No hiding it: US military is crazy for camo
The armed forces had 2 types of camouflage in 2002. Now there are 10. And it's no small cost to taxpayers.
Camouflage is meant to help conceal, but there's no hiding the fact that camo has become a costly matter of pride among the different branches of the U.S. armed forces.
The Washington Post reports the U.S. military went from just two types of camouflage uniforms in 2002 -- green for forests and brown for the desert -- to at least 10 now.
And according to a Government Accountability Office study commissioned by the Senate Armed Services Committee, America's military has collectively spent about $12.5 million just on the development of the new camouflage patterns since 2000, with millions more budgeted for purchasing and supply.
According to the study, the Department of Defense encourages, but doesn't require, the standardization of uniforms and other clothing to reduce costs. However, the Marine Corps and Navy had their service logos printed on their customized camouflage patterns during manufacturing.
So while the Army hypothetically could adopt the Corps' uniform, the study wryly states that idea is precluded by "the prevailing military service culture that places a high value on having distinctive and unique combat uniforms." It also notes none of services have partnered on BDUs or DCUs -- that is, Battle Dress Uniforms or Desert Combat Uniforms -- since 2002.
The GAO study ends by recommending the military be issued "clear policies and procedures" to develop joint standards for their camo and use those policies to streamline savings in the development of future uniforms "to reduce inventory and overall procurement costs."
But as the Post explains, duplicate government programs have a long and expensive tradition in Washington, D.C., and certainly within the military.
"Multiple agencies do the same job at the same time," it says, "and taxpayers pay billions for the government to repeat itself. The habit remains stubbornly hard to break, even in an era of austerity."
Not sure why they are whining about the governments cost of the uniforms since the service members are required to BUY these uniforms themselves on their minimum wage pay. Im sure the sales tag on the uniform is three times as much as what it cost to actually make the uniform.
I remember when I was in the service, they issued a pregnant battle dress uniform (BDU) for pregnant females.
Why in God's name would a pregnant woman be in battle?
WHAT??? Waste and mis management in military?? What a concept!
If different cammo for different environments helps the troops then it is money well spent. What are they supposed to do wear a one for all uniform and stick out in the field of fire just to please the anti-military crowd? Only a leftist liberal democrat would complain about this. More money than this is spent on star studded shin-digs at the whitehouse for obama,his brats, fat a$$ moochelle and all their America hating celebrity pals.
the DOD could be cut 20% and we would never see a change in defense capability.
waste in the DOD is huge and continous. until someone cuts the DOD budget, there are no reasons for anyone in that industry to knock it off.
You can attribute this waste to the Uniform Board of each branch of service. Someone, usually the ranking officer, gets a wild hair and here comes another change or brand new uniform. There have been many unpopular, costly, and unattractive uniforms over the decades, especially the 50's USAF 1505 British look complete with shorts, knee high socks, and bush jacket.
The colors & patterns are fine. Where they're failing is in the pixel shapes (the size is fine). The square shape only suits urban terrain. For woodland & grassland the pixels should be vertical diamonds, desert & snow fields should be horizontal hexagons, mountainous regions would be vertical hexagons, & water needs horizontal diamonds.
If you've read "Jurassic Park", instead of just watching the movie you'll understand.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
[BRIEFING.COM] The stock market finished a down week on a cautious note with small caps leading the retreat. The Russell 2000 lost 0.5%, widening its weekly decline to 2.6%, while the S&P 500 shed 0.3%. The benchmark index ended the week lower by 2.7%.
This morning, the market was provided a basis to rebound with the July employment report, which was just right for the policy doves (209K versus Briefing.com consensus 220K). It showed payroll growth that was weaker than expected, ... More
More Market News
MUST-SEE ON MSN
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'