As if we didn’t already have enough to consider with Marpat, UCP, UCP-D, MultiCam and Desert Brush, in comes another pattern making inroads in the milgear blogosphere.
I’ve been trolling over at our friends Soldier Systems’ site over the past couple days, and the editor over there is obsessed with the development of this new pattern. Not one day after I scoped his post, our partners at Tactical-Life forwarded me an article (that looked more like a press release to me) unveiling the new, multi-environment pattern.
Companies participating in this unprecedented launch include Remington, Bushmaster, DPMS Panther Arms, Danner, EOTAC, Tactical Assault Gear, Blue Force Gear and Emerson Knives.
The the so-called A-TACS pattern departs from today’s “pixel” obsession and goes more along the blended lines, making it easy to slip between environments and still conceal movement.
Many who have seen the pattern comment on how it is unlike any camouflage pattern they have encountered as its chameleon-like qualities cause it to blend into the surrounding environment. This unique “pattern within a pattern” concept allows it to break up the outline of the human body relying on a palette of inter-mingled natural colors over a neutral tan base for use in open, rocky, or arid environments.
And here’s the conglomerate’s explanation for their design:
Many of the modern digital camouflage patterns currently in use by the tactical community have flaws. The square pixels used to create the distortion effect do not replicate the shapes, forms and shadows of the environment they are deployed in-especially when viewed through optics. The ninety-degree angles and limited use of natural colors can in many cases, make detection easier.
Additionally, the “visual noise” in these same patterns tends to make them close-up into a solid color, producing a “blobbing” effect when viewed from a distance. A-TACS addresses and improves these critical issues in three ways.
1. — Replace un-natural square pixels with organic pixels. Utilizing our patented process, we created a palette of natural colors digitally sampled from real-world elements in carefully controlled lighting. The pattern is then created using a mathematical algorithm that writes “organically-shaped” pixels using the specific color information given. The resulting pattern while still digital, is far more organic in appearance.
2. — Use small patterns to create larger more distinct shapes designed to work at a distance. Small shapes create larger shapes and larger shapes are organized into a distinct pattern with no horizontal or vertical orientation. This unique “pattern within a pattern” concept allows A-TACS® to effectively break the human outline at great distances thereby, minimizing the “blobbing” effect of other patterns when viewed from a distance.
3. — More effective use of color-range produces a better concealment system. A-TACS® is created using a far greater range of inter-mingled natural colors than was previously possible. The overall base color for the cast is a neutral tan which is designed for use in open, rocky or arid environments.
Furthermore, the abstract and intricate nature of this pattern gives it a unique “fingerprint”which is not only adaptable to various service branches, but also makes it difficult to copy.
I dunno, another desert/urban pattern? Aren’t we debating the flaws of the UCP because of the forested environments of Afghanistan? Doesn’t this one look as if it would stick out on a green background?
On the other hand, it’s interesting to see someone make a play against the ever-popular MultiCam and to tinker with the science of concealment. Let’s not forget, the Army is in the midst of a comprehensive look at its camouflage effectiveness and A-TACS is surely poised to play a role in pushing the argument and science.
I’m set to post a new story on Military.com with exclusive details on which units have received the two different camo patterned uniforms the Army is experimenting with in Afghanistan.
Defense Tech is the first site to reveal this information, which comes from a quick interview this morning with PEO Soldier’s Col. Bill Cole.
According to Cole, the 3rd Squadron of the 61st Cavalry Regiment has already been issued the UCP-Delta duds, including a new chest rig developed for Natick and patterned in the UCP-D. And if you’re one of the lucky Joes in the 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, you’ll be getting a whole ensemble of the U.S. military’s most popular camo pattern: MultiCam.
Cole said the service used rapid equipping force funds to purchase plate carriers in MultiCam and each Soldier will be issued molle gear patterned in Crye’s colors.
Both battalions operate in Afghanistan’s eastern Kunar province.
You can read more details this afternoon on Military.com, but I thought I’d go ahead and spill the beans here for our faithful followers.
