ABU's???

[SoCalMarine]

USAF isn't going to have time to review various proposals for a CAP version of the ABUs and in light of the whole CSU thing, I don't think NHQ is going to press the issue.

Why not though? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but why not? There's a whole group of people, both CAP and USAF, that do nothing but sit at NHQ to work on CAP issues including hot button issues like uniforms.

However, they can't even manage to put out a new manual with updated pictures that don't show blues with wing patches so I'd imagine that you're right and they would find a way to not have the time for it.

[RiverAux]

I wouldn't think it would take any time at all to "review" a new color for the name tapes that is distinctive from the Air Force yet actually looks professional (i.e., the same exact color as the CAP BBDU uniform).

[CCAlex]

I wouldn't think it would take any time at all to "review" a new color for the name tapes that is distinctive from the Air Force yet actually looks professional (i.e., the same exact color as the CAP BBDU uniform).

ooh! ooh! I Got one! how about, orange and blue!....nah. black and white would be good. I think.

[ol'fido]

Well, since we're "possible" insignia color(s) on "maybe we'll get it/ maybe we won't" uniform, I say give everyone some of those rainbow colored post-it-note pads and a sharpie. Is everybody happy???!!

[SoCalMarine]

Well, tonight I had the opportunity to speak to the wing's former commander. I floated two ideas to him to see his take.

First, I said IF we were ever to move to ABUs I think we should use the subdued tapes and patches that would normally go on BDUs. It would still easily distinguish us from the USAF, but would still look professional versus how bad the ultramarine tapes would look. He not only said he liked the idea a lot, but that he's heard the same thing discussed on the wing, region and national level amongst commanders.

Second, I said that we should do a few things to modernize the uniform. Specifically I stated we should take the badges for SM speciality tracks and move them above the ribbons. While doing that, we should reshape the badges to resemble the AF rating and occupational badges which would bring us in line with AF uniform regulations. We could do that, but to maintain the CAP distinction we'd just keep the badges full color. He actually loved the idea, and wanted me to write up a proposal for him to work on and see how far we can take it. He's an AF Colonel so that helps too having his name attached to the idea.

[Phillip]

USAF isn't going to have time to review various proposals for a CAP version of the ABUs and in light of the whole CSU thing, I don't think NHQ is going to press the issue.

Why not though? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but why not? There's a whole group of people, both CAP and USAF, that do nothing but sit at NHQ to work on CAP issues including hot button issues like uniforms.

However, they can't even manage to put out a new manual with updated pictures that don't show blues with wing patches so I'd imagine that you're right and they would find a way to not have the time for it.

I really don't think that USAF wants to spend much time on a new uniform set for CAP.  Not that they don't care, of course, but it's such a low priority for them that they'll likely look for the quickest way to get it settled.  I would hope that they would want to see a couple of proposals and that NHQ has a couple of proposals ready for them.

I won't be surprised, however, to see the CAP-ABU feature ultramarine bling.  Disappointed, but not surprised.

I think we should use the subdued tapes and patches that would normally go on BDUs. It would still easily distinguish us from the USAF, but would still look professional versus how bad the ultramarine tapes would look. He not only said he liked the idea a lot, but that he's heard the same thing discussed on the wing, region and national level amongst commanders.

That wouldn't be too bad.    I'd rather see dark blue tapes and such though, to have the distinctive look plus a link to the the BBDUs.

[Hawk200]

First, I said IF we were ever to move to ABUs I think we should use the subdued tapes and patches that would normally go on BDUs.

I know someone who did this with a brand new ABU shirt, and brand new subdued tapes. It does not look good. The greens are different shades, and it's kind of nauseating to look at.

He also had one that he'd put sage green tapes on, it didn't look too bad. He'd gone with Blag Blue lettering, so it was in subdued colors. However, based on what we've seen in the past, it looks like something that Air Force would likely have a problem with.

Personally, I'd think that Navy blue, or even the Fire Navy colors look decent. The Fire Navy tapes I've seen match well colorwise with the white on blue stripes used on the blue uniforms. Plus it has the advantage of matching the BBDU. It's also readily available (which Vanguard may have a problem with, but I don't really care).

