CDS wants to toss Canadian-made uniforms for U.S. version

Internally, within the Forces, insiders say the project has been given a deadline of a year to deliver the new clothing

The Canadian military is looking for a new camouflage uniform for its 95,000 regular and reserve force members — potentially at a cost of as much as $500 million — and the boss favours one originally developed for the U.S. army.

In a seven-page briefing note on Chief of Defence Staff Jonathan Vance’s recent visit to Halifax, Vance’s senior staff officers last month wrote, “The CDS stated his desire to replace” current uniforms with the new “MultiCam” pattern now being used by the force’s Special Operations Command.

Except for special forces, most Canadian soldiers now wear “CADPAT,” short for “Canadian Disruptive Pattern,” a Canadian-developed digital camouflage print that comes in several varieties, depending on the environment (desert, temperate, Arctic, etc.) and for which the Canadian government has a copyright and trademark.

The uniforms are manufactured by a number of Canadian companies.

MultiCam is a patented brand — made by Crye Precision of New York and until recently the main camouflage for most U.S. army units — and is also used as a generic term for a single-purpose camouflage that theoretically works in all environments.

5 thoughts on “CDS wants to toss Canadian-made uniforms for U.S. version

  1. Frankly, this disgusts me to no avail. Canada pioneered a revolutionary concealment pattern only to be copied by all of the world in some form and now you want to change to Multicam? Which, by the way is not what the US wears to begin with. They wear a quite different version with very distinct differences called Scorpion. I would imagine that’s because they didn’t want to pay royalties to Crye Precision for the right to produce and issue it! So before you know it, the entire NATO force will all be wearing the same BDU’s and let’s not forget that the Russians have their own copy of it as well, no that couldn’t present any problems that I can think of? Could we get a commanding officer that has at least the common sense to see what his own country has accomplished and maybe improve upon that instead of jumping on the “USA”!! bandwagon of warmongering troglodytes? Mr. Vance, kindly remove your head from your behind and move forward with Canadian values in mind! I only need remind you of the Avro Arrow sir as to what can happen when governments sell out to the United States. That is all, thank you.

    C. Romanick.

  2. C Romanick – good points with the exception of the Arrow remark. AVRO Canada developed and built the under-performing CF-100 ‘Canuck’over-budget and late. It was known in the RCAF as the ‘Clunk’ due to its poor flight envelope. It was a dog and Belgium bought it as well as Canada because our government gave them to Belgium at a subsidized cost. The RCAF was once bitten and twice shy when it came to dumping millions of dollars on AVRO’s next project the Arrow. The concept was great but poorly executed – cost overruns and spiralling costs started to resemble the chaotic CF-100 project. In the end, the prototype Arrows flew with current jet engines as the ones meant for the Arrow hadn’t been brought into service or tested fully; no decision or working models of the weapons pack was ever installed; the canapy was an ancronysim; the through-life costs were deemed too expensive for the RCAF to bear on its budget – the RCAF and Air Defence Command wanted the CF-101 Voodoo as it was in service and an excellent air interdiction AWF. The Chief of Air Staff recommended to the Diefenbaker Government to cease work on the Arrow and the Government made the correct decision and ended the program – saving the taxpayer millions rather than spending it on the unproven Arrow. Besides many of the engineers and designers on the project were British and not Canadian.

    Hey; you don’t have to believe me and you don’t need to continue with he current Canadian propaganda surrounding the Arrow, you just need to read the Canadian Government, DND and RCAF documents on the subject written in the late 1950s (the reports on the development of the CF-100 provide an even greater example of a company soaking the taxpayer). We Canadians have a lot of which to be proud, but the Arrow is not one of them.

  3. Not sure if you serve or not but I can absolutely guarantee that everyone in a Combat Arms trade supports this move. Multicam is great and if the uniforms are cut like the Yanks’ are so that pockets actually make sense, even better.

  4. Why does it matter what it looks like? The money should go to waterproof, winterproof, or CBRN proof technology. The cool guy in his aviators doesn’t mean squat if he’s dead.

    Can you survive as a soldier in it? What does that mean to you?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *