https://www.hyperstealth.com/camo-improvement/index.html [Hyperstealth-2014-Logo-sm] +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ | U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Explained | | by Guy Cramer, President/CEO of HyperStealth Biotechnology Corp. | | | | Urban Legends Prevail when it comes to U.S. Army's Camouflage | | Improvement Effort | | | |(Vancouver, B.C. May 21, 2013) The U.S. Army's Phase IV Camouflage | |Improvement Effort has come under heavy criticism as the general | |public reads news stories that the Army is once again considering | |changing their camouflage and that the costs are in the billions. | | | |As an expert in camouflage (I have worked with over 50 countries | |and currently over 2,300,000 military uniforms have been issued | |with patterns I've developed and I teamed up with ADS Inc. of | |Virginia Beach and our [ADS INc./Guy Cramer] US4CES family of | |camouflage was selected as a finalist in the Phase IV program), I | |will use this opportunity to discuss many of the fallacies of the | |arguments which I am seeing on the discussion boards and blogs | |which have started a frenzy of opposition to programs which have | |been ongoing for a number of years with very little interest until | |now. | | | |Didn't the Olive Drab (monotone) uniforms work, why did the U.S. | |military switch to camouflage in the first place? | | | |Canada wore Olive Drab fatigues up until the late 1990's when their| |military research showed that there is a 45 percent less chance of | |being detected from 50-300 meters away with their new CADPAT | |(Canadian Disruptive Pattern). They also found that the enemy had | |to be 35% closer to a soldier wearing CADPAT to detect him/her over| |the soldier wearing a Monotone (Olive Drab) Uniform. | | | |+----------------------------+ | ||[CADPAT-TW] |[CADPAT-AR-s]| | ||--------------+-------------| | || CADPAT TW | CADPAT AR | | || (Temperate | (Arid | | || Woodland) | Regions) | | |+----------------------------+ | | | |Further NATO trials among all camouflage uniforms used by all the | |countries that make up NATO showed that CADPAT outperformed all | |other camouflages including U.S. Woodland, British DPM, German | |Flectarn... | | | |Recent NATO studies in 2012 in Australia confirmed that CADPAT TW | |is one of the most effective patterns in Tropical and Subtropical | |regions. | | | |CADPAT is the first pixelated camouflage to be issued. The U.S. | |Army had experimented with pixelated camouflage uniforms in the | |1980's the biggest issue was people outside of the testing could | |not understand how something so artificial looking could be more | |effective than the standard blobby camouflage. The Canadian and | |NATO studies changed that perception. | | | |MARPAT (USMC Pattern) | | | |The USMC became very interested in CADPAT once the pattern had been| |validated by both Canada and NATO. With the permission of the | |Canadian Government the USMC was granted permission to use the same| |pattern (but in different colors). The USMC used the exact same | |print screens and recolored the pattern to meet their requirements | |even going so far to call the new coloration MARPAT (the Marines | |made a slight change to the print screens adding a small USMC Globe| |and Anchor to print every few feet). (1) | | | |The USMC conducted their own objective trials on MARPAT and found | |that it outperformed Olive Drab in detection taking more than 3 | |times longer to detect and once detected just over 2.5 times longer| |to identify the target. The same study also showed that the digital| |pattern outperformed the NATO camouflage (used to camouflage | |vehicles and similar to the U.S. BDU Woodland pattern) - in both | |detection and identification. (2) | | | |The USMC began to issue Woodland MARPAT and Desert MARPAT in 2001 | | | |The chart below on the left is Detection (Where is it) and the | |chart below on the right is Recognition (What is it). | | | |+---------------------------------------------------------+ | ||[Test-Results-1] |[test-results-3] |[Test-Results-2] | | |+---------------------------------------------------------+ | | | |The U.S. Army Universal Camouflage Pattern | | | |Rather than switching to a Woodland and Desert like the Marines, | |the U.S. Army switch to a pixelated Universal Camouflage Pattern | |(UCP) (all-in-one pattern) in 2004 | | | | It turns out that field trials were never carried out on UCP | |before it was issued. | | | |[UCP-Display] | | | |How did the idea of All-In-One/Universal camouflage originate? | | | |There was a study carried out by the Army between 2002-2004 to find| |a new camouflage to replace the BDU Woodland Camouflage and DCU | |Desert camouflage