Second, I said that we should do a few things to modernize the uniform. Specifically I stated we should take the badges for SM speciality tracks and move them above the ribbons. While doing that, we should reshape the badges to resemble the AF rating and occupational badges which would bring us in line with AF uniform regulations. We could do that, but to maintain the CAP distinction we'd just keep the badges full color.

Our badges are distinctive, both in shape, location of placement, and in color. Since it's something we're already allowed to do, we may as well keep it.

Second, Vanguard is gonna want some money for the redesign, and is going to either sell out existing stock first, or is going to demand that National buy out all their existing stock. That's a problem.

Unfortunately, for purposes of uniformity, we have problems. if you do phaseout through attrition, then you end up with an oddball mix of old and new for a long time. Many CAP members don't wear out uniforms that quickly, so we could see this kind of hodgepodge for a long time.

[billford1]

We'll have 3 field uniforms. ABU, BDU --  BBDU.  Or President Obama could order a CAP Stimulus with ABUs for everyone. That would make me distracted. I'd have difficulty locating bearded senior members. To alleviate confusion to them the AF could order us to wear reflective CAP ball caps.

[SoCalMarine]

I think we should use the subdued tapes and patches that would normally go on BDUs. It would still easily distinguish us from the USAF, but would still look professional versus how bad the ultramarine tapes would look. He not only said he liked the idea a lot, but that he's heard the same thing discussed on the wing, region and national level amongst commanders.

That wouldn't be too bad.    I'd rather see dark blue tapes and such though, to have the distinctive look plus a link to the the BBDUs.

Well, I don't see why they couldn't maintain the ultramarine specifically for the BBDUs, or change to nametapes matching the color of the BBDUs. Doesn't take much effort to cut and paste or highlight and change text in .pdfs. I do it all the time as I'm a publication/public affairs officer for my Guard unit.

[SoCalMarine]

Our badges are distinctive, both in shape, location of placement, and in color. Since it's something we're already allowed to do, we may as well keep it.

I don't disagree, but the point was the modernize the uniform. Changes in uniform style and placement and design happy regularly with the military (except the Marines and Coast Guard). And anyone that's been around CAP long enough knows that CAP outpaces any of the branches with its uniform changes. I know a lot of people have been discussing this particular issue on both sides (CAP and USAF). Partly due to the desire to bring CAP more in line with USAF regulations, but also because there's going to be new occupational badges coming out for the multitude of speciality tracks that don't already have one. For those of you who are Personnel Officers like me, you can see there are a lot more speciality tracks/ duty positions than what's either listed in manuals or by looking at Vanguard's insignia lists. I've been a Homeland Security officer for two years now and there's nothing for the position.

Second, Vanguard is gonna want some money for the redesign, and is going to either sell out existing stock first, or is going to demand that National buy out all their existing stock. That's a problem.

That I agree with. CAP needs to look at other vendors like the Exchange (they have their own comparable line of generic store brand insignia) or Ira Green perhaps.

Unfortunately, for purposes of uniformity, we have problems. if you do phaseout through attrition, then you end up with an oddball mix of old and new for a long time. Many CAP members don't wear out uniforms that quickly, so we could see this kind of hodgepodge for a long time.

I agree with you, but you seem to forget that we already have that. I've seen four different ES patches, different squadron patches for the same unit, different wing patches for the same wing and so on. You've just grown accustomed to seeing the hodgepodge currently out there. I don't think modernization shouldn't occur because people won't like the phase-in period.

[RiverAux]

Changes in uniform style and placement and design happy regularly with the military (except the Marines and Coast Guard).

The Coast Guard has made two major changes in it's fatigue uniform in the last 7 years (working blue to tucked ODU to untucked ODU).

[SoCalMarine]

Changes in uniform style and placement and design happy regularly with the military (except the Marines and Coast Guard).

The Coast Guard has made two major changes in it's fatigue uniform in the last 7 years (working blue to tucked ODU to untucked ODU).

And the Marines have had two major changes from desert and woodland cammies to desert and woodland MARPAT (although you could look at that as one change). My point was meant to imply the word RELATIVE. Compared to the other branches which are constantly (every year or two) changing, or tweaking, their uniforms the Marines and Coast Guard have had very few changes.

