Flight Suit Badges

[ELTHunter]

My vote is to let each Wing have their own color combo, but I agree, that's probably not going to happen given Vanguard's hold on CAP and the "one CAP" concept.  The Ultramarine blue with white lettering and border would be fine I think.

[AlphaSigOU]

My vote is to let each Wing have their own color combo, but I agree, that's probably not going to happen given Vanguard's hold on CAP and the "one CAP" concept.  The Ultramarine blue with white lettering and border would be fine I think.

Texas Wing would probably have no problem getting 'em made in the colors of the Republic o' Texas flag! 

[JohnKachenmeister]

This program ALMOST got cancelled because of the fact that we were accused of "Wearing outdated items on the flight suit."

My new comback line should this issue arise again will be:

"The insignia items are not outdated for us.  What do you expect from an organization whose airplanes all still have propellers?"

But the point is, the AF Space Command wants us to look as much like them as possible... they want the integration to be seamless.  It came as a genuine surprise that the CAP did not change their uniforms automatically when the AF changed their regulations.

Which brings up a point.  Why couldn't the Air Force Uniform Manual simply include CAP?  We could establish a regulation that the AF-style uniform was to be worn IAW the AF Regulation, and leave it at that.  The AF could prescribe the CAP/AF uniform, and we would be relieved of this cumbersome process of making a regulatory change, then seeking approval for that change.

Add that as # 567 on the "To-Do" list for when I'm the National Commander.

[Hawk200]

My vote is to let each Wing have their own color combo, but I agree, that's probably not going to happen given Vanguard's hold on CAP and the "one CAP" concept.  The Ultramarine blue with white lettering and border would be fine I think.

Texas Wing would probably have no problem getting 'em made in the colors of the Republic o' Texas flag! 

From what I've heard, Texas has had those for a while. Probably kept lowkey, so as to avoid hassles.

I think the idea of a wing standard embroidered flightsuit nametag is a good one. It would be easy for a wing to standardize, and order a large number of "blanks", preferably with a number of them already with the various wings/badges on them. The units could take them to any local embroidery shop, and have the name and rank embroidered. And a bulk order would be far cheaper.

Not to mentiion, I hate the wing patch being worn in place of a squadron patch on flightsuits. Not everyone is assigned directly to the wing staff, why should they wear the flightsuit as if they were? A wing nameplate would solve that nicely.

[MIKE]

If the bag has grade on it, you only need a name on the cloth ASNP.  No grade or CAP.

[Hawk200]

If the bag has grade on it, you only need a name on the cloth ASNP.  No grade or CAP.

Good point. Which would make it far easier to produce. Simple designs with a rendering of the wing's flag to the side, or include elements of their wing patch, would be nice and would look sharp too. Just order a large batch of "blanks" with all the various wings on some of them would be too easy.

[Mustang]

Why standardize at the wing level?  Why not allow squadrons to specify their own standard as the AF does?

[PHall]

Texas Wing would probably have no problem getting 'em made in the colors of the Republic o' Texas flag! 

Might want to clear that with the Texas ANG first since that's what they wear.

[Hawk200]

Why standardize at the wing level?  Why not allow squadrons to specify their own standard as the AF does?

Simple. Cost. A small order of fifty would be far more expensive than an order of five hundred. I can appreciate mirroring the Air Force, but there must be a point of practicality, in this case, money.

Even individually, those embroidered nametags go up to $15 each. With an order of 500, it could be down to $7 or $8 apiece, maybe even less.

[LtCol White]

Why standardize at the wing level?  Why not allow squadrons to specify their own standard as the AF does?

Simple. Cost. A small order of fifty would be far more expensive than an order of five hundred. I can appreciate mirroring the Air Force, but there must be a point of practicality, in this case, money.

Even individually, those embroidered nametags go up to $15 each. With an order of 500, it could be down to $7 or $8 apiece, maybe even less.

Well the solution would be for NHQ to authorize them, USAF approve them, and the NHQ select one of the vendors out there who make a quality product to be the official supplier for them. Vanguard does not produce these for USAF so there shouldnt be an issue of someone else producing them for us.

[JC004]

Why standardize at the wing level?  Why not allow squadrons to specify their own standard as the AF does?

Simple. Cost. A small order of fifty would be far more expensive than an order of five hundred. I can appreciate mirroring the Air Force, but there must be a point of practicality, in this case, money.

Even individually, those embroidered nametags go up to $15 each. With an order of 500, it could be down to $7 or $8 apiece, maybe even less.

Well the solution would be for NHQ to authorize them, USAF approve them, and the NHQ select one of the vendors out there who make a quality product to be the official supplier for them. Vanguard does not produce these for USAF so there shouldnt be an issue of someone else producing them for us.

If Vanguard made them, the Velcro(R) would be on the front, they would take 2 years to produce, and cost $20 to ship.

[mikeylikey]

Why standardize at the wing level?  Why not allow squadrons to specify their own standard as the AF does?

Simple. Cost. A small order of fifty would be far more expensive than an order of five hundred. I can appreciate mirroring the Air Force, but there must be a point of practicality, in this case, money.

Even individually, those embroidered nametags go up to $15 each. With an order of 500, it could be down to $7 or $8 apiece, maybe even less.

Well the solution would be for NHQ to authorize them, USAF approve them, and the NHQ select one of the vendors out there who make a quality product to be the official supplier for them. Vanguard does not produce these for USAF so there shouldnt be an issue of someone else producing them for us.