(Picture is of a Soldier from the 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment…notice the MultiCam Camelbak)
Our good friends at Soldier Systems have an interesting post on PEO Soldier’s latest improvement program for the fire-resistent ACU pant. It looks as if PEO is going all Gucci on Joes here with high speed knee pads, space-age fabrics and more dip pockets than you can pack a can with.
Originally called the Army Combat Pant and for a short period referred to as the Fire Resistant Ruggedized Pant, the program has transformed into the FR ACU Trouser Product Improvement Program. Ultimately, what this means is that PEO-Soldier is working hard to transform the FR ACU into an even more combat focused garment rather than developing yet another garment.
We reported here and at Military.com a couple years ago on gripes from the field about the durability of the new ACUs, particularly with the crotch construction and the knees. During a sit down with reporters a few weeks ago, PEO officials talked up their most recent enhancements, including buttons on the trouser pockets instead of Velcro, a better collar, smaller Velcro on the zipper flap of the blouse, better IR tape placement and new cuffs.
But it looks like their also developing a way more tricked out version as well:
Massif Mountain Gear and Crye Precision collaborated on the next step, which resulted in the Massif Army Combat Pant Version 4.0A, which employed various weights of Defender M fabric and Defender M stretch fabric to make the seat and crotch more durable. At the same time, Crye Precision’s adjustable-height, integrated hard-shell knee pad design greatly improved the durability of the knee, providing greater protection to the Soldier. This feature in particular has been the most important solution in the project. External knee pads require constant adjustment and lightweight pads slipped into the knee pad slot of the trouser result in extra abrasion and worn knees.
Crye is wracking up the coups here, with the camo evaluation in Afghanistan (MultiCam) and now this. And I must say I’m a big fan of Massif, which makes the Army’s combat shirt. They hooked me with some FR gear for my last Iraq embed to evaluate and they were great to work with (though I didn’t much like their FR fleece).
Be sure to keep an eye on Soldier Systems for updates to this story. We’ll also have more here at DT on the great camo battle going on in Afghanistan.
The Strykers currently in Afghanistan probably should be painted brown, but it is not true that the military dragged through these years without noticing, or that Gates, Petraeus, McChrystal, Mellinger, and Prosser didn’t ask for something they needed. Stars & Stripes plays a valuable role as a military watchdog, but this time, they’re barking up the wrong tree.
Yon has spent a lot of time in the shit, so his analysis should be taken with a huge amount of credence. But I will say, even though he argues the Strykers have been operating in Iraq without the desert tan to great effect for years, it doesn’t make sense to me that it took this long to get in gear and paint them to match the environment. I was with a Stryker unit in Baquba back in Jan. ’08 and I will say the green camo vehicles stuck out like a sore thumb.
Now I’ll agree with Yon that if the CSM and CG wanted them painted tan, they’d be tan in a jiffy. The vehicles were frequently used as transport of senior staff on the battlefield and you can bet a dollar for doughnuts they’d want their vehicle draped in the best camo scheme possible.
The GAO just issued a brief report looking at the services’ efforts to mitigate blunt impact trauma by replacing the old suspension system in combat helmets with one that uses padding attached directly to the interior of the helmet.
The report was issued to members of the congressional armed services and appropriations committees to bring their staffs up to speed on how these padding systems came about. It doesn’t look at the testing of the systems or anything like that and, to be perfectly honest, it’s pretty “no duh” except for a couple things.
First, the report indicates the Army and Marine Corps have been pushing industry to develop more advanced pads that can absorb nearly a quarter more impact than the ones in current helmets. So far industry hasn’t been able to meet the requirement.
Also, the services are examining technologies used by NATO countries, including entire padded liners, methods used by high impact sports and even advanced concepts like aqueous liners (a CamelBak on your head?)…I’m partial to the Russian Special Forces helmet myself and I wonder if some of our blacker SOF units are using a similar version (I remember seeing pictures of SF operators wearing modified flight helmets during the overland push into northern Iraq in 2003)…
Take a look at the entire report for some good background on how these padding systems came about and make sure to read page five, which discusses new techs being looked at. GAO Helmet Pad Report
We’re running a story this afternoon on Military.com that talks about language inserted into the late 2009 war supplemental bill by Jack Murtha calling on the Army to study whether the current “ArPat” digital all-in-one camo pattern is the best option for troops in Afghanistan.
