CAP Talk

General Discussion => Uniforms & Awards => Topic started by: MadGrak on September 15, 2011, 05:14:12 AM

Title: ABUs
Post by: MadGrak on September 15, 2011, 05:14:12 AM
When do you think CAP will be switching to ABUs. The woodland is so outdated and bad at this point that Ive actually been mistaken for a Neo-Nazi. :P
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Extremepredjudice on September 15, 2011, 05:29:00 AM
Probably never.

Most people seen to be saying we will get whatever the military uses next.

If you have everything on your BDUs you shouldn't look like a natzi. Neo-natzis don't tend to have Civil Air Patrol, rank insignias and wing emblems on their BDUs. Jus' sayin'

Woodland isn't outdated, FYI. I know a lot of people that use it. In fact, I like woodland more than the new digies. I have a set of ACUs, and they are uncomfortable. Plus you can't iron them (according to an army recruiter) cause it messes up the IR scattering material.

That said, if ABUs ever were aproved I'd like to be an "early adopter". But it does raise the issue of how strange it would look in formation. Half BDUs, half ABUs. 

Just my 0.04 cents.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on September 15, 2011, 05:30:08 AM
Welcome to CT.

This has been discussed on many other threads. Try doing a search on ABU, and looking at what's been said.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Tim Medeiros on September 15, 2011, 01:34:17 PM
Plus you can't iron them (according to an army recruiter) cause it messes up the IR scattering material.
I like the non-ironing properties of the ABU, reduces my headache of things to do after my shift.
But it does raise the issue of how strange it would look in formation. Half BDUs, half ABUs. 
No stranger than it does in the AF until 1 Nov 2011.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: wwiijunky7 on October 01, 2011, 07:25:24 PM
I dont think that it will ever happen.for 1
1. There much more expensive.
2. Woodland fits in with our (us) land environment.
and third. well i dont like the way they look compared to bdu's.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on October 01, 2011, 07:54:05 PM
When do you think CAP will be switching to ABUs. The woodland is so outdated and bad at this point that Ive actually been mistaken for a Neo-Nazi. :P

1. Welcome to CAPTalk

2. Never.

3. The USAF and US Navy still wear Woodland Camo.

4. Search is your friend here.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: GroundHawg on October 01, 2011, 08:15:10 PM

3. The USAF and US Navy still wear Woodland Camo.


Both are in phase out. The USAF replaced them with the ABU and the USN and USCG with the NWU. We will be one of the few who still wears them. (I think some SDF's still wear them?) I pray we just go back to OD Green. Wishfull thinking on my part I know, but its my dream so  :P
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on October 01, 2011, 08:25:18 PM
Both are in phase out.

Heh - so are ABUs.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: GroundHawg on October 02, 2011, 12:29:17 AM
Both are in phase out.

Heh - so are ABUs.

True. My last 5 deployments I have worn 5 different uniforms. Woodland, DCU, Desert Crew Coveralls, ACU's and ABU's. I hear we are getting Multicam our next trip. My garage looks like a surplus store.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Pump Scout on October 02, 2011, 03:47:11 AM
Plus you can't iron them (according to an army recruiter) cause it messes up the IR scattering material.

We'd been told back in the day that BDU's had IR hiding capabilities. I never really believed it until I was showing a family a TOW thermal sight at an open house, and we pointed it at a soldier on the other end of the armory. Face and hands were visible, the rest of him was missing. Non-soldiers showed up just fine. This troop had some well ironed BDU's on. I suspect whatever masking stuff is in the uniform, it's not going to be damaged or destroyed by simple ironing, washing, use, or whatnot. DARPA probably assumes that troops will do things the wrong way, and plan accordingly.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Tim Medeiros on October 02, 2011, 04:28:55 PM
Both are in phase out.

Heh - so are ABUs.
Having checked AF Portal, the AF Uniform page and talked with my supervisors, I have found nothing to corroborate this from a reliable source.


On a side note, the base commander here at DM has authorized everyone to wear BDUs on the last Monday of this month (in lieu of blues), however everyone must be in ABUs the following Tuesday.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Extremepredjudice on October 02, 2011, 07:15:41 PM
(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa65/LtColWhite/ABUCurrent.jpg)

 >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on October 02, 2011, 07:29:34 PM
(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa65/LtColWhite/ABUCurrent.jpg)

 >:D

What makes you think that won't be approved? >:D >:D

It meets the requirements of AFI 10-2701. It is distinctive in low light level conditions!!!
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: ol'fido on October 02, 2011, 07:55:19 PM
I say that instead of CAP adopting a uniform that is distinctive in "low light" conditions, it would be much cheaper for the AF to buy a flashlight. ::)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Extremepredjudice on October 02, 2011, 08:02:25 PM
I say that instead of CAP adopting a uniform that is distinctive in "low light" conditions, it would be much cheaper for the AF to buy a flashlight. ::)
lol'ed.

I got that picture from: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3540.360 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3540.360)

 8)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NCRblues on October 02, 2011, 08:20:51 PM
(http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa65/LtColWhite/ABUCurrent.jpg)

 >:D

well..to be honest, its not the worst thing I have ever seen...
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on October 02, 2011, 10:39:42 PM
Both are in phase out.

Heh - so are ABUs.
Having checked AF Portal, the AF Uniform page and talked with my supervisors, I have found nothing to corroborate this from a reliable source.

The first die was cast when the 2010 DAB included language directing the SecDef to consolidate ground combat uniforms, the second round
was last Aug when the USAF started putting some of their people into Multi-cams. 

As money gets tighter and tighter, and we continue to consolidate the military and perform an ever increasing number of joint operations, the writing is
already on the wall for ABUs.  They'll be gone before CAP is ever considered.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: RADIOMAN015 on October 03, 2011, 12:24:01 AM
Both are in phase out.

Heh - so are ABUs.
Having checked AF Portal, the AF Uniform page and talked with my supervisors, I have found nothing to corroborate this from a reliable source.



As money gets tighter and tighter, and we continue to consolidate the military and perform an ever increasing number of joint operations, the writing is
already on the wall for ABUs.  They'll be gone before CAP is ever considered.
Well when I took a quick look at pricing for the ABU's at the BX/MCC, IF you including everything you need to be wearing it correctly, it $250.00+ for one uniform package.   I would think that most members have better things to spend their money on.   Now granted the used & knock off markets might have some cheaper uniforms.

I just fail to understand why this is such a burning issue with the membership ??? ??? ???.   The BDU's are adequate, and for the senior members the "smart thing" to do is to just buy the Blue BDU's since it's unlikely it is ever going to change and there's a lot more flexibility on wear requirements.
RM
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Spaceman3750 on October 03, 2011, 12:37:39 AM
Both are in phase out.

Heh - so are ABUs.
Having checked AF Portal, the AF Uniform page and talked with my supervisors, I have found nothing to corroborate this from a reliable source.



As money gets tighter and tighter, and we continue to consolidate the military and perform an ever increasing number of joint operations, the writing is
already on the wall for ABUs.  They'll be gone before CAP is ever considered.
Well when I took a quick look at pricing for the ABU's at the BX/MCC, IF you including everything you need to be wearing it correctly, it $250.00+ for one uniform package.   I would think that most members have better things to spend their money on.   Now granted the used & knock off markets might have some cheaper uniforms.

I just fail to understand why this is such a burning issue with the membership ??? ??? ???.   The BDU's are adequate, and for the senior members the "smart thing" to do is to just buy the Blue BDU's since it's unlikely it is ever going to change and there's a lot more flexibility on wear requirements.
RM

Because some of us think we should look like the branch that supports us.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: lordmonar on October 03, 2011, 01:00:16 AM
Because some of us think we should look like the branch that supports us.
It's that whole auxillary thing.  :)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: RADIOMAN015 on October 03, 2011, 02:21:15 AM
Because some of us think we should look like the branch that supports us.
It's that whole auxillary thing.  :)
Gee isn't the Military Auxiliary Radio Service, also been designated by DOD as a civilian Auxiliary, and they aren't running around looking like they are about to invade community X.

I'd like to think it the substance of what we accomplish to support the Air Force & others with our emergency services rather than the uniform we wear is much more important.   I hate to think that that other somewhat anti CAP website, stating "....A military society of lets play dress up; ......", is incorrect :-\ :angel:
RM
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Spaceman3750 on October 03, 2011, 02:30:58 AM
Because some of us think we should look like the branch that supports us.
It's that whole auxillary thing.  :)
Gee isn't the Military Auxiliary Radio Service, also been designated by DOD as a civilian Auxiliary, and they aren't running around looking like they are about to invade community X.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Aat3otinecu.JPG/800px-Aat3otinecu.JPG)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/db/Puttingantennaup.JPG/220px-Puttingantennaup.JPG)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: lordmonar on October 03, 2011, 04:20:46 AM
Because some of us think we should look like the branch that supports us.
It's that whole auxillary thing.  :)
Gee isn't the Military Auxiliary Radio Service, also been designated by DOD as a civilian Auxiliary, and they aren't running around looking like they are about to invade community X.

I'd like to think it the substance of what we accomplish to support the Air Force & others with our emergency services rather than the uniform we wear is much more important.   I hate to think that that other somewhat anti CAP website, stating "....A military society of lets play dress up; ......", is incorrect :-\ :angel:
RM
We are not MARS.  If they want uniforms......I am sure they are free to ask the USAF and maybe even get them.
On aspect of CAP is just that.....we are a military society that likes dress for the role....do we "have" to?  Of course not....if the USAF pulled their uniforms and we all went to polos and grays then we would still continue to provide good ES support and we can still do the cadet program.

But we will be a different organisation.  Our potential cadets would just join the Boy Scouts if we pulled the the USAF uniforms.  There would be a small percentage of the senior members would quit.

But we would contiue....we would just be different.

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Tim Medeiros on October 03, 2011, 05:15:08 AM
Both are in phase out.

Heh - so are ABUs.
Having checked AF Portal, the AF Uniform page and talked with my supervisors, I have found nothing to corroborate this from a reliable source.

The first die was cast when the 2010 DAB included language directing the SecDef to consolidate ground combat uniforms, the second round
was last Aug when the USAF started putting some of their people into Multi-cams. 

As money gets tighter and tighter, and we continue to consolidate the military and perform an ever increasing number of joint operations, the writing is
already on the wall for ABUs.  They'll be gone before CAP is ever considered.
I'm still failing to see the news that ABUs are in phase out.......  Unless you have had a conversation with General Schwartz and/or Secretary Donley, what you mentioned above is grasping at straws to fit what appears to be a predetermined conclusion.


If the ABUs are indeed in a period of phase out, I suspect that there is a MAJOR breakdown of communication, especially key information such as phase out date, uniform we're phasing in to and where to procure said uniform.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on October 03, 2011, 01:29:18 PM
Tim, they aren't actually in "phase out", they are just "done", all that is left is the final action...
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on October 03, 2011, 07:48:56 PM
I say that instead of CAP adopting a uniform that is distinctive in "low light" conditions, it would be much cheaper for the AF to buy a flashlight. ::)

 :clap: :) :clap: :D :clap: ;D :clap:

Face it, for certain people, we could wear check shirts and old Levi's with a bright red CAP nameplate (erh...better not give RM any more ideas! >:D) and it STILL wouldn't be "distinctive" enough!  Whoever coined the "low-light/at-a-distance" dreck probably had a hand in such other doozies as "jumbo shrimp," "pretty ugly," "level crossing" and "honest politician."

In addition to the flashlight, some literacy lessons would also be needed:

"Now, Airman Basic Snuffy, can you say the letters C-A-P?  Good.  Can you say Civil Air Patrol?  Good.  Can you say 'these are volunteer civilians who are the Auxiliary of the United States Air Force?'  Good.  Can you say 'no, I don't have to salute them, no matter what colour their uniforms are, but they certainly appreciate it if I do so?'  EXCELLENT!  You qualify for E-2 and an optional free membership in CAP!"

My unit has some dual-status CAP/ANG people...I have not heard a word from them about CAP ever getting ABU's, and one of them told me that he doesn't know how long they can keep cascading used BDU's down to CAP, simply because they are running out.

It baffles me why the different services are going to different camouflages anyway.  My ex-brother-in-law was in the Army when the switch to BDU's from greens was made...he said the idea was to find a common battle/fatigue uniform for all the services!

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: DC on October 04, 2011, 12:15:14 AM
Because it is an excuse to promote their differences and spend more money. The exact opposite of what ought to be going on.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: AngelWings on October 04, 2011, 02:29:36 AM
I stopped worrying about the uniforms a long time ago. Give me any uniform, and I'll wear it proudly. It serves no purpose to worry about it anymore, unless we want to petition the BDUs and get ABUs ASAP.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on October 04, 2011, 04:59:10 AM
I stopped worrying about the uniforms a long time ago. Give me any uniform, and I'll wear it proudly. It serves no purpose to worry about it anymore, unless we want to petition the BDUs and get ABUs ASAP.

So we can assume you're not going to hang several hundred dollars on a "no fly hangar" on 1 Jan. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: lordmonar on October 04, 2011, 06:05:44 PM
I stopped worrying about the uniforms a long time ago. Give me any uniform, and I'll wear it proudly. It serves no purpose to worry about it anymore, unless we want to petition the BDUs and get ABUs ASAP.

So we can assume you're not going to hang several hundred dollars on a "no fly hangar" on 1 Jan.
??
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on October 04, 2011, 06:08:01 PM
^ sorry, should be "hanger" (can't edit).
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Sgt. Papa on October 13, 2011, 01:47:15 AM
Welcome to CT.

This has been discussed on many other threads. Try doing a search on ABU, and looking at what's been said.

you were a Cadet Warrant Officer?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on October 13, 2011, 05:48:18 AM
Welcome to CT.

This has been discussed on many other threads. Try doing a search on ABU, and looking at what's been said.

you were a Cadet Warrant Officer?

We're getting off topic here, but yes, I was, from Dec '68 until Apr '69, when I became a senior member.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: usafcap1 on October 13, 2011, 07:56:27 AM
our RC and CO says 2014. it will look something like woodland camo in digi-print
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: MajFitzpatrick on October 13, 2011, 08:56:58 AM
I hope all services just switch to the OCP uniform. ABUs are not the greatest. (Been in them for 4 years now, and I am not all to impressed.)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: okeecap on November 19, 2012, 11:27:36 PM
Just a question to the picture of the CAP ABU was that a digital edit or did someone really buy a ABU shirt, it looked pretty good.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 20, 2012, 12:16:48 AM
Again the ABU is going to be in the AF inventory for awhile.  There has been nothing passed down from AF senior leadership saying anything otherwise.  Unless someone has a memo or letter from SECAF, CSAF or CMSAF then anything is plain and purely hearsay.  And AF Times and Military.com are not valid nor credible sources and neither is your best friends third cousin who sweeps the floors.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: C/2d Lt on November 20, 2012, 12:56:33 AM
Correct me if I am wrong however after reading multiple articles, I have heard that the Air Force and the Army were in search of a new uniform due to the fact that they do not match much of anything. With the US Military always looking for new and better, even if we switch to ABU's wouldn't that also be the point at which the  Air Force had there new style uniform. Are we always going to be chasing after what the Air Force is wearing when they consistently change. Isn't this somewhat unrealistic?

In my perspective, especially as a cadet, it is a honor to wear the uniform that I was given and my next goal is to take the next step to there uniform. Instead of chasing after it, make it a goal.

As most know we are often confused with active duty personal in certain settings. If you are the person who only wants the ABU's so you can look like Air Force personnel and pretend to be something that you are not, I do not believe that you should wear the uniform at all. Not only are you disrespecting the uniform and what it stands for but all of those who wear it.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Private Investigator on November 20, 2012, 01:45:54 AM
If you are the person who only wants the ABU's so you can look like Air Force personnel and pretend to be something that you are not, I do not believe that you should wear the uniform at all. Not only are you disrespecting the uniform and what it stands for but all of those who wear it.

I concur   :clap:
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on November 20, 2012, 04:19:04 AM
As most know we are often confused with active duty personal in certain settings. If you are the person who only wants the ABU's so you can look like Air Force personnel and pretend to be something that you are not, I do not believe that you should wear the uniform at all. Not only are you disrespecting the uniform and what it stands for but all of those who wear it.

It depends on what your intent is to wear the AF uniform (not just ABU's).

Wearing it correctly, properly badged, it shows what you are: a member of the Air Force's volunteer civilian auxiliary, the Civil Air Patrol.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 20, 2012, 04:39:02 AM
As most know we are often confused with active duty personal in certain settings.

I have never once known anyone in CAP who was "confused with active duty personnel" in any setting where the confusion was more then momentary, and certainly not in any situation where the confusion was consequential to anyone involved.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: C/2d Lt on November 20, 2012, 04:47:55 AM
Those who's intentions are good should be proud to were it however there goal should not be to wear it to infer they are someone ells. Which, trying to be realistic here, often happens.

If we ever get the ABU's than it should because National headquarters decided that it was in CAP's best interest to switch not because a few cadets wanted to look like the Air Force.

In my personal opinion if we can get every single cadet to wear their uniform to the standard at which needs to be, that is the point where we will be able to switch to ABU's. In addition some squadrons currently have issues having cadets receive their BDU uniforms. There is most defiantly not a limited supply of BDU's so if you were to imagine receiving the ABU's it would be a nightmare.

In addition I was referring to others outside of CAP believing that we were active duty not the other way around. Such as walking in to a store after a squadron meeting and having someone ask if you were ever deployed.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on November 20, 2012, 05:48:44 AM
In addition I was referring to others outside of CAP believing that we were active duty not the other way around. Such as walking in to a store after a squadron meeting and having someone ask if you were ever deployed.

On very rare occasions I've had a similar thing happen..."were you in Iraq/Afghanistan/Bosnia," etc?

I view such occasions as a good opportunity to educate the asker about CAP.

One of the sillier ones was when I was in a store after a squadron meeting, wearing the short-sleeved blue shirt combo, and a young woman mistook me for a store security guard.

