New camouflage Army uniform nowhere to be seen
The Army's effort to design a new camouflage uniform — which has taken three years and cost at least $2.9 million — appears to have stalled and may never produce a design.
Army spokesman William Layer said choosing a new camouflage pattern “is not a priority at this time.” He said he did not know when the choice of a new pattern — planned for last December — would be made.
One reason for the uncertainty, Layer said, is that Congress appears ready to crack down on the military's expensive habit of letting each armed service design its own camouflage.
In 2002, the military had just two camouflage patterns. By this year, as a result of a series of duplicative efforts documented by the Government Accountability Office, there were 10. And many of them have problems: the Air Force issued an “Airman Battle Uniform” and then decreed that airmen in Afghanistan should not use it in battle. The Navy puzzled sailors by issuing them blue camouflage uniforms, which would camouflage them best if they fell overboard.
The Army was working on a pattern that would replace the flawed “universal” camouflage that was issued Armywide in 2005 but failed to work well in Afghanistan.
The new pattern was supposed to be chosen by December 2012. It wasn't. And it's not clear when or whether it will be — a situation reported last week by the Army Times.
Layer said the Army was operating with less money because of budget cuts.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Tickets let players bring home bacon — scent
- Executive order directs standards to reflect climate change projections
- Day, night 4-digit drawings match
- Mideast-North Africa category considered for 2020 Census
- Teen girl Hernandez killed by Denver police once cited for resisting arrest
- Alpha to idle two West Virginia coal mines
- Judge orders nonprofit tax form release in case against IRS
- Former GOP nominee Romney will not run for president in ’16
- Former Idaho National Guard soldier’s benefits claims yield indictment
- Rock pythons creep into Everglades
- Homeland chief says cuts over immigration puts U.S. at risk