Reading through Defense Review's article on "U.S. Army 'Family of Camo Patterns' (FOP) Program Phase IV Next-Generation Combat Camouflage Competition Update: Army Camouflage Improvement Industry Day". I just can't help but agree to some concerns to this selection phase. Questions arose to how should the selection should be, with the emphasis on selection on what's to the best interests of the soldiers on the ground.

As mentioned yesterday, the UCP is dead, dead, dead. It was indeed a clusterfuck that reflects more the government bureaucracy works, rather than having the best for the troops. With the slow process of selection and given that the US military is right nown in operating theaters, with a possibility of another one opening up East Asia, the US military should be able to work on the most effective solutions for the warfighters which are already in existince rather than create a timeline for another next generation camo pattern for the soldiers.

Given the disastrous implemenation of the UCP/ACU some knowledgeable sectors argue for the fast track implementation of the existing OCP (multicam) which should be in general use by the soldiers in Afghanistan. According to other references of the Defense Review article, the Multicam is proved to be 70% effective in the various environments it has been tested in, much better than any other competing camouflage pattern.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

Furthermore, OCP/Multicam is already within the system of the US Military and in use by various SPECOP units and even allies of the US, that effective and efficient implementation of the OCP should be able to help save on costs rather than start testing another generation of patterns. Given budget cuts in the US with a very strong pressure for the US Military budget and its being well known for wastage, the option is to work what is already effective and within the system.

Other opinions cited in the article is that there is sincerity within the US Military heirarchy to come up with the best and cost-effective equipment for the troops. But then, the author cites that many have been jaded by the history of military procurement and at the end of the day, we should take a neutral stance on this issue and let the military brass go on their own way of selection. But then, it should be noted that there is already an existing solution to the needs of the warfighters, and should be utilized to the full. The upcoming selection process should be compared to the OCP and can be down in a lowcost but extensive manner until there is a superior pattern that can be selected and implemented when the budget allows for a new design.