Just a thought, but I believe the ABU's are only being considered because all of the active duty services may be going to a single camouflage pattern (thankfully). The ABU & ACU patterns (which are similar) are ineffective in concealment and are easily spotted in the operational environment. Is CAP just (possibly) adopting a "failed" uniform to replace the more "successful" woodland pattern?
That being said, I am not convinced that CAP adopting the ABU is necessarily a good thing, it kind of sends the message of: "here's our failed rejects, wear it with pride." I supposse that the ABU's would lend to better visibility though!
Thoughts? Go!
Sure, dont just kick the hornet's nest, but play soccer with it.
Duck and cover....
Quote from: HeadHunter06 on September 06, 2013, 07:14:10 PM
Just a thought, but I believe the ABU's are only being considered because all of the active duty services may be going to a single camouflage pattern (thankfully). The ABU & ACU patterns (which are similar) are ineffective in concealment and are easily spotted in the operational environment. Is CAP just (possibly) adopting a "failed" uniform to replace the more "successful" woodland pattern?
That being said, I am not convinced that CAP adopting the ABU is necessarily a good thing, it kind of sends the message of: "here's our failed rejects, wear it with pride." I supposse that the ABU's would lend to better visibility though!
Thoughts? Go!
Where do you come up with this stuff? And right now no the services are not going to a single pattern, the only thing on that is rumor mil on Capitol Hill about it. A failed uniform, it has done what is was suppose to do outside of hiding the wearer. There was more than one intended purpose when the ABU was designed and fielded. I think you should do your homework a little bit more.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-approves-measure-to-have-military-branches-share-one-camouflage-pattern/2013/06/14/017700f6-d4ff-11e2-bc43-c404c3269c73_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-approves-measure-to-have-military-branches-share-one-camouflage-pattern/2013/06/14/017700f6-d4ff-11e2-bc43-c404c3269c73_story.html)
It's coming; the Army delayed announcing the replacement pattern for the ACU's.
Quote from: HeadHunter06 on September 06, 2013, 07:46:38 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-approves-measure-to-have-military-branches-share-one-camouflage-pattern/2013/06/14/017700f6-d4ff-11e2-bc43-c404c3269c73_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-approves-measure-to-have-military-branches-share-one-camouflage-pattern/2013/06/14/017700f6-d4ff-11e2-bc43-c404c3269c73_story.html)
It's coming; the Army delayed announcing the replacement pattern for the ACU's.
Yes, there is talk about moving to a single uniform however that is years down the pipeline. For the forseeable future there will still be all the different uniform combinations. Also I find it interesting that for your proof you dig up a report from almost 3 months ago.
Really, three months isn't that long ago in the scheme of Congressional action and military acquisitions? If it were older, say 1-2 years or so...I'd find that more interesting. But I digress, and so does the topic...ABU's, really?
ABUs really?
Really!
Asked and answered.
Who gives a whit cares if someone regards it as a "failed uniform?" The majority of those that will see us, will not know or care about that.
I would rather keep the BDU, the shirt and two pants I now use I bought almost 15 years ago and still fit me. But if the powers that be do decree we have to use the ABU, I will use it without problems.
Flyer
Headhunter, how old are you?
This topic proves my signature line (partially) 8)
The WaPo is not exactly a "trusted source".
One possible "multi-service" camouflage uniform that has been mentioned is the MultiCam pattern. The Army, the Navy, and the Air Force already all make use of that specific uniform when working together on some joint operations as it is. And, apparently, the Air Force has taken a concept from the Civil Air Patrol side of things, in that they have AF personnel to wear full-colour patches when wearing this pattern stateside, as shown in this photo and caption from the Air Force's own Facebook page:
(http://i.imgur.com/z7mKATa.jpg)
"AF Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III recently visited Eielson Air Force Base Force Base, Alaska, and was able to meet and interact with Airmen from around the base. He even took the opportunity to call the family of Airman 1st Class Matt Rainey, ultimately speaking to Rainey's girlfriend, directly thanking her for supporting her Airman." A1C Rainey is the airman wearing the "stateside" version of the MultiCam uniform in the photo.
Ok, so it has obviously been decided we are moving to ABU's...fine...is this in writing yet? I've checked the Regs and nothing has been updated. Where did this info come from?
Quote from: SAREXinNY on September 07, 2013, 02:13:16 AM
Ok, so it has obviously been decided we are moving to ABU's...fine...is this in writing yet? I've checked the Regs and nothing has been updated. Where did this info come from?
This info was posted after the National Board/Conference. We are currently awaiting DoD approval. That will be the last hurdle. Expect a years-long phase-in period. The Regs will be updated once the move is final.
Shock! Shock I tell you. The three star isn't waring sage green boots.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 07, 2013, 03:27:13 AM
Shock! Shock I tell you. The three star isn't waring sage green boots.
Well, to be fair, he is a 3-star general, and general-grade officers have a bit more leeway in uniform wear. I did my undergraduate work at the military college that has the highest number of flag officers on active duty at any given time (North Georgia College and State University) than any other senior military college, and so we got used to seeing general officers visiting campus with uniform variations that definitely deviate quite a bit from the manual. Of course, if it were me, I would not tell my college classmates BG Bill Gayler or BG Joe Jarrard, or our former C.A.P. unit adviser "CPT" Terry (who is currently LTG Terry) that they were "out of uniform". Besides, that colour of medium brown boot is awfully close to the type worn with the MultiCams, so maybe he knows something that we don't about the likely selection of the new multi-service uniform...
Quote from: usafaux2004 on September 07, 2013, 03:27:13 AM
Shock! Shock I tell you. The three star isn't waring sage green boots.
They look green to me. Just like the one's in my closet that were issued to me...
When you all get this all figured out, debated to death, pointed and counterpointed, rumored and proven, let me know. Otherwise, quit feeding the troll.
