Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

dbackjon wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/army-5-billion-wa ... itics.html

In 2004, the Army decided to scrap the two traditional camouflage uniforms that had long been used by the military—one meant for woodland environments, another for the desert—and claimed to have come up with a universal pattern that could be worn anywhere and blend in with any environment. The $5 billion dollar experiment with the universal pattern is over as the Army is phasing out the uniform after less than a decade of use. But many soldiers and observers are wondering why it took this long and cost this much to replace an item that performed poorly from the start during a period when the money could have been spent on other critical needs, like potentially life saving improvements to military vehicles and body armor.



Don't see any of you conks in an uproar about this, but let a few poor people get some extra food and it is the end of the world .

dbackjon wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/army-5-billion-wa ... itics.html

In 2004, the Army decided to scrap the two traditional camouflage uniforms that had long been used by the military—one meant for woodland environments, another for the desert—and claimed to have come up with a universal pattern that could be worn anywhere and blend in with any environment. The $5 billion dollar experiment with the universal pattern is over as the Army is phasing out the uniform after less than a decade of use. But many soldiers and observers are wondering why it took this long and cost this much to replace an item that performed poorly from the start during a period when the money could have been spent on other critical needs, like potentially life saving improvements to military vehicles and body armor.



Don't see any of you conks in an uproar about this, but let a few poor people get some extra food and it is the end of the world .

dbackjon wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/army-5-billion-wa ... itics.html

In 2004, the Army decided to scrap the two traditional camouflage uniforms that had long been used by the military—one meant for woodland environments, another for the desert—and claimed to have come up with a universal pattern that could be worn anywhere and blend in with any environment. The $5 billion dollar experiment with the universal pattern is over as the Army is phasing out the uniform after less than a decade of use. But many soldiers and observers are wondering why it took this long and cost this much to replace an item that performed poorly from the start during a period when the money could have been spent on other critical needs, like potentially life saving improvements to military vehicles and body armor.



Don't see any of you conks in an uproar about this, but let a few poor people get some extra food and it is the end of the world .

dbackjon wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/army-5-billion-wa ... itics.html

In 2004, the Army decided to scrap the two traditional camouflage uniforms that had long been used by the military—one meant for woodland environments, another for the desert—and claimed to have come up with a universal pattern that could be worn anywhere and blend in with any environment. The $5 billion dollar experiment with the universal pattern is over as the Army is phasing out the uniform after less than a decade of use. But many soldiers and observers are wondering why it took this long and cost this much to replace an item that performed poorly from the start during a period when the money could have been spent on other critical needs, like potentially life saving improvements to military vehicles and body armor.



Don't see any of you conks in an uproar about this, but let a few poor people get some extra food and it is the end of the world .

dbackjon wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/army-5-billion-wa ... itics.html

In 2004, the Army decided to scrap the two traditional camouflage uniforms that had long been used by the military—one meant for woodland environments, another for the desert—and claimed to have come up with a universal pattern that could be worn anywhere and blend in with any environment. The $5 billion dollar experiment with the universal pattern is over as the Army is phasing out the uniform after less than a decade of use. But many soldiers and observers are wondering why it took this long and cost this much to replace an item that performed poorly from the start during a period when the money could have been spent on other critical needs, like potentially life saving improvements to military vehicles and body armor.



Don't see any of you conks in an uproar about this, but let a few poor people get some extra food and it is the end of the world .

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/army-5-billion-wa ... itics.html

In 2004, the Army decided to scrap the two traditional camouflage uniforms that had long been used by the military—one meant for woodland environments, another for the desert—and claimed to have come up with a universal pattern that could be worn anywhere and blend in with any environment. The $5 billion dollar experiment with the universal pattern is over as the Army is phasing out the uniform after less than a decade of use. But many soldiers and observers are wondering why it took this long and cost this much to replace an item that performed poorly from the start during a period when the money could have been spent on other critical needs, like potentially life saving improvements to military vehicles and body armor.



