Update on ABU wear.

[Stonewall]

Yes, but it's very weird.  Only a lighter top will be available.  It would be like wearing a summer BDU top with winter BDU bottoms.  In fact, I think it was in the 98th Uniform Board results I posted a month ago.

I saw an "unofficial" set of summer weight ABUs at Lackland AFB in May.  An SF troop was wearing them.  You must iron/starch them if you want them to have a similar appearance to the regular ABU, otherwise they look like you just pulled them out of the dirty hamper.  Great for field use, but bad for garrison use. 

[PHall]

Sounds like he had a set of those 100% cotton ABU's that BDU.com sells.

[Stonewall]

He got them at Kel-Lac right outside of Lackland.  I saw them myself and they look really nice when they're brand new.  Wash'em once and they look like crap-o-la.

In fact, I think Nick McLarty said he bought a set.

[PHall]

And after you get done ironing and starching them to death, are they any cooler?

[Hawk200]

I had heard somewhere that the AF was working on a lighter, more heat friendly ABU. Perhaps by the time the CAP decides to adopt them they might be available? Not getting my hopes up and likely with a lighter material, the wash and wear concept will dissapear. I could be wrong though.

I do know that they're available in ripstop, I saw a couple dozen airman in Iraq wearing them. It looked just a tad bit thicker than woodland ripstop, but not much. May have been the same material as ACU's, just in that tigerstripe pattern.

[sfdefender]

Dear CAP,

I hear that you may authorize the ABU in a couple of years.  That would be great! Please consider authorizing the desert tan boot in addition to the sage green boot for this uniform combo.  This would greatly help my cadets and fellow senior members find boots at a reasonable price.

Sincerely,

Matt Brewer
Major, CAP

[Eclipse]

^ Or just stick with the traditional black...

[PHall]

Yeah, the black boots would differentiate us from the Air Force. I don't see that as a "problem".

[Hawk200]

Yeah, the black boots would differentiate us from the Air Force. I don't see that as a "problem".

I don't want to shine boots anymore. I don't in the Army, don't want to in CAP. There's a lot to be said for low maintenance.

I hope Ma Blue ditches those moldy greens. They're ugly, and the leather turns tan anyway.

[desertengineer1]

From someone who has been wearing ABUS for almost 2 years now.
...


I have worn ACUs, BDUs, OD Jungle Fatigues and the old Pickle Suit.  Nothing is hotter than the ABU.

The pros of the ABU are that they come in specific sizes so they do fit better.  And of course, I love the fact that you don't iron them.  They truly are wash & wear.

My God, did you really intend to date yourself that easily?  That's a perfect heatsink comment around our unit 

Seriously, I agree with you 100% on the ABU's.  After serving with the USMC 2MAW in Al Anbar and seeing their uniforms, I firmly believe there is no excuse for the incompetence this time.  It's not like someone could have walked down the hall in the Pentagon to the USMC hall and say, "Hey, those are snazzy, where'd you get the material?".

[desertengineer1]

I think we need to move to the green boots, but that's just my opinion.  The AF authorized them with current uniforms a while ago.  Pretty much everyone around the local AF Base in a flightsuit is wearing them.

They're just boots.

[MIKE]

Seriously, I agree with you 100% on the ABU's.  After serving with the USMC 2MAW in Al Anbar and seeing their uniforms, I firmly believe there is no excuse for the incompetence this time.  It's not like someone could have walked down the hall in the Pentagon to the USMC hall and say, "Hey, those are snazzy, where'd you get the material?".

IIRC, MCCUU is made of a thicker material... similar to the ABU.  It's still thicker than that of the EHWBDU and DCU.

[desertengineer1]

That's definately a surprise.  The uniforms look and feel much softer and thinner, about 5 times that of the ABU.

But I do love the wash and wear.  They have a noticable fade after about 10 washes, but I love the convenience.

[BrandonKea]

But I do love the wash and wear.  They have a noticable fade after about 10 washes, but I love the convenience.

I think that's to be expected from all clothes, but 10 does seem a little low on the wash count.

I've never worn the ABU's, but they look nice IMHO. I know the AF Folks were a little miffed about the lack of patches, and I think CAP would be in that same mindset. Question is, would we keep using the Ultramarine Blue, or would we simply go to a matching nametape that says "Civil Air Patrol".

[Hawk200]

IIRC, MCCUU is made of a thicker material... similar to the ABU.

The Marine shirt is a thinner fabric. Material is the same, just the weight of the fabric is thinner. The Marines figured out that pants wear out faster than shirts.

In one of the first Air Force times articles concerning the ABU, the difference was addressed, but the Air force stance was that a "negligible difference" was felt using the same weight material. Later, it was revealed that it was just cheaper to get the same material across the board for the initial run.

