Committee members expressed frustration over the millions of dollars the services have spent to field camouflage patterns --- warmongers spend worse than democrats.
On Jun 6, 12:12 pm, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > House Votes to Eliminate Service Camo Patterns**** > > Jun 06, 2013**** > > Military.com| by Matthew Cox and Michael Hoffman**** > > 8<http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/06/house-votes-to-eliminat...> > Add > a > Comment<http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/06/06/house-votes-to-eliminat...> > **** > > [image: Troops in Camoflage]**** > > A Congressional committee voted Wednesday to end service-specific > camouflage in an amendment that would push the military toward creating > joint combat uniforms by 2018.**** > > Committee members expressed frustration over the millions of dollars the > services have spent to field camouflage patterns that focus more on > creating a visual brand than effective concealment for the battlefield.**** > > This is not the first time the Pentagon has been criticized over its > management of camouflage development.**** > > The Government Accountability Office blasted the U.S. military in September > for the way it has developed camouflage uniforms over the past decade. > Since 2012, military service leaders have introduced seven new patterns -- > two desert, two woodland and three universal -- in a "fragmented approach" > that GAO officials argue should be avoided in the future.**** > > House Armed Service Committee members want the Pentagon to develop a joint > combat uniform over the next five years. Moving to one joint combat uniform > doesn't mean there would only be one camouflage pattern. Different patterns > could still be designed for specific geographic requirements such as the > woodland or desert patterns. However, each service would not design their > versions.**** > > The amendment restricts the creation of any further camouflage patterns for > combat uniforms unless the intention is to share it. *Approval of the > amendment comes as the Army is set to announce a replacement to its > Universal Camouflage Pattern, a pixilated mix of gray, green and tan that > has proven ineffective in tests and on the battlefield.* > > It's unclear how this amendment, if approved by the Senate, would affect > the Army's selection of a new camouflage pattern. The Army recently > concluded an extensive, four-year camouflage improvement effort.**** > > Army uniform officials launched the effort after Pennsylvania's Democratic > Rep. John Murtha, got involved in the issue in 2009. Murtha was then > chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.**** > > He pushed the service to look for a better camouflage pattern after > receiving complaints from sergeants about the UCP's poor performance in the > war zone. Murtha died in 2010, just before the Army selected MultiCam as > the clear winner over several other patterns to issue to soldiers deploying > to Afghanistan.**** > > Some test community officials maintain that fielding UCP was a mistake that > could have been avoided. Two separate studies performed by Army scientists > from Natick Soldier Systems Center, Mass. -- one completed in 2009 and the > other in 2006 -- showed that the UCP performed poorly in multiple > environments when compared to other modern camouflage patterns.**** > > In both studies, MultiCam, a pattern popular with Special Operations > Forces, outperformed UCP, the pattern the Army adopted in 2004 to replace > the service's woodland and desert camouflage uniforms.**** > > Natick officials last year, publicly criticized the Army for selecting UCP > long before testing was complete, charging that UCP cost taxpayers billions > in uniforms and matching body armor, backpacks and other equipment.**** > > Rep. Bill Enyart, D-Ill.,and Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., co-sponsored the > amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. Enyart is a retired > two-star who served in the Air Force, Air Force Reserve and Army National > Guard.**** > > Duckworth still serves in the Illinois National Guard as a lieutenant > colonel even though she lost both her legs in a helicopter crash in Iraq in > 2004.**** > > Enyart pleaded for committee members to "cut an abundance of uniforms" > rather than approve further force reductions as Congress tries to balance > budget cuts to the military.**** > > The Army spent $2.6 million to develop the UCP pattern and then another > $2.9 million to field Multicam combat uniforms after Army officials > determined the UCP was unsuitable for Afghanistan.**** > > The GAO estimates that the Army will have to spend another $4 billion on > uniforms and equipment over the next five years when it selects its new > family of camouflage patterns.**** > > Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., who chairs the committee that oversees military > uniforms, supported the amendment, but said it would cost the military more > money to develop a joint combat uniform that would satisfy all the services. > **** > > The committee approved the amendment by the closest of margins with a vote > of 32-30. Twenty-seven Democrats and five Republicans voted for it, while > one Democrat and 29 Republicans voted against it.**** > > Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Col. a former Marine and soldier, was one Congressman > who voted against it. He said the amount of savings gained by moving to a > joint combat uniform was relatively small compared to the morale gained > within the services of having separate uniforms.**** > > "This is really a morale issue, for our me **** > > troops_in_camoflage-ts300.jpg > 24KViewDownload -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
