New Army uniform

[PHall]

The U.S. Army has altered its government-owned Scorpion camouflage pattern to look almost identical to MultiCam, the trademarked pattern the service has been using in Afghanistan since 2010.

"We don't want to pay for MultiCam, so we're 'altering' our Scorpion pattern in such a way that it looks just like MultiCam.  Pure coincidence.  Honest."

The guys in Army Legal can't honestly expect to get away with that.  It's so blatant.  It's almost as if they crunched the numbers and decided that getting sued, and loosing, is cheaper then just buying the rights.

But they can't buy the rights because Crye Precision, the developer and owner of the Multicam pattern, isn't selling.
They're willing to sell the government a license to use the pattern, but it won't be cheap.
And they're entirely within their legal rights to do so too.

And this is exactly what is wrong with government spending. It's out of hand, which is why we have serious problems paying our bills. We can't keep spending money we don't have!

*runs off to pay $600 in rent with $300 in the bank*

I have no trouble paying my bills. But I learned how live within my means when I was an A1C on active duty in 1975.
Even living in the dorms and eating on a meal card I was still short at the end of the month.
Until I learned how to make and stick with a budget!

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I have no trouble paying my bills. But I learned how live within my means when I was an A1C on active duty in 1975.
Even living in the dorms and eating on a meal card I was still short at the end of the month.
Until I learned how to make and stick with a budget!

Was an A1C then the same paygrade as A1C now (E-3)?

I ask because when my uncle was in the Air Force the progression went:

Basic Airman (not Airman Basic): E-1, no stripes
Airman Third Class (A3C): E-2, one stripe
Airman Second Class (A2C): E-3, two stripes
Airman First Class (A1C): E-4, three stripes
Staff Sergeant (SSgt): E-5, three stripes, one "rocker"

...and so on.

None of them had the "blue star," they all had the silver star in the centre.  And my uncle said that they informally called an A1C "Sarge" at that time, even though they were not sergeants (and of course I don't know if it was done that way throughout the AF).

I know the Air Force has juggled its enlisted/NCO ranks so many times throughout its history...it finally made more sense with the system I remember: AB, Amn, A1C, SrA, Sgt, SSgt, etc.

To me it's goofy now, going straight from SrA (which is not an NCO) to SSgt (which is) with no lateral promotion to Sgt (which is an NCO).

It's kind of like in the Army, where promotions to Corporal are the exception and not the rule, and the rank of Specialist is not a specialist at all...my dad was one of the earliest Specialists and he said it, at least then, was to be kind of like an enlisted version of warrant officer.

But my reason for asking was...in 1975 I don't know what the pay charts were (I was nine years old!) but depending where A1C stood then (E-3 or E-4), you might have had just a tad more money in your paygrade (not much, but a little!). 

[PHall]

I have no trouble paying my bills. But I learned how live within my means when I was an A1C on active duty in 1975.
Even living in the dorms and eating on a meal card I was still short at the end of the month.
Until I learned how to make and stick with a budget!

Was an A1C then the same paygrade as A1C now (E-3)?

I ask because when my uncle was in the Air Force the progression went:

Basic Airman (not Airman Basic): E-1, no stripes
Airman Third Class (A3C): E-2, one stripe
Airman Second Class (A2C): E-3, two stripes
Airman First Class (A1C): E-4, three stripes
Staff Sergeant (SSgt): E-5, three stripes, one "rocker"

...and so on.

None of them had the "blue star," they all had the silver star in the centre.  And my uncle said that they informally called an A1C "Sarge" at that time, even though they were not sergeants (and of course I don't know if it was done that way throughout the AF).

I know the Air Force has juggled its enlisted/NCO ranks so many times throughout its history...it finally made more sense with the system I remember: AB, Amn, A1C, SrA, Sgt, SSgt, etc.

To me it's goofy now, going straight from SrA (which is not an NCO) to SSgt (which is) with no lateral promotion to Sgt (which is an NCO).

It's kind of like in the Army, where promotions to Corporal are the exception and not the rule, and the rank of Specialist is not a specialist at all...my dad was one of the earliest Specialists and he said it, at least then, was to be kind of like an enlisted version of warrant officer.

But my reason for asking was...in 1975 I don't know what the pay charts were (I was nine years old!) but depending where A1C stood then (E-3 or E-4), you might have had just a tad more money in your paygrade (not much, but a little!). 

In 1975 it was:     E-1  Airman Basic - AB - (no stripes),
                             E-2  Airman - Amn - (one stripe),
                             E-3  Airman First Class - A1C - (two stripes)
                           

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Same as it was for me, then.

[Panache]

The U.S. Army has altered its government-owned Scorpion camouflage pattern to look almost identical to MultiCam, the trademarked pattern the service has been using in Afghanistan since 2010.

"We don't want to pay for MultiCam, so we're 'altering' our Scorpion pattern in such a way that it looks just like MultiCam.  Pure coincidence.  Honest."

The guys in Army Legal can't honestly expect to get away with that.  It's so blatant.  It's almost as if they crunched the numbers and decided that getting sued, and loosing, is cheaper then just buying the rights.

Or maybe the Army Legal guys know exactly what they are doing.   Like you said....if it were wrong "It's so blatant." who would do such a thing?

You have a lot more faith in our government lawyers than I do.

[AlphaSigOU]

Back WIWOAD (1985) in Ma Blue:


E-1 Airman Basic
E-2 Airman (6 months to 'mosquito wings')
E-3 Airman First Class (3 AFSC and 12 months to 'dragonfly wings')
E-4 Senior Airman (26 months and a 5 AFSC)
E-4 Sergeant (1 year as a SrA and completion of the NCO Preparatory Course, aka 'maggot school'.

[Shuman 14]

And then we are back to the whole argument about a UCP.    "Works" is a value laden term.   The ACU's do work.  Just not as good a desert multi-cam.

Well, in that case, Olive Drab "works" too... better than ACU and, also, just not as good as desert multi-cam.

ONE theater?   We only going to fight in the desert for now on?   What about woodlands?  Arctic? Jungle?  Savanna?  That is the reason why the Army was so hot for the UCP for the ACUs.    When Desert Storm kicked off they had to buy complete new uniforms and FIELD GEAR....including chemical warfare suits!.....for their woodland BDU wearing solders.  It was the cost of wearhousing all those different equipment loads outs and uniforms that the Army was trying to save with the ACUs.

Yes, you would have to have multiple types of camo patterns on hand and ready at MOB Stations to equip deploying personnel. I guess I wasn't clear one pattern for each Theater. So one Arctic camo for all... one Jungle camo for all... etc.

Yep....much the same very expensive.

I think the benefits outweight the costs. We are talking about equipment that could potentially save a Servicemember's life.

Again....slowing his deployment....and raising the cost of getting him to the field.

I would submit to you that every Servicemember, as part of his pre-deployment, already goes thru a Theater CIF equipment issue. To add four sets of Camo, two patrol caps, and a feild jacket to that issue will add minimum extra time at CIF. I don't see that slowing his deployment... maybe shorting his lunch hour that day at most.

[Shuman 14]

Back WIWOAD (1985) in Ma Blue:


E-1 Airman Basic
E-2 Airman (6 months to 'mosquito wings')
E-3 Airman First Class (3 AFSC and 12 months to 'dragonfly wings')
E-4 Senior Airman (26 months and a 5 AFSC)
E-4 Sergeant (1 year as a SrA and completion of the NCO Preparatory Course, aka 'maggot school'.

Silly question, but how is it that Corporal never made it into the Air Force rank structure and Sergeant ended up as the E-4 NCO grade? 

[lordmonar]

Back WIWOAD (1985) in Ma Blue:


E-1 Airman Basic
E-2 Airman (6 months to 'mosquito wings')
E-3 Airman First Class (3 AFSC and 12 months to 'dragonfly wings')
E-4 Senior Airman (26 months and a 5 AFSC)
E-4 Sergeant (1 year as a SrA and completion of the NCO Preparatory Course, aka 'maggot school'.

Silly question, but how is it that Corporal never made it into the Air Force rank structure and Sergeant ended up as the E-4 NCO grade? 

Because in 1947 the USAF was so busy seperating themselves from the Army they made some big changes.

[Tim Medeiros]

Back WIWOAD (1985) in Ma Blue:


E-1 Airman Basic
E-2 Airman (6 months to 'mosquito wings')
E-3 Airman First Class (3 AFSC and 12 months to 'dragonfly wings')
E-4 Senior Airman (26 months and a 5 AFSC)
E-4 Sergeant (1 year as a SrA and completion of the NCO Preparatory Course, aka 'maggot school'.

Silly question, but how is it that Corporal never made it into the Air Force rank structure and Sergeant ended up as the E-4 NCO grade? 

http://www.afhra.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090611-103.pdf shows that at one point (until 24 April 1952) the AF DID have Corporal as a rank.

[LSThiker]

The History of Air Force Enlisted Rank:

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/airforce/a/afenrankhistory.htm

[Shuman 14]

Gentlemen, Thank you both for some interesting reading.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Gentlemen, Thank you both for some interesting reading.

It is.  I learnt some things I did not know.

The "Fig. 3" is what my uncle served under.  He joined the AF not long after it became an independent service.  I think he had some part in the Berlin Airlift (not as aircrew), but I am not sure what.

I still do not think that the current structure makes sense, especially when placed alongside other services.  The Army (from whence our history and ranks were derived) and Marines both have Corporal/Specialist (another rank that makes no sense in its current connotation, opposed to its original intent as "enlisted warrant officers") at E-4, but at one time we had Sergeant at E-4.

I also think we have too many Sergeant ranks in all the services that use them, compared to other countries.  For example, Canada has only one rank of Sergeant



and from there goes into Warrant Officers (though theirs are more like SNCO's than our Warrants).  Britain just has Sergeant and Flight Sergeant for the RAF, as well as Sergeant and Staff Sergeant for the Army and Royal Marines.  Australia, New Zealand, India etc. follow suit, except that (inexplicably) the Australian Army is phasing out SSgt.

If I had my way about things (and I do not), we would have a much-simplified enlisted/NCO grade structure.

Airman Recruit - E-1 (no insignia)

Airman - E-2

Airman First Class - E-3

Corporal - E-4

Sergeant - E-5

Staff Sergeant - E-6

Flight Sergeant - E-7

Master Sergeant - E-8

First Sergeant (appointed position) -

Sergeant Major - E-9

Command Sergeant Major (appointed position) - E-9

CMSAF - no change

I reconfigured the upper-level NCO's to match our Army origins.

I also replaced the Technical Sergeant with Flight Sergeant.  Other than having some origin in the "Technician" ranks of the USAAF, I never understood the name of this rank - it sounds to me like "technically a sergeant."  The RAF title sounds much more aviation-orientated.

I would also have all enlisted/NCO grades on shoulder marks, as most of our allies do.  It would save a lot of expense on sewing and wear-and-tear on shirts.  Save the full-size stripes for service dress.

Just a flight of fancy, not to be taken seriously.

[LSThiker]

I also replaced the Technical Sergeant with Flight Sergeant.  Other than having some origin in the "Technician" ranks of the USAAF, I never understood the name of this rank - it sounds to me like "technically a sergeant."

Using flight sergeant for E-7 would cause confusion as not all E-7s are flight sergeants. 

[Shuman 14]

I also replaced the Technical Sergeant with Flight Sergeant.  Other than having some origin in the "Technician" ranks of the USAAF, I never understood the name of this rank - it sounds to me like "technically a sergeant."

Using flight sergeant for E-7 would cause confusion as not all E-7s are flight sergeants.

And not all Gunnery Sergeants are in the Artillery. 

Seriously I like the term Technical Sergeant and Flight Sergeant, maybe there could be a way to use them both:

E-1 Airman
E-2  Senior Airman
E-3 Airman First Class
E-4 Corporal
E-5 Sergeant
E-6 Staff Sergeant
E-7 Technical Sergeant / First Sergeant
E-8 Master Sergeant / Flight Sergeant
E-9 Chief Master Sergeant / Command Chief Master Sergeant
Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force

Or maybe flip the First Sergeant and the Flight Sergeant... don't know enough about USAF line vs. staff NCOs billets to say which way is more appropriate. 

