The "Final Word" (?) on ABUs

[ColonelJack]

In a Facebook posting, Georgia Wing Commander Col. Rick Greenwood says that Maj. Gen. Carr has let the Command Council know that CAP is not going to be pursuing the Air Force for permission to wear ABUs.

The reason given was the fact that the services are working on a single utility uniform across all branches, and that would make ABUs obsolete.  Rather than burden the membership with uniforms that they'll only be able to use for a short while, Gen. Carr is going to wait and see what comes out of the utility uniform discussions.

According to Col. Greenwood, BDUs (and, of course, BBDUs) will remain the utility uniform of CAP for the foreseeable future.

Jack

[NIN]

Darn good thing I didn't spend much money on the ones I have hanging in my wall locker.

[Eclipse]

The reason given was the fact that the services are working on a single utility uniform across all branches, and that would make ABUs obsolete.  Rather than burden the membership with uniforms that they'll only be able to use for a short while, Gen. Carr is going to wait and see what comes out of the utility uniform discussions.

Wha?  No, way.

Lordmonar - I am actually in Las Vegas right now if you would like to buy me that steak...

[NIN]

Lordmonar - I am actually in Las Vegas right now if you would like to buy me that steak...

Serendipity is an interesting animal.

[SAREXinNY]

Makes sense (for once).  Why don't they start the necessary preliminary paperwork, so that when that single utility uniform is introduced we can immediately jump on board?  Always being 2-5 years behind the curve seems unnecessary.

[Walkman]

I saw similar info posted on Facebook from CAWG. Honestly, I was kinda' bummed about it. Oh well, the mission still needs to be accomplished.

[Luis R. Ramos]

But knowing how the system works...

Knowing that "change is the way of life..."

Our boss says "no way."

Yet it may change in the future...

Nin, do not throw that out yet...

Flyer

[winterg]

I heard at my squadron that we can wear the new all service utility uniform. Where can I buy these?   


Seriously, though.  It would make good sense.  Whether it actually happens in our lifetimes is another thing entirely.  I see it like the new F-35 JSF.  A single multi-role strike fighter for all the branches with branch specific configurations as necessary.  When it comes down to it, the only reason I believe we have multiple branches of military still is ego.  I wonder what (if any) the cost savings would be with only one US military service instead of separate branches like we have now.  There's still a lot of life left in BDU's.

[Luis R. Ramos]

One solution for all does not fit every time. I remember the F-111. While I have never been in the service so I all I can say about this is more like what I read, this was supposed to be used by both the Air Force and the Navy. After this airplane was accepted, it was found the modifications needed by the Navy increased the cost beyond initial projections, and eventually it was not deployed in aircraft carriers. For instance, landing gear had to be strengthened for carrier ops, and there were other problems with other structural components as well. I do not recall exactly... Can someone closer to this aircraft remind us what were the problems?

Flyer

[a2capt]

The only thing that does not "solve" is that BDUs are simply not as plentiful as they once were.

Sure, everyone has to buy their stuff sometime, but it was good while we were using the same thing as the Air Force, so getting them was a lot more flexible. 

As for "waiting to see what they come up with", I see that happening .. two and a half "national commanders from now".

[SarDragon]

I'm not necessarily closer, but perhaps older and having it more in my current event arena back then.

The major issue, on both sides of the fence, was weight, with the Navy version having more problems. Each service ad specific requirements, which were occasionally at odds with each other. As you stated, the Navy version need stronger parts in many areas, to survive the stresses of cat launches and arrested landings. This ultimately ate into the functionality so much that it was cancelled for naval use. With the additional Navy mission requirements out of the way, the AF ended up with a functional platform.

The Wikipedia article has more detail and references.

[RiverAux]

Seems to me that the easiest thing to do would just be to request blanket approval for CAP to begin wear of whatever BUD-equivalent approved by the Air Force starting two years after the AF starts wearing it along with a blanket statement saying that the BDU would be phased out 5 years after CAP begins wearing the replacement.   Needs some wordsmithing, but it would solve the situation.  Not a big fan of even waiting 2 years for CAP to begin wearing the new uniform but they always claim supply shortages....

[A.Member]

In a Facebook posting, Georgia Wing Commander Col. Rick Greenwood says that Maj. Gen. Carr has let the Command Council know that CAP is not going to be pursuing the Air Force for permission to wear ABUs.

The reason given was the fact that the services are working on a single utility uniform across all branches, and that would make ABUs obsolete.  Rather than burden the membership with uniforms that they'll only be able to use for a short while, Gen. Carr is going to wait and see what comes out of the utility uniform discussions.

According to Col. Greenwood, BDUs (and, of course, BBDUs) will remain the utility uniform of CAP for the foreseeable future.

Jack

Doesn't bother me a ton but the reason cited is very weak.  There will always be a new mousetrap right around the corner... 

