Better get used to the BDU - and some thoughts (rant?)

[a2capt]

Is there anyone actually still using it, that there is reason to continue to manufacture in accordance with the specification? 

.. or will the marketplace just evolve towards whatever they want to do?

[Eclipse]

Personally, for field use I'd go 100% non-military - an ANSI II Yellow long and short sleeved shirt,
ANSI II ball cap and Black tac pants or similar.

No patches, no nametags, nothing, it totally necessary, one patch on the breast - the MAJCOM
and move on.

Simple, effective, mission-focused and inexpensive.

[Eclipse]

Is there anyone actually still using it, that there is reason to continue to manufacture in accordance with the specification? 

.. or will the marketplace just evolve towards whatever they want to do?

There's some agencies still wearing - haven't been on base in a while, but last time I was the SeaBee candidates
were still wearing them, and as we saw in another thread, they are now being sought after for jungle wear.

[Garibaldi]

Is there anyone actually still using it, that there is reason to continue to manufacture in accordance with the specification? 

.. or will the marketplace just evolve towards whatever they want to do?

There's some agencies still wearing - haven't been on base in a while, but last time I was the SeaBee candidates
were still wearing them, and as we saw in another thread, they are now being sought after for jungle wear.

'Cording to what I have read, LEOs, some SWAT, some Navy detachments, numerous foreign militaries, even an Army unit or two. It's like when the OG jungies went on the market after Viet Nam...market profusion and everyone had a set. Or five.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

The cadet program is >not< a recruiting arm of the USAF.  It's not intended for that, and it doesn't perform that mission.
The fact that recruiters may visit a unit occasionally, and that the CP can give a cadet a small taste of military life as an orientation
doesn't change the primary intention and goal of the CP.

S'funny, the State Director I've mentioned on here who visited a former composite squadron of mine, and who told us seniors bluntly that our only real raison d'etre was to "shepherd cadets through CAP so they can get their Mitchell so they can get E-3 after Lackland."  This was a former AF/AFRES Lt. Col.

Like many things American's have taken for granted for decades, CAP is at significant risk.  I think that it is not beyond fixing, but we need to start making tough, unpopular choices, accept the reality of the data and the times, and stop taking credit for things which were put in motion 10 years ago.

What needs fixing?  I agree that a lot of things besides uniforms (which is the most visual manifestation of our "brokenness") are seriously up the pipe, but what, to your mind and years of service, need fixing?  I know that you (correctly) talk up recruiting and retention, but what else?

A train running downhill, with it's boilers cold, will continue quite a while on its own inertia, before it comes to a full stop, never to move again.  That's pretty much where CAP is today - running on inertia with its boilers cold.

If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got.

...we are (apparently) not getting a new AF-style uniform any time soon, period.

FTFY. 

I do have a question that has been bothering me. Why are we never told what happend to the CSU and other ideas that got Canned? Why is CAP NHQ not telling us? We are volunteers for goodness sake, its not like we can use it against them.

That, I think, will never be known.  I think it was Colonel Fred Weiss who said here on CT that those involved had to sign a nondisclosure agreement.

However, I think it was to "purge" the most visual vestige of the General Palpatine era, and I think attitudes of those with the power to do such things have hardened against any sort of change from the status quo.

The CSU (with exceptions, of course) was quite popular...do a lookup on Knowledgebase.

As I said, most of those who kept asking me to post my "uniform reform" proposal either never bothered to look at it, or did not deign to critique it.

No patches, no nametags, nothing, it totally necessary, one patch on the breast - the MAJCOM and move on.

I would go even more minimalist, using a version of something the USAF tried back in the '90s.  Leather aircrew-type patch on BBDU's and that's your lot.

[Eclipse]

The cadet program is >not< a recruiting arm of the USAF.  It's not intended for that, and it doesn't perform that mission.
The fact that recruiters may visit a unit occasionally, and that the CP can give a cadet a small taste of military life as an orientation
doesn't change the primary intention and goal of the CP.

S'funny, the State Director I've mentioned on here who visited a former composite squadron of mine, and who told us seniors bluntly that our only real raison d'etre was to "shepherd cadets through CAP so they can get their Mitchell so they can get E-3 after Lackland."  This was a former AF/AFRES Lt. Col.

He's an...somewhat misguided in is characterization.  I would say that to his face, and someone should have challenged him
immediately when he said it.

Not only is it literally not true, his day-to-day responsibilities, even at the most basic level, would indicate otherwise.
With that said, despite the majority of them being excellent servants of CAP, we've had more then a couple of stories
here that historically some have been "less then invested".

Like many things American's have taken for granted for decades, CAP is at significant risk.  I think that it is not beyond fixing, but we need to start making tough, unpopular choices, accept the reality of the data and the times, and stop taking credit for things which were put in motion 10 years ago.