Although I will admit that in the latest ALCOAST that just came out, the CG is now going to a new ballcap. Have you seen the ALCOAST?

**In fact, all 7 uniformed services have made a dramatic change in their utility uniform (BDUs, cammies, DSU and so on) since 2000. I was discounted that fact in my statement since everyone's done it.

*** I recently saw an Army SgtMaj wearing woodland BDU colored ACUs. VERY interesting.

[JC004]

I wouldn't think it would take any time at all to "review" a new color for the name tapes that is distinctive from the Air Force yet actually looks professional (i.e., the same exact color as the CAP BBDU uniform).

Radioman wants red and white or something to increase silliness.

[Sapper168]

*** I recently saw an Army SgtMaj wearing woodland BDU colored ACUs. VERY interesting.

You more than likely saw the Multicam patterned ACU that are issued to army  troops serving in Afghanistan. 

[SoCalMarine]

*** I recently saw an Army SgtMaj wearing woodland BDU colored ACUs. VERY interesting.

You more than likely saw the Multicam patterned ACU that are issued to army  troops serving in Afghanistan.

Uh, no. I'm IN the Georgia Guard. I know the difference between MulitCam, ACU and BDUs woodland and desert. Also, the current Army policy is that MultiCam is not to be worn stateside. It was the same woodland color you found on BDUs prior to the ACU just like I saw back when I joined the Marine Corps in 1994, however it was designed like the ACU with angled pockets and velcro.

[Hawk200]

Our badges are distinctive, both in shape, location of placement, and in color. Since it's something we're already allowed to do, we may as well keep it.

I don't disagree, but the point was the modernize the uniform. Changes in uniform style and placement and design happy regularly with the military (except the Marines and Coast Guard).

To be blunt, change for the sake of change is a waste of time and money. What need is there to alter a complete set of badges and their placement? I used to think it would be nice to "look like the Air Force", but I've realized that there needs to be some minor but obvious distinctions. Alterations are not needed. There is no justifiable reason to change something just to do it. That indicates a serious lack of priority.

Second, it's not our uniform to change. We're part of the Air Force (more or less), not our own unique entity. The smart thing to do is wear the it as the Air Force sees fit, and suggest concepts for new uniforms that we are not currently, but may eventually be authorized (ABU).

Second, Vanguard is gonna want some money for the redesign, and is going to either sell out existing stock first, or is going to demand that National buy out all their existing stock. That's a problem.

That I agree with. CAP needs to look at other vendors like the Exchange (they have their own comparable line of generic store brand insignia) or Ira Green perhaps.

Right now, CAP has an exclusive contract with Vanguard. Allowing others to produce items for us will cost us. Guess who ends up paying for it.

Now, if you want to foot that bill of paying off or buying out everything related to Vanguard, I'll wear it as long as it would be authorized for me, and I don't think it looks stupid. Until then, it's unwise to suggest changes for the sake of changes. Our specialty badges are unique. The Air Force has few pocket-worn badges, so our insignia provide some minor but critical differences. So far, I'm simply seeing "Oh, we should modernize, everybody else is." That's the wrong reason to do so.

Unfortunately, for purposes of uniformity, we have problems. if you do phaseout through attrition, then you end up with an oddball mix of old and new for a long time. Many CAP members don't wear out uniforms that quickly, so we could see this kind of hodgepodge for a long time.

I agree with you, but you seem to forget that we already have that. I've seen four different ES patches, different squadron patches for the same unit, different wing patches for the same wing and so on. You've just grown accustomed to seeing the hodgepodge currently out there. I don't think modernization shouldn't occur because people won't like the phase-in period.

And you seem to think that since we have this variation, it's acceptable to make it worse. That is flawed logic.

Second, there's only been two ES patches. A T-34, and a dog. The dog is an updating of the original ES patch. There haven't been any others.

Finally, it's not modernization, it's your personal desire. A desire that shows no practicality.