uniforms with something more effective. The | |program started out in 2002 with Phase 1 and 2 looking at Woodland,| |Desert, Urban and Desert/Urban environments in three patterns | |developed by the U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center. | | | |[Natick-Patterns-2002_small] | | | | In 2003 for Phase 3 of this particular test they merged common | |colors from each pattern into an all-in-one environment coloration,| |this is when compromises were made of colors to attempt to achieve | |one pattern, with one color scheme for all environments. | | | |[All-Over-Brush-Phases_small] | | | |As the idea of an all-in-one coloration began to take shape and a | |critical aspect began to emerge with NIR (Near Infrared) | |colorations (many colors do not work well in the NIR or SWIR [Short| |Wave Infrared] leading to high visibility of the target under Night| |Vision technology. Note in the table below that none of the desert | |colors worked well in the NIR spectrum (we will get to this later),| |and the only acceptable colors from the other environments were | |Black (Woodland), Medium Gray (Urban) and Medium Tan (Desert/ | |Urban). | | | |[Natick-NIR-Colors_small] | | | |Remember that in military operations, half of the time you are | |dealing with night conditions, so the NIR and SWIR becomes close to| |half of the solution. | | | |At this time Multicam entered the competition as the "Contractor | |Developed Mod", Multicam like UCP also originated from the concept | |of a global palette: | | | |Once the final 4 patterns were tested in the 3 separate | |environments (Woodland, Urban and Desert) in both daylight and | |nighttime with NIR scopes, all four showed variable effectiveness | |across all terrains in daylight but were almost identical in the | |Night (NIR) testing. Multicam (called Contractor Developed Mod in | |the test) scored 43 out of 100 (100 being the best) at Ft. Pok | |(Desert) in daytime and 77 out of 100 at Night (NIR), but in | |Woodland environments at Ft. Benning Multicam only scored 57 out of| |100 in daytime and 48 out of 100 at night. | | | |Note the Data Analysis - Day chart on the left (below) shows | |effectiveness from 40 to 65 (out of 100) whereas the Data Analysis | |- Night on the Right (below) shows effectiveness from 40 to 90 (out| |of 100) | | | |+-----------------------------------------------------------------+| ||[Natick-Day-Results-2004_small]|[Natick-Night-Results-2004_small]|| |+-----------------------------------------------------------------+| | | |I've redone the bar chart below based from the Daytime results | |above but the difference in my chart below is with a scale from | |0-100% (100 being the best). The compromise across Woodland / Urban| |/ Desert in exchange for an All-In-One global color scheme can | |clearly be seen. | | | |[Natick-Day-Results-2004-Bar-Graph] | | | |The overall winner of the competition was All-Over-Brush (Multicam | |"Contractor Developed Mod." placed 3^rd out of the 4 final patterns| |but as you can see from the chart above there was not a great deal | |of separation among the 4 patterns.). (3) | | | |[Natick-2004-Conclusions_small] | | | |So the Army had found a solution but the results were not | |encouraging, to get an all-in-one pattern you needed to compromise | |and lose effectiveness in all environments versus a more effective | |coloration for each environment. | | | |Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) | | | |Shortly after these results were obtained Universal Camouflage | |Pattern (UCP) was announced by the U.S. Army in 2004. However, UCP | |was not part of the 2002-2004 testing (it is a common misconception| |that UCP was derived from these tests, probably because the name of| |the pattern is Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP) and the name of | |the test was Universal Camouflage For The Future Force Warrior), | |while the Power Point that now accompanies the test results (shown | |in the slides above) shows UCP on left side background of each | |slide, the UCP pattern was in-fact not part of the test. | | | |Where did UCP come from? | | | |The U.S. Army used the same screens as CADPAT/MARPAT and recolored | |them based on three universal colors determined from the U.S. Army | |2002-2004 tests to come up with UCP, (two of the screens use the | |same color) again they picked colors based off of the 2002-2004 | |study but did not actually test the UCP pattern with those colors. | |The pattern itself was proven with the Canadians and USMC so | |combining an effective pattern with a new color scheme should | |provide a good all-in-one pattern? Wrong in the case of UCP. (we | |will see later that in the case of the U.S. Navy's