Cloth Specialty Track Badges - Anyone?

[Lancer]

So I was pondering to myself the other day...

"Self, we have cloth insignia for Chaplain, Medical, Legal Officer and Ground Team Insignia and aviation wings, but we don't have cloth insignia for Specialty Track badges, I wonder why?"

So I now bring this question to the group. I know the uniform mavens here would have the answer I'm looking for, so what say you? What's the opinion/reason behind this? Is it feasible for the future?

I know I would like something on my uniform that expresses my particular specialty to the membership at large, esp. since I'm not a pilot, ground team member, medical officer or legal officer or chaplain.

[Flying Pig]

Please.....no more patches.

[Major Carrales]

So I was pondering to myself the other day...

"Self, we have cloth insignia for Chaplain, Medical, Legal Officer and Ground Team Insignia and aviation wings, but we don't have cloth insignia for Specialty Track badges, I wonder why?"

So I now bring this question to the group. I know the uniform mavens here would have the answer I'm looking for, so what say you? What's the opinion/reason behind this? Is it feasible for the future?

I know I would like something on my uniform that expresses my particular specialty to the membership at large, esp. since I'm not a pilot, ground team member, medical officer or legal officer or chaplain.

I too have pondered the answer to this.  I think it might best be represented in the idea of having a functional and operational specialty.  

The badges you mentioned at more of an operational type and thus, would have a legitimate place on one's field uniform or flight suit.  They show what your operational abilities are (should be).

The others are more of a squadron function type badge.  A badge that would best be worn on blues or the aviator shirt to a meeting.

Well, that is my short at an answer.  I don't think there is any "quotable documentation" this occasion.  If not and there is, please quote it hence...

[Lancer]

The badges you mentioned at more of an operational type and thus, would have a legitimate place on one's field uniform or flight suit.  They show what your operational abilities are (should be).

Yes, but who's to say that 'functional roles' don't have a place in operations? Specifically my role as an ITO. That function falls under Operations and more and more lately, larger missions have been needing an ITO on hand to handle technology issues. If I was an IC I'd want to be able to look at see, hey, that guy is an ITO, he can fix the problem we're having with the IMU, or help setup the wireless router.

What about Public Affairs, the same could be said for that.

Sure you don't need to know who's rated in Cadet Programs at a mission, but I belief all insignia should translate from the 'dress' uniform, to the 'field' uniform. I don't see anything wrong with me having a shield that denotes my role as an ITO or PAO, or other chosen role when I'm wearing a field uniform.

[MIKE]

IIRC, COMM and Safety have patches.  However I would not like to see the badges in their current form translated into cloth badges or pocket patches.  IMO you would need to change the badge design to those similar to USAF occupational  badges... which IIRC has been beat to death here before.

Now, if the COMM and IT badge looked more like this:


MLO:


Personally... These are more important than GTM and that ugly IC badge which could be covered under the ES/Ops badge

[Major Carrales]

Yes, but who's to say that 'functional roles' don't have a place in operations? Specifically my role as an ITO. That function falls under Operations and more and more lately, larger missions have been needing an ITO on hand to handle technology issues. If I was an IC I'd want to be able to look at see, hey, that guy is an ITO, he can fix the problem we're having with the IMU, or help setup the wireless router.

Intersting, but an expected response from a fellow that has a laptop on his portal person.   Again, the difference is subtle, showing the two sides that all active CAP Officers have in terms of Squadron Function (Staffer) and deployable Operations function.  I could accept that some sort of COMM/IT badge might be called for, however there are those that would say the uniform is already to cluttered.

What about Public Affairs, the same could be said for that.

Not quite, there is a world of difference between a PAO, Public Affairs Officer, and an IO, Information Officer.  The prior sells the unit to the community by organizing open houses, writing feature and news stories for the local press and reports/represents the unit at community functions.  An Information Officer is part of the ICS staff and controls the flow of information from a Mission Base to the press.  The IO also handles potentially hostile "press" and other "media" personnel...to cite the questionable practice that has marred the Fossett Search.

Even in the above statements, it is obvious that one side is more Squadron Function and the later is Operations Function.

Sure you don't need to know who's rated in Cadet Programs at a mission, but I belief all insignia should translate from the 'dress' uniform, to the 'field' uniform. I don't see anything wrong with me having a shield that denotes my role as an ITO or PAO, or other chosen role when I'm wearing a field uniform.

This is a worthy belief, I too share it to a degree.  However, I will point to the discussions the Civilian_Pilot has made on being too focused on uniforms.  If it were up to me, we would have "functional" badges that would show your skills and knowledge to the IC and Squadron Commander from first look, but, you will find that many do not want any patches at all on the BDUs, other utility uniforms or any future wear on any future uniform (i.e...ABU)

[Flying Pig]

Ive never been on a search where people went looking for what patches were in the crowd when they needed a job filled.   We have so many badges and patches now that I dont think anyone really even notices them anymore. Its getting to the point where they all look the same anyway.