Also, why the contradiction to the presentation in Denver several months ago?  Was that done without the CC's knowledge/approval?  Was this a legit thread:
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17800.0

[lordmonar]

The reason given was the fact that the services are working on a single utility uniform across all branches, and that would make ABUs obsolete.  Rather than burden the membership with uniforms that they'll only be able to use for a short while, Gen. Carr is going to wait and see what comes out of the utility uniform discussions.

Wha?  No, way.

Lordmonar - I am actually in Las Vegas right now if you would like to buy me that steak...

Still not convinced that they are going to change.
Hagel just announced force cuts....still can't see them spending money on this while cutting 40K troops.

[LSThiker]

Still not convinced that they are going to change.
Hagel just announced force cuts....still can't see them spending money on this while cutting 40K troops.

I can.  The military has been criticized since day 1 on the development of branch specific uniforms as well as the ineffective camouflage patterns used in the ACUs and ABUs.  In addition, if the military spends $4 million dollars (number was thrown out, not a real figure) on developing a new combat uniform while being able to save $10 million over the next ten years having one specific uniform for all branches, then the upfront cost is worth it. 

[Eclipse]

The reason given was the fact that the services are working on a single utility uniform across all branches, and that would make ABUs obsolete.  Rather than burden the membership with uniforms that they'll only be able to use for a short while, Gen. Carr is going to wait and see what comes out of the utility uniform discussions.

Wha?  No, way.

Lordmonar - I am actually in Las Vegas right now if you would like to buy me that steak...

Still not convinced that they are going to change.
Hagel just announced force cuts....still can't see them spending money on this while cutting 40K troops.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle - don't care who else is gittin' what, CAP ain't grittin' ABU's.

[SarDragon]

Still not convinced that they are going to change.
Hagel just announced force cuts....still can't see them spending money on this while cutting 40K troops.

I can.  The military has been criticized since day 1 on the development of branch specific uniforms as well as the ineffective camouflage patterns used in the ACUs and ABUs.  In addition, if the military spends $4 million dollars (number was thrown out, not a real figure) on developing a new combat uniform while being able to save $10 million over the next ten years having one specific uniform for all branches, then the upfront cost is worth it.

There is not now, nor will there ever be, a universally effective camouflage pattern. This has been proven over the last 20 years  where our war-fighters have been doing their business. Backgrounds and locations differ. The needs of the services differ. The Navy certainly doesn't need green uniforms of any flavor for most of their operations. (I'll give attention to the NWU naysayers when they can show conclusive evidence that folks in a man overboard situation are in any more danger than folks in the old uniforms.)

[LSThiker]

There is not now, nor will there ever be, a universally effective camouflage pattern.

Of course not.  That is why the ACUs were such a stupid decision.

This has been proven over the last 20 years  where our war-fighters have been doing their business. Backgrounds and locations differ. The needs of the services differ. The Navy certainly doesn't need green uniforms of any flavor for most of their operations. (I'll give attention to the NWU naysayers when they can show conclusive evidence that folks in a man overboard situation are in any more danger than folks in the old uniforms.)

While the needs of the services may differ, that does not mean the uniforms need to differ.  The Marines and the Army were doing essentially the same mission in Iraq.  Why do you need to have two different uniforms?  Most of the Air Force I saw in Iraq were wearing the ACUs so why did they need a branch specific uniforms?  Even the Navy were wearing ACUs where I worked.  If you never leave the ship or just work on the flight line, does it really matter whether you wear green, tan, blue, or pink?  No.  So why not use the uniform that is being mass produced for the combat missions. 

Branch specific uniforms was a bad idea and a waste of money on ineffective combat patterns.  Going back to a single US uniform, especially for non-combat US taskings, makes more sense.  When the time comes to needing a desert uniform, produce it.  Need a snow uniform?  Produce it then.  Need a jungle uniform? Produce it then.  I would rather spend money on developing a camo pattern for specific for North Korea, another for Iran, another for Russia, another for Vietnam, another for Japan, etc and having those on file ready for mass production when needed.   

[Stonewall]

Son of a...

I have 12 sets of ABUs and was hoping to sell at least 6 to make some extra cash.  Oh well, they'll continue to go to waste.

[SarDragon]

Branch specific uniforms was a bad idea and a waste of money on ineffective combat patterns.  Going back to a single US uniform, especially for non-combat US taskings, makes more sense.  When the time comes to needing a desert uniform, produce it.  Need a snow uniform?  Produce it then.  Need a jungle uniform? Produce it then.  I would rather spend money on developing a camo pattern for specific for North Korea, another for Iran, another for Russia, another for Vietnam, another for Japan, etc and having those on file ready for mass production when needed.

Really?

Now we're talking economy of scale, and storage costs.

You can't magically spit out uniforms on short notice. There's always lead time involved. If you try to produce ahead of time, how many do you make? What size distributions? Producing for the entire service is cheaper than for a smaller segment. Once produced, where do you store them until they are needed? Maybe a basic economics refresher is in order.