What needs fixing?  I agree that a lot of things besides uniforms (which is the most visual manifestation of our "brokenness") are seriously up the pipe, but what, to your mind and years of service, need fixing?  I know that you (correctly) talk up recruiting and retention, but what else?

In all seriousness, what doesn't?

The regs are a mess - many are so outdated they require processes, tasks, or classes no longer possible or practical.

eServices and OPS Quals are a mess and the systems many times don't match the regs, or even make logical sense.
In a web-enabled world, there's no simple way to get at otherwise (internally) public information, no APIs, and no
official mission, activity, or unit management system yet at the same NHQ is constantly increasing the administrative
requirements for the average member just to show up to a meeting, let along have a successful, engaged CAP career.

We don't have a uniform, we have a poor compromise.

As the program shrinks, and the active members age, recruiting isn't even an afterthought on any national scale.
Units are folding, and we have a 15-20% churn, yet the rhetoric is "that's about what we always had".  except that
at least anecdotally, the empty shirts seem to be increasing steadily - people not yet ready to disavow another check,
but not showing up to activities or meetings - numbers look good, but operations are cricket farms.  Which seems
fine until someone >FINALLY< normalizes the ranks and sees an overnight reduction of active members in the 25+ percentile.

The rhetoric of ES doesn't match the reality, and we are basically doing the same things we've done for 15 years
while the world around us evolves and changes. Opportunity and circumstance are literally POUNDING on the door,
but we can't answer because relationships and agreements which have been in planning or draft form since the
century had a 19 in the front are still not completed, assuming they ever will be, and most 3-and 4-letter agencies
that can use our help don't even know who to call.

Instead of being on the call sheet at the national level for organizations like FEMA and HLS, unit CCs and staff
are expected to create local relationships and agreements, despite the fact that few, if any, units, or even groups,
can sustain response on their own without members from all over the wing coming over the hill.

No one seems to have an inkling how to learn and adapt from past mistakes - much better to just start over every time.

We basically have 52 mini-CAPs, despite a lot of rhetoric about standardization.

And at the core?

NO.

STRATEGIC.

PLAN.

OR.

VISION.

Certainly nothing which has been communicated downstream and translated into meaningful tasks and goals.
We have Wing and Region CC's woefully concerned about things like the CAC, yet not even discussing the fact that there's
no "program" for them to advise commanders about.  (Though with that said, about the only
place you ever here "recruiting and retention" is that it's the first thing on a new CAC's annual agenda, and
it's one of the things a CAC really has no control over, which brings us back to "DOH!")

We basically have 12 or 1300 little cells of self-actualization, units doing "as they will" and "as they please",
and unless they >really< screw up bad, no one cares much what they do.  Every couple of years
there's an exercise where the unit checks some boxes and then publishes a report no one
reads  (SUI) and then it's back to status quo.

Few, if any, wings can respond to major ES or DR incidents without an "all-hands on deck" wing-wide effort,
and there's no depth at most positions - if "Jim is on vacation, and Jane's at encampment." There's no
decent PSC, IC, GBD, etc., and the wing is scrambling.  Yet there's no national framework or expectations
for readiness or manpower. Lord help any Wing with more then a couple of missions on any given week.

If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got.

And that's what CAP has been doing for at least the last 10 years, all the while denying there's
an issue and espousing accidental or circumstantial success.

[raivo]

^ Truth. And nothing but truth.

[RiverAux]

It no longer provide USAF affinity or affectation.

It never did link us to the Air Force as there was and is not any thing on this uniform that says "Air Force".  If anything, the BDU linked us just as much to the Army and Marines as the Air Force. 

-----

True, CAP never officially asked for the ABU, but I believe that if the AF actually cared about us being their Auxiliary they wouldn't have waited for us to ask, they would have just authorized it when they authorized as a routine thing after it became generally available. 

[JoeTomasone]

It no longer provide USAF affinity or affectation.

It never did link us to the Air Force as there was and is not any thing on this uniform that says "Air Force".  If anything, the BDU linked us just as much to the Army and Marines as the Air Force. 

-----

True, CAP never officially asked for the ABU, but I believe that if the AF actually cared about us being their Auxiliary they wouldn't have waited for us to ask, they would have just authorized it when they authorized as a routine thing after it became generally available.

The BDUs link us to the military in the eyes of the general public, not necessarily the Air Force.   The blues, perhaps a different story depending on the level of knowledge of service uniforms Mr. or Mrs. Public happens to have.   

A (particular) uniform, to me, serves two purposes:

1. Identifies you as a member of a given organization.
2. Serves to keep those members identifiable as a team.


In our case, I prefer to be identified with the military for a few reasons.  First, it sets the right expectation in the minds of the public, since we are a military auxiliary and are organized and commanded along those lines.   I think that the BBDU sets the wrong expectation - that we are either police or USCG.    I know that on some late-night UDF missions, I'd rather be seen as military and NOT police, since there's less of a threat conveyed to those who might have an issue with the police.  Who doesn't love the military?

Second, it sets a more positive professional frame of mind with the military that we work with when we are in a recognizable uniform.  Imagine what your average USAF member must think when they see someone whom they are told is with the USAF's auxiliary but wearing a USCG uniform (BBDU).   Regular BDUs merely say that we are behind the times.   ABUs would seal the deal psychologically.

I can understand USAF not relegating the BDU to a Corporate uniform status since it IS so indelibly linked to USAF/the military in the eyes of the public.   However, I think that would be a decent solution - ABUs for the USAF-style uniform, and BDUs for the Corporate style uniform, and ditch the BBDU entirely.

[The14th]

Students at the Army Jungle Warfighter school are wearing BDUs again.

Anyone who feels "disconnect" from the Air Force can just pretend they are part of the JW school if it's really that important to them.

[Eclipse]

A (particular) uniform, to me, serves two purposes:

1. Identifies you as a member of a given organization.
2. Serves to keep those members identifiable as a team.

So then what does the mish-mash-mess of CAP's multiform mean?

And what of the 50+ percent of the adult members and some cadets who have no "choice" to be part of the "team"?

Second, it sets a more positive professional frame of mind with the military that we work with when we are in a recognizable uniform.

And how often, exactly, does the average member "work with" anyone in the military, USAF or otherwise?
Certainly not enough that it should shape our uniform. The blue and white "CIVIL AIR PATROL" on the front should be somewhat of a clue who is in front of them.

Imagine what your average USAF member must think when they see someone whom they are told is with the USAF's auxiliary but wearing a USCG uniform (BBDU).

I'd imagine that it's about the same timbre of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot that they say when they see a gaggle of multiformed members today.

That or more likely they give it literally zero thought, and are more concerned with CAP holding up their corner then what they are wearing.

[JoeTomasone]

A (particular) uniform, to me, serves two purposes:

1. Identifies you as a member of a given organization.
2. Serves to keep those members identifiable as a team.

So then what does the mish-mash-mess of CAP's multiform mean?

To my thinking, a number of different organizations.   

Second, it sets a more positive professional frame of mind with the military that we work with when we are in a recognizable uniform.

And how often, exactly, does the average member "work with" anyone in the military, USAF or otherwise?
Certainly not enough that it should shape our uniform. The blue and white "CIVIL AIR PATROL" on the front should be somewhat of a clue who is in front of them.

Many units meet on Air Force Bases.  Oftentimes, those units host bivouacs or other activities on base.   Some bases host airshows with CAP involvement.   

As has been stated many times in many different forums, lots of USAF folks have no idea that they HAVE an auxiliary, let alone what it is or what it does.    Polo shirts and USCG uniforms do little to change the problem that they don't have that clue as to who is in front of them.

Imagine what your average USAF member must think when they see someone whom they are told is with the USAF's auxiliary but wearing a USCG uniform (BBDU).

I'd imagine that it's about the same timbre of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot that they say when they see a gaggle of multiformed members today.

That or more likely they give it literally zero thought, and are more concerned with CAP holding up their corner then what they are wearing.

Exactly my point, more or less.  If we looked and quacked like a duck, we might be more recognizable as a duck. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

True, CAP never officially asked for the ABU, but I believe that if the AF actually cared about us being their Auxiliary they wouldn't have waited for us to ask, they would have just authorized it when they authorized as a routine thing after it became generally available.

A very true statement.  If they cared about us being their Auxiliary, we would still have "USAF AUX" on our aircraft.



This L-16 still has U.S. Air Force on the tail, as well as CAP markings.  Imagine if we would try to get by with that now...no, we wouldn't try, because CAP wouldn't ask.

As has been stated many times in many different forums, lots of USAF folks have no idea that they HAVE an auxiliary, let alone what it is or what it does.   

And who owns the problem with that?  I, and others, have suggested just the barest of education to new Airmen, either at BMT (I would have learned more that was actually USEFUL at BMT by doing that than yet another marathon underwear/sock folding session), or at their first duty station.  However, some of the other habitues here on CT say it's NOT the Air Force's responsibility, and WE have to "sell ourselves" to THEM, which I will NEVER understand, let alone agree with.

Polo shirts and USCG uniforms do little to change the problem that they don't have that clue as to who is in front of them.

How DARE you criticise the hallowed polo shirt?!  That would be like criticising the Dress Blues to a Marine!  I am being sarcastic of course; I have never owned the polo shirt, and doubt I ever will.

However, as a former CGAuxie, and as one living in a city with a significant CG presence, I see Coasties about town in their ODU, and they're not the same.  Maybe it's because I've been in both and can tell the difference.

Imagine what your average USAF member must think when they see someone whom they are told is with the USAF's auxiliary but wearing a USCG uniform (BBDU).

I really doubt they care, as long as one of those "CAPpies" doesn't try to troll for a salute or buy at the commissary.  After all, they read about it in the Air Force Times, and their MTI warned them about it.

I think that the BBDU sets the wrong expectation - that we are either police or USCG.    I know that on some late-night UDF missions, I'd rather be seen as military and NOT police, since there's less of a threat conveyed to those who might have an issue with the police. 

Now that I understand a bit more, though in my experience police tactical uniforms are usually accompanied by body armour, helmets, etc., clearly marked "POLICE," "FBI," "SHERIFF," "CUSTOMS," etc. in reflective lettering.

Who doesn't love the military?

More than you may think, unfortunately.  I grew up in the immediate post-Vietnam '70s and even "playing Army" was not encouraged, especially not at my grade school.  Today, there are recruiters who have a stink of a time getting to talk to schools at almost all levels.  At least I was able to have that...an Army recruiter talked to my 5th grade class and a Marine recruiter (in full dress blues) talked to my 6th grade class.

[Garibaldi]

Who doesn't love the military?

A lot of folks. I know people personally who downright loathe the military as a bunch of violence-loving warhawks. And as mentioned previously, during the height of Viet Nam, no one supported the military, it seems. Protestors and politicians at home, teachers routinely asking their students to write essays on the badness of war and telling their kids that the soldiers fighting the "peaceful" people overseas were bad men. It even happens now, with Afghanistan and Iraq. I've seen news articles about teachers lambasting kids for supporting the troops and forcing the kids to write essays on the evils of the military and war in general. When those kids are the brothers and sisters and kids of a KIA/WIA...it really sucks. People have a right to their opinion, but when they force it on their students or congregations it becomes way wrong. To be told that your brother or father died for a "worthless oil war and he was wrong for going in the first place"? What kind of asinine crap is that?

I'm getting off my soapbox now.

[Panache]

[Private Investigator]

Not that was funny   

[Майор Хаткевич]

Olde is Olde. But good.

[antdetroitwallyball]

Who doesn't love the military?

A lot of folks. I know people personally who downright loathe the military as a bunch of violence-loving warhawks. And as mentioned previously, during the height of Viet Nam, no one supported the military, it seems. Protestors and politicians at home, teachers routinely asking their students to write essays on the badness of war and telling their kids that the soldiers fighting the "peaceful" people overseas were bad men. It even happens now, with Afghanistan and Iraq. I've seen news articles about teachers lambasting kids for supporting the troops and forcing the kids to write essays on the evils of the military and war in general. When those kids are the brothers and sisters and kids of a KIA/WIA...it really sucks. People have a right to their opinion, but when they force it on their students or congregations it becomes way wrong. To be told that your brother or father died for a "worthless oil war and he was wrong for going in the first place"? What kind of asinine crap is that?

I'm getting off my soapbox now.

While all of the stuff you mentioned is inarguably abhorent, I think there are a lot of people today, especially younger people, who simply don't agree with the fact that America has been at war for 50% of their lives, and they feel like they are helpless to do anything about it. Not every problem can be solved with fighting wars. and it's a pity that you have people who sign up to fight for their country with the faith that their country will only engage in warfare for truly good reasons, and yet they get forced to go fight in wars they feel are unessessary and pointless.

Furthermore, I see a big problem with young people (especially cadets) who have the wrong view of war in general. War is never "Cool." War is only to be properly viewed as an unfortunate and pathetic result of supposedly intellegent species who after thousands of years of existance still have not learned how to solve problems without killing. I get that in our current world, war sometime has to exist. Still does not ever make it a good thing.

Also, young people tend to get too wrapped up in all the cool technology of killing. Too often I hear a cadet say, "I can't wait till I grow up and join the army so I can kill arabs by blasting them with such and such a tank or advanced weapon." Wrong attitude. I think we all to often end of glorifying the killing in war. We don't mean too...........most of us with healthy minds are simply fascinated by the advanced military technology. But I think we need to always be cognizant as to what message it sends to young people.

Just my unrelated two cents..

[lordmonar]

Who says....war is not cool?

Sorry.....yes your are correct.....the judicial use of applied fire power is not the answer to every problem.

And solders/sailors/airman/marines will be the first to tell you that.

But sometimes it IS the proper answer to the problem at hand.

One man's "glorifying  the killing" is another man's pride in doing a dirty tough job that someone had to do.

[LSThiker]

Who says....war is not cool?

Sorry.....yes your are correct.....the judicial use of applied fire power is not the answer to every problem.

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all

War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me



Death and destruction is unfortunately a necessary evil sometimes. 

On a side note, despite the fact that this song was an anti-war song, the irony with this new official music video is interesting to say the least

http://youtu.be/ObntvRcKMrE