Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Well. This must be the quickest about face in Uniform pattern and design issue in recent years.(unless you count the Irish DF 2018 ptn DPM Shirt and trousers)
Must be nice to have money to burn.The thing I liked about MCCU was that it was uniquely Kiwi. Multicam is sooooooooo everyone right now.
To be fair it is 7 years since the MCCU was introduced and the manufacturer is ceasing production so rolling replacements are over anyway. Was a good opportunity to make the change as the soldier systems project ramps up.
The Canadians I understand are going through the evaluation process as well.
To be fair it is 7 years since the MCCU was introduced and the manufacturer is ceasing production so rolling replacements are over anyway. Was a good opportunity to make the change as the soldier systems project ramps up.
The Canadians I understand are going through the evaluation process as well.
Its more "Mulitcam inspired" than pure Multicam as well. Placed side by side with Multicam, the difference in colour palette and pattern is pretty obvious.
Defence group says country is ‘clearly interested’ in deal for its advanced warships
With the RAN, RCN and RN using it does make sense with respect to long term support and sustainability. I have no doubt that whatever is downselected for the USN FFG(X) will also be in the mix.
The three variants will be quite different in detail and capability though, with different combat systems, sensors, missile load and weapons fit out. It will be interesting to see which variant NZ would be interested in, the fairly basic RN variant, the top end ADF ships or the Canadian spec which looks to be mid way between the others.
To be fair it is 7 years since the MCCU was introduced and the manufacturer is ceasing production so rolling replacements are over anyway. Was a good opportunity to make the change as the soldier systems project ramps up.
The Canadians I understand are going through the evaluation process as well.
7 years.Is that all.Seriously???
How long did ye have DPM before that??
We have had IP-DPM since 1999. The Brits had theirs since '66. Even UCP,which was a disaster,has lasted longer.Seems like MCCU was not well thought out and over hyped if ye are changing so quickly.
And what do you mean the manufacturer is "ceasing production". Is the Business going bust or something?Do ye not own the pattern so ye could get someone else to manufacture it?
If not,someone need a serious talking to.
"Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.
7 years.Is that all.Seriously???
How long did ye have DPM before that??
We have had IP-DPM since 1999. The Brits had theirs since '66. Even UCP,which was a disaster,has lasted longer.Seems like MCCU was not well thought out and over hyped if ye are changing so quickly.
And what do you mean the manufacturer is "ceasing production". Is the Business going bust or something?Do ye not own the pattern so ye could get someone else to manufacture it?
If not,someone need a serious talking to.
The current DefMin is a former Army Officer, a noted MCCU critic in opposition and has thankfully sorted the MCCU mess out noting that 7 years was enough to time in a VfM sense to write off a $13m 2012 acquisition at the earliest date. Army have been trying to dump the MCCU for the last 5 years but were politely told to STFU and get on with it. Yes the pattern is great, but it wore like a cheap hookers dress. Who to blame, well it was a case of the then Govt and Ministry of Defence Acquisitions and Defence Technology Agency going for the cheapest supplier - an Aussie company whom the ADF wouldn't even use (who are exiting a market they should not have been in). I gather that the future multi-cam will retain a Kiwi pattern to distinguish it from the OZ and UK patterns. The durable old locally made DPM by Margraths was around for decades prior to that. Between 2002 and 2012 what little was spent on the NZDF was typically rubbish right from B757's that breakdown (again this week when the PM went to Melbourne) to the Protector vessels, through to the MCCU other than the odd fluke here and there when they (The Ministry and DPM&C) by accident got something right.
13.6 Million is a HELL of a lot of money to piss up against the wall.
"Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.
7 years.Is that all.Seriously???
How long did ye have DPM before that??
We have had IP-DPM since 1999. The Brits had theirs since '66. Even UCP,which was a disaster,has lasted longer.Seems like MCCU was not well thought out and over hyped if ye are changing so quickly.
And what do you mean the manufacturer is "ceasing production". Is the Business going bust or something?Do ye not own the pattern so ye could get someone else to manufacture it?
If not,someone need a serious talking to.
The DPM the brits wear today bears no resemblance whatsoever to what was being worn in 66. There has been many variations along the way.
For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
The DPM the brits wear today bears no resemblance whatsoever to what was being worn in 66. There has been many variations along the way.
The Brits don't wear DPM today BTW, and the pattern stayed mainly the same.Just different shades depending on the material it was printed on,manufacturers etc.
Similar to the differences with our own kit. '99 Pattern IP-DPM looked different depending if you were issued Portwest or Seyntex manufactured kit.And 2010 Cooneen kit looks different to today's Seyntex stuff
"Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.
I'll have to disagree with you there. Early dpm was a jacket identical to the old og square pocket jackets we had. The pattern was vaguely camouflaged. There was a major change of colour and pattern in the late 80s, and the colours have evolved since, numerous times, based on experience overseas.
For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
And I will disagree with you right back.
The pre 1960's Denison smock is, as you say,vaguely camouflaged in a totally different ptn, but as I implied above even though 1960 Ptn (Limited issue) and 1966 Ptn (general issue) were slightly different they could still clearly be seen to be the same pattern.Much like our early and later IP-DPM's.
"In 1966 the British Ministry of Defense issued the Pattern 1960 DPM (P60), the first in a long line of Disruptive Pattern Material uniforms to be issued by the British Armed Forces. The cut of the standard uniform was based on the Pattern 60 olive green combat uniform, but made in the DPM material. Additional versions were produced in the style of the M1942 Windproof uniform, and worn by British Special Forces. It is difficult to classify British DPM designs because so many different versions have been produced, yet only the type of uniform has ever received an official classification. Adding to the confusion, uniform classifications (P60, P68, P84) quite often conflict with the year in which the uniform was first issued. Subsequent uniform types may have initially been produced using the same printing of fabric of the previous model (P68, P84), while in most cases several production variants were also fielded in a single uniform classification. Illustrated below are two variations of the earliest known productions of DPM fabric, which would have appeared on the P60 Combat Uniform. Both designs also appeared on the 1968 Pattern Combat Uniform"
So,between the jigs and reals,UK DPM in it's various guises,lasted a Looooooong time before being replace totally by MTP.
Unlike NZ MCCU.
"Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.
But does the MCCU really matter any longer. A decision made 7 years ago during a year when Defence budgets were cut? The last 15 years may have been awful for the NZDF but the next 15 years in terms of what is coming down the pipeline as outlined in the Defence Capability Plan last month including new multi-cam is far more interesting and has support from the opposition whose sole complaint was that the C-130J-30's were selected sole source.
And I will disagree with you right back.
The pre 1960's Denison smock is, as you say,vaguely camouflaged in a totally different ptn, but as I implied above even though 1960 Ptn (Limited issue) and 1966 Ptn (general issue) were slightly different they could still clearly be seen to be the same pattern.Much like our early and later IP-DPM's.
"In 1966 the British Ministry of Defense issued the Pattern 1960 DPM (P60), the first in a long line of Disruptive Pattern Material uniforms to be issued by the British Armed Forces. The cut of the standard uniform was based on the Pattern 60 olive green combat uniform, but made in the DPM material. Additional versions were produced in the style of the M1942 Windproof uniform, and worn by British Special Forces. It is difficult to classify British DPM designs because so many different versions have been produced, yet only the type of uniform has ever received an official classification. Adding to the confusion, uniform classifications (P60, P68, P84) quite often conflict with the year in which the uniform was first issued. Subsequent uniform types may have initially been produced using the same printing of fabric of the previous model (P68, P84), while in most cases several production variants were also fielded in a single uniform classification. Illustrated below are two variations of the earliest known productions of DPM fabric, which would have appeared on the P60 Combat Uniform. Both designs also appeared on the 1968 Pattern Combat Uniform"
"Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.
Fairly routine report but indicates that Fleet Tanker due next year, frigate upgrade complete in 2021, Antarctic Patrol Ship pushed out from 2023 to 2027. C-130J-30, P-8A and second tier MPA asset all arriving in 2023, with B757 replacement pushed out to 2028.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment