Tactical Gear and Military Clothing News, a blog, has posted a reply to the article linked in the OP, as well as other published reports that are critical of the UCP pattern and the process by which it was developed. Source is "
here."
Quote:
Top Ten Inaccuracies in UCP Camouflage Reporting
We have taken great strides to cover the US Army Camouflage Improvement Effort with complete accuracy to the facts presented by PEO Soldier, Natick Soldier Systems, associated departments, and reputable media outlets with solid sources. However, the mainstream media outside the defense industry has taken the story and ran with it presenting a vast array of misleading headlines and blatant inaccuracies similar to what you would see in some goofy forum post that has gone off the rails.
While the history of the Universal Camouflage Pattern is murky from the omission of certain key factors leading to its adoption by the Army as the central means of concealment, there are plenty of facts on record to get the story straight and not turn assumptions into absolute policy. These articles are already being quoted in Wikipedia, which is always suspect as an information resource, but is also at the top of any search results given the legitimacy heaped on it by the masses.
We have taken a total of ten headlines or claims that we found lacking in accuracy or substance given the actual information that is available and explain why we feel it is misleading or downright wrong in respect to the overall conversation as to what the US Army did or is trying to do in regard to their camouflage improvement efforts.
<<SNIP>>
4. $5 Billion Camo SNAFU
In hindsight the camouflage developed and given the moniker UCP has turned into a literal joke. It has proven ineffective in testing. Nonetheless uniforms and gear in the camouflage cost money. This is a sunk cost which has gone to good use. Even if it has not provided proper concealment, there is still utility in the wear of the uniform. MultiCam has proven to be an effective pattern in Afghanistan and if it was originally chosen over UCP, the Army could have decided to opt for different camouflage patterns anyway to meet the needs of multiple environments. This is what they are doing with the latest solicitation.
If they were not going by the criteria to find different patterns for multiple environments, the decision would be a simple switch to MultiCam, which already has plenty of funding invested. Obviously you can't go back in time and kill this ugly butterfly, but to throw out a $5 Billion dollar figure as being a complete waste is quite inflammatory, especially when the Department of Defense has plenty of other projects that are burning cash to keep the Pentagon warm. In the scheme of things $5 Billion is a drop in the bucket for a force of over 1 Million when you include the National Guard and Reserve.
<<SNIP>>
We guess the moral to this story is to stick with reputable defense industry news sources when it comes to getting your information on camouflage developments. We try to bring forth worthwhile topics in this regard along with factual information. We find Soldier Systems Daily, Strike-Hold!, and Kitup! to be the best in making sure they get their facts straight before reporting any details.
<<SNIP>>
|
In other words, $5 billion is not a big deal because soldiers wearing camouflage uniforms with a pattern that does not make them significantly more concealable is better than soldiers not wearing any uniforms at all, and, the Pentagon has wasted money on more expensive projects.