Black boots are still the way to go.
I propose we ditch the BDU/ABU and go with the BBDU for ALL members cadet and senior alike but retain the dress uniforms with a jacket for the fat and fuzzies.
I'm also a fan of the BBDUs, if only we didn't have to use those name tapes that glow in the dark. I completely understand the need to be "distinctive" but since the USAF doesn't even have BBDUs (or BDUs for that matter) there shouldn't be an issue with having name tapes that actually look "good" with the uniform.
At least with the USAF uniforms, you've got a good handle on what you're buying.
With BBDU's, you've got so many varied qualities .. that we'd all look like ..
Oh, wait. That wouldn't change anything. There's no uniform uniform anyway.
Like I said, I'll get whatever they decide, and I'll do it in accordance with the published information and carry on. Because at the end of the day, that's all that matters.
Agreed. BBDU would be good, or just plain OD Green.
People..... Another ABU discussion?
Quote from: Flying Pig on September 07, 2013, 10:00:25 PM
People..... Another ABU discussion?
Yup...I'm glad this one in only two pages. I thought about cutting and pasting all of the other threads and post them here so that everyone would see that this has been discussed ad naseaum
Ya got it!
You would think that we could make a better use of our time, like studying for our ES quals... or cadets study for their next achievement. Or squadron commanders and finance officers to think about and come up with plans to generate revenues. But no, we are not doing any of that.
Others like me, I could be spending my time in a better way, getting ready for the return of students planning my Monday and Tuesday lessons. Instead, I am looking for topics to procrastinate...
Flyer
BBDU ;)
Quote from: Private Investigator on September 08, 2013, 10:35:18 PM
BBDU ;)
BBDU? What's that?
Is it the
Brown BDU? The
Black BDU? The
Blue BDU? The
Beige BDU?
Quote from: cap235629 on September 07, 2013, 06:46:18 PM
I propose we ditch the BDU/ABU and go with the BBDU for ALL members cadet and senior alike but retain the dress uniforms with a jacket for the fat and fuzzies.
Agree :clap:
Quote from: ol'fido on September 07, 2013, 04:11:45 AM
When you all get this all figured out, debated to death, pointed and counterpointed, rumored and proven, let me know. Otherwise, quit feeding the troll.
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Quote from: PHall on September 09, 2013, 01:27:48 AM
Quote from: Private Investigator on September 08, 2013, 10:35:18 PM
BBDU ;)
BBDU? What's that?
Is it the Brown BDU? The Black BDU? The Blue BDU? The Beige BDU?
"B" are you can be. In a gentle society we want everyone to be happy.
Quote from: PHall on September 09, 2013, 01:27:48 AM
Quote from: Private Investigator on September 08, 2013, 10:35:18 PM
BBDU ;)
BBDU? What's that?
Is it the Brown BDU? The Black BDU? The Blue BDU? The Beige BDU?
I thought it was the fabled Blank BDU. :-\
Quote from: Private Investigator on September 10, 2013, 01:57:27 AM
Quote from: PHall on September 09, 2013, 01:27:48 AM
Quote from: Private Investigator on September 08, 2013, 10:35:18 PM
BBDU ;)
BBDU? What's that?
Is it the Brown BDU? The Black BDU? The Blue BDU? The Beige BDU?
"B" are all you can be. In a gentle society we want everyone to be happy.
Fixed that for you! >:D
Not matter what color BDU, you can be happy in the fact you are dressed for battle.
To please everyone, I will push now for the BBDU. In my BBDU, it will be the RainBow BDU, in all colors of the spectrum!
Woodland cover, ABU shirt, tiger stripe pants, and one OG 105 and one blue sock. One black boot, another sage green.
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 10, 2013, 02:23:10 AM
To please everyone, I will push now for the BBDU. In my BBDU, it will be the RainBow BDU, in all colors of the spectrum!
So that would be the ROYGBIVBDU?
Yes! ;D
Err, what do the letters stand for? ???
Flyer
ROYGBIV = Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet.
Quote from: flyer333555 on September 10, 2013, 02:23:10 AM
To please everyone, I will push now for the BBDU. In my BBDU, it will be the RainBow BDU, in all colors of the spectrum!
Woodland cover, ABU shirt, tiger stripe pants, and one OG 105 and one blue sock. One black boot, another sage green.
Flyer
From
Good Morning Vietnam:
"Because you go in the jungle, I can't see you. You know, it's like wearing stripes and plaid. For me, I want to do something different. You know, you go in the jungle, make a statement. If you're going to fight, clash. You know what I mean?"
Thank you.
I am thinking about the lesson plans I have to prepare for tomorrow... My brain cells were poppin' and yelling when I started thinking about the letters...
Flyer
The Army (thankfully) is finally coming to the realization that ACU's were a disaster:
http://news.yahoo.com/army-5-billion-waste-094500638--politics.html (http://news.yahoo.com/army-5-billion-waste-094500638--politics.html)
ABU's surely soon to follow.
That's just a rehash of old news........
Quote from: HeadHunter06 on October 15, 2013, 08:29:12 PM
The Army (thankfully) is finally coming to the realization that ACU's were a disaster:
http://news.yahoo.com/army-5-billion-waste-094500638--politics.html (http://news.yahoo.com/army-5-billion-waste-094500638--politics.html)
ABU's surely soon to follow.
You really think so? That would be using logic, which is against the law and could result in you being drawn, quartered, shot and sentenced to Death by Power Point!
They've been in denial for so long, it's refreshing to see an admittance.
Quote from: HeadHunter06 on October 16, 2013, 06:15:33 PM
They've been in denial for so long, it's refreshing to see an admittance.
A. They have never been in denial. Even when the ACU's first came out the ARMY know that the UCP was inferior to any other single camo patter built for a specific terrain.