According our reporter Bryan Mitchell, Murtha was jaw boning with some Ranger types who complained about how the ArpPat camo stood out like a sore thumb in the craggy hills and forested vales of eastern Afghanistan.
The move in Congress was prompted by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), Chairman of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee, who said he was first made aware of the issue during a visit with a group of noncommissioned officer Rangers serving at Fort Benning, Ga.
Murtha queried Army leaders and learned the concern was not reserved to a handful of Georgia troops. Similar sentiments had been voiced throughout units with experience serving in Afghanistan.
“The reason is that the current uniform has been primarily designed for a desert combat, like in Iraq, and obviously the terrain is much different in Afghanistan,” Murtha said in an e-mail to Military.com.
“I spoke to both General Casey and General Petraeus about the issue. They also have heard the same thing, said that the Army is looking into the situation, and that funding is available for new uniforms if the Army decides to go that route.“
And I’ve heard the complaints as well. No one really understood why the Army picked the sort of old-school loden colored camo. Especially since the service had already developed the MultiCam pattern with Crye Precision and Natick.
And isn’t that what it all boils down to? Everyone wants MultiCam. “Spec Ops guys get to wear it…why can’t I?” I even scoped out some photos of Air Force PJs sporting MultiCam during a deployment to Djibouti. And practically every cover shot from our friends at Tactical-Life.com features a MultiCam clad “operator” firing the highest speed shorty carbine around.
Look, I like MultiCam like the rest of them. But I also understand why the Army did what it did. They spent millions of dollars and lots of time studying what would work best in a range of environments with an eye toward making the Soldier’s loadout easier — one functional combat uniform for a range of environments. MultiCam was tested alongside the current ArPat (I was at Army Times Co. when the service was deciding the pattern and was following it closely with my friend Matt Cox there) and several other options and the ArPat camo won out. It was new. It was revolutionary and it was unpopular. That’s what makes me think it might have been the right choice.
But I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.
Also, we don’t have a ton of cash lying around, and some in the Army argue that the service has spent billions fielding the new uniforms and other gear in the pattern. Unless it sticks out like a sore thumb, why spend millions more to inject another version? And keep in mind the flaming hoops the Army is being forced to jump through as a line inserted by one congressman forces them to evaluate all these uniform alternatives. Nothing’s going to come of it, I guarantee you that. But Petraeus, Casey and Stevenson will have to placate the Democratic bull by saying “that’s a very good idea. we’ll spend time, money and resources looking into it for you, but we’re still going to come up with the same answer…”
I liked the congressional intervention on the M4 carbine issue, but I don’t see the sense in this one.
Two hundred and thirty-three years ago, the United States Army was established to defend our Nation. From the Revolutionary War to the Global War on Terror, our Soldiers remain Army Strong with a deep commitment to our core values and beliefs. This 233rd birthday commemorates Americas Army Soldiers, Families and Civilians who are achieving a level of excellence that is truly Army Strong both here and abroad. Their willingness to sacrifice to build a better future for others and to preserve our way of life is without a doubt, the Strength of our Nation.
And a little history…
The June 14 date is when Congress adopted “the American continental army” after reaching a consensus position in The Committee of the Whole. This procedure and the desire for secrecy account for the sparseness of the official journal entries for the day. The record indicates only that Congress undertook to raise ten companies of riflemen, approved an enlistment form for them, and appointed a committee (including Washington and Schuyler) to draft rules and regulations for the government of the army. The delegates’ correspondence, diaries, and subsequent actions make it clear that they really did much more. They also accepted responsibility for the existing New England troops and forces requested for the defense of the various points in New York. The former were believed to total 10,000 men; the latter, both New Yorkers and Connecticut men, another 5,000.