Don't see any of you conks in an uproar about this, but let a few poor people get some extra food and it is the end of the world .

Just about every military person I KNOW was "in an uproar" about this back in 2004 when the decision was made to switch. There was ZERO reason to switch then, and zero reason to switch to something ELSE now.

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/army-5-billion-wa ... itics.html

In 2004, the Army decided to scrap the two traditional camouflage uniforms that had long been used by the military—one meant for woodland environments, another for the desert—and claimed to have come up with a universal pattern that could be worn anywhere and blend in with any environment. The $5 billion dollar experiment with the universal pattern is over as the Army is phasing out the uniform after less than a decade of use. But many soldiers and observers are wondering why it took this long and cost this much to replace an item that performed poorly from the start during a period when the money could have been spent on other critical needs, like potentially life saving improvements to military vehicles and body armor.



Don't see any of you conks in an uproar about this, but let a few poor people get some extra food and it is the end of the world .

I thought this was a big deal back then and people did complain about the waste of it all - why bring this up now?

ASUG8 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/army-5-billion-wa ... itics.html

In 2004, the Army decided to scrap the two traditional camouflage uniforms that had long been used by the military—one meant for woodland environments, another for the desert—and claimed to have come up with a universal pattern that could be worn anywhere and blend in with any environment. The $5 billion dollar experiment with the universal pattern is over as the Army is phasing out the uniform after less than a decade of use. But many soldiers and observers are wondering why it took this long and cost this much to replace an item that performed poorly from the start during a period when the money could have been spent on other critical needs, like potentially life saving improvements to military vehicles and body armor.



Don't see any of you conks in an uproar about this, but let a few poor people get some extra food and it is the end of the world .

So you don't trust the government on uniforms and purchasing decisions, but you trust the government on discerning who is deserving of welfare programs?

ASUG8 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/army-5-billion-wa ... itics.html

In 2004, the Army decided to scrap the two traditional camouflage uniforms that had long been used by the military—one meant for woodland environments, another for the desert—and claimed to have come up with a universal pattern that could be worn anywhere and blend in with any environment. The $5 billion dollar experiment with the universal pattern is over as the Army is phasing out the uniform after less than a decade of use. But many soldiers and observers are wondering why it took this long and cost this much to replace an item that performed poorly from the start during a period when the money could have been spent on other critical needs, like potentially life saving improvements to military vehicles and body armor.



Don't see any of you conks in an uproar about this, but let a few poor people get some extra food and it is the end of the world .

So you don't trust the government on uniforms and purchasing decisions, but you trust the government on discerning who is deserving of welfare programs?

ASUG8 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/army-5-billion-wa ... itics.html

In 2004, the Army decided to scrap the two traditional camouflage uniforms that had long been used by the military—one meant for woodland environments, another for the desert—and claimed to have come up with a universal pattern that could be worn anywhere and blend in with any environment. The $5 billion dollar experiment with the universal pattern is over as the Army is phasing out the uniform after less than a decade of use. But many soldiers and observers are wondering why it took this long and cost this much to replace an item that performed poorly from the start during a period when the money could have been spent on other critical needs, like potentially life saving improvements to military vehicles and body armor.



Don't see any of you conks in an uproar about this, but let a few poor people get some extra food and it is the end of the world .

So you don't trust the government on uniforms and purchasing decisions, but you trust the government on discerning who is deserving of welfare programs?

dbackjon wrote:
Both have the ability to be abused, but the government has a much better track record with welfare - less money to be made by the corporations, so much less fraud and abuse there. Too much money in the Military-Industrial Complex.

We could feed/house/cloth/provide healthcare for our neediest with the waste in the military and have money left over.

dbackjon wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
So you don't trust the government on uniforms and purchasing decisions, but you trust the government on discerning who is deserving of welfare programs?

Both have the ability to be abused, but the government has a much better track record with welfare - less money to be made by the corporations, so much less fraud and abuse there. Too much money in the Military-Industrial Complex.