That was not what the UCP was aiming for. They were looking to save money by only having one uniform patter that worked "good enough" for any terrain.
To use an analogy.
Vehicles come in a spectrum of options. Speed, load carrying, fuel efficiency, etc. Pit an SUV against a NASCAR in a speed race, NASCAR wins every time, Pit the SUV against a Pickup truck in load carrying....and the pick up wins every time. Pitt the SUV an solar powered electric car for fuel efficiency....and the solar car wins.
The SUV is a compromise between all the competing things you want to get out of the vehicle.
That was the goal of the UCP and the ACU.
That politics (both Army and National) got involved is one of the problems with this particular situation.
IIRC some contractors got butt hurt that they did not win the contract....because the Army wanted a UCP and not a system of 2-3 camo patterns....they lobbied their congress critters and then all this started to happen.
So....none of this is news. And there is still nothing beyond a few rumors and the Army doing some studies...that says that the Army is ready to make any major changes to their uniforms.
AS for the ABUs.......I'm sure that the USAF has other things they want to spend money on instead R&D and field testing of a new uniform right now.
There's no denying what they were trying to do - save money, but the way in which it was done is tantamount to waste, fraud, and abuse. Everyone knew it was a useless pattern, I agree, but you didn't hear big Army leadership admit that before they started looking for a replacement for the UCP.
Quote from: HeadHunter06 on October 17, 2013, 12:58:00 AM
There's no denying what they were trying to do - save money, but the way in which it was done is tantamount to waste, fraud, and abuse. Everyone knew it was a useless pattern, I agree, but you didn't hear big Army leadership admit that before they started looking for a replacement for the UCP.
Not useless....be careful of your adjectives. It works.....just like my SUV works. And yes they were trying to save money....issue one set of uniforms.....and more importantly one set of web gear, load bearing equipment, etc and so forth.
The FWA comes after the fact.....when the congress critters got involved and they started issuing multicams for Afghanistan.
But let's face it 90% of us camo wearers are Fobbits anyway.....the reflective belt kind of defeats ANY camo combo.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 17, 2013, 01:32:27 AM
Quote from: HeadHunter06 on October 17, 2013, 12:58:00 AM
There's no denying what they were trying to do - save money, but the way in which it was done is tantamount to waste, fraud, and abuse. Everyone knew it was a useless pattern, I agree, but you didn't hear big Army leadership admit that before they started looking for a replacement for the UCP.
Not useless....be careful of your adjectives. It works.....just like my SUV works. And yes they were trying to save money....issue one set of uniforms.....and more importantly one set of web gear, load bearing equipment, etc and so forth.
The FWA comes after the fact.....when the congress critters got involved and they started issuing multicams for Afghanistan.
But let's face it 90% of us camo wearers are Fobbits anyway.....the reflective belt kind of defeats ANY camo combo.
http://www.powershow.com/view/c008d-NjU5Y/Great_moments_in_reflective_belt_history_powerpoint_ppt_presentation (http://www.powershow.com/view/c008d-NjU5Y/Great_moments_in_reflective_belt_history_powerpoint_ppt_presentation) ;)
I did not like your posting about our uniform problems...
:o
But your recent posting about the reflective belts, I LOVE IT! I think I may have seen it a long time ago but it always brings a smile.
:clap:
Flyer
Thanks, I have my moments. ;D
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dZj7jax12Zk/UD0_ZxHgqzI/AAAAAAAADCc/_KeN0xOYeJQ/s640/ReflectiveBelt.jpg)
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6599950336/h1A679B2B/)
(http://www.outofregs.com/postImages/1353973303.jpg)
(http://milblogging.com/popups/images/pt-belt-militarymeme.jpg)
(http://www.outofregs.com/postImages/1332361121.jpg)
(http://www.outofregs.com/postImages/1355862251.jpg)
http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/08/army-increases-combat-effectiveness-with-more-reflective-belts-extremely-safe-combat-patrols/ (http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/08/army-increases-combat-effectiveness-with-more-reflective-belts-extremely-safe-combat-patrols/)
(http://www.vamortgagecenter.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Picture1.jpg)
(http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1258/post30431265315410.jpg)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/c0.95.851.315/p851x315/906507_10151343770067007_2075166112_o.jpg)
(http://i1.wp.com/trektothetroops.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/562341_502779219811680_1372019551_n.jpg?resize=640%2C365)
On a more "to the point" off topic point, this week our cadet staff petitioned, and received approval to go from wearing safety vests to wearing PT belts when working outside in the parking lot. I would have pushed for a full repeal, but I suppose for the purposes of drill/inspection/other outside this will have to do.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/18/wait-continues-for-armys-new-camo-decision.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/18/wait-continues-for-armys-new-camo-decision.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm)
Quote from: HeadHunter06 on October 19, 2013, 06:22:28 PM
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/18/wait-continues-for-armys-new-camo-decision.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/18/wait-continues-for-armys-new-camo-decision.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm)
That's nice for the Army. But, IMHO, it will take a direct order from SecAF or higher before the Air Force abandons the ABU. :o
The excuse of "it will cost too much to change" will be used... ::)
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 17, 2013, 05:35:04 AM
(http://www.vamortgagecenter.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Picture1.jpg)
Band of Brothers, eh? 8)
Quote from: HeadHunter06 on October 19, 2013, 06:22:28 PM
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/18/wait-continues-for-armys-new-camo-decision.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/18/wait-continues-for-armys-new-camo-decision.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm)
Sir, you must have a better source than this.
I don't think the UASF will abandon the ABU, I think they'll continue to use it until Congress makes them switch. In the meanwhile, they'll probably borrow from the Army when it comes time to deploy to combat. Seriously need to go back to one pattern for all services.
I think what the latest article indicates is that there are really HIGHER decisions to be made before the Army "picks" its new pattern.
