Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Uniform and Accessories

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by apod View Post

    Nope. Just regular Multicam.
    Maybe it's the pictures, but the colours on that particular mannequin looked slightly different to the rest.

    It's a subtle difference in the colour but not the pattern, and I thought it looked a bit like a sort of hybrid Irish DPM colour scheme, where they took out the black out of the "Woodland" version and mixed it with the "Desert" version and faded it down, with the multicam pattern thrown in.
    It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
    It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
    It was a new age...It was the end of history.
    It was the year everything changed.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by apod View Post
      Looks to be. The stuff the Wing are trialling is off the shelf. We may see a variation between now and the in service date. but it may be cheaper to go with MOTS/COTS.

      I for one don't like the idea of the DF adopting "everybodycam". Too generic and could lead to IFF issues. Our current DPM is unique to us. I would hope,(despite understanding the need to adopt the new pattern) that we come up with something unique again.
      Why? We have learnt the hard way that uniqueness costs money. It drives up manufacturing and replacement costs and generates long lead times. When we had Irish-made boots, to keep the jobs local, we ended up with shite. Our variant of the Mowag Eagle is universally regarded as junk. I'd be quite happy to buy other people's cam as long as it is fit for purpose and soldier-proof. Any clothing issue has to suit the whole Army and not just the ARW. Their requirements are essentially as unique as the clothing required for divers or pilots/aircrew. The generic soldier does not need SF quality gear, just to do barrack jobs.

      Comment


      • #18
        We don't operate the Mowag Eagle.
        For now, everything hangs on the CoDF report, still possibly 2 weeks from the Ministers desk.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post

          Why? We have learnt the hard way that uniqueness costs money. It drives up manufacturing and replacement costs and generates long lead times. When we had Irish-made boots, to keep the jobs local, we ended up with shite. Our variant of the Mowag Eagle is universally regarded as junk. I'd be quite happy to buy other people's cam as long as it is fit for purpose and soldier-proof. Any clothing issue has to suit the whole Army and not just the ARW. Their requirements are essentially as unique as the clothing required for divers or pilots/aircrew. The generic soldier does not need SF quality gear, just to do barrack jobs.
          Where did I say we needed ARW kit? I didn't. And yes, we don't need SOF quality kit for day to day stuff which is why we have a cheaper Bks dress and a higher spec field kit.These days there is not much that separates General issue and SOF kit . FR has become the standard for both.

          Anyway the issue is the pattern.Not the kit. Multicam is being worn by EVERYONE out there these days including some of the bad guys we might come across overseas. IFF is a big issue as far as I am concerned. What cost do you put on someones life??
          "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.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
            We don't operate the Mowag Eagle.
            Yes we do. We just do not own any

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Fantasia View Post

              Yes we do. We just do not own any
              Indeed and they have proved that they are what we should have purchased in the first place instead of the garage queens we got.
              "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.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by apod View Post

                Indeed and they have proved that they are what we should have purchased in the first place instead of the garage queens we got.
                Wonder how the RG32M compares to the RG32M LTV

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by apod View Post

                  Where did I say we needed ARW kit? I didn't. And yes, we don't need SOF quality kit for day to day stuff which is why we have a cheaper Bks dress and a higher spec field kit.These days there is not much that separates General issue and SOF kit . FR has become the standard for both.

                  Anyway the issue is the pattern.Not the kit. Multicam is being worn by EVERYONE out there these days including some of the bad guys we might come across overseas. IFF is a big issue as far as I am concerned. What cost do you put on someones life??
                  I'd have no problem with the DF retaining our camouflage because we have already soaked costs into it and probably have shelves/tons/yards of the stuff and our Stores system is coping with that. You throw in a new camo system that is exclusive to us and you end up squirting more money away,while trying to get it out to the field units and simultaneously stripping out the old one. With regard to looking like everybody else, well, that's a consequence of the domination of American camouflage/helmets/AR weapon systems globally. You can't move for ARs and Brownings and Humvees,especially in SF. If you want us to be camouflaged yet not look like an ISAF clone, then retain the Paddyflage the same way the Belgians retain their Paracommando colour scheme.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I'd have no problem with the DF retaining our camouflage because we have already soaked costs into it and probably have shelves/tons/yards of the stuff and our Stores system is coping with that. You throw in a new camo system that is exclusive to us and you end up squirting more money away,while trying to get it out to the field units and simultaneously stripping out the old one.
                    I agree wholeheartedly with this, as the folks who tend to be last on the distribution list. To my mind we've spent 20 years fine tuning the Irish DPM soldier clothing and its more or less the best it can be from my viewpoint. So its time to chuck it in the bin.
                    "Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "

                    "No, they're trying to fly the tank"

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Assuming that this is still more than 12 months out, but good to see that options are being investigated already. I'd hope that the roll out on this will be a big bang event so that the new uniform goes EOL on one day and the new comes into service the following day.