AOR-Universal - | |they managed to get it close with different coloration) | | | |[cadpat-us-variations] | | | |It didn't take long after soldiers were issued this new camouflage | |to notice that the UCP was not working and with combat operations | |going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Congress began to | |receive complaints from soldiers that the camouflage was | |jeopardizing their missions and their lives. The U.S. Congress | |asked the Army for the research that led to the decision on UCP and| |it was discovered that there was none. It appears that someone | |circumnavigated the scientific process and forced UCP in. | | | |The decision to not use the All-Over-Brush (winner of 2002-2004 | |trials) and to go with the untested UCP has not been fully | |disclosed but it appears that it was not the fault of the Army | |groups involved who went to extreme lengths in the 2002-2004 | |testing to find something which met the criteria. | | | |Testing UCP | | | |The U.S. Army (Natick) then conducted the testing on UCP and 17 | |other patterns between 2007-2008 and the results with the final 13 | |patterns showed UCP performed poorly in Desert scoring 9^th out of | |13 patterns, Urban (8^th place) and Woodland (12^th place). | |Multicam was better scoring 6^th out of 13 in Desert, Urban (4^th | |place) and Woodland (6^th place). The two MARPAT patterns tested | |extremely well: with Desert MARPAT scoring 3^rd place out of 13 | |patterns in Desert, Urban (1^st place) and the Woodland MARPAT | |scored (2^nd place in Woodland) | | | |[Ranking-Patterns-by-Environment_small] | | | |A trend was starting to develop in the research - All-In-One color | |schemes were not proving as effective as color specific camouflage | |(colored specific to the intended operating environment). These | |graphs are based on the results of the NATICK 2007-2008 Study | | | |[Percentage] [Percentage] | | | |[Percentage] | | | |Natick's conclusion from this study: "The data clearly show that | |environment-specific patterns provide the best camouflage, i.e., | |the lowest probability of detection, in their respective | |environments" (4) | | | |U.S. Army Phase III Camouflage Improvement | | | |The U.S. Congress at this point had enough information to have the | |U.S. Army begin the process to find a solution to the failed UCP, | |but of critical importance were the ground troops in Afghanistan | |where UCP was not working. A worldwide solution "Phase IV" would | |take much more time to research properly so this Phase 3 focused on| |the specific environments found in Afghanistan. | | | |The U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Phase 3 Effort (U.S. | |Congressional Mandate) was to find a fast solution to those combat | |troops in Afghanistan so another set of tests were done by Natick | |in environments which would be found within this area. | | | |In Afghanistan you didn't have large areas that are either woodland| |or desert; it was more of an in-between setting now referred to as | |"Transitional" environments. All the testing up until this time had| |focused on Woodland, Desert and Urban and yet a large part of the | |world is within Transitional. | | | |The results of this Phase 3 testing concluded that within | |Afghanistan type environments Multicam outperformed the other | |patterns within these environments | | | |In Rocky Desert terrain | | | |1st Place Multicam | |2nd Place USMC Woodland MARPAT Digital | |3rd Place Woodland Digital | | | |In Mountainous Terrain testing | | | |1st Place Tie Multicam and U.S. Navy AOR-Universal both tested | |equal | |2nd Place Woodland Scorpion | |3rd Place U.S. Navy AOR-2 | | | |Cropland/Woodland tests | | | |1st Place Woodland Digital | |2nd Place U.S. Navy AOR-2 | |3rd Place USMC Woodland MARPAT Digital | | | |Sandy Desert Terrain tests | | | |1st Place DCU Digital | |2nd Place U.S. Navy AOR-1 | |3rd Place Desert Brush | |4th Place USMC Desert MARPAT | | | |There are a few noteworthy items we can pull out of these results. | | | |Multicam won the competition with an overall score of 80 out of 100| |and this led to it winning the Phase 3 trials and becoming the | |pattern known in the U.S. Army as OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF).| |We can also see that it scored 72.5 out of 100 in Cropland/Woodland| |tests and 58.3 out of 100 in Sandy Desert Terrain. It did not break| |the top 10 patterns tested in either of these two critical | |environments. This confirmed to the Army that the All-In-One | |concept was likely not achievable with conventional camouflage. The| |results for Cropland/Woodland and Sandy Desert were similar to the | |previous tests with Multicam but now it was placed within | |"transitional" (Rocky Desert and Mountainous) environments which | |was specific to it's coloration. | | | |[Multicam-Scores-2009] | | | |Also note that the U.S. Navy AOR-2 placed second in Cropland/ | |Woodland with a score 85.1 out of 100 (12.6% better than Multicam/ | |OEF). MARPAT Woodland was beat by the Navy's AOR2 (same pattern but| |recolored), and the Navy's AOR1 beat the MARPAT Desert in Sandy | |Desert Terrains. | | | |[AOR2-Scores-2009] | | | |Digital DCU placed first in the Sandy Desert with a score of at | |least 89.7 out of 100 (31% better than Multicam/OEF)(Note the table| |does not include scores for Digital DCU with matching PPE (Personal| |Protective Equipment -in this case the torso vest) - it does | |included Digitial DCU with Khaki PPE at 89.7 and we are told that | |the winner was DigitaDCU witlh matching PPE, so we can assume the | |score with matching gear - PPE was higher than 89.7%) | | | |[Digital-DCU-Scores-2009] | | | |UCP was a failure within this test scoring a dismal overall score | |of 27.8 out of 100 in all four environments confirming the previous| |testing. | | | |[UCP-Scores-2009] | | | |UCP-C (not shown) was an attempt to fix the UCP pattern by adding | |Brown as a color - it did help in the Cropland/Woodland tests where| |it placed 4^th (it beat Multicam), but it could not compete | |overall. | | | |The Navy's AOR-Universal equaled Multicam in the mountainous | |terrain but did not do as well in Rocky Desert or Cropland/Woodland| |backgrounds, it did 9% better in Sandy Desert than Multicam. | |Remember that UCP and AOR-Universal use the same screens - same | |pattern - different colors. UCP failure was not the pattern but the| |colors used. | | | |[Universal-AOR-Scores-2009] | | | |The BDU Woodland pattern (used for over 20 years by the U.S. | |Military) which many people expect is still a good pattern only | |scored at 59.8 out of 100 in Cropland/Woodland testing and 1.3 out | |of 100 in Sandy Desert (you can't get much worse than 1 out of | |100). | | | |[BDU-Scores-2009] | | | |So the current baseline patterns for the U.S. Army Phase IV | |Camouflage Effort were based off of the best patterns within this | |most current series of tests. Both AOR1 and AOR2 outperformed both | |MARPAT Woodland and MARPAT Desert patterns in Cropland/Woodland and| |Sandy Desert to become the baseline patterns. | | | |The U.S. Army Phase IV Baseline patterns: | | | |Woodland/Tropical = AOR2 | | | |Transitional= Multicam | | | |Desert/Arid= AOR1 | | | |There were patterns that tested better than AOR2 in Cropland/ | |Woodland and AOR1 in Sandy Desert, why not use those? | | | |While it doesn't show the (Experimental) Digital Woodland pattern | |on the chart that won the Cropland/Woodland it could be similar to | |the Chinese Army's Woodland Digital pattern and for obvious reasons| |you do not want to use something which is close to identical to | |theirs or could cause confusion with the main Chinese Army. | | | |The winner of the Sandy Desert was the (Experimental) DCU Digital, | |however there is a large problem with DCU (commonly referred to as | |3 color desert) and DCU Digital, the colors don't work in the NIR | |or SWIR for night operations (there is no separation of colors) and| |the base color your left with is a higher reflectance than the | |background, the soldier is one brighter color than the entire | |background (he/she shines like a light), so you have to eliminate | |both of these patterns due to this issue. At least the UCP did have| |separation of colors within these Night Vision spectrums. (5) | | | |[NIR-3-Color-Desert-1][NIR-3-Color-Desert] | | | |You can fix this issue with the addition of special polymers but | |this adds significant cost. (6) | | | |Digital Pixel Patterns are Effective | | | |What we also see from the Natick study is that pixelated patterns | |still dominate the top place finishers in all environments. Pixel's| |within camouflage are not a fad but a proven and effective form of | |camouflage. The failure of UCP was not due to the pixelated pattern| |but the colors chosen for the pattern. CADPAT/MARPAT/AOR1, AOR2 all| |come from the same print screens used for UCP. | | | |In Rocky Desert terrain | | | |1st Place Multicam | |2nd Place USMC Woodland MARPAT Digital (pixelated) | |3rd Place Woodland Digital (pixelated) | | | |In Mountainous Terrain testing | | | |1st Place Tie Multicam and U.S. Navy AOR-Universal (pixelated) | |both tested equal | |2nd Place Woodland Scorpion | |3rd Place U.S. Navy AOR-2 (pixelated) | | | |In Cropland/Woodland tests | | | |1st Place Woodland Digital (pixelated) | |2nd Place U.S. Navy AOR-2 (pixelated) | |3rd Place USMC Woodland MARPAT Digital (pixelated) | | | |In Sandy Desert Terrain tests | | | |1st Place DCU Digital (pixelated) | |2nd Place U.S. Navy AOR-1 (pixelated) | |3rd Place Desert Brush | |4th Place USMC Desert MARPAT (pixelated) | | | |The current Phase IV U.S. Army Camouflage Improvement Effort was | |mandated by the U.S. Congress when research on the U.S. Army's | |current UCP (Universal Camouflage Pattern) showed that it was | |ineffective in almost all environments tested. It turns out that | |field trials were never carried out on UCP before it was issued. | | | |Where are we going from here and is it justified? | | | |So here we are, late in the game, a decision has already been made | |and is about to be announced (the Army is stating an announcement | |is due within the next few weeks-many speculate this will come on | |the U.S. Army Birthday - June 14^th, which is when they have made | |announcements like this before) and people are upset because they | |don't understand why so much effort is being put into this, why so | |much money is allocated to camouflage uniforms and gear, they bring| |aesthetics into their opinion, they assume their ideas and concepts| |are correct, when much of what I am reading on Social Media... has | |not been based on facts. | | | |The Army has decided based on these previous studies that an | |All-In-One color scheme does not effectively work around the world,| |thus they have decided on three major environments for the Phase IV| |with each company submitting a family of patterns to work in each | |one of the three environments. Each finalist needed to equal or | |surpass the effectiveness of the baseline patterns; AOR1 for Arid/ | |Desert, Multicam for Transitional and AOR2 for Woodland/Tropical. | |All of these patterns did extremely well within their respective | |environments, but winner must somehow equal and outperform these | |three patterns. | | | |This is just wasting more money? | | | |The costs associated with changing are for the most part costs that| |will be required regardless of changing or not, the average soldier| |goes through four uniforms per year. The gear made from heavier | |Nylon does not wear out that fast and so yes there will be some | |extra cost issues there. | | | |Pattern Royalties | | | |The Phase IV program requested competing companies to decide on a | |one lump royalty from the Military which range from below $100,000 | |to over 6 million dollars between the four finalists, thus ending | |the pay as you print royalty - the cost savings here for the U.S. | |military are substantial if the winning patterns are used for more | |than one year. The company that wins will retain the license for | |all commercial sales (not military) and thus is expected to do well| |on their commercial royalties (in lieu of previous awarded | |government [military] royalties). | | | |With three different environmental pattern uniforms, how many extra| |uniforms are they going to issue the Army Soldiers? | | | |We have heard that the transitional pattern (from the winning | |patterns - yet to be announced) will be considered the garrison | |wear uniform as well as for transitional environments, only if | |soldiers are deployed to Desert/Arid will they be issued those | |Desert/Arid uniforms, if they are deployed to Woodland/Tropical | |will they be issued just those Woodland/Tropical uniforms. So | |soldiers will not be issued a library of three uniform colorations.| |They will only be issued Arid and/or Woodland/Tropical uniforms if | |they are deployed to those specific regions. | | | |Conclusion: | | | |What we see with the U.S. Military research is not a repeated | |exercise in how many camouflage patterns can the U.S. Military use | |at one time but an evolution of camouflage based on both Subjective| |and Objective testing, which (for the most part) went from Olive | |Drab into to the 1980's to the BDU Woodland camouflage of over 20 | |years, to MARPAT in 2001 to the All-In-One concept with | |All-Over-Brush in 2002 along with Multicam and UCP in 2004 back | |most recently to dedicated environments with AOR-1 and AOR-2. Many | |of these steps showed improvement in effectiveness over the | |previous. Yes there were mistakes and this contributed to some of | |the issues, I believe these mistake have helped us understand more | |about camouflage than we otherwise would have. The U.S. Army | |knowing that there was room to improve, conducted the largest | |camouflage study ever on the best patterns to find a long term | |effective camouflage which has culminated with the Phase IV winner.