At the risk of inducing wincing and heavy sighing, has anybody heard anything when the new 39-1 will be officially released for review?
Quote from: Panache on October 20, 2013, 06:40:46 AM
At the risk of inducing wincing and heavy sighing, has anybody heard anything when the new 39-1 will be officially released for review?
Last I heard they were shooting for November.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 20, 2013, 12:58:19 PM
Quote from: Panache on October 20, 2013, 06:40:46 AM
At the risk of inducing wincing and heavy sighing, has anybody heard anything when the new 39-1 will be officially released for review?
Last I heard they were shooting for November.
They're trying to put some "good" pictures and graphics in it this time and not something that looks like your Uncle Ed's fumbling with the camera stuff.
It's taking a bit longer then expected, but they are committed to putting out a "quality" product.
Hopefully they are using mannequins and not people. Headless dress mannequins can be made to look perfect and don't introduce "personality" into the image.
Every.
Single.
Image.
And.
Diagram.
Needs to be redrawn or reshot. Some date back to the 70's and have all kinds of noise in them. most have at least "something" wrong in them,
and there's no consistency of style from page to page.
So it will look more like a reg instead of a classroom handout? That's good
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 20, 2013, 05:38:13 PM
So it will look more like a reg instead of a classroom handout? That's good
It's going to look almost identical to the current Air Force AFI 36-2903 in format.
That was one of their marching orders.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 20, 2013, 04:22:24 PM
Hopefully they are using mannequins and not people. Headless dress mannequins can be made to look perfect and don't introduce "personality" into the image.
Every.
Single.
Image.
And.
Diagram.
Needs to be redrawn or reshot. Some date back to the 70's and have all kinds of noise in them. most have at least "something" wrong in them,
and there's no consistency of style from page to page.
Handy acronym...ESIAD. You could adapt that to almost any thing you wanted...eat s** immediately and die...sorry, sleep deprivation makes me do weird things...
Quote from: PHall on October 20, 2013, 03:41:34 PM
It's taking a bit longer then expected, but they are committed to putting out a "quality" product.
Excellent. I would rather wait and have it done right than a rushed half-done reg.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 20, 2013, 04:22:24 PM
Needs to be redrawn or reshot. Some date back to the 70's and have all kinds of noise in them. most have at least "something" wrong in them,
and there's no consistency of style from page to page.
Does this means they're taking out the references of sideburns being limited to "groovy length" and not looking like a dirty hippy?
HAAAAA!! When I was a cadet in the 90s we made fun of that guy! :clap:
We made even more fun in the 2000s. Especially cadets who went by that maximum.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 21, 2013, 01:32:57 PM
We made even more fun in the 2000s. Especially cadets who went by that maximum.
Heck, I look back at pics from the early 1980s and the amount of hair we all had that was *clearly* not "tapered", etc.
We had that same diagram. What was our deal?
Quote from: PHall on October 19, 2013, 07:08:40 PM
Quote from: HeadHunter06 on October 19, 2013, 06:22:28 PM
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/18/wait-continues-for-armys-new-camo-decision.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/18/wait-continues-for-armys-new-camo-decision.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm)
That's nice for the Army. But, IMHO, it will take a direct order from SecAF or higher before the Air Force abandons the ABU. :o
The excuse of "it will cost too much to change" will be used... ::)
Well if Congress passes a bill and it becomes law the SecDef and SecAF will have no choice but to comply.
How long before that approved "all Services pattern" is authorized for CAP (if at all) is anyones' guess.
This might be the time to simply adopt the BBDU as the standard CAP field/utility uniform and be done with it. Allow BDUs to be worn until "unservice-able" and if ABUs
are authorized in the next 39-1, do the same thing.
Quote from: shuman14 on October 22, 2013, 12:18:19 AM
This might be the time to simply adopt the BBDU as the standard CAP field/utility uniform and be done with it. Allow BDUs to be worn until "unservice-able" and if ABUs are authorized in the next 39-1, do the same thing.
Any change will include a phase out period for the current uniform, historically somewhere between 3-5 years.
There are advantages with the Distinctive Field Uniform. It doesn't blend with much of anything, though it is dark. It is readily available and will be for the foreseeable future unless the Coast Guard is forced to change their uniforms as well.
The disadvantage is that it is not and has never been a uniform of the USAF. It would be a shame to lose that connection which has been a tradition for over 70 years. Oh, and
it's the uniform used by the Coast Guard!!
Quote from: Elioron on October 22, 2013, 12:25:24 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 22, 2013, 12:18:19 AM
This might be the time to simply adopt the BBDU as the standard CAP field/utility uniform and be done with it. Allow BDUs to be worn until "unservice-able" and if ABUs are authorized in the next 39-1, do the same thing.
Any change will include a phase out period for the current uniform, historically somewhere between 3-5 years.
There are advantages with the Distinctive Field Uniform. It doesn't blend with much of anything, though it is dark. It is readily available and will be for the foreseeable future unless the Coast Guard is forced to change their uniforms as well.
The disadvantage is that it is not and has never been a uniform of the USAF. It would be a shame to lose that connection which has been a tradition for over 70 years. Oh, and it's the uniform used by the Coast Guard!!
The Coasties don't wear the same uniform as us.
Elioron,
I see your point about tradition, but if all the uniformed Services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Public Health Service and NOAA Corps) are forced by Congress to adopt one single Field/Utility camouflage uniform, it ceases to be just an "Air Force" uniform and becomes a "United States Armed Forces" uniform and the other Service Secretaries may take issue with CAP (and USCGAux for that matter) wearing the uniform.
Now stocks of BDUs are still fairly plentiful (ABUs not so much) but will that still be the case in a year, two years, or five years?
Once the switch to a single uniform happens I expect those woodland BDU and ABU stocks to dry up completely so the adoption something else will be the only answer.