I've already seen ABU's in ripstop fabric, you can find them pretty easy with a Google search. Considering that they are NIR compliant, and that I've seen a couple dozen airmen wearing them; I'd figure they're approved, just not available in mil clothing yet. Then again, I haven't been shopping in an Air Force military clothing lately, so I don't know.

[PHall]

AFAIK, the Rip-Stop ABU's are not approved.
But since when has that stopped anybody when they're better then the "approved" item.

[Hawk200]

AFAIK, the Rip-Stop ABU's are not approved.
But since when has that stopped anybody when they're better then the "approved" item.

Apparently, you're right: http://www.tinker.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123151472

I don't particulary care for this statement in the article though: "Essentially, if you don't buy it from AAFES or it hasn't been issued to you," ... "it is not only unauthorized, but presents many risks."

I know that the military has AAFES to supply things, but stating it in this manner is questionable. A large majority of suppliers sell the same authentic uniforms as AAFES. To say it's not authorized just because it didn't have an AAFES price tag on it seems a bit unethical to me.

What's to keep an airman from saying he did buy it at Mil Clothing? It may be impossible to know, even if you check the internal tags. Tags that would be the same as an AAFES model. Then one lie is followed up by another one. Why propogate such a thing?

Please note that I'm not referring to the ripstop models. As noted in the article, they're not approved, and the difference is blatantly obvious.

[biomed441]

Question is, would we keep using the Ultramarine Blue, or would we simply go to a matching nametape that says "Civil Air Patrol".

If we do end up switching over to the ABU's, I would personally hope we just go with the material that matches them.  I doubt that would happen though since we didn't make the change the last time. 

[desertengineer1]

AFAIK, the Rip-Stop ABU's are not approved.
But since when has that stopped anybody when they're better then the "approved" item.

Apparently, you're right: http://www.tinker.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123151472

I don't particulary care for this statement in the article though: "Essentially, if you don't buy it from AAFES or it hasn't been issued to you," ... "it is not only unauthorized, but presents many risks."

I know that the military has AAFES to supply things, but stating it in this manner is questionable. A large majority of suppliers sell the same authentic uniforms as AAFES. To say it's not authorized just because it didn't have an AAFES price tag on it seems a bit unethical to me.

What's to keep an airman from saying he did buy it at Mil Clothing? It may be impossible to know, even if you check the internal tags. Tags that would be the same as an AAFES model. Then one lie is followed up by another one. Why propogate such a thing?

Please note that I'm not referring to the ripstop models. As noted in the article, they're not approved, and the difference is blatantly obvious.

Well, you have to take these kinds of statements for the message rather than the black/white they appear to be.  There is no DoD or AF regulation telling members they MUST buy the uniforms from MCSS.  The law does state, however, that the AF cannot buy from anyone else except MCSS due to limitations of where they are made.  But at the member level, most NCO's know the weenie limits.  The AF cannot put such a rule into the regs.  The lawyers at SECDEF level would have a field day with the ensuing controversy.  But the regs DO call out a standard of appearance and functionality.

If you are buying your own uniform, most command chains don't care, as long as it is identical in appearance to MCSS purchased (AF bought and issued) ones, and meets any unique safety requirements your AFSC may have.  For example, the first generation versions were not 100% cotton with respect to fire characteristics (Rayon melts).  Firefighters were given waivers to wear the old cotton ACU's until a version was developed that met the requirements. 

Some significant slack was also given at the beginning because, well, the manufacturers screwed up on several levels and the AF dropped several balls in the process.  This led to a shortage of certain sizes and a comical "difference" of standard.  i.e. a 40S blouse was actually a 44 Long.  Pants were really bizzarre.  A 34R was actually a 34 XXL.  There was a marathon of modifications going on in the AOR by members doing anything they could to reduce the layers (backs of pockets cut out, map pockets removed, etc..).  For a while, commanders just threw up their hands.

The main distinction now is appearance.  If an airman's uniform looks identical, no one really cares, and supervisors usually have other things to do than making members disrobe for MCSS authenticity checks.  But you know someone, somewhere, walked into a section one morning looking like a 3rd country knock-off, and the drama began.  There's always one somewhere....

My beef is that the tradition of buffoonery at the AF uniform board level continues.  The ABU's look cool (I really like the look), but they are a disaster with respect to the material and design.  You can't get to the pockets in body armor, and the ones you can get to are essentially useless.  I have like 4 pen pockets!

In short, they were designed for cubical warriors in over air conditioned offices. 

[Hawk200]

Well, you have to take these kinds of statements for the message rather than the black/white they appear to be. 

I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. A clear, factual statement should be made, not one "for the message".

Say what you mean, mean what you say. Personally, I prefer things up front, honest and factual. I expect the same of the troops I supervise. I really don't think that's too much to ask. I don't think it's too much to ask of the leadership either.