We could feed/house/cloth/provide healthcare for our neediest with the waste in the military and have money left over.

dbackjon wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/army-5-billion-wa ... itics.html

In 2004, the Army decided to scrap the two traditional camouflage uniforms that had long been used by the military—one meant for woodland environments, another for the desert—and claimed to have come up with a universal pattern that could be worn anywhere and blend in with any environment. The $5 billion dollar experiment with the universal pattern is over as the Army is phasing out the uniform after less than a decade of use. But many soldiers and observers are wondering why it took this long and cost this much to replace an item that performed poorly from the start during a period when the money could have been spent on other critical needs, like potentially life saving improvements to military vehicles and body armor.



Don't see any of you conks in an uproar about this, but let a few poor people get some extra food and it is the end of the world .

The Army, according to The Daily, spent nearly $5 million to develop its botched UCP uniform, and, according to Military.com, another $3.4 million on UCP's temporary replacement, MultiCam.

Lawrence Holsworth, marketing director of a camouflage company called Hyde Definition, called UCP a financial disaster. “UCP was such a fiasco," he told The Daily.

The Marine Corps, on the other hand, spent only $330,000 to perfect the Marine Corps Combat Utility Uniform (MCCUU), a more formal name for MARPAT.

How did they spend so little on such an effective uniform? The answer is quirky and surprisingly simple: by sending Marines to Home Depot.

According to a tale told to The Daily, Marine commanders approached snipers at sniper school in Quantico, Va., and asked them for their input on the best camouflage colors. Intrigued, the team of snipers trotted over to a local Home Depot and wound up in the paint section, where they picked out a Ralph Lauren hue. Today, we refer to that color as "Coyote Brown." It's the basis for MARPAT, the most envied uniform in the United States military.

93henfan wrote:The article is a bit misleading. Yes, the Army spent money on a bad design, but $5 billion wasn't wasted. $5 billion is the cost of buying uniforms for the Army, which is a cost that would have been expended anyway. The design cost wasted was $5 million on the development of UCP and another $3.4 million on the development of MultiCam.

The article also conveniently overlooks the great success story of the Marine Corps' MARPAT uniform, which has been an unquestioned success since 2002. Trust me, I wore the woodland camoflage for six years on active duty in the 90s. It was a less than desirable uniform. The pocket angles, buttons, fabric wear, range of motion, all had serious limitations. Commandant CC Krulak set out to fix all those issues when I was serving and he did a damn good job of it. The MARPAT uniform was designed at a cost of only $330 thousand. The Marine Corps has always done more with less. The Army tried to imitate the MARPAT and apparently failed in 2005.

The Army, according to The Daily, spent nearly $5 million to develop its botched UCP uniform, and, according to Military.com, another $3.4 million on UCP's temporary replacement, MultiCam.

Lawrence Holsworth, marketing director of a camouflage company called Hyde Definition, called UCP a financial disaster. “UCP was such a fiasco," he told The Daily.

The Marine Corps, on the other hand, spent only $330,000 to perfect the Marine Corps Combat Utility Uniform (MCCUU), a more formal name for MARPAT.

How did they spend so little on such an effective uniform? The answer is quirky and surprisingly simple: by sending Marines to Home Depot.

According to a tale told to The Daily, Marine commanders approached snipers at sniper school in Quantico, Va., and asked them for their input on the best camouflage colors. Intrigued, the team of snipers trotted over to a local Home Depot and wound up in the paint section, where they picked out a Ralph Lauren hue. Today, we refer to that color as "Coyote Brown." It's the basis for MARPAT, the most envied uniform in the United States military.

93henfan wrote:Yes. We're pricks like that.

Skjellyfetti wrote:How about this one?

Hours before the shutdown... the Pentagon pushes through 94 contracts totaling $5 billion.

Including things like Mercedes Benz trucks, a new gym for the Air Force Academy, and robot submarines, etc.

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/pos ... on_weapons" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

93henfan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:How about this one?

Hours before the shutdown... the Pentagon pushes through 94 contracts totaling $5 billion.