Quote from: shuman14 on October 22, 2013, 12:18:19 AM
Quote from: PHall on October 19, 2013, 07:08:40 PM
Quote from: HeadHunter06 on October 19, 2013, 06:22:28 PM
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/18/wait-continues-for-armys-new-camo-decision.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/10/18/wait-continues-for-armys-new-camo-decision.html?ESRC=todayinmil.sm)
That's nice for the Army. But, IMHO, it will take a direct order from SecAF or higher before the Air Force abandons the ABU. :o
The excuse of "it will cost too much to change" will be used... ::)
Well if Congress passes a bill and it becomes law the SecDef and SecAF will have no choice but to comply.
How long before that approved "all Services pattern" is authorized for CAP (if at all) is anyones' guess.
This might be the time to simply adopt the BBDU as the standard CAP field/utility uniform and be done with it. Allow BDUs to be worn until "unservice-able" and if ABUs are authorized in the next 39-1, do the same thing.
Congress will be hard pressed to push a bill that requires millions of dollars spent in coming up with a new uniform.....when they can't pay for what they are already making the services do.
Of course it may happen.....and when that happens....we will change too +/- a few years.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 22, 2013, 12:53:08 AM
Quote from: Elioron on October 22, 2013, 12:25:24 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 22, 2013, 12:18:19 AM
This might be the time to simply adopt the BBDU as the standard CAP field/utility uniform and be done with it. Allow BDUs to be worn until "unservice-able" and if ABUs are authorized in the next 39-1, do the same thing.
Any change will include a phase out period for the current uniform, historically somewhere between 3-5 years.
There are advantages with the Distinctive Field Uniform. It doesn't blend with much of anything, though it is dark. It is readily available and will be for the foreseeable future unless the Coast Guard is forced to change their uniforms as well.
The disadvantage is that it is not and has never been a uniform of the USAF. It would be a shame to lose that connection which has been a tradition for over 70 years. Oh, and it's the uniform used by the Coast Guard!!
The Coasties don't wear the same uniform as us.
Coast Guard ODUs look very close to BBDUs but come with embroidery on both the top and bottoms to make them different from civilian market blue BDUs.
(http://www.uscg.mil/uniform/docs/uscg-odu-08/uscg-odu-08/longsleeve/images/cu-shirtpocket-210.jpg)
Quote from: lordmonar on October 22, 2013, 01:02:09 AMCongress will be hard pressed to push a bill that requires millions of dollars spent in coming up with a new uniform.....when they can't pay for what they are already making the services do.
The US Congress? Of the United States? Of 'Merica?
The same one that just blew through as much as $100 Million in real dollars and upwards of $23+Billion in economic impact
just to ultimately give federal workers 2-1/2 weeks paid vacation?
That Congress?
Quote from: Eclipse on October 22, 2013, 01:08:32 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on October 22, 2013, 01:02:09 AMCongress will be hard pressed to push a bill that requires millions of dollars spent in coming up with a new uniform.....when they can't pay for what they are already making the services do.
The US Congress? Of the United States? Of 'Merica?
The same one that just blew through as much as $100 Million in real dollars and upwards of $23+Billion in economic impact
just to ultimately give federal workers 2-1/2 weeks paid vacation?
That Congress?
No....that one is all going to be unemployed in two years.....If I have anything to say about it? :) A) there is little or no political power to be gained by forcing the services to spend money on new uniforms. B) There is no powerful BDU lobby out there willing to chuck money at congress over this issue. C) Even if one of the big uniform patter owners does push it....there is no guarantee that they are going to win the contract.
Like I said.....it may happen.....but so what....when the USAF changes....so will we.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 22, 2013, 12:53:08 AM
The Coasties don't wear the same uniform as us.
Aside from tapes and patches (Shuman also mentioned embroidery) the DFU is the same base garment as the CG ODU.
Quote from: http://www.uscg.mil/uniform/ODUUniforms.asp
The CG Blue ODU Shirt is a Coast Guard blue variation of the Battle Dress Uniform (BDU).
It goes into more detail, but that's the gist of it.
Quote from: shuman14 on October 22, 2013, 12:56:17 AM
Elioron,
I see your point about tradition, but if all the uniformed Services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Public Health Service and NOAA Corps) are forced by Congress to adopt one single Field/Utility camouflage uniform, it ceases to be just an "Air Force" uniform and becomes a "Unite States Armed Forces" uniform and the other Service Secretaries may take issue with CAP (and USCGAux for that matter) wearing the uniform.
Now stocks of BDUs are still fairly plentiful (ABUs not so much) but will that still be the case in a year, two years, or five years?
Once the switch to a single uniform happens I expect those woodland BDU and ABU stocks to dry up completely so the adoption something else will be the only answer.
It's been a while since we've worn the current USAF uniform, so I'd expect for ABUs to be next. I don't expect ABUs to be available as long as BDUs have been as there has always been a strong civilian market for them, not so much for ABUs. The impact would be on how long before we change again.
I do agree that if the USCG is also required to switch to the unified uniform that the DFU clothing will disappear even faster.
[modified to fix quotation issue]
Scott,
Just so you know the reason for the Congress getting envolved has to do with the "perceived" problem of too many camouflage patterns in theater.
MARPAT desert, ACU, ABU, and D-BDU all could be seen being worn on any given day on any given FOB in Iraq so a "good idea faery" said "Hey, I think it be a good idea for all our American Boys-n-Girls to be in the same uniform!" and there you are.
Google "Congress wants one military uniform" for plenty of articles, heres one for a quick reference:
http://kitup.military.com/2013/06/congress-eliminate-service-specific.html (http://kitup.military.com/2013/06/congress-eliminate-service-specific.html)
Quote from: shuman14 on October 22, 2013, 02:14:17 AM
Just so you know the reason for the Congress getting envolved has to do with the "perceived" problem of too many camouflage patterns in theater.