At least some members of Congress assumed from the beginning that this force would be expanded. That expansion, in the form of increased troop ceilings at Boston, came very rapidly as better information arrived regarding the actual numbers of New England troops. By the third week in June delegates were referring to 15,000 at Boston. When on 19 June Congress requested the governments of Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire to forward to Boston “such of the forces as are already embodied, towards their quotas of the troops agreed to be raised by the New England Colonies,” it gave a clear indication of its intent to adopt the regional army. Discussions the next day indicated that Congress was prepared to support a force at Boston twice the size of the British garrison, and that it was unwilling to order any existing units to be disbanded. By the first week in July delegates were referring to a total at Boston that was edging toward 20.000. Maximum strengths for the forces both in Massachusetts and New York were finally established on 21 and 22 July, when solid information was on hand. These were set, respectively, at 22,000 and 5,000 men, a total nearly double that envisioned on 14 June.
The “expert riflemen” authorized on 14 June were the first units raised directly as Continentals. Congress intended to have the ten companies serve as a light infantry force for the Boston siege. At the same time it symbolically extended military participation beyond New England by allocating 6 of the companies to Pennsylvania, 2 to Maryland, and 2 to Virginia. Each company would have a captain, 3 lieutenants, 4 sergeants, 4 corporals, a drummer (or horn player), and 68 privates. The enlistment period was set at one year, the norm for the earlier Provincials, a period that would expire on 1 July 1776.
The Wall Street Journal takes a tour today of the Pentagon’s clean energy plans. It’s a fair and balanced piece — in the old, pre-Murdoch sense of the term. And it throws some needed cold water on a (slightly over-) enthusiastic essay I wrote for the current issue of Good magazine. In it, I get all rosy-glasses, counting off the military’s alt-power projects:
In September 2005, the federal government decreed that 7.5 percent of its power should come from renewable sources by 2013. The Pentagon is already there [and is headed towards 25 percent renewables by 2025]… In sunny San Diego, California, Naval Base Coronado’s solar power is saving the annual equivalent of 6,000 barrels of oil. Wind turbines help Warren Air Force Base in gusty Wyoming, keeping 4,866 tons of carbon dioxide emissions from escaping into the atmosphere per year. Then there are the nine military bases that are powered geothermally, by the heat of the earth. California’s Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake kicks off 270 megawatts of electricity, keeping lights turned on as far away as Los Angeles.
True, true. But while clean power is nice, the Journal notes, it’s small potatoes compared to the oil, gas, and jet fuel the Defense Department guzles:
In the past 20 years, [the military] has cut energy use at facilities 28%. Still, oil accounts for roughly 75% of total energy use. The military’s focus has been on saving power — also a laudable goal, critics say, but not an answer to dependence on oil…
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have increased military fuel use by as much as 56,000 barrels a day. In addition, the military’s improved ability to deploy troops to battlefields comes at the cost of increased fuel use: today, more than half of the fuel consumed in combat theaters is used not by front-line soldiers but by supply convoy… The military uses fuel at twice the rate it did in the first Persian Gulf War and four times the rate it did in the Second World War.
Bottom line: It ain’t easy, getting to green. UPDATE 5:10 PM: “The Air Force last month successfully demonstrated how hydrogen fuel cells could one day be used for generating power at forward operating bases and remote locations to help reduce the dependence of U.S. forces on local energy sources and foreign oil,” Inside Defense reports.
During the Dec. 14 test, officials from the services Advanced Power Technology Office studied how well a newly developed hydrogen fuel cell called the Multipurpose Electric Power System could provide electricity to halogen lights, comparing the results to the performance of a diesel generator now used in theater…
The demonstration was the latest in a series of tests under the offices tent city initiative, which examines new alternative energy technologies that may one day help U.S. forces in theater power equipment more efficiently.
UPDATE 01/10/07 11:38 AM: Last week, Defense News had an even deeper look at the military’s alt-fuel and alt-power conundrum.
With fuel prices escalating, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., is urging the Navy to go all-nuclear.
For now, only submarines and aircraft carriers are propelled by nuclear power. Thats about 80 of the Navys 286 ships. But Bartlett, who chaired the House Armed Services projection forces subcommittee, says its time for the nuclear Navy to grow. The line has already been crossed for big-deck amphibious ships, Bartlett said.