[CAP_truth]

The chevrons shown for E-7 are incorrect, they are the current E-8 Master Sergeant chevrons. E-8 are Senior Master Sergeant chevrons, and E-9 are Chief Master Sergeant chevrons.

[LSThiker]

Or maybe flip the First Sergeant and the Flight Sergeant... don't know enough about USAF line vs. staff NCOs billets to say which way is more appropriate. 

That would be like saying first sergeant and PSG need to be reversed.

[Shuman 14]

Or maybe flip the First Sergeant and the Flight Sergeant... don't know enough about USAF line vs. staff NCOs billets to say which way is more appropriate. 

That would be like saying first sergeant and PSG need to be reversed.

Roger that, tracking now.

[Brit_in_CAP]

Gentlemen, Thank you both for some interesting reading.

It is.  I learnt some things I did not know.

The "Fig. 3" is what my uncle served under.  He joined the AF not long after it became an independent service.  I think he had some part in the Berlin Airlift (not as aircrew), but I am not sure what.

I still do not think that the current structure makes sense, especially when placed alongside other services.  The Army (from whence our history and ranks were derived) and Marines both have Corporal/Specialist (another rank that makes no sense in its current connotation, opposed to its original intent as "enlisted warrant officers") at E-4, but at one time we had Sergeant at E-4.

I also think we have too many Sergeant ranks in all the services that use them, compared to other countries.  For example, Canada has only one rank of Sergeant


and from there goes into Warrant Officers (though theirs are more like SNCO's than our Warrants).  Britain just has Sergeant and Flight Sergeant for the RAF, as well as Sergeant and Staff Sergeant for the Army and Royal Marines.  Australia, New Zealand, India etc. follow suit, except that (inexplicably) the Australian Army is phasing out SSgt.

One slight correction, if I may.  The RAF also has the SNCO rank of Chief Technician.    Chief Technician (Chf Tech or formerly C/T) is a non-commissioned rank which is only held by airmen in technical trades and by musicians. It is between sergeant and flight sergeant and, like the latter has a NATO code of OR-7. Airmen in non-technical trades progress directly from sergeant to flight sergeant. Along with Junior Technician this is a survivor of a separate ranking system for technicians introduced in 1950 and abolished in 1964. During that period it was equivalent to flight sergeant, but was made junior to that rank in 1964. Chief technicians are usually addressed as "Chief".

Originally, Chief Technicians were those who preferred to stay with their trade whereas a person willing to serve at OR7 outside their main trade (usually in 'management' posts) became a Flight Sergeant.  Today, the rank is junior to the FS although they have the same NATO code.  In reality, it takes as long for a technician to go from Sgt to FS via Chief as it does for a non-tech to progress from Sgt to FS directly (apparently...)

Chief Technician is the last vestige of the technician rank system, as the Junior Technician rank was abolished in 2005 and replaced by Senior Aircraftman (Technician) which distinguishes airmen trained to work unsupervised from those who were not (Senior Aircraftman).  Perhaps my old Junior Tech badges are worth a few bucks now..?   

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I know about the Chief Technician and Senior Aircraftman grades - interesting that the other Commonwealth air forces did not adopt them. 

Interesting also that the RAF (and RNZAF) have special designators for NCO aircrew:

http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=1216

Except for Canada, which retains the Army-style ranks they inherited from their "unification" experiment in 1968 (http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=3582), the RAAF, RNZAF, etc. all go directly from Aircraftman to Leading Aircraftman (the RAAF uses a Lance-Corporal type chevron rather than the traditional two-bladed prop; interestingly, the RNZAF retain the British, rather than New Zealand, Royal Coat of Arms.).

http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=90

http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=92

The "Technicians" sound a lot like what U.S. Army Specialists were intended to be.  As i have said previously, my dad was one of the first Specialists.  Back then they went all the way from Specialist 4 (E-4) to Specialist 9 (E-9), yet they carried no authority as NCO's.  An SP9 was subordinate to an E-4 Corporal.

http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=2151

This is the earliest depiction I could find of post-USAAF Air Force ranks, dated 1948-1952:

http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=2145