I rarely wear the grey/white combo (usually if my blues are at or need to go to the cleaners), but that would be even likelier to get me mistaken for store security/mall cop. >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: usafcap1 on November 20, 2012, 09:11:17 AM
1. Welcome to the board
2. We will someday. Just give it some time.
3. If we get I think only SM's should wear them. Because. . . well really a 12 year old wearing ABU's, come on. But that's just what I think.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: usafcap1 on November 20, 2012, 10:04:16 AM
our RC and CO says 2014. it will look something like woodland camo in digi-print

WOW is that what I said  :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

Sorry off topic
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: RogueLeader on November 20, 2012, 03:17:12 PM
On very rare occasions I've had a similar thing happen..."were you in Iraq/Afghanistan/Bosnia," etc?


I was active Army, and didn't deploy. . .

I've had people ask me about CAP because they didn't recognize some of the parts (wearing Service Dress (Class A's)) so I gave the short explanation of what we are.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on November 20, 2012, 03:51:44 PM
3. If we get I think only SM's should wear them. Because. . . well really a 12 year old wearing ABU's, come on. But that's just what I think.

Really? Kinda like 12 year olds wearing AF uniforms currently? Like 13 year old sea cadets wearing the Navy digitals? 14 year old AFJROTC?

What is it exactly that makes you think overweight SMs wearing it incorrectly is better than cadets? You spent 4 years as a cadet and earned two stripes. I don't think youre in a position to make that statement based on your cadet experience or your short SM experience.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: lordmonar on November 20, 2012, 05:12:26 PM
In addition I was referring to others outside of CAP believing that we were active duty not the other way around. Such as walking in to a store after a squadron meeting and having someone ask if you were ever deployed.
When I was on AD USAF....I used to get that "are you in the Army?" question.   If we are mistaken for AD personnel....that IMHO....is a good thing...Correct them and then move on.

It is not a big deal.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on November 20, 2012, 05:35:58 PM
You spent 4 years as a cadet and earned two stripes. I don't think you're in a position to make that statement based on your cadet experience or your short SM experience.

Any more so than I spent 5 years and got 4 stripes... /lament
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on November 20, 2012, 06:36:27 PM
I call them like I see them. He is someone who wore AF uniforms for 4+ years, didn't do what he had to as a cadet, yet now as a SM thinks it's silly for cadets to wear uniforms
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on November 20, 2012, 06:49:30 PM
I call them like I see them. He is someone who wore AF uniforms for 4+ years, didn't do what he had to as a cadet, yet now as a SM thinks it's silly for cadets to wear uniforms

There are a few out there who don't think we should even HAVE uniforms. I'm not one of them.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on November 20, 2012, 08:09:40 PM
I call them like I see them. He is someone who wore AF uniforms for 4+ years, didn't do what he had to as a cadet, yet now as a SM thinks it's silly for cadets to wear uniforms

There are a few out there who don't think we should even HAVE uniforms. I'm not one of them.

That's great. May they wear their polos into eternity.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: okeecap on November 20, 2012, 08:54:34 PM
Personally I think CAP should kill the polo and bring back the old blue and white corporate uniform, the polo does not really look the most professional.  The old blue and white kinda made us unique. 8)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on November 20, 2012, 09:04:29 PM
Personally I think CAP should kill the polo and bring back the old blue and white corporate uniform, the polo does not really look the most professional.  The old blue and white kinda made us unique. 8)

Are we talking about the TPU?

That's not coming back...
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 20, 2012, 10:18:21 PM
Personally I think CAP should kill the polo and bring back the old blue and white corporate uniform, the polo does not really look the most professional.  The old blue and white kinda made us unique.

I don 't disagree on bringing back the CSU, but they do not serve the same purpose.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: okeecap on November 20, 2012, 11:37:29 PM
well there is the bbdu why we need the polo is beyond me it makes us look like we sell insurance.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 20, 2012, 11:43:20 PM
well there is the bbdu why we need the polo is beyond me it makes us look like we sell insurance.

No, it makes us look like everyone else.

The majority of people in an EOC will generally be in a golf shirt.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on November 21, 2012, 12:51:58 AM
Are we talking about the TPU?

That's not coming back...

Yes, we got our knuckles rapped on that one real good...for no reason; the powers that be at the NEC just decided "you can't have it."

But it's not connected to any sort of field uniform.  Different altogether.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: okeecap on November 21, 2012, 01:06:28 AM
What was the TPU?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on November 21, 2012, 01:09:10 AM
What was the TPU?

It was the colloquial name for the former Corporate Service Uniform, which was blue and white and quite popular with a large segment of our membership.

"TP" came from the initials of the former CAP National CC who thought of it.

NEC decided on a whim back a few years ago that we couldn't have it anymore.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: okeecap on November 21, 2012, 02:09:59 AM
Oh, that is the one I was referring to, it was very sharp and was unique to the civil air patrol, it kinda look air force but not really.  That is what CAP needs something of its own something original.  The talk of the ABU and when and all that is good, but why not come up with something of our own unique to our purposes.  Like the BDU for example why blend with the woods why not have something that sticks out like the DCU no body uses that.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on November 21, 2012, 02:33:29 AM
You still need a safety vest, so does it matter?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: tsrup on November 21, 2012, 02:36:07 AM
Oh, that is the one I was referring to, it was very sharp and was unique to the civil air patrol, it kinda look air force but not really.  That is what CAP needs something of its own something original.  The talk of the ABU and when and all that is good, but why not come up with something of our own unique to our purposes.  Like the BDU for example why blend with the woods why not have something that sticks out like the DCU no body uses that.

Or the ABU, that does't blend into anything.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: usafcap1 on November 22, 2012, 07:22:34 PM
3. If we get I think only SM's should wear them. Because. . . well really a 12 year old wearing ABU's, come on. But that's just what I think.

Really? Kinda like 12 year olds wearing AF uniforms currently? Like 13 year old sea cadets wearing the Navy digitals? 14 year old AFJROTC?

What is it exactly that makes you think overweight SMs wearing it incorrectly is better than cadets? You spent 4 years as a cadet and earned two stripes. I don't think youre in a position to make that statement based on your cadet experience or your short SM experience.

I'm sorry I thought we were talking about CAP not what other org's do!
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: usafcap1 on November 22, 2012, 07:29:41 PM
3. If we get I think only SM's should wear them. Because. . . well really a 12 year old wearing ABU's, come on. But that's just what I think.

What is it exactly that makes you think overweight SMs wearing it incorrectly is better than cadets? You spent 4 years as a cadet and earned two stripes. I don't think youre in a position to make that statement based on your cadet experience or your short SM experience.

I have had this thought re ABU's for a long time. But your right what do I know.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: usafcap1 on November 22, 2012, 07:35:25 PM
I call them like I see them. He is someone who wore AF uniforms for 4+ years, didn't do what he had to as a cadet, yet now as a SM thinks it's silly for cadets to wear uniforms


FYI When I was a cadet NO ONE EVER TOLD ME WHAT HAD TO BE DONE TO GAIN RANK. I didn't have friends in CAP. I was in the dark for three years.

BTW I didn't say cadets shouldn't wear uniforms. I didn't said "I don't think they should wear the new ABU's".
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: usafcap1 on November 22, 2012, 07:48:52 PM
I call them like I see them. He is someone who wore AF uniforms for 4+ years, didn't do what he had to as a cadet, yet now as a SM thinks it's silly for cadets to wear uniforms

There are a few out there who don't think we should even HAVE uniforms. I'm not one of them.


I'm not one of them either. Just don't feel cadets should wear ABU's. They can wear BDU's all day.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: billford1 on November 22, 2012, 08:29:17 PM
I suppose I'm asking about what's already been said, but is the ABU in stone for CAP? If so we should all wear them. If not we should all wear BDUs.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: okeecap on November 22, 2012, 09:15:01 PM
If anything the cadets should be the only ones wearing the ABU, this program is for the cadets.  The cadets like to be and feel like part of the AF, and people in most cases can tell cadets are not active duty.  Seniors can get them if there are any left but the cadets should be the priority if we get them.  Saying only seniors should wear them is like saying only seniors are part of CAP,  remember our missions Aerospace education, Emergency services, and Cadet programs.....not senior programs. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: manfredvonrichthofen on November 22, 2012, 10:06:21 PM
If anything the cadets should be the only ones wearing the ABU, this program is for the cadets.  The cadets like to be and feel like part of the AF, and people in most cases can tell cadets are not active duty.  Seniors can get them if there are any left but the cadets should be the priority if we get them.  Saying only seniors should wear them is like saying only seniors are part of CAP,  remember our missions Aerospace education, Emergency services, and Cadet programs.....not senior programs.

CAP is NOT FOR the cadets. CAP is for every member. The CADET PROGRAM is for the cadets, if you want an organization that is FOR kids, look at the boy scouts. This is a service for the people of the United States. We are here to help people, save lives when they need saved, educate people about aerospace, and to help the youth become productive adults. Those are our THREE missions.

DO NOT THINK CAP IS JUST FOR KIDS, yes, we have programs for kids, but we are not an organization that is for kids only. ES training isn't just an activity for cadets to have something to do. It is a vital part of our service to the United States of America and it's citizens. We save lives, and its part of our job.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on November 22, 2012, 10:39:54 PM
Well said, Manfred. While there are statistically more cadets than seniors, how can you say CAP is just for kids? They don't do the flying, they don't get called out to search for a missing plane, they can't drive...well, I can see how you MIGHT think it's for kids IF all seniors do is support the cadet program, but we don't. That's why we have senior squadrons and composite squadrons. Three legs of the milkstool, my friend. All interlocked and nearly dependent on one another.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Brad on November 22, 2012, 10:42:25 PM
I suppose I'm asking about what's already been said, but is the ABU in stone for CAP? If so we should all wear them. If not we should all wear BDUs.

If you want to know the answer you'll need this:

(http://www.hpmuseum.org/versa2.jpg)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on November 22, 2012, 10:45:35 PM
If anything the cadets should be the only ones wearing the ABU, this program is for the cadets.  The cadets like to be and feel like part of the AF, and people in most cases can tell cadets are not active duty.

You need a comprehensive review of our three missions:

1. Aerospace Education
2. Cadet Programmes
3. Emergency Services

CP is NOT the be-all and end-all of CAP, any more than the "golf-shirt-only brigade" would try and have us believe that we should be "all ES, all the time."

The closest thing to what you're suggesting would be a cadet squadron.  I served in a cadet squadron for several years and even then it's not just cadets.

Even the first CAP person I ever talked to tried to tell me that "our adult members are there basically to serve as counsellors for the cadets."  I'm glad I was too stubborn to let that dissuade me.

Confused with active duty?

Well...an 18-21 year old cadet officer wearing blue shoulder marks looks a lot more like an AF officer than I do at 46 years old...or than I did in earlier years wearing the CSU.

The "confusion with active duty" lies a heck of a lot more in the eye of the confused one than in the one being confused.

AND...FYI...I like to be just as much a part of the Air Force, its mission, its history and heritage as much as any cadet.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: billford1 on November 23, 2012, 12:41:28 AM
I suppose I'm asking about what's already been said, but is the ABU in stone for CAP? If so we should all wear them. If not we should all wear BDUs.

If you want to know the answer you'll need this:

(http://www.hpmuseum.org/versa2.jpg)
I'm sorry Brad but your explanation is too subtle for me.  I remember that thing. They went out of style when the nice HP calculators were available.
Do we just surmise "the answer is blowing in the wind"?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: usafcap1 on November 23, 2012, 01:10:23 AM
If anything the cadets should be the only ones wearing the ABU, this program is for the cadets.  The cadets like to be and feel like part of the AF, and people in most cases can tell cadets are not active duty.  Seniors can get them if there are any left but the cadets should be the priority if we get them.  Saying only seniors should wear them is like saying only seniors are part of CAP,  remember our missions Aerospace education, Emergency services, and Cadet programs.....not senior programs.

CAP is NOT FOR the cadets. CAP is for every member. The CADET PROGRAM is for the cadets, if you want an organization that is FOR kids, look at the boy scouts. This is a service for the people of the United States. We are here to help people, save lives when they need saved, educate people about aerospace, and to help the youth become productive adults. Those are our THREE missions.

DO NOT THINK CAP IS JUST FOR KIDS, yes, we have programs for kids, but we are not an organization that is for kids only. ES training isn't just an activity for cadets to have something to do. It is a vital part of our service to the United States of America and it's citizens. We save lives, and its part of our job.


+1  Thank you!!!
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: okeecap on November 23, 2012, 02:14:22 AM
I was not trying to say that CAP was only for cadets, I was saying the Uniforms mainly benefited the cadets because if I were only allowed to wear a polo id be fine and could still do my job.  No it takes cadets and seniors to do the jobs of the CAP.  now is was simply responding to the cadets not being allowed to wear ABUs, because personally I do not like them they are expensive and ugly.  But most of the cadets think they are better than sliced bread so let the kids have them im happy with my bdus and my polo.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 23, 2012, 03:05:33 AM
So let say hypothetically speaking NHQ says ABUs can now be worn but oh BTW we are axing the polo shirt, then what are you going to do?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NCRblues on November 23, 2012, 03:17:37 AM
So let say hypothetically speaking NHQ says ABUs can now be worn but oh BTW we are axing the polo shirt, then what are you going to do?

Dance the dance of joy and happy!!!
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 23, 2012, 03:18:53 AM
So let say hypothetically speaking NHQ says ABUs can now be worn but oh BTW we are axing the polo shirt, then what are you going to do?

Dance the dance of joy and happy!!!

Freaking cops  lol..
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on November 23, 2012, 03:20:00 AM
I'm sorry I thought we were talking about CAP not what other org's do!

Ok, how are our "kids" different from any of the others who get ABUs?

I have had this thought re ABU's for a long time. But your right what do I know.

You can have any thoughts you want, but people will call you on it when they are asinine.

FYI When I was a cadet NO ONE EVER TOLD ME WHAT HAD TO BE DONE TO GAIN RANK. I didn't have friends in CAP. I was in the dark for three years.

Is that an excuse? You were 17, you couldn't ask someone? Look up the regulations? Just what exactly did you do in CAP for four years?

BTW I didn't say cadets shouldn't wear uniforms. I didn't said "I don't think they should wear the new ABU's".

Why?

I'm not one of them either. Just don't feel cadets should wear ABU's. They can wear BDU's all day.

What's the difference?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 23, 2012, 06:51:49 AM
In the event ABUs are authorized and that is a big if, no one here is really in a position to say who may or may not wear them.  But should it be authorized it will be on the same level as the BDU IMO. Yes a unit commander may say not at this time and an activity director has that say so.  But really to say only one group should/n't ear it is plain silly and can be construed as discriminatory. 

To the best of my knowledge there are few here on this forum that can offer any real input as to the feasibility and functionality of the uniform as they wear it on a daily basis.

Is the material heavy? Yes

Is it hot? Yes

Is it expensive? Yes

How many of you went out and bought the Iphone and its updated models the day it came out especially with all the bugs that just keep cropping up?  IS the ABU a cure all no it's not what does it blend in with as far as I can tell absolutely nothing and yes it has its downsides to it just as any other uniform does.  At the end of the day, nothing has come out about it being approved and what will/will not be worn on it.  Until then it's pretty childish to say only senior members or only cadets get to wear it. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Fubar on November 23, 2012, 01:00:15 PM
So let say hypothetically speaking NHQ says ABUs can now be worn but oh BTW we are axing the polo shirt, then what are you going to do?

Re-evaluate my membership. When I joined, I was told I could focus on our missions and simply wear a polo-shirt "uniform" that while overpriced, was significantly cheaper than buying two sets of military-like uniforms for office and field work. By significantly changing the membership requirements, a lot of folks who don't wear military-like uniforms will internally evaluate if those new and more stringent uniform requirements are worth the time and effort to remain in CAP, or if a person's time and talent should be directed elsewhere. Yes, current regulations state each member needs to own a blues/aviator uniform, something that hasn't come up since every activity I've been to has been polo-friendly or polo-only.

At the squadron meetings and wing events that I attend, the overwhelming majority of folks are wearing polo shirts. Would all of them quit if their favorite uniform went away? My guess would be that the pilots who only get to fly when they're flying for free in CAP would invest in green or blue flight suits. Everyone else? No idea.

I know that many of you would celebrate the departure of folks like me that aren't in this for the uniforms, but my math shows the polo shirt adds people who bring value to our organization that we wouldn't have otherwise. Polo shirts = certain members and military-like = certain members. Removing either the polo shirt or military-like uniforms means loosing people. Doesn't it make sense to keep both?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: cpyahoo on November 23, 2012, 02:43:45 PM
Well... when the military goes over to multi-cam, we'll be authorized the ABUs.  Understand, we WON'T be given them.  They'll probably be given to the boy scouts or some other group, but we'll be authorized to wear them.  LOL
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on November 23, 2012, 03:51:14 PM
Fubar,

Then someone lied to you when they told you the only "uniform" required could wear was a polo.

CAP regulations have always stated the required uniform is the AF blue or Gray/white combination. It has been, it is written. The polo is an alternate uniform.

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: AngelWings on November 23, 2012, 04:01:01 PM
I am more than positive we will get the ABU's. Why would the USAF NOT allow us to wear them?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 23, 2012, 04:43:50 PM
I am more than positive we will get the ABU's. Why would the USAF NOT allow us to wear them?
Because they won't be wearing them much longer, either.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: lordmonar on November 23, 2012, 04:46:23 PM
I am more than positive we will get the ABU's. Why would the USAF NOT allow us to wear them?
Because they won't be wearing them much longer, either.
I don't think so.  That would require spending money.....and the USAF does not have money for that.
The ABUs are here to stay for the mid term anyway.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 23, 2012, 06:27:47 PM
I am more than positive we will get the ABU's. Why would the USAF NOT allow us to wear them?
Because they won't be wearing them much longer, either.

Again cite please from a valid source not the a Mil times or Military.com or suspicions.  And the I highly doubt that the entire US military is going to switch over to Multicam due to the significant cost involved.  Heck the DOD is already looking at trying to cut 500 Billion from the budget this year alone.