Yes. The current draft does limit any new camouflage uniforms of any kind, but it is unclear if it will include changing uniforms to a non-camouflage pattern while at home. Nor is it clear if the USCG will get caught up in it, whether by intent or by wording that lumps them in.
There is still a lot to be ironed out before it's all said and done. It will be interesting to see what comes out.
Quote from: shuman14 on October 22, 2013, 12:56:17 AM
but if all the uniformed Services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Public Health Service and NOAA Corps) are forced by Congress to adopt one single Field/Utility camouflage uniform, it ceases to be just an "Air Force" uniform and becomes a "United States Armed Forces" uniform
Funny, they didn't call it the "United States Armed Forces" uniform when all of the services were wearing BDU's.
Quote from: Elioron on October 22, 2013, 02:41:07 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 22, 2013, 02:14:17 AM
Just so you know the reason for the Congress getting envolved has to do with the "perceived" problem of too many camouflage patterns in theater.
Yes. The current draft does limit any new camouflage uniforms of any kind, but it is unclear if it will include changing uniforms to a non-camouflage pattern while at home. Nor is it clear if the USCG will get caught up in it, whether by intent or by wording that lumps them in.
Just as camo is useless for CAP SAR, you could certainly ask what use a field uniform is to service members sitting in an office. There are much better alternatives for
general office wear and less expensive alternatives for hard / dirty duties like aircraft repair, etc. An infantryman might spend most of his life in the field or field training,
but most Airmen don't. That also opens the kettle of fish about UAV pilots being in flight suits, etc.
Quote from: Elioron on October 22, 2013, 02:41:07 AM
There is still a lot to be ironed out before it's all said and done. It will be interesting to see what comes out.
You're not supposed to iron field uniforms.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 22, 2013, 02:46:17 AM
Just as camo is useless for CAP SAR, you could certainly ask what use a field uniform is to service members sitting in an office. There are much better alternatives for
general office wear and less expensive alternatives for hard / dirty duties like aircraft repair, etc. An infantryman might spend most of his life in the field or field training,
but most Airmen don't. That also opens the kettle of fish about UAV pilots being in flight suits, etc.
Now you're just making too much sense.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 22, 2013, 02:46:17 AM
You're not supposed to iron field uniforms.
But how are we supposed to cut paper with the creases in our BDUs if they aren't starched and ironed into oblivion?! ;D
Quote from: Elioron on October 22, 2013, 12:25:24 AM
The disadvantage is that it is not and has never been a uniform of the USAF. It would be a shame to lose that connection which has been a tradition for over 70 years.
Well, a connection for about half the CAP membership, anyway.
Quote from: PHall on October 22, 2013, 02:41:48 AM
Quote from: shuman14 on October 22, 2013, 12:56:17 AM
but if all the uniformed Services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Public Health Service and NOAA Corps) are forced by Congress to adopt one single Field/Utility camouflage uniform, it ceases to be just an "Air Force" uniform and becomes a "United States Armed Forces" uniform
Funny, they didn't call it the "United States Armed Forces" uniform when all of the services were wearing BDU's.
Probably because it "just happened." There was no real effort to "Get all the services into one uniform."
Then, suddenly, everybody was wearing something else.
I would personally like to see a current, and reliable source about a unified uniform outside of the Times, Military.com, kitup etc. Everything I have pulled up has been old information.
Quote from: abdsp51 on October 22, 2013, 04:24:16 PM
I would personally like to see a current, and reliable source about a unified uniform outside of the Times, Military.com, kitup etc. Everything I have pulled up has been old information.
Most of the stories are just syndication of the same news, however the GAO >did< issue their report on the waste regarding the multiple patterns,
and the House Armed Services Committee directed a change by 2018, so it's definitely in the diaspora.
Diaspora?
What do you mean here?
Do you really know what the word means without looking it up?
Quote from: SarDragon on October 22, 2013, 10:58:53 PM
Diaspora?
What do you mean here?
Do you really know what the word means without looking it up?
Yes, I do, at least in it's more modern use it refers to the social coherence of a group or community, or the general "background noise" of an organization, etc.
It can also refer to distributed understanding or information not owned by anyone in particular.
I'll grant that is a more modern use of the word, and it's traditional definition doesn't fit here.
Sorry, I couldn't find a "modern" definition.
Dictionary.com sez:
any group migration or flight from a country or region. Synonyms: dispersion, dissemination, migration, displacement, scattering.
People also use diaspora to mean records or writings about a group. Such as poems, books, novels. This use it is more or less like what Eclipse states.
Flyer
People also use apostrophe-S to make plurals, confuse impact and effect, and turn every available unwitting noun that walks by into a verb...
Some new forms of usage invigorate the language, while others muddy it or ignore other perfectly good and serviceable words.
I'm not sure how I feel about this new "diaspora" coinage; it seems to have emerged from the world of IT, whose other major linguistic contribution to date seems to be the horrid "solution" applied to darn near everything. ???
Quote from: ProdigalJim on October 24, 2013, 09:59:31 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about this new "diaspora" coinage; it seems to have emerged from the world of IT, whose other major linguistic contribution to date seems to be the horrid "solution" applied to darn near everything billable.
Fixed that fer 'ya!
^^^^
One of the few times I wish we had a "Like" button...
Quote from: ProdigalJim on October 24, 2013, 09:59:31 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about this new "diaspora" coinage; it seems to have emerged from the world of IT, whose other major linguistic contribution to date seems to be the horrid "solution" applied to darn near everything. ???
