Army's 'Crotch Durability' Crisis
They say an army travels on its stomach, but it also has to operate by the seat of its pants. And apparently the U.S. Army is having a little problem in that regard. USA Today reports that the Army is retrofitting 1 million uniforms worn by soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan because of reports of "crotch durability problems." Single-stitched seams in sensitive areas just aren't cutting it in the rough terrain in which soldiers are conducting operations.
Update: Anne Laurent reminds me that Government Executive was on the crotch reinforcement story back in May.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
That is what you get when it goes to the cheapest bidder.
JAJ Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007 8:10 PMFirst its malfucntoning Humvee armour, now its worn crotch seams in field uniforms. The government should protect its vulnerable assets better.
PCS Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 8:34 AMUnfortunately, not only are the crotches faulty, seams split after a few washings, collars fail to remain flat and the Velcro loses its effectiveness. The uniform is cheaply constructed and high in cost. Regrettably, that appears to be the theme for contractors supporting our military, get as much money as you can while you can and disregard the soldier and the ramifications of an inferior product. This was evident repeatedly during my deployments to Iraq with not only uniforms but also, parts and end items. Since contractors are not held accountable for inferior products and abject award of contracts to the low bidder. In the end, it is our military personnel incurring problems and ultimately the ones to suffer. In reiteration, contractors should be held to a higher standard and rather than diminishing the importance, value or effectiveness of their product attributed to a decrease in quality or mediocrity, they should incur a substantial financial loss. With their failure to fulfill contractual requirements and/or inferior workmanship/products furnished, contract clauses citing the imposition of penalties thru withholding payment, termination for default and/or convenience to the Government should be mandated and upheld by KOs. In essence, it is a sad testament to our military their dissatisfaction with commodities supplied are ignored and contractors not held accountable.
CAE Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 10:58 AMUniforms should be made of a poplin cotton without nylon and/or polyester. These materials result in more complex wounds when soldiers are burned during IED events. Load bearing equipment should also be made of other than nylon for the same reasons.
JMR Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:53 PMThe higher the political contribution the poorer the product.
Wise Old Owl Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:57 PMDoes anyone out there know what the comparable quality of Iraqi taylors' knockoffs of US militiary uniforms is?
Jay Dee Are Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 2:01 PMI'm sure the contarcting folks will say that they are overworked and understaffed so tell the troops tough, we're home in our warm houses.
dan ketter Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 4:03 PMWhile I would like to blame the contractors, I know they provide products to the military specifications. And acceptance does occur. We cannot accept products that do not meet the specs. Legally anyway. So, are we accepting inferior products or are we not paying any attention to what we are buying? Are the specifications inferior? Garbage in, garbage out.
rh Posted Tuesday, December 4, 2007 11:49 AM