And Fubar while the polo may be a favorite uniform option it is not the standard nor is it the required minimum uniform required.  And is someone wants to quit because their favorite non-standard uniform is taken away so be it. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: okeecap on November 23, 2012, 06:50:51 PM
Personally my favorite is the bdu like the way the creases look and the shined jump boots.  If we switch to ABUs im cheap ill switch to the BBDU its cheaper on ebay.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 23, 2012, 07:04:24 PM
Personally I will not argue as to the cost of the ABU as it is expensive especially for cadets.  However until they are approved or disapproved there are uniforms that work for everyone. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Sapper168 on November 23, 2012, 07:13:28 PM
Something i was thinking of-  One of the main arguments against switching to ABU over BDU is the cost of the ABU versus BDU.   I was wondering if it was any different when CAP switched from the OD fatigues to BDU?  I mean I can't imagine that the BDU were cheaper than the surplus fatigues.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 23, 2012, 07:16:46 PM
Again cite please from a valid source not the a Mil times or Military.com or suspicions.  And the I highly doubt that the entire US military is going to switch over to Multicam due to the significant cost involved.  Heck the DOD is already looking at trying to cut 500 Billion from the budget this year alone.

They don't have to switch-over wholesale this year, the fact that the uniform itself is in question and in flux is all that is necessary to
keep us from getting it.  A major USAF change would be 3-5 years coming, and it will come, not a matter of if, but when.  The writing
is clearly on the wall.

The uncertainly keeps CAP from getting it.  The only change that would make any sense would be to something everyone could wear,
or that is at least not influenced by factors outside CAP's control.  Otherwise status quo is the only way to go.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 23, 2012, 07:38:02 PM
Again cite please from a valid source not the a Mil times or Military.com or suspicions.  And the I highly doubt that the entire US military is going to switch over to Multicam due to the significant cost involved.  Heck the DOD is already looking at trying to cut 500 Billion from the budget this year alone.

They don't have to switch-over wholesale this year, the fact that the uniform itself is in question and in flux is all that is necessary to
keep us from getting it.  A major USAF change would be 3-5 years coming, and it will come, not a matter of if, but when.  The writing
is clearly on the wall.


The uncertainly keeps CAP from getting it.  The only change that would make any sense would be to something everyone could wear,
or that is at least not influenced by factors outside CAP's control.  Otherwise status quo is the only way to go.

Again cite please, if you have nothing then this is a speculation and hearsay.  You keep saying the writing is one the wall well, the only writing that I have seen on the wall is that the uniform is here to stay and my sources are pretty valid.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 23, 2012, 08:11:18 PM
Which writing, that ABU's are going away? That's already started in the war areas.

That CAP will never get them?  That's just common sense based on the state of the USAF uniform, our needs, and timing.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Phil Hirons, Jr. on November 23, 2012, 08:17:18 PM
Check the horse. It's not breathing. Stop beating.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 23, 2012, 08:19:10 PM
Which writing, that ABU's are going away? That's already started in the war areas.

That CAP will never get them?  That's just common sense based on the state of the USAF uniform, our needs, and timing.

Something dictated by mission necessity,  outside of the AOR Multicam is not authorized, so in actuality it is pure speculation on your part.  The AF will not spend the amount of money needed to even remotely start outfitting the entire service due to the current budget constraints and that they are already having to cut airframes and personnel.  The senior AF leadership is not going to switch over to anything anytime soon and I highly doubt even in the next 3-5 years.  So please quit throwing out there it is going to happen unless you have something concrete to stand on besides your own speculation.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 23, 2012, 08:23:56 PM
My responses regarding what is "going to happen" are directly in counter to others who are "sure we're getting ABUs".  We're not,
but the value of that opinion is probably about equal.

The entirety of the conversation here is speculative, but there is at least as much support for the conjecture that ABU's are
on their downward progression, and that doubt at the DOD level regarding the general status of US field uniforms will
be enough to keep them out of CAP hands for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 23, 2012, 08:31:28 PM
My responses regarding what is "going to happen" are directly in counter to others who are "sure we're getting ABUs".  We're not,
but the value of that opinion is probably about equal.

The entirety of the conversation here is speculative, but there is at least as much support for the conjecture that ABU's are
on their downward progression, and that doubt at the DOD level regarding the general status of US field uniforms will
be enough to keep them out of CAP hands for the foreseeable future.

Until there is final word one way or another people are going to ask,  it has been said that the proposal was sent up or in the works to be sent up.  If you wish to counter that we are not please feel free however unless you have something to legitimately stand on that the AF is dumping them please leave that out of the conversation/debate/argument etc.  And do not use it as your sole basis for countering the we will crowd. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 23, 2012, 08:35:08 PM
it has been said that the proposal was sent up or in the works to be sent up.

Now you can cite.

Ned has indicated on a number of occasions that no such request has been made.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Ned on November 23, 2012, 08:40:30 PM

Until there is final word one way or another people are going to ask,  it has been said that the proposal was sent up or in the works to be sent up

This is indeed the current state of the art.  As I have indicated in other posts, we are in the process of assembling a packet to go forward to the Office of the Secretary of Defense -- routed through our AF colleagues -- for ABU approval.

As you can well imagine, anything destined for the OSD has to be assembled very carefully.


Ned Lee
Member, National Uniform Committee
Frequent Attendee at Many Meetings and Conferences

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Fubar on November 23, 2012, 08:47:37 PM
Fubar,

Then someone lied to you when they told you the only "uniform" required could wear was a polo.

CAP regulations have always stated the required uniform is the AF blue or Gray/white combination. It has been, it is written. The polo is an alternate uniform.

Flyer

Well no, nobody lied to me. I was told all I needed to buy was a polo shirt and I'd be fine and in my experiences, that's been true. Not once have I been prevented from participating in a CAP activity due to the polo shirt not being an acceptable uniform option. Heck on certain SAREX assignments when I've worked with outside agencies, the higher ups stated it was the UOD.

If everything I do allows (an in some cases requires) the "alternate" uniform, then for all practical purposes, it's the only uniform I'm required to own.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: JeffDG on November 23, 2012, 08:57:35 PM
If everything I do allows (an in some cases requires) the "alternate" uniform, then for all practical purposes, it's the only uniform I'm required to own.
No, the CAP Uniform Nazis are going to bust your door down in the middle of the night and rifle through your closets to make sure you have a Blue or White with all the required acoutrements.  If you cannot produce one immediately, it will be an instant 2b for you!
>:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 23, 2012, 09:00:32 PM
Fubar,

Then someone lied to you when they told you the only "uniform" required could wear was a polo.

CAP regulations have always stated the required uniform is the AF blue or Gray/white combination. It has been, it is written. The polo is an alternate uniform.

Flyer

Well no, nobody lied to me. I was told all I needed to buy was a polo shirt and I'd be fine and in my experiences, that's been true. Not once have I been prevented from participating in a CAP activity due to the polo shirt not being an acceptable uniform option. Heck on certain SAREX assignments when I've worked with outside agencies, the higher ups stated it was the UOD.

If everything I do allows (an in some cases requires) the "alternate" uniform, then for all practical purposes, it's the only uniform I'm required to own.

Wrong per CAPM39-1 as follows:

1-5. Uniform Combinations. Various combinations of CAP uniforms are authorized in order to allow for various climatic conditions, availability of uniforms, etc., but no member is obligated to equip himself/herself with all or even a major part of the combinations described in this publication. Members will equip themselves with the basic uniform. The minimum basic uniforms for male and female cadets and senior members, which will satisfy most occasions, are listed below. Members may obtain and wear the additional uniform items authorized in this publication on an optional basis. Uniform clothing may be altered to improve fit. However, alterations must not change the intended appearance of garment as designed. It is the member’s personal responsibility to equip himself/herself with a proper uniform.  Commanders may assist if they have the capability, through use of unit funds and/or donations or by acquiring surplus uniforms. Cadets are required to have the minimum basic uniform. A commander may require cadets to wear other optional uniform items only if the purchase is voluntary or if the uniform is supplied without expense to the cadet. The omission of a specific item or appearance standard does not automatically permit its wear.

a. Minimum Basic Service Uniform. Male: Short-sleeve, light blue shirt; dark blue trousers; blue belt/silver buckle, blue flight cap; black shoes, and socks. Insignia: CAP nameplate, shoulder patch, collar/lapel insignia, embroidered epaulet sleeve, and flight cap emblem. Female: Short-sleeve light blue blouse; Dark blue skirt or slacks; flight cap; neutral nylon hose; black shoes; black handbag.

Insignia: CAP nameplate, shoulder patch, collar/lapel insignia, embroidered epaulet sleeve, and flight cap emblem.

b. CAP Distinctive Basic Uniform (senior members only). Male: Short-sleeve, white aviator shirt; gray trousers; black belt; black shoes and socks. Insignia: CAP nameplate, embroidered epaulet sleeve.

Female: Short-sleeve, white aviator shirt; gray slacks or skirt; plain black shoes. Insignia: CAP nameplate, embroidered epaulet sleeve.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 23, 2012, 09:02:54 PM

Until there is final word one way or another people are going to ask,  it has been said that the proposal was sent up or in the works to be sent up
[/i]

This is indeed the current state of the art.  As I have indicated in other posts, we are in the process of assembling a packet to go forward to the Office of the Secretary of Defense -- routed through our AF colleagues -- for ABU approval.

As you can well imagine, anything destined for the OSD has to be assembled very carefully.


Ned Lee
Member, National Uniform Committee
Frequent Attendee at Many Meetings and Conferences

Thank you sir. Eclipse as you can see I said I heard that it was sent up or in the process of being sent up.  I never stated otherwise and you have still yet to cite your source on the AF outside of your own theory are doing away with the ABU.  But nice attempt at a dance around.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Fubar on November 23, 2012, 09:12:28 PM
Wrong per CAPM39-1 as follows:

abdso51,

I believe you may have missed the part of my post that said, "for all practical purposes." Yes, CAPM 39-1 states all members will own a basic uniform, but if everything I do allows a polo shirt, then really, it's the only uniform I need to own in order to play in CAP.

Let's just say I own a basic uniform and I simply have Vanguard hanging on to it for me since I never need it.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 23, 2012, 09:14:04 PM
Wrong per CAPM39-1 as follows:

abdso51,

I believe you may have missed the part of my post that said, "for all practical purposes." Yes, CAPM 39-1 states all members will own a basic uniform, but if everything I do allows a polo shirt, then really, it's the only uniform I need to own in order to play in CAP.

Let's just say I own a basic uniform and I simply have Vanguard hanging on to it for me since I never need it.

So bare minimum to do anything got it.  Don't goto Ca Wg for anything PD related.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: okeecap on November 23, 2012, 09:28:22 PM
All my squadron CC tells new members they need to buy is the polo,  due to the high price of all the other uniform items and the possibility the price may scare away prospects.  Now im all for having m ore than just the polo I strongly suggest to new members the purchase of BDU or BBDU and suggest to get them used due to the high prices of the uniform.  Used BDUs are cheap because the majority of the military does not use them, even the law enforcement agency I work for has permanently replaced the BDU with the ACU or the multicam uniforms. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: JeffDG on November 23, 2012, 09:28:56 PM
Wrong per CAPM39-1 as follows:

abdso51,

I believe you may have missed the part of my post that said, "for all practical purposes." Yes, CAPM 39-1 states all members will own a basic uniform, but if everything I do allows a polo shirt, then really, it's the only uniform I need to own in order to play in CAP.

Let's just say I own a basic uniform and I simply have Vanguard hanging on to it for me since I never need it.

So bare minimum to do anything got it.  Don't goto Ca Wg for anything PD related.
He'll be welcome in plenty of other places.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on November 23, 2012, 09:28:56 PM
Wrong per CAPM39-1 as follows:

abdso51,

I believe you may have missed the part of my post that said, "for all practical purposes." Yes, CAPM 39-1 states all members will own a basic uniform, but if everything I do allows a polo shirt, then really, it's the only uniform I need to own in order to play in CAP.

Let's just say I own a basic uniform and I simply have Vanguard hanging on to it for me since I never need it.

So, you purchased one and Vanguard hasn't delivered it yet?  >:D

I can't believe we are still having this debate. It has been gone over and over and over and no one will agree on this. ABU or polo, those two are the biggest bones of contention among almost EVERYONE here. Even when a member of the NUC says it, no one still believes it BECAUSE IT ISN'T WRITTEN DOWN IN REG, ICL, OR MANUAL FORMAT. Our national CC could come out and say directly that the polo is the third uniform required and no one would believe it because it isn't written down anywhere. He could say "Heck yeah, go out and get you an ABU because I talked to SecDef yesterday and he said 'You guys don't have them yet? Why didn't you say? Go out and wear it! Here's what you can put on it'" and still people wouldn't because the decision doesn't exist in written form. We get so hung up on having it in writing, which is good in many, many cases but for this issue, even when it comes from 2 members of the NUC (Ned and my wing CC, who sits on the NUC) people still will  debate and debate and cross their arms and shake their heads and continue to cite hearsay from "unofficial" sources.

Bottom line is this: Polo is good, it is accepted as a substitute for BDUs as a working uniform for most cases, but not a substitute for the AF Blues. We have the Grey/Whites for that. ABUs: Not going to happen until the planets align and EVERYONE agrees on how we procure them, when we can wear them, and what we wear on them. Everyone means CAP-USAF and DoD.

To me, the debate is useless. It's a non-issue. It's a dadgum uniform that has to make its way through many channels, like the BDUs did in the 80s-90s. How long between the military adopting the wear and it being authorized for CAP use? About 8 years, if I recall correctly. The ABU has been around for what, 5 years at the most? Either we get it or we don't. Period.

I vote the moderators put ABU and Polo in the curse filter.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 23, 2012, 09:35:47 PM
I can't believe we are still having this debate. It has been gone over and over and over and no one will agree on this. ABU or polo, those two are the biggest bones of contention among almost EVERYONE here. Even when a member of the NUC says it, no one still believes it BECAUSE IT ISN'T WRITTEN DOWN IN REG, ICL, OR MANUAL FORMAT. Our national CC could come out and say directly that the polo is the third uniform required and no one would believe it because it isn't written down anywhere. He could say "Heck yeah, go out and get you an ABU because I talked to SecDef yesterday and he said 'You guys don't have them yet? Why didn't you say? Go out and wear it! Here's what you can put on it'" and still people wouldn't because the decision doesn't exist in written form. We get so hung up on having it in writing, which is good in many, many cases but for this issue, even when it comes from 2 members of the NUC (Ned and my wing CC, who sits on the NUC) people still will  debate and debate and cross their arms and shake their heads and continue to cite hearsay from "unofficial" sources.

They are called "regulations" - they govern the organization, and have very specific rules and process for being updated.  When those rules and process are not followed, then the validity of what is being presented is, at the very least, suspect.

The powers of the national governing bodies and officers are specific and limited, by design.  The process for updating our uniform regulation is specific and detailed by design, and not completely within CAP's power.  When those two statements do not properly intersect, we have the issues we have had for a decade.

No regulation / ICL, no action.  And ICL's are only supposed to be used for emergencies, and they still expire, even though CAP chooses to ignore this small, recently reaffirmed regulatory "hitch".
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on November 23, 2012, 09:53:46 PM
I can't believe we are still having this debate. It has been gone over and over and over and no one will agree on this. ABU or polo, those two are the biggest bones of contention among almost EVERYONE here. Even when a member of the NUC says it, no one still believes it BECAUSE IT ISN'T WRITTEN DOWN IN REG, ICL, OR MANUAL FORMAT. Our national CC could come out and say directly that the polo is the third uniform required and no one would believe it because it isn't written down anywhere. He could say "Heck yeah, go out and get you an ABU because I talked to SecDef yesterday and he said 'You guys don't have them yet? Why didn't you say? Go out and wear it! Here's what you can put on it'" and still people wouldn't because the decision doesn't exist in written form. We get so hung up on having it in writing, which is good in many, many cases but for this issue, even when it comes from 2 members of the NUC (Ned and my wing CC, who sits on the NUC) people still will  debate and debate and cross their arms and shake their heads and continue to cite hearsay from "unofficial" sources.

They are called "regulations" - they govern the organization, and have very specific rules and process for being updated.  When those rules and process are not followed, then the validity of what is being presented is, at the very least, suspect.

The powers of the national governing bodies and officers are specific and limited, by design.  The process for updating our uniform regulation is specific and detailed by design, and not completely within CAP's power.  When those two statements do not properly intersect, we have the issues we have had for a decade.

No regulation / ICL, no action.  And ICL's are only supposed to be used for emergencies, and they still expire, even though CAP chooses to ignore this small, recently reaffirmed regulatory "hitch".

Which is what I said at the end. It's not solely our decision, ergo not worthy of further discussion. It's moot at this point. A non-issue. I still stand by my statement that ABU and Polo go into the curse filter. I'm tired of this endless debate over nothing. It's like having a debate over whether CAP will get used UH-1s for SAR work. Yes, it might be a good idea, and there are a glut of former UH-1 pilots out there, but why? To what purpose? How much will it cost for maintenance and fuel?

It all boils down to money anyway. Even if we get ABU-patterned knock-offs, it'll still cost an arm and a leg to outfit us.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on November 23, 2012, 11:14:21 PM
Given that we rate way down on the food chain as far as the AF is concerned, uniform-wise...

1. Active Duty
2. Air Force Reserve
3. Air National Guard (I say that because they have State resources as well as AF)
4. AFROTC
5. AFJROTC
6. SDF Air Wings (maybe no direct contact, but they, unlike us, are allowed to wear the AF uniform with very minimal alterations; at the very least, the AF looks the other way)

We rate somewhere down the ladder after that.  There could well be (and probably are) agencies ahead of us, though right now I cannot think of them.  When it does get to us, cadets have priority uniform-wise.

Of more question personally to me is why we are forced to make do with a monochromatic, colourless "uniform" without headgear and with no service dress equivalent to be "distinctive."
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SARDOC on November 23, 2012, 11:29:35 PM
All my squadron CC tells new members they need to buy is the polo,  due to the high price of all the other uniform items and the possibility the price may scare away prospects.

