Navy could stop the latest generation of Chinese anti-ship missiles.

In both cases, a supercarrier suffers a serious probabilistic problem: the
attackers only have to get through once. The defenders need to be 100%
effective. That's not realistic in a world where it's economically feasible to
field thousands of cheap drones.

~~~
robotresearcher
Cheap drones have small payloads, and one small payload won't do disastrous
damage to a carrier. The attackers have to get through once with a serious
weapon, or many times with small, cheap weapons.

Is there a small, cheap weapon that is nasty enough, without relying on crazy
luck? Do carriers have known vulnerabilities to small weapons, as in Star Wars
Ep. IV?

Edit: Just read up on USS Cole, and a small boat made a 40ft hole in the side,
killed 17 and injured 39 sailors. Very serious. Is this enough to disable a
carrier? Also, small boats have enormously more payload than a drone.
Wikipedia says an attack on USS Sullivan failed when the overloaded attack
boat sank, so clearly they are using all that capacity.

------
jrs235
To get beyond the paywall try this search link to google:
[https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Out+of+sight+the+econom...](https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Out+of+sight+the+economist)

EDIT: This one might be slightly better:
[https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=military+uniforms+out+o...](https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=military+uniforms+out+of+sight+the+economist)

~~~
bryanlarsen
right click, open in incognito also works.

------
logfromblammo
Advances in computerized image processing and on-demand fabric printing have
not only made camouflage patterns obsolete, but also the entire concept of
choosing a camouflage pattern for all military uniforms worldwide.

What quartermasters need is a machine that will take photographs of the local
terrain as input, calculate a camouflage pattern from them, and print that
pattern on unmarked uniforms. The result would be matched only by a ghillie
suit, which takes actual landscape features and physically attaches them to
the fabric.

Such a machine would be rejected any day of the week by a council of colonels
during peacetime. During actual wartime, captains will somehow fail to notice
uniform violations where the approved patterns have been defaced by the very
same equipment that civilian hunters had already been using for years on the
canvas for their tree stands and duck blinds.

Beware the military-industrial complex indeed. I'd say the sector was ripe for
disruption, but disruptors will be shot on sight.

If you want to get the military to buy something that actually _works_ , you
have to market it to civilian outdoorsmen and make it commercial off-the-shelf
technology. Some soldiers will use it while off duty or after their service
contracts expire, and if you get very lucky with the good ol' boy network,
someone will quietly process regular small procurements to ensure that you
will not go out of business before you get the chance to save America from a
land invasion by the Commie Fascist Nation of Scary Bogeymen.

There has always been a huge gulf between wartime military development and
peacetime research. Peacetime always produces stuff that looks cool while
doing absolutely everything that needed to be done for the _last_ war, plus a
boatload of things that might have been useful if _that_ war had dragged on
long enough. Wartime development produces stuff that is cheap, ugly, and works
well for the _current_ war.

That's how a soldier's kit can end up with silly string from a toy store or
laser levels from a hardware store. By the time the army starts issuing that
stuff to its units, the enemy had already stopped using tripwires to trigger
booby traps. They switched to non-metallic pressure plates that use the
physical movement of reactants to detonate an explosive. And so maybe someone
breeds special houseflies to be attracted to the detonator chemicals, and then
some poor grunt is stuck feeding the bomb-detector maggots in camp.

And you just have to hope the war doesn't end right there, because then that
guy will be a professional maggot wrangler for the next 20 years, training
flies to do everything from finding terrorists in truck stops to landing only
on the poop from generals and admirals.

The inefficiency is built into the system. You absolutely cannot fix it from
where you are sitting. You can consider it a form of welfare for veterans,
like VA health care, except with fewer suicides. It would be extremely
embarrassing for the military to have to admit that they make _some_ people
_less_ qualified to hold jobs in the public sector. Whether that is due to the
brain damage caused by explosive shockwaves passing through the skull or the
brain damage caused by filling out reams of pointless bureaucratic paperwork
is immaterial. As long as stories about neglected veterans hit the news,
discharged folks will need to be put into safe jobs. And that is how military
contracts go billions over budget. That is why none of this crap ever works
until after the war actually starts.

------
gnurag
hate paywalled articles posted here.

~~~
bryanlarsen
Given that a large percentage of the mainstream media is moving towards X
articles/month free, register to get Y articles/month free, pay to get full
access, you're basically asking that no main stream media links get posted
here.

That pretty much guarantees that the only posts we'll see are from the tech
bubble, and one I'd like to avoid.

As long as the workaround is as simple as it is here (right click, open in
incognito), I don't think we should avoid posting articles from the Economist
or other mainstream media sites here.

~~~
gnurag
Sorry, I didn't ask "that no main stream media links get posted here." \- I
just didn't want to register.

In any case, I'm here for discovering non-mainstream-media news.

------
cec
I don't understand why I had to put my browser into porn mode to read this.

------
hyperliner
I see a lot of figures in the "millions"

Pfft! That's like me buying an ice cream at McDonalds with the change I find
in the little cup holder of my car.

Wait! It also says 4b to replace all the "flawed" stuff. Hmmm, let me think:
that like a small family dinner.

In the overall scheme of things, this is nothing.

~~~
acheron
Few billion here, few billion there, pretty soon you're talking real money.

~~~
hyperliner
With government, the problem is that "here" is very different from "there."

Which is why we _really_ want the federal government to be _really small_ or
things like these happen.

~~~
kristopolous
"really small" won't fix "really corrupt" \- how things are now, the first to
go would be things such as laws keeping businesses honest.

~~~
seanflyon
"really small" means limiting power which reduces the effects of corruption.

~~~
kristopolous
no. because with "really small" governments you still get "really big"
companies. The term "deregulation" really epitomizes this - the idea that
there should be fewer laws restricting companies from harming others and that
the magical free hand of the market will miraculously prevent malfeasance and
malevolent profiteering in some ayn rand utopia. what a lovely fantasy.

The process I've seen called "decivilizing" \- the willful dismantling of the
post-industrial societal state back to some goal that is effectively an 18th
century corporate oligarchy.

The problem is that then you get companies which effect as governments - it's
no mistake that the US flag is a spinoff of the maritime flag of the East
India Trading corporation - it was effectively a de facto governing body -
above the state.

The corporate becomes the state when the state is weak. They are poised to
fill such a power vacuum and it happens immediately.

It's so clear.