If Vanguard made them, the Velcro(R) would be on the front, they would take 2 years to produce, and cost $20 to ship.

Velcro (R) is no loger a registered trademak name.  It is simply Velcro.  I met the guy who took the "hook and loop" fastners and cut them into strips, packaged them and sold them.  He is now a multi-millionaire.  Got to love those stoned hippies inventing something that already existed!  I believe he said it was in 1972.

[JC004]

Why standardize at the wing level?  Why not allow squadrons to specify their own standard as the AF does?

Simple. Cost. A small order of fifty would be far more expensive than an order of five hundred. I can appreciate mirroring the Air Force, but there must be a point of practicality, in this case, money.

Even individually, those embroidered nametags go up to $15 each. With an order of 500, it could be down to $7 or $8 apiece, maybe even less.

Well the solution would be for NHQ to authorize them, USAF approve them, and the NHQ select one of the vendors out there who make a quality product to be the official supplier for them. Vanguard does not produce these for USAF so there shouldnt be an issue of someone else producing them for us.

If Vanguard made them, the Velcro(R) would be on the front, they would take 2 years to produce, and cost $20 to ship.

Velcro (R) is no loger a registered trademak name.  It is simply Velcro.  I met the guy who took the "hook and loop" fastners and cut them into strips, packaged them and sold them.  He is now a multi-millionaire.  Got to love those stoned hippies inventing something that already existed!  I believe he said it was in 1972.

Today, the VELCRO mark is the subject of more than 300 trademark registrations in over 160 countries.

Shush.

[Mustang]

Why standardize at the wing level?  Why not allow squadrons to specify their own standard as the AF does?

Simple. Cost. A small order of fifty would be far more expensive than an order of five hundred. I can appreciate mirroring the Air Force, but there must be a point of practicality, in this case, money.

Even individually, those embroidered nametags go up to $15 each. With an order of 500, it could be down to $7 or $8 apiece, maybe even less.

It may surprise you to learn, then, that the one-off nametag in my earlier post cost less than $10.  We don't need to do this in bulk to make it reasonable.   The cost savings wouldn't be that much unless you're talking custom designs on those tags, like a miniature version of the squadron patch or aircraft silhouette, because you'll still have to have names embroidered individually--and that's where you'll get creamed, because the most labor-intensive finishing work can't be done until AFTER the name's been embroidered. 

And to be honest, I really couldn't care less about wing-level identity. I'd far prefer units to maintain their own identity and esprit de corps.

Well the solution would be for NHQ to authorize them, USAF approve them, and the NHQ select one of the vendors out there who make a quality product to be the official supplier for them.

This "official vendor" thing is why stuff from Vanguard is so expensive; they have to pay NHQ a royalty on EVERY CAP ITEM THEY SELL--a cost which gets passed onto the consumer (us).   

[LtCol White]

Well that is how it will have to work. NHQ isnt going to say "Whoever wants to make these for our people can do it" since they have made a big deal over trademark issues. The point is that if they go to someone who already produces them and provides them with the designs for the wings, it wont matter how few are sold, the cost will be the same.  This would allow the freedom of Squadrons or Wings to be unique by choosing particular color combinations.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Realizing that we are discussing something which:

1.  Has not yet been authorized, and

2.  Probably will never be authorized because someone dropped the ball...

For my 2 cents I would prefer the "One CAP" approach.  One color scheme for all of us.

I personally liked the idea of getting rid of wing patches, and wish that wing kings were not left the option of requiring them on BDU's.

[Smokey]

Since the ball was dropped......anyone out there got an "in" with Wing CC/Region CC/ Gen Coulter, or even TP to get someone off their butt to forward the already approved (by NB) name tag request to the Air Force??

As far as differences in styles, colors.......it is no big deal. The companies that make the name tags for the AF have a large stock and it's no big deal.  They can make just about any color combo and get it to you in few days at less than $10 a shot.

[JC004]

...
As far as differences in styles, colors.......it is no big deal. The companies that make the name tags for the AF have a large stock and it's no big deal.  They can make just about any color combo and get it to you in few days at less than $10 a shot.

What they should do (rather than have our friends at Vanguard produce them), is have these companies submit proofs to NHQ with the CAP wings, and we can have a number of approved vendors.  I believe the Coast Guard Auxiliary does something like that, having multiple approved sources.

[Mustang]

I believe the ball was "dropped" because Susie Parker has made it known she does not like embroidered nametags.

Why an NHQ employee who's not a volunteer member even has a say in the matter is beyond me, but that's what I understand.

[Mustang]

Well that is how it will have to work. NHQ isnt going to say "Whoever wants to make these for our people can do it" since they have made a big deal over trademark issues. The point is that if they go to someone who already produces them and provides them with the designs for the wings, it wont matter how few are sold, the cost will be the same.

No, because the place making those tags now is not paying CAP a royalty (which is why I won't publish their name here).  The ONLY reason NHQ has made a stink about trademarks and whatnot is they think CAP should be entitled to a royalty from every purchase of CAP merchandise.  This is sorely nearsighted thinking, NHQ should do whatever they can to MINIMIZE the cost to the CAP volunteers, not pad everything with additional profit for CAP.  And I don't care if they are (allegedly) putting that money into CAP facilities or not, they should not look to the membership as a revenue center.