If they get the Aviator Shirt instead of a Golf Shirt the price difference is $1.25 plus a name plate $2.25 and $8.50 for the Epaulet Insignia.   That's $12.00 Total.  Twelve Dollars scares away prospects?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: okeecap on November 23, 2012, 11:31:01 PM
Thats one that gets me why does JROTC rate higher than CAP, when I was in high school I participated in JROTC.  The uniforms were completely supplied by the Air Force and at times they did not care to get certain items back shoes, belts, covers, name tags, and even bdus.  Why don't CAP cadets just get free uniforms from the Air Force like the JROTC and I know they get a cover belt shirt and pants, MAYBE if the monies there.  The CAP does much more than the JROTC, and we operate with only volunteers were as the JROTC have to pay the 2 instructors and supply them with uniforms as well.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on November 23, 2012, 11:32:18 PM
Thats one that gets me why does JROTC rate higher than CAP...

AFJROTC isn't still being punished by the AF for uniform/behaviour infractions that happened over 20 years ago.  We are.

NB: I should amend that statement to say that CAP senior members are being punished, and cadets are just unfortunate to be "collaterally damaged."

If, however, we ever do get the ABU's, I would lay heavy odds that it will be cadets-only.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: okeecap on November 23, 2012, 11:36:13 PM
All my squadron CC tells new members they need to buy is the polo,  due to the high price of all the other uniform items and the possibility the price may scare away prospects.

If they get the Aviator Shirt instead of a Golf Shirt the price difference is $1.25 plus a name plate $2.25 and $8.50 for the Epaulet Insignia.   That's $12.00 Total.  Twelve Dollars scares away prospects?

It can the area my squadron is in is a very rural area made up mainly of agricultural workers, most do not even own a computer so the ordering is done by myself or the CDS, then we collect the money minus shipping.  Most of our members wear the silk screened polo with a pair of grey dickies they bought at the local flea market.  We as the squadron do our best to supply BDUs.  But we just found a law enforcement catolog that sells the white shirts for half the price vanguard charges for polos so it may all change.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 23, 2012, 11:47:07 PM
But we just found a law enforcement catolog that sells the white shirts for half the price vanguard charges for polos so it may all change.

Are they aviator shirts or security guard shirts?   If they have permanent creases, and / or scalloped pockets they are incorrect.

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 23, 2012, 11:51:17 PM
The CAP does much more than the JROTC, and we operate with only volunteers were as the JROTC have to pay the 2 instructors and supply them with uniforms as well.

That will be dependent on where CAP and JROTC operate out of, and JROTC does not have ES or AE as part of their mission depending on the branch.  I can assure you there are plenty of JROTC units out there that do more than CAP does on a weekly if not monthly basis.  Not to mention there are plenty of school districts who have removed JROTC from their campuses. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: okeecap on November 23, 2012, 11:59:06 PM
But we just found a law enforcement catolog that sells the white shirts for half the price vanguard charges for polos so it may all change.

Are they aviator shirts or security guard shirts?   If they have permanent creases, and / or scalloped pockets they are incorrect.

No they are not the security ones, they are the EMS ones and they do not have the permanent creases.  We compared one to the one one of our members got from vanguard and it was identical, just cheaper.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: AngelWings on November 24, 2012, 12:07:34 AM
Can't we all just wear flightsuits with top gun patches, aviators, green boots, tan undershirts, berets, and pink gloves?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on November 24, 2012, 04:21:56 AM
A flightsuit is a pretty [Filter Subversion] uniform to use as a ground team...

You cannot remove the top during a rest, or when it gets sweltering hot...

And if the call of "nature" hits...

Rethink that...

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on November 24, 2012, 08:26:02 AM
A flightsuit is a pretty [Filter Subversion] uniform to use as a ground team...

You cannot remove the top during a rest, or when it gets sweltering hot...

And if the call of "nature" hits...

Rethink that...

Flyer


Did we run out of humor today Flyer? :o
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: AirDX on November 24, 2012, 11:03:34 AM

I believe you may have missed the part of my post that said, "for all practical purposes." Yes, CAPM 39-1 states all members will own a basic uniform, but if everything I do allows a polo shirt, then really, it's the only uniform I need to own in order to play in CAP.

Let's just say I own a basic uniform and I simply have Vanguard hanging on to it for me since I never need it.

+1.

Telling members they need to buy a uniform they may never wear is not a way to impress anyone with our organization.  I have just over four years back in CAP now, and I have worn the polo pretty much exclusively.  I bought a white aviator combo about a year and a half ago, on the theory that I should have something a little nicer to wear if I ever needed it.  I've worn it exactly once, to a meeting at which it was not required and where I was about the only one not wearing a polo or a flight suit.  I'll be buying new slides for major before I wear it again, and promotion is still about 6 months off. 

It's a nonsensical requirement, a nonsensical reg, and it's essentially unenforceable. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: LGM30GMCC on November 24, 2012, 03:36:17 PM

I believe you may have missed the part of my post that said, "for all practical purposes." Yes, CAPM 39-1 states all members will own a basic uniform, but if everything I do allows a polo shirt, then really, it's the only uniform I need to own in order to play in CAP.

Let's just say I own a basic uniform and I simply have Vanguard hanging on to it for me since I never need it.

+1.

Telling members they need to buy a uniform they may never wear is not a way to impress anyone with our organization.  I have just over four years back in CAP now, and I have worn the polo pretty much exclusively.  I bought a white aviator combo about a year and a half ago, on the theory that I should have something a little nicer to wear if I ever needed it.  I've worn it exactly once, to a meeting at which it was not required and where I was about the only one not wearing a polo or a flight suit.  I'll be buying new slides for major before I wear it again, and promotion is still about 6 months off. 

It's a nonsensical requirement, a nonsensical reg, and it's essentially unenforceable.

That's a cultural issue, not a regulatory one. It would be perfectly reasonable for a unit commander to say 'The basic uniform is the  grey/whites or AF blues so our weekly UOD is that.' Most unit commanders don't do that and are happy to have people in any uniform. But from what I've seen from 3 regions, 6 wings, and at least 10-12 squadrons is a lackadaisical approach to many aspects of CAP. Usually in the planning/support side, especially among senior members. An attitude that if it isn't flying, or directly cadet programs it doesn't matter.

From the largest squadrons I've visited to the smallest I hear the same things: "I haven't really gotten trained" "Professional Development isn't important" "I only did PD because my commander made me" "All I have to do is wear the polo"

These all point to the overriding cultural problem in CAP that 'we're just volunteers.' We are not 'just volunteers' we are expected to be unpaid professionals; more like a volunteer fire department or EMS, not like the folks working a church rummage sale. To shift this culture will take effort from the top down. NHQ has been doing a good job pushing this with things like increased training, requirements, and accountability. But, as we see here, there has been a lot of push-back from 'the field.' I think some of this comes from the culture of each squadron being their own island. Yes, groups, wings and above are there to support the squadrons as they carry out their mission; but the squadrons exist to carry out the mission as set out by higher headquarters and public law. 

As to it being a nonsensical requirement, that's because you have only interacted with outside folks that haven't verbally looked down on the polo. The regulation, sensibly, sets forth a minimum standard. It may be a higher standard than what you like, but that's your problem, not a problem with the regulation or the headquarters setting it. The 'Polo-only, Polo-always' crowd may be tolerated in some places, but that's the culture they were brought in to. If we didn't accept that culture, I bet it would slowly weed itself out over time. As for being unenforceable? Hardly. Just a matter of commanders being willing to take the hit.

If we, as leaders, want to change the culture we simply have to stop making the polo shirt quite as accepted and make the wearing of gray/whites or blues the norm. If every PD course required the wear of the minimum standard uniform, and units did as well, I'm betting we would see Polo's relegated to mission base work and flying operations. Which really, is what it is best suited for anyway. And as was pointed out, the cost difference between a polo (especially a personalized one) and the gray/white combo is fairly minimal.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on November 24, 2012, 03:41:49 PM
No, PH, that post was supposed to be a real post to Angel Wings, who suggested that all wear flight suits. If you think I was being funny, why didn't you direct a similar message to Angel?

And if it your answer was because of the filtered portion of my message, I just wrote the first and last letter, not the entire word. The filter seems to have outsmarted me.

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on November 24, 2012, 03:47:35 PM
LGM,

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

The same attitude that is taken when commanders state "That regulation has not been updated in 5 years... in 10 years... Oh well, the intention of it was ... so we will allow XYZ."

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on November 24, 2012, 04:45:32 PM
It's a nonsensical requirement, a nonsensical reg, and it's essentially unenforceable.

A bit like the "low-light/at-a-distance" dictum that ensures anything on a CAP uniform must be dull and colourless?

It is a cultural issue, though.

I've mentioned serving in my first squadron, a composite squadron where everyone wore the AF uniform and uniform standards, C&C's, etc. were enforced.  Then, after six years, I left that unit (due to getting married and moving) and joined a senior squadron where the opposite was true.  I showed up on my first night there and made sure my blues were clean, pressed and within regs...something about wanting to make a good first impression.  Instead, I ended up in a room full of pilots wearing flight suits (some without any insignia) and polo/golf shirts (some with grey slacks, others with whatever trousers they had on at the time).  One member said to me, "why shell out for all that to play Air Force when it's a lot cheaper to just get a golf shirt?"

An attitude that if it isn't flying, or directly cadet programs it doesn't matter.

The unit I mentioned didn't want anything to do with CP...including giving cadets O-rides.

As to it being a nonsensical requirement, that's because you have only interacted with outside folks that haven't verbally looked down on the polo.

That's news to me.  Increasingly, especially in the last 10-15 years, I've seen the attitude that "uniforms other than the polo shirt are just for cadets" spreading throughout CAP.

I've even noted some disdain for the grey/white kit...again, it's "why get that when a polo is all I need?"

If we, as leaders, want to change the culture we simply have to stop making the polo shirt quite as accepted and make the wearing of gray/whites or blues the norm.

I agree 1000% but good luck on that one.

If every PD course required the wear of the minimum standard uniform, and units did as well, I'm betting we would see Polo's relegated to mission base work and flying operations.

Or you would have what I've seen...those who don't care about PD anyway (second lieutenants for life) and just want to fly, so it wouldn't affect them, and others who would take their toys and leave.

And as was pointed out, the cost difference between a polo (especially a personalized one) and the gray/white combo is fairly minimal.

True enough.  But there are (too many of) those in CAP who "just can't be bothered" even with the required accoutrements on the white shirt.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Smokey on November 24, 2012, 05:27:04 PM
Just be glad you are not in California Wing....Ground teams must wear the Ground Team Uniform (NOT BDU's) when on a mission or training.
CAWG Ground Team Uniform Definition
((a) Long or short sleeve orange (not fluorescent), two or four pocket shirt without epaulets.
(b) CAP Blue Field Uniform trousers.
The following insignia and patches must be worn.
(a) Blue Civil Air Patrol tape – cloth: is worn centered immediately above the left shirt pocket.
(b) Blue Name Tag – cloth: is worn centered immediately above the right shirt pocket (only the
last name is used).
(c) California Wing patch – cloth: is worn placed 3/4 inch below the shoulder seam on the left
sleeve.
(d) OES/Cal EMA Search and Rescue patch: is worn placed 1/2 inch below the shoulder seam on
the right sleeve.

BUT this uniform CANNOT be worn at the mission base.
The CAWG GT uniform is not authorized for:
· Base Staff or Aircrew functions at any time.
· Ground Team or UDF Team members while transporting to or from a search base, or at a
search base in an out of service status
SO....You have to change from BDU on base, then to GT uniform to search, then back to BDU when back at base.
Tell me that isn't the definition of insanity!!!!!!!
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 24, 2012, 05:58:24 PM
In my last unit we had a schedule for uniform wear and it was basically blues for the first meeting and BDUs the rest for cadets.  Now most of the seniors wore the polo shirt, but you can best believe that on that first Mon everyone was in blues or the appropriate equivalent.  For activities again everyone was in the required uniform and if you weren't then you really didn't play. 

Commanders who say just buy the polo to new members do themselves and the member a disservice by construing this as the minimum required uniform.  Now I own two polo shirts and I hate wearing them, they have their purpose in being a quick uniform to throw on especially on those days when I have worked late or there was a twist in the schedule.  Outside of that unless it is directed it stays in the closet.  Hell I have seen so many different pants and shoes worn with it that it's something that you have to scratch your head on. 

My personal opinion is that those directly involved with cadet programs need to be in the same uniform as cadets, to help in creating better unit cohesion. 

But on ABUs lets allow the leadership in Bama do their thing and await the response from the powers to be. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on November 24, 2012, 07:13:16 PM
Just be glad you are not in California Wing....Ground teams must wear the Ground Team Uniform (NOT BDU's) when on a mission or training.
CAWG Ground Team Uniform Definition
((a) Long or short sleeve orange (not fluorescent), two or four pocket shirt without epaulets.
(b) CAP Blue Field Uniform trousers.
The following insignia and patches must be worn.
(a) Blue Civil Air Patrol tape – cloth: is worn centered immediately above the left shirt pocket.
(b) Blue Name Tag – cloth: is worn centered immediately above the right shirt pocket (only the
last name is used).
(c) California Wing patch – cloth: is worn placed 3/4 inch below the shoulder seam on the left
sleeve.
(d) OES/Cal EMA Search and Rescue patch: is worn placed 1/2 inch below the shoulder seam on
the right sleeve.

BUT this uniform CANNOT be worn at the mission base.
The CAWG GT uniform is not authorized for:
· Base Staff or Aircrew functions at any time.
· Ground Team or UDF Team members while transporting to or from a search base, or at a
search base in an out of service status
SO....You have to change from BDU on base, then to GT uniform to search, then back to BDU when back at base.
Tell me that isn't the definition of insanity!!!!!!!

So you have to change your blouse when you depart and return to the search base. Not exactly a hardship.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: manfredvonrichthofen on November 24, 2012, 07:29:03 PM
No, but it is the most hideous thing I've ever heard of. Why in the world that came about will never be understood.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SARDOC on November 24, 2012, 07:31:25 PM
So you have to change your blouse when you depart and return to the search base. Not exactly a hardship.

I agree...I don't think changing shirts is a hardship.  I think it is a ridiculous rule...but not a hardship.  If that's a hardship you're too soft.

Wear a black tee shirt underneath it and just take off the Orange shirt and replace with the BBDU Blouse.  Done.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 24, 2012, 07:39:04 PM
No, but it is the most hideous thing I've ever heard of. Why in the world that came about will never be understood.

Becausew Ca Wg wants to play in ES and took the "strong recommendation" from CaEMA as the gospel truth and as state law. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on November 24, 2012, 07:44:55 PM
Just be glad you are not in California Wing....Ground teams must wear the Ground Team Uniform (NOT BDU's) when on a mission or training.
CAWG Ground Team Uniform Definition
((a) Long or short sleeve orange (not fluorescent), two or four pocket shirt without epaulets.
(b) CAP Blue Field Uniform trousers.
The following insignia and patches must be worn.
(a) Blue Civil Air Patrol tape – cloth: is worn centered immediately above the left shirt pocket.
(b) Blue Name Tag – cloth: is worn centered immediately above the right shirt pocket (only the
last name is used).
(c) California Wing patch – cloth: is worn placed 3/4 inch below the shoulder seam on the left
sleeve.
(d) OES/Cal EMA Search and Rescue patch: is worn placed 1/2 inch below the shoulder seam on
the right sleeve.

BUT this uniform CANNOT be worn at the mission base.
The CAWG GT uniform is not authorized for:
· Base Staff or Aircrew functions at any time.
· Ground Team or UDF Team members while transporting to or from a search base, or at a
search base in an out of service status
SO....You have to change from BDU on base, then to GT uniform to search, then back to BDU when back at base.
Tell me that isn't the definition of insanity!!!!!!!

So you have to change your blouse when you depart and return to the search base. Not exactly a hardship.

I think you missed the part where their GT uniform is the Blue BDU, not regular. They'd have to change pants and shirt. Much as I love being in CAP I highly doubt that I'd join if I moved there based on that BS.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 24, 2012, 07:46:48 PM
Not every unit in Ca Wg has a heavy ES mission.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on November 24, 2012, 07:50:43 PM
Not every unit in Ca Wg has a heavy ES mission.

Yes, but ES is my bread and butter in CAP. I work a little in CP and even less so in AE.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on November 24, 2012, 08:25:51 PM
Just be glad you are not in California Wing....Ground teams must wear the Ground Team Uniform (NOT BDU's) when on a mission or training.
CAWG Ground Team Uniform Definition
((a) Long or short sleeve orange (not fluorescent), two or four pocket shirt without epaulets.
(b) CAP Blue Field Uniform trousers.
The following insignia and patches must be worn.
(a) Blue Civil Air Patrol tape – cloth: is worn centered immediately above the left shirt pocket.
(b) Blue Name Tag – cloth: is worn centered immediately above the right shirt pocket (only the
last name is used).
(c) California Wing patch – cloth: is worn placed 3/4 inch below the shoulder seam on the left
sleeve.
(d) OES/Cal EMA Search and Rescue patch: is worn placed 1/2 inch below the shoulder seam on
the right sleeve.

BUT this uniform CANNOT be worn at the mission base.
The CAWG GT uniform is not authorized for:
· Base Staff or Aircrew functions at any time.
· Ground Team or UDF Team members while transporting to or from a search base, or at a
search base in an out of service status
SO....You have to change from BDU on base, then to GT uniform to search, then back to BDU when back at base.
Tell me that isn't the definition of insanity!!!!!!!

So you have to change your blouse when you depart and return to the search base. Not exactly a hardship.

I think you missed the part where their GT uniform is the Blue BDU, not regular. They'd have to change pants and shirt. Much as I love being in CAP I highly doubt that I'd join if I moved there based on that BS.

