Please note: a number of serving Australian Army officers and soldiers were interviewed for this piece. Their names have been withheld at their request.
Last November the Minister for Defence Materiel, Jason Clare, announced that Australian troops operating in Afghanistan would be issued with Crye Precision MultiCam uniforms, following a successful trial. Australian special operations units had been wearing the pattern for some time, and the decision to expand its use to all troops in the theatre was a direct result of the positive feedback received by SOTG members. In late May of this year Chief Executive of the Defence Material Organisation, Dr Stephen Gumley, announced that the DMO had reached “an arrangement with the Crye company for them to design an Australian version of their pattern in the various materials”.
There have, however, been concerns about the final design, colouration and testing of the pattern, and some concerns from local industry and politicians.
The rise of MultiCam
The current, US-issue MultiCam pattern is already in service with a number of militaries, law enforcement organisations and private companies. The US Special Operations Command have been using the pattern for years now, and MultiCam had previously featured in various iterations of the US Army’s futuristic Future Force Warrior/Land Warrior program (cancelled in 2007).
Some of the first ‘real world’ adoptions of the camouflage came from the private sector, however. Blackwater tested MultiCam with some of its teams early on and featured the pattern in its ‘Pro Shop’ also (leftover product). Private contractors I have spoken to and worked with have also recognised the utility of MultiCam in Afghanistan, despite the tendency to avoid camouflage patterns.
The pattern is also in use with the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Response Teams and a number of other US law enforcement agencies, some units of the British military (whilst awaiting the roll-out of their very own licensed Crye pattern, MTP) and the Australian Federal Police.
The UK has also adopted a variation of MultiCam. The Ministry of Defence’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) investigated the effectiveness of ten different camouflage patterns under the PECOC (Personal Equipment Common Operating Clothing) program. The assigned team conducted a wide range of tests, used computer modelling, developed several experimental techniques and tested the pattern in the UK, Cyprus, Kenya and Afghanistan. MultiCam, already in use by UK special operations forces, was the stand out of the test group. Crye was then asked to develop an exclusive pattern for the UK MoD. As one Crye representative said: “MultiCam won all their trials so they wanted us to develop a pattern for them that performed like MultiCam but had a distinctly British identity. UK-MTP is the result”. The pattern itself, properly called Multi-Terrain Pattern, features the familiar MultiCam colour palette in a design featuring brush-like strokes reminiscent of its predecessor, British Disruptive Pattern Material (DPM).
MultiCam for the ADF
The new Australian pattern will be developed for the ADF by Crye at a cost of US$3.1 million. Additionally, Defence will be licensing the rights to manufacture uniforms in the existing pattern, for a sum of US$4.7 million. The Australian pattern will be known as ‘Australian MultiCam Pattern’ (AMP). At this stage it is unclear whether AMP will feature the current MultiCam palette in a distinctly Australian pattern, in a similar approach to the UK’s MTP, or will also feature a colour range modified for Australian terrain. It is also unclear how widely uniforms in the new pattern will be distributed, and whether they will be issued for use in Australian terrain. Previous proposals, however, have not fared so well.
Around late March and early May of last year, a number of sources began reporting on the Australian Army’s field testing of a new ‘mid-point’ camouflage uniform, designed to “better meet the range of environments deployed troops are encountering”. Disruptive Pattern Midpoint Uniform (DPMU), or ‘vomit cams’ as two of the serving soldiers I interviewed referred to it, was a DSTO (Defence Science and Technology Organisation) project to develop an ‘Australian’ pattern camouflage in a colourway optimised for semi-arid regions. There were allegations made during the testing of this pattern that it had essentially been pre-selected for distribution, regardless of the outcome of the field testing. It was also stated that other patterns (the “US and UK solutions”) were undergoing testing at the same time as DPMU, however the AMP pattern was not mentioned at this stage.
Australian troops I spoke to have mixed feelings about the idea of introducing a new ‘Australian MultiCam’ to replace the DPCU pattern. The utility of the current-issue MultiCam pattern for overseas deployments – referred to in Australian service as Crye Precision Camouflage Uniform (CPCU) – has been widely acknowledged by Australian troops. As one serving Australian Army officer put it: “The MultiCam pattern is excellent for Afghanistan because of the relatively small distance between desert areas and green zones there, and the fact that we often have to operate in both of those areas as part of one operation”. However, the same officer went on to say that whilst the utility of the pattern for work in Afghanistan was widely acknowledged, there was an uncertainty as to how well the current colour palette would suit the Australian bush. DPCU, based on aerial photographs of Australian terrain and designed specifically for the country’s bushlands, is held in high regard by many of our troops. A serving digger interviewed stressed that DPCU is ideally suited for use in Australia and that, in his opinion, MultiCam (as it stands) should be reserved for troops deploying overseas. While it is unlikely, due to issues of cost, that two sets of uniforms (and spares) will be issued to all Australian-based ADF personnel, it may be that MultiCam is issued in anticipation of overseas deployment. It will be interesting to see how the balance will be struck.
The Crye uniforms currently being issued have gained a lot of their popularity with troops not just from the MultiCam pattern, but from the design of the uniforms themselves. Of course, there have been a few hiccups, notably in sizing. Nonetheless, several serving troops and officers I spoke with pointed out a number of design features that were very popular. The rip-stop fabric, location of pockets, knee and elbow padding, and cooler fabric designed for use under body armour were the stand-out features. It should be noted that these features are not exclusive to Crye’s range of products, and could be incorporated into uniforms produced in Australia using a licensed Crye pattern, or any other camouflage design.
Australian industry concerns
There has been some outcry (see comments section here) about the non-competitive adoption of a foreign camouflage pattern. The Shadow Defence Minister, David Johnston, has also asked for comment on the matter. Unfortunately for Australian designers and producers, MultiCam has a noted track record and enjoys a high-level of support from the troops. Of course, if the new AMP pattern turns out to be very similar to DPCU but featuring Crye’s colour palette (in the same vein as the UK’s MTP), one could reasonably ask why such a relatively minor change couldn’t have been conducted by an Australian company. Additionally, a shift towards Crye patterns by the US, UK, private sector companies and now Australia has the added effect of diminishing differences in appearance between various Western militaries.
One thing is for sure though, Crye Precision continues to represent what Western militaries believe is the vanguard of camouflage design, and will no doubt continue to be financially successful as a result. For the new AMP pattern to be successful it will require proper theoretical and operational testing in the environments it is expected to serve. If we decide to issue such a pattern to troops stationed in Australia, then it is my sincere hope appropriate tests are conducted in Australian terrain. Wise doctrinal guidance outlining the scope of deployment for the new pattern will also be necessary, and it will be interesting to see whether we arrive at a pattern designed to replace DPCU, or a pattern designed specifically for expeditionary use.
Addendum: We may well see an announcement of further details at Defence and Industry 2011, in Adelaide next week (28th – 30th June).
This piece has also appeared at KitUp!
“Unfortunately for Australian designers and producers, MultiCam has a noted track record and enjoys a high-level of support from the troops” … And of course there is absolutely no way in which the technology of personal concealment could have progressed, since 2003.
Not bad at all fellas and gaalsl. Thanks.
There have been lots of recent developments, but MultiCam is popular with special operations personnel, which has made it very appealing. There don’t seem to be many Australian options, and those there are haven’t made successful proposals.
Basically, it should be a case of what works best to conceal and protect the troops. If local contractors can come up with superior alternatives (after testing them objectively) then this alternatives can be used. Until then, why not go with what has proven to be effective? Since there is no one size fits all for camo, you might in reality very well need more than one set. Just sayin’.
There are not a lot of options perhaps, but at least one, and I have’t heard him mentioned here yet.
I read an article by Brad Turner, Australian camoufleur, on his site (http://www.roggenwolf.com/) which expresses his outrage at the DMO for jumping to their conclusions, effectively.
And he has a good point. For $4.7mil, the DMO could have launched their own Army Camouflage Improvement Effort, or hired local scientists to design their own camouflage to be just as effective. Or any number of more local and possibly cheaper options.
The concerning fact is that they didn’t even consider doing so. Instead of a decisively new, more effective camouflage pattern, Australian troops are gettting a foreign rehash of an old, ineffective pattern.