[Major Carrales]

Ive never been on a search where people went looking for what patches were in the crowd when they needed a job filled.   We have so many badges and patches now that I dont think anyone really even notices them anymore. Its getting to the point where they all look the same anyway.

My point is not that we have loads of patches or that we mandate the wear of patches for identification purposes; but rather, that should be the ideal. 

We should have identifiers for the following...

ICS Positions
Incident Commander
Information Officer
Liaison Officer
Planning
Finance

MISSION STAFF
COMM
Safety

Field and said Field Supervisors
Aviation- MP & MO
Ground- GT levels
(the different levels to denote Air/Ground Branch et al)

Anything else is a bit much.

[Lancer]

Ive never been on a search where people went looking for what patches were in the crowd when they needed a job filled.   We have so many badges and patches now that I dont think anyone really even notices them anymore. Its getting to the point where they all look the same anyway.

So why do we wear anything on the uniform anymore? Is it about professionalism? If so, then the first thing to go should be the Pluto ES Patch, what does a dog wearing a wheel cap and headphones have to do with Emergency Services?

Why does the legal officer need to wear his function on his field uniform? So the IC can go, "Hey! Quick, you there, go chase that ambulance!"

Logic should dictate what is on our uniforms, not tradition.

[Major Carrales]

Ive never been on a search where people went looking for what patches were in the crowd when they needed a job filled.   We have so many badges and patches now that I dont think anyone really even notices them anymore. Its getting to the point where they all look the same anyway.

So why do we wear anything on the uniform anymore? Is it about professionalism? If so, then the first thing to go should be the Pluto ES Patch, what does a dog wearing a wheel cap and headphones have to do with Emergency Services?

Why does the legal officer need to wear his function on his field uniform? So the IC can go, "Hey! Quick, you there, go chase that ambulance!"

Logic should dictate what is on our uniforms, not tradition.

Now, now...your need to temper your comments.  I can see a few folks offended by those comments.

All that aside, I generally agree with you.  We should wear the monikers that show what we do, and what we do best.  Badges that reflect that in an OPS setting might be a way to do that.

The "Pluto Patch" is older than most of us here, and many many of our squadrons.  It is as much a part of ES as anything, even being an older design than the current CAP Pilots wings.  Asking to remove it because it is unprofessional in your opinion is akin to asking the 101st Airborne to remove the "screaming eagle" or the USAF to get rid of the stylized "HAP Arnold" insignia it currently employs because it is driven by tradition.

The commentary on lawyers is not cricket, my friend.  Simply not cricket!!!

[Eclipse]

My pluto went years ago.

In a CAP context, "career specialties" have no place on operational uniforms. 

If you want to work on implementing badges for other operational qualifications such as IO, SE, etc., fine, but it doesn't matter to me if you are an LG or Historian during a mission, and if those are the only quals you have, you're not in a mission base, and why would you even own BDU's?

Since we can only wear one badge of this type, most members who have an operational qualification as well as a career specialty would opt for the GTM badges.

As I said, no issue with more badges for mission specialties, but leave the career stuff on the service dress equivalents.

[PHall]

My solution, redesign the speciality badges to the same format as the Air Force Speciality Identification badges and wear them the same way.

Tech rating = basic badge.
Senior rating = basic badge with star.
Master rating = basic badge with star and wreath.

And we could ask the Air Force if we could wear the Air Force badges instead of designing a new one (i.e. The folks in the Administration track would wear the AF Administration badge.)
They might say no, but until you ask you never know.

And Vanguard definitely has them in stock!

[lordmonar]

Ive never been on a search where people went looking for what patches were in the crowd when they needed a job filled.   We have so many badges and patches now that I dont think anyone really even notices them anymore. Its getting to the point where they all look the same anyway.

My point is not that we have loads of patches or that we mandate the wear of patches for identification purposes; but rather, that should be the ideal. 

We should have identifiers for the following...

ICS Positions
Incident Commander
Information Officer
Liaison Officer
Planning
Finance

MISSION STAFF
COMM
Safety

Field and said Field Supervisors
Aviation- MP & MO
Ground- GT levels
(the different levels to denote Air/Ground Branch et al)

Anything else is a bit much.

I agree that we need identifiers for these positon.....using badges sewn on the the field or BDU uniforms is NOT the way to do it.

IC is a temporary position...that is there is only one IC even if you have 15 IC qualified individuals.  The same for all the rest of the mission base position.  Going off the badges on a BDU uniform will not help identify what position you are filling that day.

Badges...like most bling is for morale purposes.  It is so the individual can show the world what he/she has done.

I agree that we "wear" too many patches.....but that does not mean we should limit who can wear them. 

If you are an admin type person...they should have the same opportunity as everyone else to show their pride in their job.

I agree we should NOT follow the current example of COMM, SAFETY and CISM who wear full sized patches on their pockets.