Nope, didn't miss it at all. Why would you have to wear the BDU? You gotta have the BBDU trousers anyway so wearing the BBDU at the base is not really a problem.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: AirDX on November 24, 2012, 10:57:14 PM

That's a cultural issue, not a regulatory one. It would be perfectly reasonable for a unit commander to say 'The basic uniform is the  grey/whites or AF blues so our weekly UOD is that.' Most unit commanders don't do that and are happy to have people in any uniform. But from what I've seen from 3 regions, 6 wings, and at least 10-12 squadrons is a lackadaisical approach to many aspects of CAP. Usually in the planning/support side, especially among senior members. An attitude that if it isn't flying, or directly cadet programs it doesn't matter.

From the largest squadrons I've visited to the smallest I hear the same things: "I haven't really gotten trained" "Professional Development isn't important" "I only did PD because my commander made me" "All I have to do is wear the polo"

These all point to the overriding cultural problem in CAP that 'we're just volunteers.' We are not 'just volunteers' we are expected to be unpaid professionals; more like a volunteer fire department or EMS, not like the folks working a church rummage sale. To shift this culture will take effort from the top down. NHQ has been doing a good job pushing this with things like increased training, requirements, and accountability. But, as we see here, there has been a lot of push-back from 'the field.' I think some of this comes from the culture of each squadron being their own island. Yes, groups, wings and above are there to support the squadrons as they carry out their mission; but the squadrons exist to carry out the mission as set out by higher headquarters and public law. 

As to it being a nonsensical requirement, that's because you have only interacted with outside folks that haven't verbally looked down on the polo. The regulation, sensibly, sets forth a minimum standard. It may be a higher standard than what you like, but that's your problem, not a problem with the regulation or the headquarters setting it. The 'Polo-only, Polo-always' crowd may be tolerated in some places, but that's the culture they were brought in to. If we didn't accept that culture, I bet it would slowly weed itself out over time. As for being unenforceable? Hardly. Just a matter of commanders being willing to take the hit.

If we, as leaders, want to change the culture we simply have to stop making the polo shirt quite as accepted and make the wearing of gray/whites or blues the norm. If every PD course required the wear of the minimum standard uniform, and units did as well, I'm betting we would see Polo's relegated to mission base work and flying operations. Which really, is what it is best suited for anyway. And as was pointed out, the cost difference between a polo (especially a personalized one) and the gray/white combo is fairly minimal.

You're making a huge assumption (and a bigger mistake) in assuming that because I wear a polo shirt, and think the reg as written is both nonsense and unenforceable, that I'm unprofessional and lazy.  You are utterly incorrect.  I'm a wing staff officer, I work at it, I participate in the field at the squadron level, and I have the find ribbons, the DR with a V, and the rest of the bling to show for it.  I do PD because I want to (even though I got Captain through the hated mission-related promotions clause, TS on that one folks), including Air Force PME, and I have completed Level IV of the program.

The problem is that none of you can show any reason that the polo is any less of a uniform than any of the others, beyond your personal prejudices.  I spent the money and set up the grey/white combo; it's not that I am resisting the reg, it's that the grey/white hangs in the closet and never comes out.  I've been to meetings with folks from all over the region, 95% are wearing polos.  Soooo... what's the problem?  And don't throw the anti-military thing at me, it won't stick, I was in the Army BITD and I'm a civilian employee of the USAF now.  I'm happy to put my white/grey on, but there hasn't been a reason for me to in four years now, and I don't see one on the horizon anywhere.  You're going to have to tell me what culture it is that needs to change, because I don't see it.

Here's the culture I'm familiar with and that I like: Last month I was course director for an SLS.  About two hours after I got home from Saturday's session, we got the call: tsunami warning.  My class along with the rest of the wing flew warning routes and recon for the the state, ran comms and manned the county EOCs statewide.  I got home about 0130, and tried to figure out how I was going to get the second half of the class covered, since I knew I wouldn't get my class back in the morning.  Much to my surprise about half checked in by text message and e-mail by about 3 AM, saying they would be there!  In the morning, by our 8 AM start, 100% of the class was back, along with all the instructors, bright-eyed and ready to go on 3 hours of sleep!  THAT'S effort and professionalism - class all day, then SAFELY executing a high ORM, high stress night mission, and then back to class the next day, not missing a beat.  Oh yeah, we all wore polos or flight suits.  It's about executing the mission(s), in the classroom, in an exercise, and real-world, NOT about your personal ax you want to grind because you think we should all LOOK a certain way.

If YOU are around a lackadaisical flying-club outfit, that's YOUR problem to solve through motivation, education, and leadership.  Hanging around an internet chat board grumping about polo shirts is none of the above.  Polo shirts aren't a symptom, or a cause.  They are just shirts.           

Oh, and BTW: I don't give a RAT'S what they do in California.   
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SARDOC on November 24, 2012, 10:57:59 PM
I think you missed the part where their GT uniform is the Blue BDU, not regular. They'd have to change pants and shirt. Much as I love being in CAP I highly doubt that I'd join if I moved there based on that BS.

I agree with PHALL.  If you decided to change pants because you choose to wear the Woodland BDU...That's still not a hardship.  It's just changing your pants which is really self inflicted.  You could just wear the Blue BDU for ES work.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on November 25, 2012, 12:04:34 AM
I think you missed the part where their GT uniform is the Blue BDU, not regular. They'd have to change pants and shirt. Much as I love being in CAP I highly doubt that I'd join if I moved there based on that BS.

I agree with PHALL.  If you decided to change pants because you choose to wear the Woodland BDU...That's still not a hardship.  It's just changing your pants which is really self inflicted.  You could just wear the Blue BDU for ES work.

True, it's just a pain in the butt. I just object to 2 different uniforms. It's not a hardship, it's just BS.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on November 25, 2012, 12:18:25 AM

You're making a huge assumption (and a bigger mistake) in assuming that because I wear a polo shirt, and think the reg as written is both nonsense and unenforceable, that I'm unprofessional and lazy.  You are utterly incorrect.  I'm a wing staff officer, I work at it, I participate in the field at the squadron level, and I have the find ribbons, the DR with a V, and the rest of the bling to show for it.  I do PD because I want to (even though I got Captain through the hated mission-related promotions clause, TS on that one folks), including Air Force PME, and I have completed Level IV of the program.

The problem is that none of you can show any reason that the polo is any less of a uniform than any of the others, beyond your personal prejudices.  I spent the money and set up the grey/white combo; it's not that I am resisting the reg, it's that the grey/white hangs in the closet and never comes out.  I've been to meetings with folks from all over the region, 95% are wearing polos.  Soooo... what's the problem?  And don't throw the anti-military thing at me, it won't stick, I was in the Army BITD and I'm a civilian employee of the USAF now.  I'm happy to put my white/grey on, but there hasn't been a reason for me to in four years now, and I don't see one on the horizon anywhere.  You're going to have to tell me what culture it is that needs to change, because I don't see it.

Here's the culture I'm familiar with and that I like: Last month I was course director for an SLS.  About two hours after I got home from Saturday's session, we got the call: tsunami warning.  My class along with the rest of the wing flew warning routes and recon for the the state, ran comms and manned the county EOCs statewide.  I got home about 0130, and tried to figure out how I was going to get the second half of the class covered, since I knew I wouldn't get my class back in the morning.  Much to my surprise about half checked in by text message and e-mail by about 3 AM, saying they would be there!  In the morning, by our 8 AM start, 100% of the class was back, along with all the instructors, bright-eyed and ready to go on 3 hours of sleep!  THAT'S effort and professionalism - class all day, then SAFELY executing a high ORM, high stress night mission, and then back to class the next day, not missing a beat.  Oh yeah, we all wore polos or flight suits.  It's about executing the mission(s), in the classroom, in an exercise, and real-world, NOT about your personal ax you want to grind because you think we should all LOOK a certain way.

If YOU are around a lackadaisical flying-club outfit, that's YOUR problem to solve through motivation, education, and leadership.  Hanging around an internet chat board grumping about polo shirts is none of the above.  Polo shirts aren't a symptom, or a cause.  They are just shirts.           

Oh, and BTW: I don't give a RAT'S what they do in California.   

I never judge BY the uniform. I judge what's IN the uniform. Personally, I don't care if a purple giraffe suit is authorized for wear. Either you know what you're doing or you don't. Plenty of people who wear the polo are professionals who do their jobs, and do them well. Others wear the AF style uniform because they think it's their right to do so and wear them improperly and really are ragbags who don't know their *** from a hole in the ground. I will follow whoever knows their ****, regardless of what uniform they choose to wear.

I just wish they'd give us an option for a different color of trouser instead of gray. I prefer khaki with the blue polo, even khaki cargo shorts for outdoor work, but that's a personal preference. For me, the polo seems to be a business casual type of uniform, as opposed to the grey/whites, which are more dressy. Business casual has always been khaki for me. Doesn't take away from professionalism, just a little more utility than dress slacks and dress shoes. Even the AF polo combo is worn with khaki slacks, from what I've seen.

Meh.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: okeecap on November 25, 2012, 01:33:27 AM
I agree CAP should kill the grey completely, it has no meaning.  Originally CAP used khaki uniforms, lets adopt the old army air corps uniform and stick to our roots, or bring back the csu the blue and white was original to the CAP.  The grey and white just don't look good, and there is no cover.  Also the csu looked almost identical to the AF blues so the cadets could reference any senior uniform to see what theirs should look like.  That is all I can say to benefit CAP kill grey, it doesn't look good, and has no historical value.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on November 25, 2012, 02:29:45 AM
I agree CAP should kill the grey completely, it has no meaning.  Originally CAP used khaki uniforms, lets adopt the old army air corps uniform and stick to our roots, or bring back the csu the blue and white was original to the CAP.  The grey and white just don't look good, and there is no cover.  Also the csu looked almost identical to the AF blues so the cadets could reference any senior uniform to see what theirs should look like.  That is all I can say to benefit CAP kill grey, it doesn't look good, and has no historical value.

The CSU has zero history. The grey and whites have been around over twenty years now. That's a LOT more "history" then the CSU had.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on November 25, 2012, 02:43:12 AM
I agree CAP should kill the grey completely, it has no meaning.  Originally CAP used khaki uniforms, lets adopt the old army air corps uniform and stick to our roots, or bring back the csu the blue and white was original to the CAP.  The grey and white just don't look good, and there is no cover.  Also the csu looked almost identical to the AF blues so the cadets could reference any senior uniform to see what theirs should look like.  That is all I can say to benefit CAP kill grey, it doesn't look good, and has no historical value.

The CSU has zero history. The grey and whites have been around over twenty years now. That's a LOT more "history" then the CSU had.

It was here and gone in the blink of an eye. It was like, "Hey, this is authorized for wear."
"What's authorized for wear?"
"This new Corporate Service Uni...wait. Where did it go?"
"Where did what go?"
"...I forget."
"What were we talking about?"
"What?"
"Who are you again?"
It's like someone played a Jedi Mind Trick on us.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on November 25, 2012, 02:45:45 AM
The CSU has zero history. The grey and whites have been around over twenty years now. That's a LOT more "history" then the CSU had.

That's because it wasn't allowed to gain any history.

Okeecap is right though, as I see it...why on earth does almost everything CAP-related have to be grey, which really isn't a colour at all (and I say that as one whose remaining hair is almost completely grey).

I agree CAP should kill the grey completely, it has no meaning.  Originally CAP used khaki uniforms, lets adopt the old army air corps uniform and stick to our roots, or bring back the csu the blue and white was original to the CAP.  The grey and white just don't look good, and there is no cover.  Also the csu looked almost identical to the AF blues so the cadets could reference any senior uniform to see what theirs should look like.  That is all I can say to benefit CAP kill grey, it doesn't look good, and has no historical value.

I agree with you 1000%.  A comparison I've sometimes made is that in the G/W we look more like the old East German Army than anything else (except that they had headgear and a service jacket).

(http://www.nva-uniformen.de/WebRoot/Store5/Shops/63366721/4F65/A7A8/F4C4/8F7E/6951/C0A8/29B9/E035/NVA_Uniform_Sommerhemd_Soldaten.JPG)

I think the grey/white looks drab, dull, like a reverse negative from a photo back in the days of film, and has no connection to aviation, military or civilian, unless of course one counts the East Germans.

However...

I rarely ever say "never" to anything, but I can safely say that you will never dissuade CAP from its inexplicable love of this non-colour.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on November 25, 2012, 04:11:39 AM
Garibaldi,

Next time you post something like that re the CSU, you have to post a warning. Call it a Garning?

 >:D

I suffer from asthma so I am short of breath. I just could not read it without choking up! It was great anyway.

 :clap:

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: okeecap on November 25, 2012, 04:13:49 AM
I was stating that the csu looked more AF than th grey and white.  The csu had more of a historical outlook because it embodied our relationship with the AF and looked like a uniform.  It could have even been made a uniform for cadet meaning the CAP could have had a distinct uniform that was original.  But now it got the ax and we got the grey and white that kinda makes my eyes bleed.  The grey and whit compares to the triangle thingy, its an eye sore.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 25, 2012, 04:29:10 AM
I was stating that the csu looked more AF than th grey and white.  The csu had more of a historical outlook because it embodied our relationship with the AF and looked like a uniform.  It could have even been made a uniform for cadet meaning the CAP could have had a distinct uniform that was original.  But now it got the ax and we got the grey and white that kinda makes my eyes bleed.  The grey and whit compares to the triangle thingy, its an eye sore.

For someone relatively new or who has not advanced in awhile it has been worse for SM they use to have to wear Maroon epaulets on everything. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on November 25, 2012, 04:55:13 AM
I was stating that the csu looked more AF than th grey and white.  The csu had more of a historical outlook because it embodied our relationship with the AF and looked like a uniform.  It could have even been made a uniform for cadet meaning the CAP could have had a distinct uniform that was original.  But now it got the ax and we got the grey and white that kinda makes my eyes bleed.  The grey and whit compares to the triangle thingy, its an eye sore.

For someone relatively new or who has not advanced in awhile it has been worse for SM they use to have to wear Maroon epaulets on everything.

*shakes finger at you menacingly*

Don't you dare bring that up again. Ever. It was a dark day in CAP when we had to put those stupid, asinine things on. Like okeecap said, it's an eyesore. The only reason I even held on to mine was to remind me that no matter what is happening now, things have been much, much worse.

*shudder*

I have to take my meds now. Thanks for the nightmares.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 25, 2012, 05:10:15 AM
Just saying sir.  The grey does not bother me any at all, and mentioning it was to point out that uniforms were far worse than grey for us.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 25, 2012, 05:14:11 AM
Frankly the mention of those things is becoming somewhat tired.
Like bombing subs and Oswald, they are a part of our history, but have very little relevance to anyone who is a member today.  It was 20 years ago(ish).
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 25, 2012, 05:17:40 AM
Frankly the mention of those things is becoming somewhat tired.
Like bombing subs and Oswald, they are a part of our history, but have very little relevance to anyone who is a member today.  It was 20 years ago(ish).

Yes I agree, but it we need to remember where we came from to move forward in any context.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on November 25, 2012, 05:22:45 AM
Sooooo...topics sure to raise blood pressure in this category are:

Polo shirt

ABUs

Maroon epaulet sleeves

H/W requirements

CSU

Did I miss anything?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: manfredvonrichthofen on November 25, 2012, 05:53:57 AM
CAWG SaR uniform... If it can be called a uniform based solely on how udderly hideous is.

Yes I wrote udderly, because it too ridiculous to use the correct term.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Fubar on November 25, 2012, 06:36:22 AM
Did I miss anything?

You mighta killed somebody putting all that in one list!
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on November 25, 2012, 07:21:24 AM
Frankly the mention of those things is becoming somewhat tired.
Like bombing subs and Oswald, they are a part of our history, but have very little relevance to anyone who is a member today.  It was 20 years ago(ish).

Your point is taken.  However, the berry boards are still relevant (and I trashed mine as soon as the grey ones were available) in that we are still being punished for those 20(ish) years ago transgressions.  If we were not, the AF would have, after a period of penance on the part of CAP, returned our blue epaulette sleeves, metal grade and blue nameplates.

If you're close enough to see the rank markings on these...then you're close enough to notice the CAP identifier.

(http://incountry.us/cappatches/RANK-OFC/thumbs/~Capt-3E.jpg)

(http://incountry.us/cappatches/RANK-OFC/thumbs/~SFO-3E.jpg)

Unless, of course, the viewer is illiterate, in which case, the question "who owns the problem?" is apropos.

Instead, we are still doing a (milder form of) penance.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on November 25, 2012, 07:25:28 AM
OK. Even though I've been around the block a time or three, just what is it we're paying penance for? The only thing I ever heard of was a SM in WIWG who filed his blue nametag down and removed the CAP from his blue epaulet sleeves and tried to do something weird on an AF reserve base. Even that was apocryphal enough for me. I have no idea what it was that the AF thought was so heinous that we needed to radically change our uniforms.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on November 25, 2012, 07:52:37 AM
OK. Even though I've been around the block a time or three, just what is it we're paying penance for? The only thing I ever heard of was a SM in WIWG who filed his blue nametag down and removed the CAP from his blue epaulet sleeves and tried to do something weird on an AF reserve base. Even that was apocryphal enough for me. I have no idea what it was that the AF thought was so heinous that we needed to radically change our uniforms.

I've never heard of any of those instances.  How, I wonder, could the "CAP" be removed from an epaulette sleeve without destroying it?  It was embroidered on...just as it has always been.

What I was told right after I joined in 1993:

A former National CC "promoted himself" to the grade of Major General, it was greenlighted by the SecAF, but not by CSAF...it turned into bad blood between those two high-ranking gentlemen.  The General got to keep his rank but the rest of CAP got the fallout.

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=11081.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=11081.0)

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=7453.60 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=7453.60)

I was also told that a few CAP officers were trolling for salutes on Air Force installations and chewing the enlisted/NCO AF members out for not saluting them, neither of which, of course, they had a right or privilege to do.

So, yes, we are still hewing wood and drawing water over that.  If we weren't, we wouldn't still be forced to "grey" everything.

It is illogical in the extreme, especially since one can troll for salutes no matter what colour the shoulder marks are.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on November 25, 2012, 08:26:55 AM
Berry interesting...but stupid. Thanks for the links.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on November 25, 2012, 08:45:06 PM
Berry interesting...but stupid.

