ARMY AL&T
UCP-D, and UCP uniforms and how each blended into Afghanistan’s various operational environments. But that was just one set of data that the Army planned to gather. While Soldiers already liked the MultiCam pattern, the choice of camouflage for Afghanistan could not be based on anecdotal reports of Soldiers’ preferences. It had to be grounded in a carefully planned and exe- cuted process of gathering information and evaluating alternatives in theater. This action satisfied a requirement from Congress that DOD move immediately to provide Soldiers deployed to OEF with a camouflage pattern suited to the environments of Afghanistan.
Phase II (Building the Science) At the same time as the Soldiers in the two battalions were testing the two alternate camouflage patterns, an Army camouflage assessment team went to Afghanistan in October 2009 to gather photos and information with maximum operational realism.
The team included representatives from PEO Soldier; Army G-4; U.S. Army Maneuver Center of Excellence; U.S. Army Special Operations Command; the Asymmetric Warfare Group; U.S. Naval Research Laboratory; and the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development, and Engineering Center (NSRDEC).
The team went outside the wire to con- duct its assessment, providing its own security so as not to distract from the warfighting mission. The assessment, which encompassed eight different environments of Afghanistan, focused on six different camouflage patterns with OCIE that blended with each pattern. The patterns were:
• UCP with UCP • MultiCam with MultiCam • UCP-D with UCP • Mirage with Mirage • Desert Brush with Coyote • AOR-2 with Ranger Green
U.S. Army Soldiers with 2nd Platoon, Company D, 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, move from cover to search an area near Sundray village, Afghanistan, Feb. 18, 2010. (U.S. Army photo by SSG Gary Witte.)
NSRDEC used the information and more than 1,000 color-calibrated photos to develop a photosimulation study comparing the six patterns’ per- formance in providing concealment in various environments at various distances. The colors and distances in the photos were painstakingly calibrated against scientific standards in developing the study.
The photosimulation study was admin- istered to about 750 Soldiers who had recently served in Afghanistan. The Soldiers’ input was both objective and subjective, comparing detectability (at what range could the Soldiers detect the uniform), blendability, and rank- order blending.
The bottom line: MultiCam was never found to be unsuited to any terrain or environment and ranked highest in the photosimulation detection and blending results. UCP-D, which ranked second in the same analyses, was unsuited to certain terrains or environments.
The results of the photosimulation study, along with the surveys of Soldiers in the two Phase I battalions, provided
a body of knowledge, from a wide range of experienced Soldiers view- ing objective scenarios, that helped the Army empirically measure how the var- ious camouflage patterns in the study blended with the various environments.
Phase III (Operation Enduring Freedom Camouflage) Based on an analysis of the Phase I and II data, the Army evaluated whether to produce and field alternate uniforms and OCIE to selected units in specific regions of OEF, or to all units in OEF. Senior Army leaders were briefed on possible alternatives in early 2010.
In February 2010, Secretary of the Army (SecArmy) John McHugh announced that the Army would pro- vide combat uniforms in the MultiCam pattern to all Soldiers deploying to OEF. The industrial capacity already existed to manufacture the uniforms; now the procurement process could begin.
More than 30 industry partners were involved in transitioning more than 30 different types of uniforms and equip- ment from the UCP style to the OCP style. PEO Soldier used various contract
OCTOBER –DECEMBER 2010 14
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