I've been where you are now, I wanted to see us "more like the Air Force." However, many of the changes that were made to achieve that goal have created problems of "so much like the Air Force that CAP behaviours could reflect negatively on the Air Force." We have uniquely colored epaulets, unique badges and placements, and unique color schemes. Some are a little too out there, and could stand to be tweaked a bit. But attempting to alter authorizations that we already have is a bad idea. The Air Force may simply say, "Well, fine, you don't want to wear the uniform we allowed you, the way we allowed you, so you can quit wearing ours altogether." That happens, I will leave (and likely many others) for the simple fact that I'm not going to go buy all new uniforms because someone couldn't just do the right thing, and leave the things alone that didn't need to be bothered with in the first place. What we have now works, it's not an impediment, and it will not resolve anything to change for the sake of change.

The issues of different patches for the same unit is not a justification to make another one. That's a management issue. A lot of the problem there is "we can't make people change or they'll leave." So we end up with people looking tacky, unkempt, or completely unprofessional by being PC. Address the problem (people not wearing the things they should), instead of trying to change to something new that you want. Lead, don't change because it's easier.

[Hawk200]

*** I recently saw an Army SgtMaj wearing woodland BDU colored ACUs. VERY interesting.

That SgtMaj was not wearing an Army authorized uniform. He was either "special", or decided to do his own thing. If he was "special", then he was probably not supposed to be wearing it where most would see him. There are some folks with specialized units that tend to create a stir when they show up in unusual gear or uniforms.

If he was doing his own thing, I'd wonder why he'd want to spend the money. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he was some kind of poser.

It was the same woodland color you found on BDUs prior to the ACU just like I saw back when I joined the Marine Corps in 1994, however it was designed like the ACU with angled pockets and velcro.

I know for a fact that there is a State Defense Force or three that wears a Woodland camo pattern ACU-style uniform. Not sure which ones at the moment, I'll have to dig into all the SDF uniform manuals that I have to find which one (and I've got a few). I know the SDF for my state is going to the ACU, but I'm not certain as to the configuration.

I imagine that the one you saw probably had the old solid green nametapes and rank. However, there is an SDF or two that have had custom made tapes and insignia that match the woodland pattern.

[SoCalMarine]

That SgtMaj was not wearing an Army authorized uniform. He was either "special", or decided to do his own thing. If he was "special", then he was probably not supposed to be wearing it where most would see him. There are some folks with specialized units that tend to create a stir when they show up in unusual gear or uniforms.

If he was doing his own thing, I'd wonder why he'd want to spend the money. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if he was some kind of poser.

How do you know he wasn't wearing an Army authorized uniform? Where do you come up with all of these wild theories? I didn't go all into this when I first posted the comment about his uniform because I didn't expect people to read so far into it. He's not a poser. This SgtMaj was wearing a test uniform. He was one of many Soldiers given the uniform for wear to test it out and respond back to R&D with his comments on wearability. He was traveling with a couple of other officers and enlisted wearing different versions of the ACUs with buttons and zippers rather than velcro. I even later saw a picture of him in the Army Times.

I know for a fact that there is a State Defense Force or three that wears a Woodland camo pattern ACU-style uniform.

I've not seen that, but that's not to say you're wrong. I know that the only states not wearing ACUs are OR, NC, SC, VA, AL and LA. I might have missed one or two though. Pretty much everyone has switched to ACUs; although, most want to switch to MultiCam as they feel its a better uniform (I agree), and they know the Army is switching to it anyway. The only problem with the end of the sentence is that they Army is now testing a version of the MARPAT (I saw version as the MARPAT is copyrighted by the Corps) in both woodland and desert colors. That should be interesting. If they change again you could say that the Army changes uniforms like women changes clothes! Hahaha

What state are you in?

[SoCalMarine]

OK, I'm going to start off by saying that I had to take some time before responding. Your reply came across as being very belittling of me, my ideas and suggestions.  You can disagree with someone without responding the way you did; however, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here to say that you didn't intend to be that way and it was more how it came across to me. So, don't think that I hate you, or have hard feelings against you if you read something I wrote below and it doesn't come off right.

To be blunt, change for the sake of change is a waste of time and money. What need is there to alter a complete set of badges and their placement? I used to think it would be nice to "look like the Air Force", but I've realized that there needs to be some minor but obvious distinctions. Alterations are not needed. There is no justifiable reason to change something just to do it. That indicates a serious lack of priority.