When oil hit $60 a barrel, it became more expensive to operate amphibs on oil than it would be on nuclear power, he said.
And we will shortly cross the line for cruisers, Bartlett said.
The Navy calculates that nuclear power becomes economical for cruisers after oil costs $80 a barrel, and for destroyers when oil costs about $205 a barrel.
But…cost is a major roadblock for nuclear-powered ships… Nuclear propulsion systems would add several hundred million dollars to each ship. The timing is not good. Congress is already distressed about escalating shipbuilding costs. Once they see the numbers, it will be very hard to convince them to go all-nuclear, he said…
[In the meantime,] the Navy also taking [smaller] steps to reduce energy consumption. It has installed bulbous bows and stern flaps on some of its ships. Each of these increases fuel efficiency by a few percentage points, according to John Young, the Pentagons director of research and engineering.
The Navy also is considering applying coatings to ship propellers to potentially get 4 or 5 percent savings in fuel efficiency and possibly some reductions in maintenance, Young told the House Armed Services Committee in September. It looks like it pays for itself in no more than about a year.
Last Thursday, the Christian Science Monitorreported on an unusual memo from the staff of Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Richard Zilmer, the highest-ranking Marine officer in Iraqs troubled Anbar Province. According to the Monitor, and to more comprehensive treatments in Inside Defense and Defense Industry Daily, Zilmer asked the Pentagon to find a way to get “solar panels and wind turbines” into the hands of his troops. Without access to renewable energy solutions, Zilmer expects to see “continued casualty accumulation [which] exhibits potential to jeopardize mission success.“
Say what? The article in the Monitor suggests two different ways in which solar– and wind-powered generators for isolated outposts would reduce U.S. casualties. The first is that “despite desert temperatures, the hot ‘thermal signature’ of a diesel generator can call enemy attention to U.S. outposts.” How, exactly, an array of solar panels and wind turbines would make U.S. troops less conspicuous in a country bristling with diesel generators is left unclear.
The second argument holds more water. As hard as it is to believe, diesel and other refined petroleum products are actually imported into Iraq by truck, largely from Turkey. And fuel convoys not to mention the U.S. troops riding in them are some of the most tempting targets to insurgents: in August 2005, for example, the Army 1st Corps Support Command alone was reporting 30 IED attacks a week.
All that fuel convoyin’ costs not only lives, but money, too. Military estimates for the cost of one gallon of generator fuel delivered to a unit at a forward position range from $100 to $400. This is a problem.
(If youre curious to know how they get those types of numbers for a single gallon of fuel, take a gander at this LMI presentation, from 2004, which cranks out an estimate of $3 per kilowatt-frickin’-hour or about $120 per gallon of fuel consumed on the battlefield, compared to $0.40/kWh ($16/gallon) to run those same generators stateside. If this stateside number seems high, too, remember that the number represents all costs associated with turning that gallon of fuel into useful energy, including personnel costs, equipment depreciation, and so on.)
So, what can be done?
Right now, theres no easy answer. Arlington, Va.-based SkyBuilt Power offers a containerized, deployable solar-/wind-powered generating station which has gotten a lot of press, but the system, which produces “0.5 kW to 150 kW or more,” is reported by the Monitor to go for a neat $100,000.
Still, that price tag looks a lot less scary when you keep in mind the absurd cost of running a diesel generator on the battlefield. According to the Monitor, Zilmers memo estimated that a system like SkyBuilts would pay for itself in three to five years.
That, of course, is probably why In-Q-Tel, the CIAs own venture-cap firm, is one of SkyBuilts big backers.
Part of the logistics crunch which is feeding those convoy casualty rates has more to do with inept planning than with a lack of available technology. In February 2006, the engineering journal IEEE Spectrum published a must-read article describing how diesel fuel is trucked in from Turkey to power Baghdads main power station, even while the natural gas which could power the same turbines, if the appropriate equipment were installed, is flared off as waste at an oilfield across the street.
Obviously, renewable energy isn’t going to solve problems on the scale of Iraq’s FUBARed power grid, nor will it solve problems that are really about planning, and not technology. And just as obviously, there’s no mature technology out there ready to take the place of every diesel generator and internal combustion engine in the U.S. armory.