Just bloody buy MultiCam – don’t waste millions of dollars to “reinvent the wheel” – what a waste of money. if MultCam works then don’t FIX it – Hearts & Bunnies supposedly works (despite how ugly it is) but if MultiCam is better then the Australian Military should just BUY MULTICAM – as is. There are too many different camos as there are right now: count them: Woodland (still used remember!) and all it’s “different variants”, British DPM (and all it’s Commonwealth country variants), Flecktarn, digital camos like CADPAT / MARPAT and the variations in the Middle East, South America and South East Asia, and of course total rubbish UCP. “Developing” a new camo is like trying to figure out how to drink water differently. If CRYE nailed it – then GO WITH IT. What a load of crap!!!!!
DFD – I agree, we should definitely try not to roll everything into one ‘universal’ camo design. But for units being deployed on expeditionary operations to unknown theatres, it pays to have something like MultiCam, or an equivalent.
Kevin – Are you saying we should issue MultiCam to troops stationed here in Australia without conducting extensive testing here? I’m the first to admit MultiCam has proven very valuable in certain regions (notably AFG), but surely we should conduct some sort of evaluation here?
It would be worth testing how Multicam in Australia to see how it compares to other patterns.
While we are at it, can we make the testing publicly available?!
Firstly, I am all for supprting australian industry. Let’s support the manufacturing industry whenever we can, but not at the expence of our troops. When it comes to combat uniforms, we haven’t produced a decent thing since DPCU’s were introduced (apart from the trail cams). Aussie manufacturers have had their chance over the last 30 years to produce a decent product. Fail, fail, fail.
Get Crye Multicam, off of the shelf, as is. No alterations!
Let’s not reinvent the wheel Australia. Uniforms manufactured to US Mil Spec are awesome quality, which cannot be denied. Having had to suffer various domestically manufactured uniforms over the years, can’t we just admit, that australian manufactured stuff obviously made by the lowest bidder and crap. Don’t even get me started on our boots. You do get what you pay for.
Why aren’t we already be trailling Multicam for Australian environments due to it’s popularity with the actual war-fighters. Unfortunatly, it is not the soldier who makes the decision on his equipment (unfortunatly).
Our uniforms are cheap crap. I make no apologies, but it’s not you wearing it.
MCS – I’ve contacted Brad at Roggenwolf, and had a lot of trouble getting any information out of him. However, stay tuned as I’m hoping to bring some more information to the ‘camouflage for Australia’ debate in the future. Also, calling MultiCam “old” and “ineffective” is a bit disingenuous; DPCU was trialled through the late 70s and early 80s. MultiCam is still one of the ‘newest’ patterns, in modern camouflage terms, on the market. Also, extensive field testing (refer to UK testing as cited above, and US Army [Natick] testing from June 2009) has shown MultiCam to be one of the most effective multiple-terrain patterns. In other words, marketing aside, it pretty much ‘does what it says on the label’. I’m not saying that makes it the best (unmodified) choice, particularly not if it is to be issued to troops stationed in Australia, but calling it “ineffective” is just plain wrong.
The Medic – My comment to ‘MCS’ above tangentially addresses one of the points I’d raise with you; that is, MultiCam is great for a lot of things (AFG, and other areas with rapid desert to ‘green zone’ transitions, in particular), but it isn’t a panacea. I think we owe it to troops stationed here in AUS to determine how effective it is in our own backyard. Also, given the regularity with which we play peacekeeper in our neighbourhood (Timor, Fiji, The Solomons etc), I would think testing in tropical and subtropical conditions would be warranted as well. As for the quality of the gear, everyone seems happier with the new ‘Crye-style’ uniform designs, so I hope they are here to stay. Australian manufacturers have been taking cues from these for years now, so with any luck the government will look at some of their products too.
DPCU is a old uniform, although it suits Australia well, it is not the best for some areas in Afghanistan.
In my opinion, the ADF should adapt a new ”Aussie” version because it shows that we are capable of progressing out of the 20th century, but at the end of the day, it is about saving lives of soldiers, not a giant military fashion markets reputation even if it does impact on Australian markets.