Including things like Mercedes Benz trucks, a new gym for the Air Force Academy, and robot submarines, etc.

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/pos ... on_weapons" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So you're a Tea Partier now?

93henfan wrote:The article is a bit misleading. Yes, the Army spent money on a bad design, but $5 billion wasn't wasted. $5 billion is the cost of buying uniforms for the Army, which is a cost that would have been expended anyway. The design cost wasted was $5 million on the development of UCP and another $3.4 million on the development of MultiCam.

The article also conveniently overlooks the great success story of the Marine Corps' MARPAT uniform, which has been an unquestioned success since 2002. Trust me, I wore the woodland camoflage for six years on active duty in the 90s. It was a less than desirable uniform. The pocket angles, buttons, fabric wear, range of motion, all had serious limitations. Commandant CC Krulak set out to fix all those issues when I was serving and he did a damn good job of it. The MARPAT uniform was designed at a cost of only $330 thousand. The Marine Corps has always done more with less. The Army tried to imitate the MARPAT and apparently failed in 2005.

The Army, according to The Daily, spent nearly $5 million to develop its botched UCP uniform, and, according to Military.com, another $3.4 million on UCP's temporary replacement, MultiCam.

Lawrence Holsworth, marketing director of a camouflage company called Hyde Definition, called UCP a financial disaster. “UCP was such a fiasco," he told The Daily.

The Marine Corps, on the other hand, spent only $330,000 to perfect the Marine Corps Combat Utility Uniform (MCCUU), a more formal name for MARPAT.

How did they spend so little on such an effective uniform? The answer is quirky and surprisingly simple: by sending Marines to Home Depot.

According to a tale told to The Daily, Marine commanders approached snipers at sniper school in Quantico, Va., and asked them for their input on the best camouflage colors. Intrigued, the team of snipers trotted over to a local Home Depot and wound up in the paint section, where they picked out a Ralph Lauren hue. Today, we refer to that color as "Coyote Brown." It's the basis for MARPAT, the most envied uniform in the United States military.

93henfan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:How about this one?

Hours before the shutdown... the Pentagon pushes through 94 contracts totaling $5 billion.

Including things like Mercedes Benz trucks, a new gym for the Air Force Academy, and robot submarines, etc.

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/pos ... on_weapons" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So you're a Tea Partier now?

Look, the federal budget process would make you folks wince if you sat in a federal contracting office near the end of a fiscal year. Agencies scramble to spend every last penny, lest they lose that amount from their budget in trailing year appropriations.

If you wanted to save a lot of Government spending, you'd ask your Congress rep to change this practice. Their should be an incentive to spend less. They should set it up so that the agency that decreases its spending by the highest percentage each year gets a portion of its savings gap restored. If an agency doesn't spend less, it gets cut. It's not rocket science. I've been saying this for the 12 years I've worked in acquisition.

The Government needs to operate its agencies more like a corporation runs its various departments. , there is no profit motivator in the Government, but a similar "savings" motivator could be instituted. There is absolutely none under the current budget allocation process, I can assure you of that.

Pwns wrote:

93henfan wrote:
So you're a Tea Partier now?

Look, the federal budget process would make you folks wince if you sat in a federal contracting office near the end of a fiscal year. Agencies scramble to spend every last penny, lest they lose that amount from their budget in trailing year appropriations.

If you wanted to save a lot of Government spending, you'd ask your Congress rep to change this practice. Their should be an incentive to spend less. They should set it up so that the agency that decreases its spending by the highest percentage each year gets a portion of its savings gap restored. If an agency doesn't spend less, it gets cut. It's not rocket science. I've been saying this for the 12 years I've worked in acquisition.

The Government needs to operate its agencies more like a corporation runs its various departments. , there is no profit motivator in the Government, but a similar "savings" motivator could be instituted. There is absolutely none under the current budget allocation process, I can assure you of that.

Amen to that.

I've worked a State government job where I literally went to Office Max and piled up two carts full of whatever I could get my hands on. I can only imagine what it's like at the federal level.