But as I wrote almost a year ago, the Department of Defense can’t afford to sit around and wait for someone else to mature those technologies: “the mature renewable-energy and fuel-efficient technology of the future may never appear in reality until it appears among DARPA’s ‘Areas of Interest.’”
Since I wrote those words, I’m glad to say that there’s been allsorts of movement on this front. And the publicity garnered by Zilmers memo can only help matters along.
So next time you hear about a company thats developing better solar cells, or more efficient wind turbines, pay attention. Theyre not just Mother Natures best friends they may well be a jarhead’s best friend.
– Haninah Levine
For a long time, now, the Pentagon has been looking to land diesel-electric hybrid vehicles to improve fuel economy, reduce logistics and allow power export. But after a decade of research and development, military hybrids are still years away from production, as I describe in detail in the current National Defense Magazine:
Right now, we do not have a current hybrid program that targets fielding, says Gus Khalil, team leader of hybrid-electric research at the Armys Tank Automotive Research, Development and Engineering Center, or TARDEC.
TARDEC, a division of the Research, Development and Engineering Command, in Warren, Mich., is the militarys main research center for vehicle technologies.
Khalil and other TARDEC engineers have been developing hybrid-electric engines and testing vehicle demonstrators since 1992.
Across the Defense Department, there are around 30 hybrid-electric demonstrator vehicles in some form of testing. These demonstrators range from hybrid models of existing vehicles, such as Humvees, M-113 armored personnel carriers and M-2 Bradley infantry fighting systems, to new designs such as the Marine Corps reconnaissance, surveillance and targeting vehicle, or RST-V.
Some of these demonstrators are more promising than others. Some even offer new niche capabilities. But all have failed to achieve the combination of performance, toughness, price and utility that the military demands of its vehicles.
Motor Trend explains:
Though hybrid technology has been around for several years in passenger vehicles, adapting it for larger vehicles isn’t as easy, [Oshkosh VP Gary] Schmiedel said. Military vehicles must often carry thousands of pounds of cargo — 13 tons for the HEMTT — and endure hills, little pavement and angles that few standard vehicles can handle. That all means engines and axles must be configured just so.
Even more daunting is the battery problem. National Defense editor Sandra Erwin reported on this as far back as 2001:
The Achilles heel of hybrid systems today, however, is the battery, [engineer William] Haris added. You need to have a source of energy to propel the electric motors. Traditionally that has been batteries. The most commonly used batteries today are lead-acid, which are the least expensive. But they also are heavier and less efficient than more advanced chemistry batteries.
A more desirable alternative would be nickel-metal-hydride batteries, which have twice the energy density of lead-acid. Energy density is the amount of energy that can be stored per pound of material. In the long-term, experts are looking at lithium-ion batteries, which have four times the energy density of lead-acid.
Where there’s a will, there’s a way — technical challenges notwithstanding. There are challenges, and there are issues, but they dont seem insurmountable, Khalil told me. If someone from a program office told us they wanted something in production in two years, we would have it into production.
But despite the promise of a reduced logistics burdened resulting from great fuel efficiency, the military’s enthusiasm for hybrids is cool. If not for their power export capability, the military might not be interested at all.
The bottom line is … the tech isn’t ready, and the military isn’t ready to make the tech ready. So be skeptical when some hack reports that military hybrids are just around the corner.
– David Axe
Recent Comments
Valid observation, Charles. This is all so new that it's hard...
Will
Part III : But, as I said in a previous comment, I...
freefallingbomb
Part II : The Bushmaster's machine-cannon...
freefallingbomb
Part I : Why doesn't this article, or even...
freefallingbomb
I guess camouflaging exposed skin has gone out of...
Eric daniel
The US Military should hold annual fashion shows. The Army...
Zandor
I'd also like to point out, that soldier systems has been...
a1189
Has to do with traverse speed. If the target is close then the...
Charles
Totally forgot about astrogation. Star maps loaded into a...
Charles
freefalling: -The Germans used beam-riding during WW2 and it...
Charles