They need to develope badges that are more like the USAF's Specialty Badges and limit the number that can be worn to two (2) maximumn (including wings) on both the blues and DBU uniforms (and their CAP counter parts).

[DNall]

IIRC, COMM and Safety have patches.  However I would not like to see the badges in their current form translated into cloth badges or pocket patches.  IMO you would need to change the badge design to those similar to USAF occupational  badges... which IIRC has been beat to death here before.

Now, if the COMM and IT badge looked more like this:


MLO:


Personally... These are more important than GTM and that ugly IC badge which could be covered under the ES/Ops badge

POINT OF ORDER: the wreath is for combat operational qualifications. Hence the AF medical specialties are a shield (same shape as ours but smaller) w/o wreath. It is correct for ours to be the same (ie w/o wreath). Now, the cartoon designs, those can go. The AE, CP, etc badges need to get converted to standardized shields also.



With that out of the way... come/safety/etc should be converted from full size patches, and everything should go to standard embroidered badges worn in the same place they are worn on the blues, or limited to just two over the pocket. We don't need to make this complicated, and you really don't need your whole resume on set of BDUs, much less ABUs when those come along.

The commander badge also ought to get an embroidered version.

[Hawk200]

POINT OF ORDER: the wreath is for combat operational qualifications. Hence the AF medical specialties are a shield (same shape as ours but smaller) w/o wreath.

Fraid not. I wore an Air Force Electronic maintenance badge (which has the wreath like those above) while in the Air Force, and I never received any type of combat related training. None. The wreath doesn't mean combat related, even the Air Force bands have wreaths around theirs.

[DNall]

electronic maint, and you were still a deployable combatant. Versus, medical which is non-combatant. We can argue about the particular adjective, but non-operational is sans wreath. The GT badge with wreath is debatable, I guess in the sense that it's operational for us. It's not like like I'm making this up, that's the reason the AF badges are like that & there's lots of source on it.

[Eclipse]

As usual, Wiki has the answers (all hail Wiki) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Force_Occupational_Badge

An Air Force Occupational Badge is a military badge of the United States Air Force which is awarded to those members of the line Air Force community who are engaged in duties "other than flying". The purpose of the Air Force Occupational Badge is to denote and recognize training, education and qualifications received in a particular career field and to provide recognition in an outwardly displayed badge.

The first Air Force Occupational Badges began appearing on Air Force uniforms in the late 1950s. Prior to this time, the only Air Force badges authorized were the Pilot's Badge and other aeronautical career badges such as the Navigator Badge and Flight Surgeon Badge.

An Air Force Occupational Badge is received upon completion of initial career field training and assignment to an active command. As a service member advances in their career field, the occupational badge may be upgraded to the level of Senior or Master. Such upgrades are denoted by a star and wreath, centered above the Occupational badge. For enlisted personnel, the Senior badge denotes award of the "7 skill level," a skill level typically reached at the rank of Staff Sergeant. Skill levels are as follows: 1-Student, 3-Apprentice, 5-Journeyman, 7-Craftsman, and 9-Superintendent. The master badge is awarded to master sergeant or above with 5 years in the specialty from award of the 7-skill level(AFI 36-2903 5.9). For officers, the Senior badge is worn after seven years service in the specialty and the Master badge after fifteen years.

For those service members in support aerial career fields, such as flight surgeons and air battle managers, it is common to receive both an aeronautical badge and an occupational badge depending on the level of training and education received prior to assignment. Unlike the aeronautical badge, wear of the occupational badge is optional.

The Air Force also maintains a series of medical badges and religious pins, issued on the same principle as the occupational badges. The Parachutist Badge, Explosive Ordnance Disposal Badge, Weapons Director Badge, and the Space and Missile Badge are also issued under the same guidelines as occupational badges.

[Major Carrales]

Funny, according to DNALL...the Band Member and the Historian badges are combat devices.  Sorry, Dennis, couldn't resist.

[lordmonar]

POINT OF ORDER: the wreath is for combat operational qualifications. Hence the AF medical specialties are a shield (same shape as ours but smaller) w/o wreath.

Fraid not. I wore an Air Force Electronic maintenance badge (which has the wreath like those above) while in the Air Force, and I never received any type of combat related training. None. The wreath doesn't mean combat related, even the Air Force bands have wreaths around theirs.

Comm is a combat related...and you did receive combat related training...chem warfare, M-16 qualifications, self-aid and buddy care, LOAC.  Plus have you heard of those units called COMBAT COMMUNICATIONS SQUADRONS?  I spent 4 years in one....got shot at a couple of times.  COMM is most certainly a combate related field.

[lordmonar]

Funny, according to DNALL...the Band Member and the Historian badges are combat devices.  Sorry, Dennis, couldn't resist.

Everyone in those AFSCs has what is called a WARSKILL that is they are cross trained into a vital combat support skill.  Bus driver, buldozer operators, cop, and a whole host of other skills.