Hey man, that "solution" is my bread & butter
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 17, 2013, 05:35:04 AM
(http://i1.wp.com/trektothetroops.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/562341_502779219811680_1372019551_n.jpg?resize=640%2C365)
On a more "to the point" off topic point, this week our cadet staff petitioned, and received approval to go from wearing safety vests to wearing PT belts when working outside in the parking lot. I would have pushed for a full repeal, but I suppose for the purposes of drill/inspection/other outside this will have to do.
Sometimes you can't make this stuff up.
A Superheroic Caped Crusade to Keep Troops Safe in Afghanistan (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324874204578441003214496888)
QuoteBagram Batman also enforces the most important rule of all: Don't forget your reflective belt, lest you be hit by the hulking Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles that roar in darkness through the base's main drag.
Once more, into the breach:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20131212/NEWS/312120029?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20131212/NEWS/312120029?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
Quote from: HeadHunter06 on December 13, 2013, 07:39:52 AM
Once more, into the breach:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20131212/NEWS/312120029?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20131212/NEWS/312120029?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
Well it does make sense, if troops, regardless of Service, are "outside the wire" they should be in one combat uniform... if nothing else except for Mark-1 Eyeball identification by perimeter security.
That being said, it doesn't make a lot of sense for a Navy or Coast Guard member to wear a floral camouflage uniform when working on the deck of a ship. So I can see a Service specific "working" uniform continuing to be used in Garrison or on non-forward deployed vessels.
My opinion here as to what this means to CAP... as soon as this Multi-Service Combat Uniform is approved... CAP will be authorized ABUs as the USAF dumps off stocks of surplus uniforms.
(pours gasoline)
Quote from: shuman14 on December 13, 2013, 08:24:06 AM
My opinion here as to what this means to CAP... as soon as this Multi-Service Combat Uniform is approved... CAP will be authorized ABUs as the USAF dumps off stocks of surplus uniforms.
Ooooh! This means CAP will also be allowed to wear MARPAT's soon, right? Maybe when the new 39-1 is released?
(tosses lit match, walks away)
Quote from: Panache on November 19, 2013, 07:52:12 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 17, 2013, 05:35:04 AM
(http://i1.wp.com/trektothetroops.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/562341_502779219811680_1372019551_n.jpg?resize=640%2C365)
On a more "to the point" off topic point, this week our cadet staff petitioned, and received approval to go from wearing safety vests to wearing PT belts when working outside in the parking lot. I would have pushed for a full repeal, but I suppose for the purposes of drill/inspection/other outside this will have to do.
Sometimes you can't make this stuff up.
A Superheroic Caped Crusade to Keep Troops Safe in Afghanistan (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324874204578441003214496888)
QuoteBagram Batman also enforces the most important rule of all: Don't forget your reflective belt, lest you be hit by the hulking Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicles that roar in darkness through the base's main drag.
How about we replace the blue BDU belt with a reflective belt? :D
Or even better, for more bling, let's make a reflective
sash. ;D
Do you walk around with your shirt flapped up?
Okay, so we either:
1. Make shorter BDU coats.
2. Wear the belt on the outside of the BDU coat.
As I said once in another thread,
It's in the name of SAFETY! ;D
When I was very young my parents taught me not to walk in front of vehicles, we didn't have reflective belts. Every time the uniform gets changed to include accessories it costs money. In a volunteer outfit that's not a good thing.
Considering the DOD's great love of reflective belts I am "amused" that CAP Safety hasn't made wear of them mandatory yet. >:D
Does anyone suppose that the DOD is MIA on approval of ABUs for CAP because of the supply of Cadet sized uniforms that will require money that no one wants to ask for? Why heck I could shave my goatee off and put the ABU on myself. My only concern is that people would be aghast at my new appearance and ask me to go back to my goatee and return to my polo uniform which is ok for me for the time being.
Quote from: billford1 on December 15, 2013, 08:02:13 AM
Does anyone suppose that the DOD is MIA on approval of ABUs for CAP because of the supply of Cadet sized uniforms that will require money that no one wants to ask for? Why heck I could shave my goatee off and put the ABU on myself. My only concern is that people would be aghast at my new appearance and ask me to go back to my goatee and return to my polo uniform which is ok for me for the time being.
Same problem here. ;D
Quote from: billford1 on December 15, 2013, 08:02:13 AMDoes anyone suppose that the DOD is MIA on approval of ABUs for CAP because of the supply of Cadet sized uniforms that will require money that no one wants to ask for?
This is different from BDUs, Pickle suits, Service Dress, etc, how?
https://military.americanuniform.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=175 (https://military.americanuniform.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=175)
Quote from: billford1 on December 15, 2013, 08:02:13 AM
Does anyone suppose that the DOD is MIA on approval of ABUs for CAP because of the supply of Cadet sized uniforms that will require money that no one wants to ask for? Why heck I could shave my goatee off and put the ABU on myself. My only concern is that people would be aghast at my new appearance and ask me to go back to my goatee and return to my polo uniform which is ok for me for the time being.
this entire thing is a bureaucratic pickle. The AF signed off on the 2008 DoD memo on authority to allow the modern (IFF) uniforms not realizing that CAP might actually, you know, wear them.
Due to that memo, the HAF probably feels it cannot authorize CAP to wear ABU until it is changed.
Likely, nobody really has the juice to push the DoD acquisition folks off the dime on this memo due to other bureaucratic issues. Or they have bigger fish to fry and haven't bothered yet.
ETA: No, wait, looks like I found the problem. See the attached. thats where he went from Dunder-Mifflin
Which brings us back to "Doh!"
Between the specific DOD prohibition and the initiatives to move back to a consolidated field uniform,
the odds of this happening for CAP are very slim.
Had they been approved in the normal course of the USAF uniform, at this point the membership
would have gotten their money out of them, now, there's a very good chance that by the
time a CAP sundown on woodland expired, the USAF would be on to something "new".