I gave reasons for the suggestions of change. If I had said we should change because "I'm tired of this", or because "we've been wearing this uniform so awhile" then I would agree that it would be for change's sake. The problem is that i stated two specific reasons. First, to modernize the uniform. CAP, along with the other auxiliaries and military branches modernize their uniforms. CAP has a track record of this, and generally its at the suggestion of the USAF. Second, to be more in line with USAF uniform regulations while maintaining distinctiveness. You may dismiss the idea, but I have precedence on my side.

Case in point... all the Wings are currently working to revise and redesign the wing patches. Why? Because they USAF stated that they wanted the patches to conform to USAF regulations for design and size. As you can see by looking at Vanguard, and doing a little research on the subject, states are starting to make the transition with Georgia being the latest. So, the USAF itself thinks that modernization and conforming to USAF standards is a valid reason for change. The same reason I stated that you seem to dismiss.

Second, it's not our uniform to change. We're part of the Air Force (more or less), not our own unique entity. The smart thing to do is wear the it as the Air Force sees fit, and suggest concepts for new uniforms that we are not currently, but may eventually be authorized (ABU).

Correct, but who suggested that WE change it? I stated that they are suggestions to be made up the chain to NHQ for them to bring up with the USAF if they feel its a good idea. Do honestly believe that every change, or current regulation, concerning the CAP uniform was 100% USAF ideas? Not one item is because of a suggestion from someone in CAP on any level? The USAF is full of professionals, including those who preside over CAP. If a suggestion is presented in a complete, concise way with good visuals the USAF will listen. They may still deny the idea, but they respect people who are visionaries and present ideas.

Right now, CAP has an exclusive contract with Vanguard. Allowing others to produce items for us will cost us. Guess who ends up paying for it.

Yes, hence my usage of the word look. Look means research. It doesn't mean just drop a contract, violate the terms of a contract or anything else. If you think no one is already looking ahead at how the contract will be renegotiated once the VG contract is up than you are very naive. There's no harm in looking at the capabilities of another vendor, their pricing and quality.

Now, if you want to foot that bill of paying off or buying out everything related to Vanguard, I'll wear it as long as it would be authorized for me, and I don't think it looks stupid.

Odd, you'll only wear something as long as you don't think it looks stupid. Seems to contradict a statement you made below about people not wearing things they're supposed to and so on. So, its alright for you to not wear something because you think it might look stupid, but its wrong for someone else to suggest a change for the same reason?

Until then, it's unwise to suggest changes for the sake of changes.

To quote Reagan, "there you go again."

Our specialty badges are unique.

And no one has suggested making them not unique. Come to think of it, I went out of my way multiple times to state that I believe we can make these changes while still maintaining the distinctiveness of our insignia.

The Air Force has few pocket-worn badges, so our insignia provide some minor but critical differences.

And those badges are very specific in nature. They are generally for a high level position as staff for someone, a command or because it doesn't fit above the ribbons like the missile badge. The USAF does not use the pockets for rating and occupational badges except in extreme circumstances.

So far, I'm simply seeing "Oh, we should modernize, everybody else is." That's the wrong reason to do so.

Of course that's all you see, and that explains your responses so far; however, you're not seeing that from anything I said. Show me where I said we should modernize because everyone else is. I never even alluded to that.

I've seen four different ES patches

And you seem to think that since we have this variation, it's acceptable to make it worse. That is flawed logic.

Second, there's only been two ES patches. A T-34, and a dog. The dog is an updating of the original ES patch. There haven't been any others.

First, I'm pretty sure the flawed logic here isn't mine. How do you get I think its "acceptable to make it worse" from what I said? Where are you even getting that what I stated would make it worse? If you were comprehending what I wrote you would have walked away with the idea that I was making the point that all the variations in insignia/patches is an issue, and that I believe we should narrow them down to one each.

As for the number of ES patches... let me explain something to you for future reference... if someone makes a statement that you don't understand such as my "I've seen four different ES patches" a professional response would have been to say: "I only know of two ES patches. Of which other two are you referring?"

Why? First, it allows the first person to correct their statement from four to two if they had been wrong without putting them down, and two, it allows them to give information on the other two patches that you were unaware without making a definitive statement which you later have to retract.