 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Nice one and 10-4 on the stupid factor (said in mid-70s CB Trucker voice).

Getting back to the original subject (!), I think that what happened to us with the berry boards will forever preclude us from getting ABU's, or looking any more like the Air Force than we currently do.  Doubly so, since that attitude has spread throughout CAP to the point that a good chunk of CAP's membership are even disdainful of us wearing any Air Force-type uniform, whether it be ABU's, blues (and the firestorm of those shouting down the CSU, much less getting blue shoulder marks, hard rank and blue nameplates back) or flight suits (though I don't see the antipathy toward those nearly as much).

Again, I doubt extremely that CAP will ever see ABU's, except for the cadets.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 25, 2012, 09:13:43 PM
I can concur that it's a matter of if, but there has been changes AF wide since then and you never know.  The current AF senior leadership could be game to submit the proposal once they get it.  We should look forward to what can and could be rather than the past and what was.  IMO the ABU with our tapes or a modified tape would be awesome.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on November 25, 2012, 09:40:49 PM
I can concur that it's a matter of if, but there has been changes AF wide since then and you never know.  The current AF senior leadership could be game to submit the proposal once they get it.  We should look forward to what can and could be rather than the past and what was.  IMO the ABU with our tapes or a modified tape would be awesome.

From what's been posted here, information from our resident NUC Ned, and a bit of scuttlebutt that may or may not be true, it seems all we are waiting on is approval from DoD/SecDef. There are subtleties that are being ironed out, but current conjecture is that it'll be another 3 to 5 years before all the T's are crossed and the I's dotted.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 25, 2012, 10:29:36 PM
I can concur that it's a matter of if, but there has been changes AF wide since then and you never know.  The current AF senior leadership could be game to submit the proposal once they get it.  We should look forward to what can and could be rather than the past and what was.  IMO the ABU with our tapes or a modified tape would be awesome.

From what's been posted here, information from our resident NUC Ned, and a bit of scuttlebutt that may or may not be true, it seems all we are waiting on is approval from DoD/SecDef. There are subtleties that are being ironed out, but current conjecture is that it'll be another 3 to 5 years before all the T's are crossed and the I's dotted.

Yeah processes being what it is.  I do think again IMO that the AF leadership today would potentially be far willing to allow it and smooth the wheels for the SecDEF to approve it. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 25, 2012, 11:16:32 PM
From what's been posted here, information from our resident NUC Ned, and a bit of scuttlebutt that may or may not be true, it seems all we are waiting on is approval from DoD/SecDef.

No request has even been sent yet, we're not "waiting" on anything.

As I have indicated in other posts, we are in the process of assembling a packet to go forward to the Office of the Secretary of Defense -- routed through our AF colleagues -- for ABU approval.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: VNY on November 26, 2012, 01:46:51 AM
Are they aviator shirts or security guard shirts?   If they have permanent creases, and / or scalloped pockets they are incorrect.

I'm looking for a reference to that and I can't find it.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Blues Brother on November 26, 2012, 02:31:23 AM

You're making a huge assumption (and a bigger mistake) in assuming that because I wear a polo shirt, and think the reg as written is both nonsense and unenforceable, that I'm unprofessional and lazy.  You are utterly incorrect.  I'm a wing staff officer, I work at it, I participate in the field at the squadron level, and I have the find ribbons, the DR with a V, and the rest of the bling to show for it.  I do PD because I want to (even though I got Captain through the hated mission-related promotions clause, TS on that one folks), including Air Force PME, and I have completed Level IV of the program.

The problem is that none of you can show any reason that the polo is any less of a uniform than any of the others, beyond your personal prejudices.  I spent the money and set up the grey/white combo; it's not that I am resisting the reg, it's that the grey/white hangs in the closet and never comes out.  I've been to meetings with folks from all over the region, 95% are wearing polos.  Soooo... what's the problem?  And don't throw the anti-military thing at me, it won't stick, I was in the Army BITD and I'm a civilian employee of the USAF now.  I'm happy to put my white/grey on, but there hasn't been a reason for me to in four years now, and I don't see one on the horizon anywhere.  You're going to have to tell me what culture it is that needs to change, because I don't see it.

Here's the culture I'm familiar with and that I like: Last month I was course director for an SLS.  About two hours after I got home from Saturday's session, we got the call: tsunami warning.  My class along with the rest of the wing flew warning routes and recon for the the state, ran comms and manned the county EOCs statewide.  I got home about 0130, and tried to figure out how I was going to get the second half of the class covered, since I knew I wouldn't get my class back in the morning.  Much to my surprise about half checked in by text message and e-mail by about 3 AM, saying they would be there!  In the morning, by our 8 AM start, 100% of the class was back, along with all the instructors, bright-eyed and ready to go on 3 hours of sleep!  THAT'S effort and professionalism - class all day, then SAFELY executing a high ORM, high stress night mission, and then back to class the next day, not missing a beat.  Oh yeah, we all wore polos or flight suits.  It's about executing the mission(s), in the classroom, in an exercise, and real-world, NOT about your personal ax you want to grind because you think we should all LOOK a certain way.

If YOU are around a lackadaisical flying-club outfit, that's YOUR problem to solve through motivation, education, and leadership.  Hanging around an internet chat board grumping about polo shirts is none of the above.  Polo shirts aren't a symptom, or a cause.  They are just shirts.           

Oh, and BTW: I don't give a RAT'S what they do in California.   
  Some excellent points made here!!!  I agree.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 26, 2012, 03:19:19 AM
You're making a huge assumption (and a bigger mistake) in assuming that because I wear a polo shirt, and think the reg as written is both nonsense and unenforceable,

Of course its enforceable.  Both through direct "you will" and through positive peer pressure.

The problem is that none of you can show any reason that the polo is any less of a uniform than any of the others, beyond your personal prejudices.  I spent the money and set up the grey/white combo; it's not that I am resisting the reg, it's that the grey/white hangs in the closet and never comes out.  I've been to meetings with folks from all over the region, 95% are wearing polos.  Soooo... what's the problem?
The "problem", apparently, is that your wing / region apparently has chosen comfort and convenience over appearance.  That or you do not participate in may more formal activities or activities which have external contact.  That doesn't change what 39-1 says, nor make it less enforceable given the
command imperative to enforce it.

And just because no one else see fit to look professional doesn't stop you from doing it.  LCD is no way to run an organization, yet it seems to
be the excuse for much of why nothing changes.  "Well all the other kids wore shorts!"
Here's the culture I'm familiar with and that I like: Last month I was course director for an SLS.  About two hours after I got home from Saturday's session, we got the call: tsunami warning.  My class along with the rest of the wing flew warning routes and recon for the the state, ran comms and manned the county EOCs statewide.  I got home about 0130, and tried to figure out how I was going to get the second half of the class covered, since I knew I wouldn't get my class back in the morning.  Much to my surprise about half checked in by text message and e-mail by about 3 AM, saying they would be there!  In the morning, by our 8 AM start, 100% of the class was back, along with all the instructors, bright-eyed and ready to go on 3 hours of sleep!  THAT'S effort and professionalism - class all day, then SAFELY executing a high ORM, high stress night mission, and then back to class the next day, not missing a beat.  Oh yeah, we all wore polos or flight suits.  It's about executing the mission(s), in the classroom, in an exercise, and real-world, NOT about your personal ax you want to grind because you think we should all LOOK a certain way.

Relevance?  You're busy. So are a lot of us, it doesn't change anything, and that ops temp above is not your 24x7 CAP experience.  We all have days
where we look like rolled poop at 1700 because the EOC or aircraft was a sauna and we pulled a double.   That doesn't dictate how we look for a staff meeting or training activity.

Last Friday I was packing for New Hampshire for Sandy relief - the expectation was that I'd be gone at least a week, and you can bet I packed my
whites, despite the fact that I was going to work a REMF job (Unfortunately / fortunately we stood down while I was waiting for the airport gate to let me out).
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on November 26, 2012, 04:21:02 AM
Last Friday I was packing for New Hampshire for Sandy relief - the expectation was that I'd be gone at least a week, and you can bet I packed my whites, despite the fact that I was going to work a REMF job (Unfortunately / fortunately we stood down while I was waiting for the airport gate to let me out).

Total bummer, too, Bob. I was looking forward to the opportunity to meet you! :)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on December 05, 2012, 09:19:36 PM
This is more "writing on the wall":

New technology makes troops invisible (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqi3jpBSyCc#ws)

Note the comment about "competing for the next generation contract" which means it's out for RFP in some channel or
another, even if its not publicly or easily available.

CAP obviously doesn't need anything that hides us, but this is more indication that military's field uniforms are in the process of
evolution, and another nail in the coffin of us ever getting ABU's.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on December 05, 2012, 10:15:06 PM
This more "writing on the wall":

Note the comment about "competing for the next generation contract" which means it's out for RFP in some channel or
another, even if its not publicly or easily available.

CAP obviously doesn't need anything that hides us, but this is more indication that military's field uniforms are in the process of
evolution, and another nail in the coffin of us ever getting ABU's.

Very interesting. Yeah, I don't see us really ever getting the ABU, mainly because of its application in the AF. BDUs were and are functional for what they are, and that's all we really need.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SARDOC on December 05, 2012, 10:41:32 PM
I was reading the Navy Times the other day and it sounds like there is a move afoot to have all of the services go back to using one common utility uniform due to the cost of and redundancy in the purchasing process as well as supply chains.  This coincidentally comes out the same time of a ruling that says the Marines can't claim sole ownership of the MARPAT.

I think we have a better chance of seeing the MARPAT long before we see ABU's   >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: vento on December 06, 2012, 05:46:17 AM
This is more "writing on the wall":

New technology makes troops invisible (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rqi3jpBSyCc#ws)

Note the comment about "competing for the next generation contract" which means it's out for RFP in some channel or
another, even if its not publicly or easily available.

CAP obviously doesn't need anything that hides us, but this is more indication that military's field uniforms are in the process of
evolution, and another nail in the coffin of us ever getting ABU's.

CAP really could use that. I take it that the orange vest is still a requirement.  >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: krnlpanick on December 06, 2012, 06:04:54 AM
CAP really could use that. I take it that the orange vest is still a requirement.  >:D

"I was rescued by a floating orange vest! Ghosts are real!"
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on December 06, 2012, 06:11:04 AM
I was reading the Navy Times the other day and it sounds like there is a move afoot to have all of the services go back to using one common utility uniform due to the cost of and redundancy in the purchasing process as well as supply chains.  This coincidentally comes out the same time of a ruling that says the Marines can't claim sole ownership of the MARPAT.

I think we have a better chance of seeing the MARPAT long before we see ABU's   >:D

Not a valid source for anything.  And I doubt we will be seeing MARPAT at anytime.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on December 06, 2012, 06:13:59 AM
I was reading the Navy Times the other day and it sounds like there is a move afoot to have all of the services go back to using one common utility uniform due to the cost of and redundancy in the purchasing process as well as supply chains.  This coincidentally comes out the same time of a ruling that says the Marines can't claim sole ownership of the MARPAT.

I think we have a better chance of seeing the MARPAT long before we see ABU's   >:D

Not a valid source for anything.  And I doubt we will be seeing MARPAT at anytime. Ever.

FTFY  >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on December 06, 2012, 06:15:36 AM
Why thank you.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on December 06, 2012, 06:16:30 AM
Why thank you.

Sorry. Couldn't resist
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on December 06, 2012, 06:23:10 AM
Why thank you.

Sorry. Couldn't resist

NP..
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on December 06, 2012, 06:31:10 AM
I was reading the Navy Times the other day and it sounds like there is a move afoot to have all of the services go back to using one common utility uniform due to the cost of and redundancy in the purchasing process as well as supply chains.

Which is WHY the BDU's were introduced in the first place!

I remember back in the early '80s, when my then brother-in-law was in the Army and he got his first set.  He told me then that all the Armed Forces were going to be wearing those, in an effort to save money, and that's what happened (though more limited in the Navy and Coast Guard).

When the Marines introduced "their" camo I remember thinking, "this is going to start the ball rolling for each service," and that's exactly what happened.

The colour/camouflage pattern doesn't have to be the same for each service (in the case of most AF/Navy/CG personnel, a camouflage pattern wouldn't be needed at all) but it would make a lot more sense to have a standard cut/pattern.

We do not need ABU's, other than to have a link with our parent service, which we have in other uniform aspects.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: ol'fido on December 13, 2012, 12:09:24 AM
Another viable alternative.... >:D >:D >:D

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=527819867228972&set=a.440451139299179.108693.440217765989183&type=1&theater (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=527819867228972&set=a.440451139299179.108693.440217765989183&type=1&theater)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Sapper168 on December 13, 2012, 04:49:59 AM
Now that is hilarious....  ;D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Walkman on December 13, 2012, 02:18:20 PM
Another viable alternative.... >:D >:D >:D

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=527819867228972&set=a.440451139299179.108693.440217765989183&type=1&theater (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=527819867228972&set=a.440451139299179.108693.440217765989183&type=1&theater)

Meh - it needs a boonie and the boots don't match. Keeping our black boots would look much better.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on December 13, 2012, 04:03:39 PM
Another viable alternative.... >:D >:D >:D

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=527819867228972&set=a.440451139299179.108693.440217765989183&type=1&theater (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=527819867228972&set=a.440451139299179.108693.440217765989183&type=1&theater)

Meh - it needs a boonie and the boots don't match. Keeping our black boots would look much better.

Try finding black boots on a military base anymore!   
At encampment last year we had to go to a uniform shop 30 miles away and pay through the nose for some black boots for one of the basic cadets. (His boots had "disintegrated". ::))
And we were at a National Guard facility with an AAFES Troop Store and there was an Air Force Base 60 miles away too. Neither had black boots of any kind...
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on December 13, 2012, 04:06:25 PM
Try finding black boots on a military base anymore! 

No issue on a Navy base, nor Walmart.
Regardless, so few of our members source their uniforms from MCSS or AAFES that it should not be a factor.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Walkman on December 13, 2012, 06:21:49 PM
Be that as it may, shiny black boots would add some great contrast to the IPTBCU.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Sapper168 on December 13, 2012, 09:00:57 PM
Here we go.... http://www.gemplers.com/shop/reflective-boot (http://www.gemplers.com/shop/reflective-boot)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on December 13, 2012, 09:02:58 PM
Now that is hilarious....  ;D

Vomit camo...
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: krnlpanick on December 13, 2012, 09:05:02 PM
Now that is hilarious....  ;D

Vomit camo...

Also known as "Urban Digital New Orleans Garden District Camouflage"
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NorCal21 on December 29, 2012, 06:29:48 AM
Here we go.... http://www.gemplers.com/shop/reflective-boot (http://www.gemplers.com/shop/reflective-boot)


Or we could just install LEDs on all the CAP uniforms. Flashing ones even!
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on December 29, 2012, 06:49:07 AM
Here we go.... http://www.gemplers.com/shop/reflective-boot (http://www.gemplers.com/shop/reflective-boot)


Or we could just install LEDs on all the CAP uniforms. Flashing ones even!


Don't give the Safety Drones any ideas... >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NorCal21 on December 29, 2012, 06:58:09 AM

Don't give the Safety Drones any ideas... >:D

Haha, but its fun to watch them swarm around trying to figure out how to make things more ridiculous and see the frustration on their face.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: DerNarr on December 31, 2012, 10:05:46 AM
The problem with ABUs is that the colors don't match those of my Ranger tab. Also, I think it'd clash with a beret.
 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on December 31, 2012, 11:01:06 AM
The problem with ABUs is that the colors don't match those of my Ranger tab. Also, I think it'd clash with a beret.
 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

Was that supposed to be funny? Too bad I forgot to laugh.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Walkman on December 31, 2012, 03:02:10 PM
The problem with ABUs is that the colors don't match those of my Ranger tab. Also, I think it'd clash with a beret.
 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

Was that supposed to be funny? Too bad I forgot to laugh.

I chuckled a little.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Nuke52 on December 31, 2012, 03:38:26 PM
The problem with ABUs is that the colors don't match those of my Ranger tab. Also, I think it'd clash with a beret.
 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

Was that supposed to be funny? Too bad I forgot to laugh.

I chuckled a little.

Same here. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: DerNarr on December 31, 2012, 07:15:42 PM
The problem with ABUs is that the colors don't match those of my Ranger tab. Also, I think it'd clash with a beret.
 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

Was that supposed to be funny? Too bad I forgot to laugh.

I wasn't trying to be dismissive or insulting or anything. I was poking fun at this topic, and other topics that seem to be done to death on this particular board (namely anything about berets or Ranger insignias).
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Devil Doc on January 01, 2013, 02:14:13 AM
Dont Forget Though, you still have to wear the PT Belt with this.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on January 01, 2013, 03:13:58 AM
Dont Forget Though, you still have to wear the PT Belt with this.

What's a "PT Belt"?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Nuke52 on January 01, 2013, 09:58:22 AM
Dont Forget Though, you still have to wear the PT Belt with this.

What's a "PT Belt"?
The special reflective belt you have to wear when in PTs because they're not reflective enough already (especially in the daytime)?   You know, safety first and all that... >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Nuke52 on January 01, 2013, 10:03:51 AM
The problem with ABUs is that the colors don't match those of my Ranger tab. Also, I think it'd clash with a beret.
 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

Was that supposed to be funny? Too bad I forgot to laugh.

I wasn't trying to be dismissive or insulting or anything. I was poking fun at this topic, and other topics that seem to be done to death on this particular board (namely anything about berets or Ranger insignias).

Don't sweat it.  Your comment was funny and on-target.   :clap:

Some people have just had their sense of humor surgically removed, and apparently this touched a nerve.  Carry on.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on January 01, 2013, 08:06:00 PM
I have a reasonable sense of humour.

I do not, however, have much patience regarding off-the-wall, whacked-out proposals for uniform changes, all too many of which are serious. There are hundreds of posts on here suggesting one thing or another, with almost zero hope of consideration or implementation. The attempts at humour just aren't funny any more.