As it stand, the majority of the membership that is allowed to already has woodland,
their are readily available via the same sources most members have always used, and
ABUs serve no more / better purpose then woodland, while at the same time bringing
even less cohesion to our "uniform" appearance.
There's literally no point to it.
Quote from: a2capt on December 15, 2013, 04:28:18 PM
Quote from: billford1 on December 15, 2013, 08:02:13 AMDoes anyone suppose that the DOD is MIA on approval of ABUs for CAP because of the supply of Cadet sized uniforms that will require money that no one wants to ask for?
This is different from BDUs, Pickle suits, Service Dress, etc, how?
https://military.americanuniform.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=175 (https://military.americanuniform.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=175)
Do we have cadets that small?
Yes.
Not all units do, but every now and then a unit asks for a source of BDU uniforms in children's sizes. Their 12-year-old cadets are smaller in size than others so you end with uniforms where buttons are off when compared with an official BDU. But it is better than having them not wear a uniform at all. It is good to know this is always available. And it will happen again and again when we get the ABUs.
Flyer
There is a point to it......even IF.....IF the military moves to a single combat uniform set.
1) We are the USAF Auxiliary and should be in their uniforms.
2) Even if/when the USAF changes uniform it will be far enough down the road that no-one is really going to be out of a lot of money.
3) The traditional sources of woodland BDUs are drying up......this I know for a fact as my supply room is getting emptier every week.
4) We should always be a part of the USAF's considerations of any new uniform. IMHO we should automatically (with enough of a delay that we don't put a run on the local uniform sales store.) be authorized any new or changes to the USAF.
The ABU's were first developed in 2003. They were first authorized in October 2007 and mandatory October 2011.
Even the Marines took 5 years from development, field testing to full implementation. The army took a similar amount of time.
So.......let's say that congress actually does make all the services transition to a single set of combat uniforms. 2-3 years to test and select the uniforms....then 3-4 years to transition. If CAP has to wait an extra year to allow the military to get there first......it is 4 years before we can start wearing them.....and add a 3-4 year transition.....if you bought brand new Woodland BDUs right now....you are going to get 7-8 years of usuable life out of them before you have to get then new uniform.
8 years is much longer then the average CAP member's Career.
Bottom Line Take Home........if the only reason we should not adopt ABU's is "they are going to change soon", I think you are putting too much faith in the us military. Even if the services don't fight it.....and even if they cut down the R&D/Testing time by selecting one of the existing uniforms (say they just decide Multicam is the way to go) you are still looking at 2015 before we can wear them and 2019 for the transition to be complete. How many of use here on CAP Talk will still be members of CAP in 2019?
Nope.....let's change to ABUs now.....and to what ever they change to later.
/rant
lol:
http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/08/us-army-introduces-revolutionary-new-woodland-camouflage-uniform-to-replace-acu/ (http://www.duffelblog.com/2012/08/us-army-introduces-revolutionary-new-woodland-camouflage-uniform-to-replace-acu/)
By "no point" I meant ABU today, the issues of affinity vs. functionality are a separate, important point.
How about this?
Before any member is allowed to transition to the ABU (assuming its adoption)...
...they have to weigh-in first, in-person, in front of their commander.
I continue to maintain that our uniform landscape would be very different if our leadership were held accountable to the regulations.
Also, has anyone raised the issue recently about making the wear regulations more reasonable?
If and when we ever ask about ABUs, perhaps that question could be on the agenda as well.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 15, 2013, 06:50:04 PM
There is a point to it......even IF.....IF the military moves to a single combat uniform set.
1) We are the USAF Auxiliary and should be in their uniforms.
This would make sense if this applied to all of the USAF Auxiliary. But it doesn't, so the point is moot.
QuoteAlso, has anyone raised the issue recently about making the wear regulations more reasonable?
Define "reasonable" please.
Quote from: Eclipse on December 15, 2013, 08:13:47 PM
By "no point" I meant ABU today, the issues of affinity vs. functionality are a separate, important point.
How about this?
Before any member is allowed to transition to the ABU (assuming its adoption)...
...they have to weigh-in first, in-person, in front of their commander.
I continue to maintain that our uniform landscape would be very different if our leadership were held accountable to the regulations.
Also, has anyone raised the issue recently about making the wear regulations more reasonable?
If and when we ever ask about ABUs, perhaps that question could be on the agenda as well.
What is stopping commanders from doing that now?
Quote from: Panache on December 16, 2013, 06:55:27 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on December 15, 2013, 06:50:04 PM
There is a point to it......even IF.....IF the military moves to a single combat uniform set.
1) We are the USAF Auxiliary and should be in their uniforms.
This would make sense if this applied to all of the USAF Auxiliary. But it doesn't, so the point is moot.
I would argue the "moot" part but you do bring up a good point.....but by staying with BDU's only make the problem worse not better.
Quote from: lordmonar on December 17, 2013, 04:05:17 AM
What is stopping commanders from doing that now?
Lack pressure from higher headquarters and consequences.
Quote from: shuman14 on December 17, 2013, 03:57:32 AM
QuoteAlso, has anyone raised the issue recently about making the wear regulations more reasonable?
Define "reasonable" please.
Without any non-mission related weight restrictions.
Similar organizations seem to be able to survive just fine using their members' free time and initiative while
not creating multiple classes of members.
And now that the USAF has relaxed their policies, and considering CAP has no BMI or remediation program,
we're back to having standards which are contextually more strict then our parent service.
Then there's the little issue of the fact that in excess of 30,000 USAF personnel have failed the tape test
since 2010, which means there are more Airman and officers in the USAF out of weight and in uniform then
there are adult CAP member in total.
CAP pulls the majority of its membership from the general public, and has no PT requirements, program,
or expectation for is adult members, because if it did, it would cease to exist.
There should be recognition of that fact without creating a subclass of members.