                      One big issue that they will have is every "hobbyist" and airsofter in the country has at least one set of Multicam in the wardrobe, a military ID being issued to everybody, including all ranks of RDF will be needed.
                      What are you cackling at, fatty? Too much pie, that's your problem.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        I'd have no problem with the DF retaining our camouflage because we have already soaked costs into it and probably have shelves/tons/yards of the stuff and our Stores system is coping with that.
                        Stock of the existing DPM is being ran down deliberartely with the only purchases of same being in the event of "stock outs" of certain items.And yes.we have spent money on it but is that not true of so many Military items .You pump money into it but eventually it reaches the end of it's useful life and need replacing.Like the Steyr will etc etc. The current DPM is unsuitable in the likes of Mali and some of the other places they are talking about sending us.And having a Multi terrain pattern instead of a Woodlnad Pattern only suited to North west Europe and a Desert pattern that has to be wadied after a six month trip to somewhere sand and dusty is more cost effective.
                        You throw in a new camo system that is exclusive to us and you end up squirting more money away,while trying to get it out to the field units and simultaneously stripping out the old one.
                        Strongly disagree.We did it before with the change from OG to DPM. This will be no different.
                        With regard to looking like everybody else, well, that's a consequence of the domination of American camouflage/helmets/AR weapon systems globally. You can't move for ARs and Brownings and Humvees,especially in SF. If you want us to be camouflaged yet not look like an ISAF clone, then retain the IP-DPM the same way the Belgians retain their Paracommando colour scheme.
                        Fixed that for you. We had enough of the Brits labelling us "Paddys" while they were here.Let's not keep that BS going. Oh and BTW the Belgians are getting rid of their current pattern (New Belgian defence Clothing system)and talking about going to???????
                        Multicam.

                        Anyway. This is my take on your argument in summary.
                        Don't update because updates cost money and if we do update just buy the same pattern as every other nation so there is nothing to identify/distinguish/set us apart from every other nation.That about it?? No thanks. No Irish soldier should be put at risk of getting Lit up at home or abroad because the bad guys cant tell us apart from nations they might just hate more than us.

                        "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.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by trellheim View Post

                          I agree wholeheartedly with this, as the folks who tend to be last on the distribution list. To my mind we've spent 20 years fine tuning the Irish DPM soldier clothing and its more or less the best it can be from my viewpoint. So its time to chuck it in the bin.
                          And it has had it's day. Time to move on. Also the patent is running out on the current pattern so it is also a security issue.

                          PS: I love our current pattern and will hate to see it go but it's too dark for hot and sandy regions.Retains heat in those climates and has become to easy to get hold of by all and sundry. Time for a change.But if we MUST change they need to do what the Brits and Kiwis did.Not just buy off the shelf as that stuff is too common to guarantee IFF in the field and Security at Home stations.
                          "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.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Just going to stick my oar in here to say that for all the weeping and wailing when the NS decided to do the exact same thing as the Army, it was dismissed as a vanity project.
                            The same arguments now are being used to justify (quite correctly) the introduction of IP-Multicam.
                            For now, everything hangs on the CoDF report, still possibly 2 weeks from the Ministers desk.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              The downside of changing our DPM now is primarily cost as we have not had DPM in service for very long,compared to it's predecessor. I'm sure someone will tell me exactly. Now, if we do go ahead and buy a new camo,does this mean that we will start changing vehicle schemes too, as we have vehicles in 3-cplour, plain OG and UN white and possibly desert in the fleet,not to mention what ever colours we have on hard kit like tents/containers/boxes/cans/boots/hats and the million other things an Army uses. Big shake-ups like a complete Army wide camo change is a big deal and has a disruptive effect as it invariably takes time and a lot of effort to roll out. Invariably, if a new style is bought, it's going to look like an American uniform if it's in Multicam and to an ignorant terrorist/rebel/freedom fighter/self-exploder, it's all the same. As for the concept of updates, our Army updates constantly as the provision of equipment and it's upkeep is not a static thing. I'm not advocating that DPM stay in service for ever but such projects have a long and expensive lead-in and have to be considered carefully. The law of unintended consequences applies to clothing as much as it does to buying capital equipment like aircraft and ships.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                                Just going to stick my oar in here to say that for all the weeping and wailing when the NS decided to do the exact same thing as the Army, it was dismissed as a vanity project.
                                The same arguments now are being used to justify (quite correctly) the introduction of IP-Multicam.
                                That's because it WAS a vanity project. The NS Camo scheme serves no purpose.It blends with nothing. Purely corporate branding and NS members have gone on record in print admitting same.
                                The proposed Multi terrain pattern is being brought in for practical reasons.
                                1/ Transitional pattern.Works fairly well in both wooded and arid regions.Not 100% but just enough in each environment.
                                2/ Lighter colour. Retains less heat.
                                3/ Not widely available and patent restricted if they go with an Irish developed pattern which aids security
                                4/ IFF.
                                5/ Cost effective in that you only need one uniform for different A.O's. (Look at the ECAT/NEO Mission the Wing went on recently. They deployed in the Multicams they already had. No need to issue special one off uniforms)
                                "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.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X