YMMV.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Nuke52 on January 01, 2013, 09:20:25 PM
...
The attempts at humour just aren't funny any more.

YMMV.

You're right, we should probably stop trying, then...

I kid, I kid.  ;)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on January 02, 2013, 01:23:49 AM
...
The attempts at humour just aren't funny any more.

YMMV.

You're right, we should probably stop trying, then...

I kid, I kid.  ;)

No, you really do need to stop.  >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on January 18, 2013, 09:43:25 PM
I grabbed the most recent of the eleventy-twelveteen messages on this subject.

For those of you who would assert that the woodland camo BDU is no longer being worn by any US military,
the Seabees on base are still wearing their version of the woodland BDU.  The Seals are also still wearing it.
I saw a bunch of them today with my actual eyeballs.

This photo is about a year old but shows the evolution:
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ae_DRbsQC00/Tw_B5517rcI/AAAAAAAABZc/o8ErOvn_uP8/s1600/Navy+Seabees.jpg)

The one on the left is the "AOR", in the middle is the NWU, and on the right is the Seabee variant of the BDU.

In fact, woodland camo is still worn as trousers on carrier decks by various specialties, and the DCU is even still in use
in some select areas.   On a cursory look again today, I can't find a final wear-out date for the woodland camo.





Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on January 18, 2013, 10:33:31 PM
I heard at a TLC, that a staffer at national shared that we're getting ABUs Spring 2014, with a short 18month phaseout on BDUs.  >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: ProdigalJim on January 18, 2013, 11:06:12 PM
But I want. The Tigerrr Stripes....  >:D  >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on January 18, 2013, 11:22:41 PM
When can we have the digitals?.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: HGjunkie on January 18, 2013, 11:46:48 PM
Guys I heard we're getting Multicam by an official source.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: cylercj554 on January 19, 2013, 12:07:38 AM
What do you mean "multicam"? People use that word way too often. Sorry if I sound dumb, sir.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: HGjunkie on January 19, 2013, 12:14:25 AM
(http://www.combatreform.org/multicamTRUwithinsignia.jpg)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on January 19, 2013, 12:20:10 AM
Guys I heard we're getting Multicam by an official source.

Cite.  I can tell  you the multicam pattern is far more expensive than the ABU and has far less cold weather options as well. And that pattern is worn only in the OEF region or in transit to and from not for home station wear.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on January 19, 2013, 12:21:02 AM
Duck man, it's flying right over your head...
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Levi Lockling on January 19, 2013, 01:02:29 AM
Does anyone find it weird that the OP has yet to respond? He has, with his single post, managed to provoke more posts in response than I ever could.

Just a little odd, methinks....

<Edit: awkward wording>
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on January 19, 2013, 01:10:47 AM
The OP was likely a drive-by who didn't realize what he was asking.

I just put my comment here because it was the most recent of the field uniform discussions.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on January 19, 2013, 01:27:09 AM
I long ago came to regard anyone saying they had a line on CAP getting ABU's as either misinformed, joking or lying.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on January 19, 2013, 02:27:03 AM
The OP was a troll who got his money out of this one.... ::)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on January 19, 2013, 11:57:14 AM
Well, he made one post, and we've been nattering on about it for 16 months now. Sounds like a pretty good drive-by to me.

Time for a lock, mods!
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: JK657 on January 19, 2013, 05:49:10 PM
If you lock it you're only inviting another ABU thread be started in less than a week. At this point it should just be left up and maybe we won't rehash the same thing over and over.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Levi Lockling on January 19, 2013, 06:44:07 PM
If you lock it you're only inviting another ABU thread be started in less than a week. At this point it should just be left up and maybe we won't rehash the same thing over and over.

Oh my god... I think that made the most sense out of anything in this thread...  :o
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: fadiaz on January 19, 2013, 08:27:08 PM
Oh my god... I think that made the most sense out of anything in this thread...  :o

Like and +1...!!!   ;D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NorCal21 on June 03, 2013, 08:44:01 PM
Haha, had to bring it back!

In all seriousness I don't have a problem with the current CAP uniforms. There's a few changes I'd like to see, but I think that can be said about any uniform, by any person, in any profession (military or not). Human nature. We all have personal likes and dislikes.

The only thing I'd really like to see changed deals with the patches. First, I'd like to see standardization with a requirement that something is worn or it isn't. I don't like the you can if you want thing. Sort of breaks with the definition of uniform. The second thing would be the cartoonish nature of some patches.

I understand the heraldry of it all, but look at the patches the Army and AF wore in WWII. They were often cartoonish if not flat out just cartoons. Over the years they have developed them into a professional look. I think CAP would look better with more professionally designed patches.

Final point... could you imagine how bad full color patches and blue tapes would look on ABUs or Multicams?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: That Anonymous Guy on June 03, 2013, 11:12:45 PM
I agree with all your points. Out patches should be subdued.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on June 03, 2013, 11:14:10 PM
I agree with all your points. Out patches should be subdued.

As opposed to 'in' patches?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on June 03, 2013, 11:27:24 PM
Posters in these threads and specially on the uniform ones only look at the uniform they wore when they were in the service...

Are you guys aware of the combat uniform development history? When you say "Class A, Class B, etc." Did you know that until World War II happened, the American Soldier had only one uniform, changing between summer and winter grades, which he had to use to fight in the front, and when the front service was over, to use the same uniform with some more detailed or fancy items in the office?

How many of you guys know that the Service Coat was a modification of the blouse worn in the field in World War I but modified in 1927 by Army Chief of Staff MacArthur? That still in 1940 the US Army soldier was going to fight in it? That there were at least three modifications from 1940 to 1942 to allow for more mobility in the battlefield? And this item was relegated to the office when someone came with what I am not sure but is called a Parson's coat, which became a field jacket?

And last, the fatigue was not supposed to be a combat uniform, just work clothes, until 1941 when these fatigues, developed to be worn over the service uniform to protect it from damage, paint, grease and other junk? When soldiers wore fatigues from 1916 or so through 1941 was at times brown and at others, blue? That only in 1941 the Army came with the M41 HBT fatigues, and at this time they were starting to use it for combat?

I have to go on ranting. Sometimes I hear some of you commenting on "not using the lower pockets of the BDU or coat, they should not be carrying anything." Did you know what the greatest insult to the American soldier uniform, or so a captured German officer thought when he addressed General Mark Clark in Italy was?

"Your American uniforms are golf clothes!"

And when and if you dress in your BDUs, if you think they are baggy and unseemly, that they are not ironed, think of General Mark Clark's proud answer:

"We know and are proud of them."


Sorry for the rant.

[Edited to add] And why should our patches be subdued? Who says??? The Army did not "subdue" any patch until the Vietnam Conflict! Until then, the Army and the Air Force wore bright colored patches to the field. In all colors! Reds, whites, blues, gold... I do not have any of my Army uniform books out, they are all in storage. If anyone wants to read these books, I will look for the titles.

Flyer

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: lordmonar on June 04, 2013, 01:19:14 AM
Well good thing....times change....I think we would stupid in those puffed out trousers, campaign hats and gaiters they used to wear in WWI.

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: AngelWings on June 04, 2013, 01:24:03 AM
Well good thing....times change....I think we would stupid in those puffed out trousers, campaign hats and gaiters they used to wear in WWI.
That's why we should go with the Civil War uniforms! They're blue, they're grey, they make us look like we're so tough we have to buckle our hats on!
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on June 04, 2013, 02:37:26 AM
Lord and Angel, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So Wise Ones, then tell me. Why do we roll our BDU sleeves up? So that we are cooled?

And why we do not see a World War II soldier with sleeves rolled up? Because that uniform was baggy creating a layer of air that protected soldiers from the heat so there was no need to roll their sleeves off.

Field uniforms are supposed to be functional and practical.

Functional and practical.

Functional and practical.

Baggy makes them functional in the field. Pockets make them practical. So why not use all pockets?

What I am getting at is that some of you posting here forgets the needs when discussing those uniforms. Read what NorCal posts. "WWII patches were cartoonish." They still  were functional and practical.

Numbered units? Two crossed bayonets in the shape of an X? If you understand math, the X is ten in Latin numerals. And a bayonet is an Infantry weapon. Oh, Tenth Infantry Division! Or four rays going up to a wing? Maybe "cartoonish," but still someone could make a connection to the Fourth Air Force...

Now I read that "CAP patches should be subdued." Why? Are we to come under fire? Who is going to be firing at us?!!

And no, I am not stating the military should go back and wear those uniforms of long ago. Lord, you missed one of the things the Army wore in WWI. Those soldiers never wore gaiters. Although gaiters were part of  the prescribed uniform, the soldiers were issued puttees to take to Europe. Different item. The puttees were rolled on/off like a bandage. The gaiters were laced! The US Army wore gaiters in WW II. And ditched the Campaign hats this war...

I have been wearing those gaiters since 2005 at least ten weekends of the year as I portray the US Army soldier of the 1940-1943 years as a National Park volunteer. I know what a pain in the behind they are...

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on June 04, 2013, 02:50:20 AM
The 500 lb elephant in the room (literally and figuratively), is that by far, the vast majority of CAP "field uniforms" are never, ever, worn
in the field, so discussions that have any focus on those types of issues are meaningless in a CAP context.

And even for those members involved in ES, only a very small number ever actually get into any dirt or field situation that would remotely actually
require a "field uniform".  Camping and bivouacs within site of a Walmart don't count.  The kind of stuff they are presumably doing in OK, maybe.

Tac pants and a golf shirt with a decent jacket and boots are all the majority of missions require.

Anything else is an affectation of the paramilitary nature of CAP.   I'm not saying that's all bad, but that's what it is.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: lordmonar on June 04, 2013, 06:09:12 AM
Lord and Angel, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. So Wise Ones, then tell me. Why do we roll our BDU sleeves up? So that we are cooled?

And why we do not see a World War II soldier with sleeves rolled up? Because that uniform was baggy creating a layer of air that protected soldiers from the heat so there was no need to roll their sleeves off.

Because times changed....back in the 40's one did not "roll up their sleeves" like we do today.....There are plenty of photos of GI with their shirts off thought....a lot more then we see today.

Quote
Field uniforms are supposed to be functional and practical.

Functional and practical.

Functional and practical.

Baggy makes them functional in the field. Pockets make them practical. So why not use all pockets?

Who said you can't use them....I never have...I've never been told you can't use them.

Quote
What I am getting at is that some of you posting here forgets the needs when discussing those uniforms. Read what NorCal posts. "WWII patches were cartoonish." They still  were functional and practical.

Numbered units? Two crossed bayonets in the shape of an X? If you understand math, the X is ten in Latin numerals. And a bayonet is an Infantry weapon. Oh, Tenth Infantry Division! Or four rays going up to a wing? Maybe "cartoonish," but still someone could make a connection to the Fourth Air Force...

Now I read that "CAP patches should be subdued." Why? Are we to come under fire? Who is going to be firing at us?!!

Because you forget the other use of uniforms.....unit identity....and with that goes the "fashion sense" of the age.   If we chose our field uniform for simply function and practical.....we would all be wearing hunter orange shirt and pants.   But we don't that is the "right look" for us as the auxiliary of the CAP.  So we want BDU's and full color stuff looks like Butt on camo.

Quote
And no, I am not stating the military should go back and wear those uniforms of long ago. Lord, you missed one of the things the Army wore in WWI. Those soldiers never wore gaiters. Although gaiters were part of  the prescribed uniform, the soldiers were issued puttees to take to Europe. Different item. The puttees were rolled on/off like a bandage. The gaiters were laced! The US Army wore gaiters in WW II. And ditched the Campaign hats this war...
  I stand corrected......and?

Quote
I have been wearing those gaiters since 2005 at least ten weekends of the year as I portray the US Army soldier of the 1940-1943 years as a National Park volunteer. I know what a pain in the behind they are...

Flyer
And?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: AngelWings on June 04, 2013, 07:36:15 AM
I've rolled my sleeves up for various reason:
Comfort
Uniformity
Following squadron uniform supplement
Avoiding getting grease, oil, stain, etc. on my sleeves
Aesthetics (presenting a neat appearance in public during the summer)

The Army and USMC do not roll up their sleeves anymore. The USAF and Navy roll up their sleeves still, but I've seen less and less of both services doing so. Look through photos of Afghanistan and Iraq, you can see that there are a lot less rolled sleeves versus rolled sleeves. A trend observed by all services. So moot point if you're talking about the general users of the uniforms. Also, their sleeves appear pretty baggy. I know mine are on both my BDU's and ACU's.

As for CAP, we roll our sleeves because we can. If we were told we couldn't than we wouldn't. I like short sleeves versus long sleeves, just a personal preference. I don't do it to stay cool. I was trained to keep my sleeves down so I conserve water and don't get too much sun exposure in the heat.

Nothing better than feeling breeze or air conditioning on your skin after a long day of work  :)

I think subdued patches would be better because why are we going to wear a tactical uniform (BDU or BlueDU) with full color patches, which just are not complementing to the colors of either uniform? We're a paramilitary style organization, we should look professional and at least matching.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Duke Dillio on June 04, 2013, 01:12:31 PM
In the Army BITD, you didn't roll your sleeves unless you were in garrison and that was the uniform of the day.  Most times, we kept our sleeves down.  In the field, your sleeves were down all the time.  This was to prevent the aforementioned sunburn, keep bugs off, keep you "camoed", and actually it made you feel cooler to keep the wrist buttons loose and let the air draft up around your arms.

As for the subdued patches, REALLY???

I would bet that one of the main reasons we don't wear subdued patches with the BDU's is so that we don't look like SWAT team members.  As an organization, we are trying to avoid looking hostile.  You start freaking out grandmothers when you march down the street in a "combat uniform," thus the name Battle Dress Uniform...  The only patch I have ever had issue with was the stupid dog ES patch.  I understand keeping tradition, staying with our roots, and all of that other jazz but it just looks Goofy..  (pun intended)...  Not to mention, when you show up to work with professional rescuers, police, fire, etc. it just makes you look less professional.  I am all for the CA wing GT uniform (orange top with blue pants) as that is what most search and rescue teams around here wear.  It is functional and practical.  People have their opinions though that they seem to think that this uniform isn't practical, not to mention not really official in most CAP wings.  At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what you look like but rather whether you can do the job and do it right.  I've seen military, police, firefighters, and all other type of uniformed people who look like scuzbags.  The ones who look like scuzbags but do their job correctly and quickly get more respect from me than the ones wearing brand spanking new uniforms but couldn't do their job with 12 people helping them...
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on June 04, 2013, 01:13:46 PM
Quote

Who said you can't use them....I never have...I've never been told you can't use them.


Maybe you do not... but I have seen at least 25 postings in here that we should not use the lower pockets of the BDU and field jacket.

I know that "times change." But your responses to my messages are summarized this way: "Times change... let's change for change's sake."

Again, there is no need to have subdued patches just because the military uses subdued patches.

You said the uniform can be used "to establish identity." Right, if that is the case, then why add that "patches should be subdued." Whose identity you really want to keep, attain? The USAF? The Army? Or is it that of CAP???

We achieve our own identity with the colored patches, the ultramarine blue tags on the BDU. We retain the connection to the military by wearing the BDU, the OG fatigues, the Blues, or in the future if it comes to that the ABU or ACU.

Too many in the public side have told me "you military guys" or similar words. Even when standing next to what is obviously a 12 or 13 year old wearing the same patches and uniform I am. We do not need any more items that cloud our identity. I am not sayin we should not be connected or identified with the military, just that we have more than enough connections to the military.

Your answer that "regs state we can roll up our sleeves" is a cop-out. They would not have been included there if the uniform would have been a little bigger.

I posted those corrections in the WW I message to show you that you were so ridiculous or silly in posting that tone of "We should wear the WWI uniform."

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on June 04, 2013, 02:46:14 PM
I've seen the pics of the proposed ABU configuration (well, nametags, wing patches, grade, at least. No NCSA or unit patches were on the pics that I saw, and I haven't seen the written proposal that is currently with the Air Staff to know what it says about other patches, sleeve configs, etc) and honestly, it doesn't look too bad.

The teeth-gnashing I am hearing is substantially the same issues as circa 1990-1991 when the transition to BDUs was announced and enacted.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Nuke52 on June 04, 2013, 08:50:00 PM
I'm familiar with the proposal for us to switch to ABUs and I read somewhere that the Air Staff has approved ABUs for CAP, effective 1 Jul 2013!  So hurry and go buy yours while supplies last!

Okay, not really, but now the next poster really can say that he "read somewhere" that ABUs are on their way!   >:D

Seriously, don't we have better things to worry about?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Peeka on June 04, 2013, 09:26:52 PM
Okay, not really, but now the next poster really can say that he "read somewhere" that ABUs are on their way!   >:D
You mean poser, right?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on June 04, 2013, 10:27:46 PM
Okay, not really, but now the next poster really can say that he "read somewhere" that ABUs are on their way!   >:D

Don't make me post the pictures! :)

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on June 04, 2013, 10:55:33 PM
Okay, not really, but now the next poster really can say that he "read somewhere" that ABUs are on their way!   >:D

Don't make me post the pictures! :)

Tease.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Maj Daniel Sauerwein on June 05, 2013, 04:47:45 AM
Well good thing....times change....I think we would stupid in those puffed out trousers, campaign hats and gaiters they used to wear in WWI.
That's why we should go with the Civil War uniforms! They're blue, they're grey, they make us look like we're so tough we have to buckle our hats on!

Wow, now I have images of our people slogging through the field with wool uniforms and brogans on a ground search :D. Sounds like a partial reenactment weekend to me, though the amount of heat injury would be a concern. Now we just have the ration of salt pork and hard tack and plenty of coffee and we'll be good.

(http://civilwarhistory.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/dscn1163.jpg?w=542)
Having fun at Fort Abercrombie, DT (near present-day Abercrombie, ND) on Flag Day 2011.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Private Investigator on June 05, 2013, 09:46:36 AM
... campaign hats ...

