That's funny because the last stats I saw said the Air Force had over 1/3 of the KIAs in OEF/OIF. If your logic were true that the Air Force doesn't do anything to need camo because we sit on our bases then the Army and Marines would split that number and the Air Force and Navy might have one or two from IDF attacks. And to add to that I, as an Airman, have over 150 combat missions under my belt in Afghanistan... on the ground... outside the wire.The air force needs a camo pattern in order to let their troops feel like soldiers. There's not that much else, after all.
Now off my soap box and to answer the ACTUAL question posed in this thread. Both the Air Force and Army have realized that while the ACU/ABU patterns provide good concealment in the rocky terrain of Afghanistan, the vast difference in color palettes between that and the lush green vegetation in the valleys present the need for a camo pattern that can virtually change colors based on the environment around it and that is was multicam does. It does that through reflecting light from the surroundings that can change the colors actually seen by the human eye. It is truly a camo for MOST environments in Afghanistan at least.
As far as costing the tax payer more money: multicam was not developed through R&D from any of the services and it already in productive use in other countries, i.e. the UK.
Bookmarks