| | | |It very well could be that the Phase IV competing patterns were so | |close in daytime testing (as they all use similar color palettes) | |that the decision came down to the next most important factor which| |you cannot see; NIR and SWIR - how the pattern works within the | |Night Vision and here we expect to see a big difference between the| |four finalists based on what I have seen with color and pattern | |choice among the competitors. DCU is an excellent Desert pattern in| |the daytime it continues to score at the top of the testing, but it| |does not work in the NIR and SWIR range, thus it has been | |eliminated from the U.S. Military. | | | |So before you decide that you know which pattern is best, based off| |of your favorite looking, let the test results speak for themselves| |and it could be that it's something that you're not seeing which | |has determined the winner. | | | |Do I know who won? No, the Army has been very good about keeping | |this quiet. | | | |I do believe that the winning pattern (which ever one wins) will | |provide improvements to what is currently available and should | |ultimately save lives of those who go into harms way on our behalf.| | | |US4CES (Pronounced U.S. Forces) | | | |Many people expected me to design something for Phase IV which was | |unique and I believe I did just that (many were disappointed that | |it was not so different in their view from what they had seen | |before), it was based off of previous research showing what was | |working and what was not working. I attempted to merge everything I| |had learned into the most effective camouflage I could design based| |on the criteria put forward and while we may not win on looks (the | |U.S. Army said from day one - "this is not a fashion show"), I do | |believe that we have put forward a very effective solution for the | |Visual (Day) and Infrared (Night) in all three environments. (7) | | | |[US4CES_comparison-chart_small][US4CES-Family-AUSA_small1] | | | |[Multicam-vs-AOR2-vs-US4CES-Transitional-grass_small] | |[US4CES-Woodland-vs-MARPAT-labeled-50_small1] | | | |[MARPAT-vs-US4CES-Transitional-Sony-Nightshot_s] | |[MARPAT-vs-US4CES-Woodland-Sony-Nightshot_small] | |[MARPAT-vs-US4CES-Transitional-vs-Multicam-Sony] | | | | This is Part 1 | | | | Part 2: U.S. Army Scorpion Camouflage | | | | Part 3: Why not just use MARPAT? | | | | Part 4: Why US4CES? | | | | Part 5: Phase IV C3: Camouflage, Color and Cost | | | |Part 6: U.S. Army Phase IV Baseline Patterns, will the Army have to| | settle with these? | | | | Special Addition: Night Vision Device (Gen-III) comparison photos | | of US4CES and some of the U.S. Army Phase IV camouflage patterns | | | | | | For more Camouflage news go to the HyperStealth(r) Home Page | | | |-------------------------------------------------------------------| | | |References | | | |1) CADPAT & MARPAT Development http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ | |camouflageandcombatgear/message/199 | | | |2) O'Neill, T., Matthews, M., and Swiergosz, M. (2004) Marine Corps| |innovative camouflage. Paper presented at the mid-year meeting of | |the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society and Division 19 of the | |American Psychological Association, Fort Belvoir, VA. | | | |3) Universal Camouflage For The Future Warrior Dugas, Anabela; | |Kramer, F. Matthew (15 December 2004). U.S. Army Natick Soldier | |Center. | | | |4) PHOTOSIMULATION CAMOUFLAGE DETECTION TEST, U.S. Army Natick | |Soldier Center. http://www.scribd.com/doc/19823845/ | |Photosimulation-Camouflage-Detection-Test | | | |5) SOLDIER CAMOUFLAGE FOR OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF): | |PATTERN-IN-PICTURE (PIP) TECHNIQUE FOR EXPEDIENT HUMAN-IN-THE -LOOP| |CAMOUFLAGE ASSESSMENT, U.S. Army Natick Soldier Center. http:// | |www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a532947.pdf | | | |6) CONCEALMENT OF THE WARFIGHTER'S EQUIPMENT THROUGH ENHANCED | |POLYMER TECHNOLOGY http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD= | |ADA433437 | | | |7) US4CES Family of Camouflage Comparison Photos November 13, 2012 | |http://www.hyperstealth.com/US4CES-comparison/index.html | | | |-------------------------------------------------------------------| +-------------------------------------------------------------------+ For more Camouflage news go to the HyperStealth(r) Home Page This page and information (c) Copyright 2013, Hyperstealth, All Rights Reserved. Imaged used belong to their respective owners. CADPAT is a Trademark of the Canadian Government MARPAT is a Trademark of the U.S. Marine Corps UCP, All Over Brush, Shadow Line, Track, BDU, DCU are a Trademarks of the U.S. Army AOR1, AOR2, Universal AOR are Trademarks of the U.S. Navy Multicam is a Trademark of Crye Precision LLC. US4CES is a Trademark of ADS Inc. HyperStealth is a Registered Trademark of HyperStealth.