So, what are these four ES patches that I've seen? On a few people in GA, one person at NESA last year and two or three people in CAWG, I've seen an OLD patch. It is round like the dog patch, it has a white background, with blue letters around the outside "Civil Air Patrol" on top and "Emergency Services" on the bottom with a red Cessna in the center situated so that it looks as if you're standing in front of it looking straight down the spine from nose to tail. That's one.

Second patch is the old T-34 that is primarily red and blue in color.

Third patch is the dog patch which looks like something you'd get at Disney.

The fourth patch is now available at Vanguard. Its the same design as the old T-34 but with a radically different color scheme.

That makes four just like I said.

Finally, it's not modernization, it's your personal desire. A desire that shows no practicality.

There's nothing final about it. My ideas follow suit with the same reasoning the USAF has given for wanting the redesign of wing patches. Here's a question though... how is it that you know what I'm thinking, or what's in my heart? Even though I've stated two reasons for the suggestions, you are saying that's not my true reasoning. That I am in fact doing it for my own personal gain.

I've been where you are now, I wanted to see us "more like the Air Force." However, many of the changes that were made to achieve that goal have created problems of "so much like the Air Force that CAP behaviours could reflect negatively on the Air Force."

Where did i say I want us to look "more like the Air Force?" All I said is to follow more in line with the USAF regulations in which CAP purports to derive their uniform regulations.

...have uniquely colored epaulets, unique badges and placements, and unique color schemes. Some are a little too out there, and could stand to be tweaked a bit.

Hm, that seems to contradict with your statement up top. You said that, and I quote, "Alterations are not needed. There is no justifiable reason to change something just to do it." Really? So, you say that they could be tweaked, but is that not an alteration? What reason do you have to justify your violating your own statement that alterations are needed?

But attempting to alter authorizations that we already have is a bad idea.

And yet you just stated that we need some "tweaking" of our colors. Do you not know, or realize, that it is the USAF that states what we can wear? The colors we wear are because of our "authorizations" by the USAF. So, you've just contradicted your contradiction.

The Air Force may simply say, "Well, fine, you don't want to wear the uniform we allowed you, the way we allowed you, so you can quit wearing ours altogether."

It's a possibility, but highly improbable. Just like the idea that humans can fly. Anyway, do you know how many uniform changes are suggested up the chain every year? Do you know how many come from the different levels of membership from the lowest cadet all the way up to people at NHQ making suggestions? You act as if no one EVER makes a suggestion, and if I were to do it the USAF would flip out on us and take everything away.

That happens, I will leave (and likely many others) for the simple fact that I'm not going to go buy all new uniforms because someone couldn't just do the right thing, and leave the things alone that didn't need to be bothered with in the first place.

You know, its never a good debate tactic to say if I don't get my way I'm leaving. Who are you to say its "the right thing" to not suggest anything, to not have any vision? You know why Gen Courter got the job? Besides he amazing qualifications, she got the job because she had a vision. She had a vision how to change CAP and to make it better. You know why the USAF respects her visions and has accepted a lot of her changes? Because she approached them with respect. You act as if everyone in the USAF is an unprofessional wank who will get pissed at the first signs of "revolt" by someone suggestion a uniform change. Where do you think the uniform board gets the ideas that they consider every year for uniforms? They just fell out of the sky?

The issues of different patches for the same unit is not a justification to make another one.

OK. I agree, but I'm a little confused as to who mentioned that we should make another one. I sure didn't say it. Besides, my mentioning the patches really had nothing to do with the patches themselves so much as to use the varied number of patches for the same thing as an example of why we need to fix things.

That's a management issue. A lot of the problem there is "we can't make people change or they'll leave."

And yet you just stated that if you were forced to change you would leave, yet you're saying right here that is a bad reason for not doing something.

Address the problem (people not wearing the things they should)

I agree, especially when someone says that they won't wear something if they think it looks stupid.

Look man, I can respect your views if you differ with me. I'm adult enough that I can understand that people are different with different views and likes and interests. The problem I have is how you go about disagreeing with someone. You just come across as making statements where you're the right one and everyone else must be wrong. Just not cool man. I don't mind a good debate. I don't know everything, and you may see something from an angle I didn't. I'd just rather talk with you where you're not commenting the way you did.

[Hawk200]

Taken a few things out of context, and you don't seem to think that the facts relate that many other people already know. So, I'm done. Have a nice day.