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 © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
The good news: Bad weather means fewer drivers on the road, and they're going slower than usual. The bad news: It's still dangerous.
- 8 questions to ask before Mom and Dad move in
- High deductibles fuel new worries of Obamacare sticker shock
- How to use your credit card to donate to charity
- Try this instead of raising the minimum wage
- People left $500,000 in coins at airports last year
- How your driving can affect your credit
- Obamacare projected to cost hundreds of billions less
- November jobs report: Winners and losers
- Student loan debt climbs for 5th year in a row
[BRIEFING.COM] There wasn't a lot of excitement in the stock market today and there is nothing wrong with that. After rallying in broad-based fashion on Friday, the major indices stood their ground (for the most part) amid a lack of conviction from buyers and sellers alike.
Today wasn't a case so much of the stock market going up as it was a case of some influential stocks going up to keep the major indices on a winning path. In fact, decliners were just about even with ... More
More Market News
The photo-sharing site only has 10 employees, and it may be up for grabs.