I did the paperwork and wrote the policy for campaign hats for the police department I retired from. I think that would be a nice addition to 39-1.   8)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Private Investigator on June 05, 2013, 09:48:53 AM
Flyer

Thank you sir, very interesting reading   :clap:
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on June 05, 2013, 01:20:34 PM
Er, no.

No Campaign Hats for Civil Air Patrol personnel. They are higher-maintenance items than the Service Cap.

The original ones, those made of felt, in the field, if they get wet, they wilt.

You need a Campaign Hat press to keep it nice looking.

You need to protect them from sunlight or they fade and change color.

All these issues were the reasons the US Army decided not to issue them when the decision to expand the Army was made in 1940.

And I have experienced some of those.

As I mentioned in another message, I am a volunteer portraying the US Army soldier in US Parks. I have owned one of those since 2008 or so. I keep it in the conditions it was supposed to be used. Not like DI's of now  who take more care of them.

My Field Hat stays in the back of my car.

The brim is disheveled, no press.

It has faded from the Olive Drab, near brown that it came in to a dark green.

And I have seen a wide discrepancy of crown shapes. Those that have gotten wet, the crown looks like a rocket, that pointy.

Probably no problem with some of the newer materials, but you will see a lot of comments comparing it to the beret's maintenance problem...

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Nuke52 on June 05, 2013, 09:57:38 PM
Okay, not really, but now the next poster really can say that he "read somewhere" that ABUs are on their way!   >:D

Don't make me post the pictures! :)

Go ahead--I dare you!   That would teach me.  :D 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: MisterCD on June 06, 2013, 01:21:56 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-panel-approves-measure-to-cut-excess-camouflage-patterns/2013/06/05/9c528576-ce12-11e2-ac03-178510c9cc0a_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-panel-approves-measure-to-cut-excess-camouflage-patterns/2013/06/05/9c528576-ce12-11e2-ac03-178510c9cc0a_story.html)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: 68w20 on June 06, 2013, 03:40:05 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-panel-approves-measure-to-cut-excess-camouflage-patterns/2013/06/05/9c528576-ce12-11e2-ac03-178510c9cc0a_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-panel-approves-measure-to-cut-excess-camouflage-patterns/2013/06/05/9c528576-ce12-11e2-ac03-178510c9cc0a_story.html)

It mentions 10 patterns currently in use, but I count only 8.  Woodland BDU, UCP, Desert and Woodland MARPAT, Multicam, Green and Blue NWU, and ABU.  Are they counting DCU and a Desert NWU variant of which I'm unaware?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: lordmonar on June 06, 2013, 04:37:17 PM
MARPAT and MultiCAMs come in two flavors each.....so there is your 10.

Other then that....this is really a non-issue....and fill fail the floor vote.

The reasoning is "because of fiscal constraints".........but we have already spent the money on the uniforms......it is the start up costs that are so expensive.......so going to a new single camo-pattern uniform is going to cost more money then staying with the status quo.

What they should say......."No changes to the current uniform.....unless it is a coordinated change to a single combat/utility uniform".  In other words....keep what you got now....but in 10 years or so when you are ready change uniforms you must go to  a single camo.

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Sapper168 on June 06, 2013, 04:38:11 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-panel-approves-measure-to-cut-excess-camouflage-patterns/2013/06/05/9c528576-ce12-11e2-ac03-178510c9cc0a_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-panel-approves-measure-to-cut-excess-camouflage-patterns/2013/06/05/9c528576-ce12-11e2-ac03-178510c9cc0a_story.html)

It mentions 10 patterns currently in use, but I count only 8.  Woodland BDU, UCP, Desert and Woodland MARPAT, Multicam, Green and Blue NWU, and ABU.  Are they counting DCU and a Desert NWU variant of which I'm unaware?

The Marines also use a Disruptive Overwhite Snow digital camouflage -  http://www.hyperstealth.com/USMC-Snow-Camouflage/index.html (http://www.hyperstealth.com/USMC-Snow-Camouflage/index.html)

And the National Counterterrorism Center uses Tactical Assault Camouflage aka TacCam.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_Assault_Camouflage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_Assault_Camouflage)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Storm Chaser on June 06, 2013, 05:33:47 PM
I'm not particularly happy that after millions of dollars spent, the military may be getting yet another combat uniform. That being said, I do support one uniform/camouflage pattern for all the services. I never understood this need for each service to spend millions to have their own, especially in this day and age of joint operations and inter-service cooperation. One military, one combat uniform; that's the way to go. Different camouflage patters should only be implemented for specific combat needs.

Of course, once this uniform is approved, we'll probably be getting the "soon to be old" ABUs and will be exactly where we are right now regarding a utility uniform. If all the services end up with the same combat uniform with distinctive insignias, then we should as well. But historically that hasn't been the case.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NorCal21 on June 07, 2013, 05:05:35 PM
The 500 lb elephant in the room (literally and figuratively), is that by far, the vast majority of CAP "field uniforms" are never, ever, worn
in the field, so discussions that have any focus on those types of issues are meaningless in a CAP context.

I absolutely agree. Giving a tactical reason for any of our uniforms is pointless for the vast majority of CAP situations. Very little field work is ever done in CAP. I'd venture a bet that there's more actual field work in two weeks at NESA (I've attended) than the rest of CAP in an entire year.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NorCal21 on June 07, 2013, 05:11:55 PM

As for the subdued patches, REALLY???


I know you're replying to someone else, but as for me I never said subdued. In the very unlikely case that we wore ABUs or MultiCams in the future than I'd expect the old style subdued BDU patches as they would still stand out pretty well on those uniforms without looking like boy scouts.

I just think that we should have more professional designs on the patches. Full color is fine with me. Like you said... no stupid dog patches. They have their place in the heraldry, but come on now. Do you see child-like patches for any of the military branches? Or other auxiliaries? Or an SDF? No. Heck, even most Boy Scout patches look less childish.

I have seen a move towards more professional appearing patches though. Look at all the wings going to the standard AF wing-design patch. Not only is it uniform, but its also a professional image.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NorCal21 on June 07, 2013, 05:17:54 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-panel-approves-measure-to-cut-excess-camouflage-patterns/2013/06/05/9c528576-ce12-11e2-ac03-178510c9cc0a_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-panel-approves-measure-to-cut-excess-camouflage-patterns/2013/06/05/9c528576-ce12-11e2-ac03-178510c9cc0a_story.html)


Well the Democrat Congressman is partially wrong about the services using the same patterns before 2002.

The woodland was pretty much the same save for winter or summer weight.

The desert camo was either the standard you saw with the Marines for instance versus the chocolate chip desert that the Army wore.

The Coast Guard used/uses both the woodland and desert for their PSU uniforms in the field. They also use the ODU.

So, even prior to all of these uniforms today we had at least four. I see the Marines and Army as being reasonable; although, I think that the Army's ACU is a little ridiculous for combat operations. A grew uniform with brown boots? The Navy doesn't need their blue cami's, and why the AF doesn't use the ACU I don't get. None of the AF combat ops were the ABU anyway. They're all wearing Multicams for the most part while in the field.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NorCal21 on June 07, 2013, 05:19:07 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-panel-approves-measure-to-cut-excess-camouflage-patterns/2013/06/05/9c528576-ce12-11e2-ac03-178510c9cc0a_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-panel-approves-measure-to-cut-excess-camouflage-patterns/2013/06/05/9c528576-ce12-11e2-ac03-178510c9cc0a_story.html)

It mentions 10 patterns currently in use, but I count only 8.  Woodland BDU, UCP, Desert and Woodland MARPAT, Multicam, Green and Blue NWU, and ABU.  Are they counting DCU and a Desert NWU variant of which I'm unaware?

The Coast Guard uses the old woodland and desert cammi's along with an ODU.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: MIKE on June 07, 2013, 05:41:58 PM
^

(http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/files/2013/05/450x300_q75.jpg)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Patterson on June 07, 2013, 07:41:50 PM
Why does the Coast Guard need anything camoflauge?  Anyway, during the past decade, the Air Force actually wore the ACUs before the adoption of the ABU when deploying.  Why did they need to create the ABU? The previous and current Service Chiefs along with the Secretaries of each Service are directly responsible for the enormous DoD costs.  Uniforms are one piece of the oversight and accountability problem in which the military has been allowed to operate without real consequences for so long.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on June 07, 2013, 07:51:10 PM
Why does the Coast Guard need anything camoflauge? 

For that matter, why does the Navy?  (Though they don't wear the NWU aboard ship AFAIK).
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on June 07, 2013, 07:57:57 PM
The Navy doesn't need their blue cami's, ...

Have you ever talked to the sailors who wear them? Were you in the Navy back when they wore dungarees, and their various replacements?

I can say yes to both. The NWU is a mostly superior uniform. The folks I talk to about it like it. It's easier to maintain, it is more functional in several areas, and it provides a more uniform appearance for a longer period of time. My only personal objection is the no-tuck shirt, but I'd wear it in a heartbeat otherwise.

And for Eclipse, it is worn aboard ship in many areas. Coveralls, or flight deck gear, are worn otherwise. It is the working uniform. What else are they going to wear?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NorCal21 on June 07, 2013, 08:19:22 PM
Why does the Coast Guard need anything camoflauge?  Anyway, during the past decade, the Air Force actually wore the ACUs before the adoption of the ABU when deploying.  Why did they need to create the ABU? The previous and current Service Chiefs along with the Secretaries of each Service are directly responsible for the enormous DoD costs.  Uniforms are one piece of the oversight and accountability problem in which the military has been allowed to operate without real consequences for so long.


I'm reading your question as an honest one rather than one making fun of the USCG. ;-p

Coast Guard Port Security Units are deployable USCG special forces. Here's a short bit of information on them. I work with them at CG AIRSTA Clearwater. They are pretty hard core.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Security_Unit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Security_Unit)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on June 07, 2013, 08:29:35 PM
The Navy doesn't need their blue cami's, ...

Have you ever talked to the sailors who wear them?
Yes.  Most like them, generally, and are concerned about falling overboard wearing camouflage.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NorCal21 on June 07, 2013, 08:32:20 PM
The Navy doesn't need their blue cami's, ...

Have you ever talked to the sailors who wear them?
Yes.  Most like them, generally, and are concerned about falling overboard wearing camouflage.

True. You go overboard wearing those and they'll never see you. Blue water with white chop? Haha.. .good luck.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on June 07, 2013, 09:00:17 PM
Ever try to spot someone in the water who is wearing dungarees? It's really not much different.

As for going overboard in the first place, it is not a common thing, and those in danger of doing so in their normal course of duties are usually wearing flotation gear, anyway.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on June 07, 2013, 09:16:14 PM
Ever try to spot someone in the water who is wearing dungarees? It's really not much different.

As for going overboard in the first place, it is not a common thing, and those in danger of doing so in their normal course of duties are usually wearing flotation gear, anyway.

I wouldn't necessarily argue either, although saying "the other was bad too", isn't much of an argument.

The point being that the Navy has zero need for a camouflage uniform, and if they do, it should probably have been shades of gray, not blue, and for those
in a ground combat area, MARPAT like their Marine brothers and sisters.

There's reams of data and information about how and why a given pattern was chosen, and none of the reasons, except for the Marines, seem
purely based on function over form.

If science fiction has taught us nothing else, it is that soon we will all be wearing 1-piece jumpsuits in a shiny metallic color (or white), while the military
will primarily be dressed in battle suits over shorts and t-shirts.  So we might as well just accept that and make the necessary adjustments.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Storm Chaser on June 07, 2013, 09:31:45 PM
If science fiction has taught us nothing else, it is that soon we will all be wearing 1-piece jumpsuits in a shiny metallic color (or white), while the military
will primarily be dressed in battle suits over shorts and t-shirts.  So we might as well just accept that and make the necessary adjustments.
just accept that


Words of wisdom.  :)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: ol'fido on June 08, 2013, 01:00:00 AM
Ever try to spot someone in the water who is wearing dungarees? It's really not much different.

As for going overboard in the first place, it is not a common thing, and those in danger of doing so in their normal course of duties are usually wearing flotation gear, anyway.

I wouldn't necessarily argue either, although saying "the other was bad too", isn't much of an argument.

The point being that the Navy has zero need for a camouflage uniform, and if they do, it should probably have been shades of gray, not blue, and for those
in a ground combat area, MARPAT like their Marine brothers and sisters.

There's reams of data and information about how and why a given pattern was chosen, and none of the reasons, except for the Marines, seem
purely based on function over form.

If science fiction has taught us nothing else, it is that soon we will all be wearing 1-piece jumpsuits in a shiny metallic color (or white), while the military
will primarily be dressed in battle suits over shorts and t-shirts.  So we might as well just accept that and make the necessary adjustments.

IDK, Bob, after seeing the latest Star Trek movie, I think the future has as many uniform issues as we do. Gray, red, colored shirts. Who knew that Starfleet will wear bus driver hats? OTOH, Admiral Marcus' uniform might be considered for a new version of the CSU for us heavy and hairys. It goes with the grays/white. >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: ColonelJack on June 08, 2013, 11:04:37 AM
IDK, Bob, after seeing the latest Star Trek movie, I think the future has as many uniform issues as we do. Gray, red, colored shirts. Who knew that Starfleet will wear bus driver hats? OTOH, Admiral Marcus' uniform might be considered for a new version of the CSU for us heavy and hairys. It goes with the grays/white. >:D

Starfleet suddenly has more uniforms than all of our services put together ...

What I can't figure out is, when do these people have time to change clothes between so many action-filled adventures?  I understand "suspension of disbelief" - heck, I use it in my own work - but when do they find the time?

That being said, Admiral Marcus' uniform wasn't exactly regulation, was it?  (I'm talking about the one he wore on the Vengeance, not at Starfleet HQ.)  Those worn by admirals like Pike at Starfleet HQ sure did look like Admiral Kirk's uniform in ST-TMP.....

Jack
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on June 08, 2013, 12:12:49 PM
Thats why starships are so big in the future: gotta haul around all those uniforms.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on June 08, 2013, 12:55:07 PM
And space for personnel to change...

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: ol'fido on June 08, 2013, 01:25:02 PM
Apparently, there are a lot of people, er, beings, using Kirk's bedroom to get dressed if you saw the movie, hint, hint, nudge, nudge. >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: ARandomCadet on June 08, 2013, 08:01:15 PM

3. The USAF and US Navy still wear Woodland Camo.


Both are in phase out. The USAF replaced them with the ABU and the USN and USCG with the NWU. We will be one of the few who still wears them. (I think some SDF's still wear them?) I pray we just go back to OD Green. Wishfull thinking on my part I know, but its my dream so  :P
Actually the USCG isn't considering the NWUs and the desert camp is similar to the DCUs but are different, they are keeping the ODUs.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: AngelWings on June 09, 2013, 02:47:24 AM

3. The USAF and US Navy still wear Woodland Camo.


Both are in phase out. The USAF replaced them with the ABU and the USN and USCG with the NWU. We will be one of the few who still wears them. (I think some SDF's still wear them?) I pray we just go back to OD Green. Wishfull thinking on my part I know, but its my dream so  :P
Actually the USCG isn't considering the NWUs and the desert camp is similar to the DCUs but are different, they are keeping the ODUs.
That post was dead for almost 2 years...
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on June 13, 2013, 06:20:09 PM
Marine Corps Times on the House Bill: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130610/NEWS07/306100018/Lawmakers-make-new-push-single-combat-uniform (http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130610/NEWS07/306100018/Lawmakers-make-new-push-single-combat-uniform)
(probably a syndication of the other "times" sources)

Quote
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a lawyer in the Air Force Reserve, said the idea makes sense.

“I’m now in favor of having some common standards,” said Graham, who has had brief combat-zone assignments.
“As much as I love the Air Force, I’ve grown to understand we have too many designs. I have four different sets at home because
I try to make sure I deploy with the uniform everyone else will be wearing. It seems excessive.”

And technically the ABU is officially retired

Quote
  http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123351280 (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123351280)
Exchange to transition to rip-stop airman battle uniform
Posted 6/5/2013       

"6/5/2013 - DALLAS (AFNS) -- As the Air Force transitions from the airman battle uniform, or ABU, to the rip-stop airman battle uniform, the Army & Air Force Exchange Service
will no longer be able to order the ABU once the Defense Logistics Agency's stock is depleted.

"While the ABUs will still be authorized for wear, they will not be carried in Exchange Military Clothing Stores as the RABU will completely replace the older, heavier ABU,"
said Chief Master Sgt. Tony Pearson, the Exchange's senior enlisted advisor.  The RABU is a lighter, nylon/cotton blend that has been available for Airmen at
Military Clothing Stores since June 2012. The RABU is also cooler than the ABU and features a wrinkle-resistant finish."

So, regardless of >what< camo pattern the USAF or CAP eventually falls on or into, I was correct that CAP will >never< wear the ABU, since that uniform has already been officially retired.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: A.Member on June 13, 2013, 07:06:46 PM
And technically the ABU is officially retired

Quote
  http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123351280 (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123351280)
Exchange to transition to rip-stop airman battle uniform
Posted 6/5/2013       

"6/5/2013 - DALLAS (AFNS) -- As the Air Force transitions from the airman battle uniform, or ABU, to the rip-stop airman battle uniform, the Army & Air Force Exchange Service
will no longer be able to order the ABU once the Defense Logistics Agency's stock is depleted.

"While the ABUs will still be authorized for wear, they will not be carried in Exchange Military Clothing Stores as the RABU will completely replace the older, heavier ABU,"
said Chief Master Sgt. Tony Pearson, the Exchange's senior enlisted advisor.  The RABU is a lighter, nylon/cotton blend that has been available for Airmen at
Military Clothing Stores since June 2012. The RABU is also cooler than the ABU and features a wrinkle-resistant finish."

So, regardless of >what< camo pattern the USAF or CAP eventually falls on or into, I was correct that CAP will >never< wear the ABU, since that uniform has already been officially retired.
That's a level of semantics that most who participate in these discussions don't/won't care about.  The only difference betwen the ABU and RABU is the lighter weight material used for construction.  Everything else is exactly the same.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on June 13, 2013, 07:24:00 PM
And technically the ABU is officially retired

Quote
  http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123351280 (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123351280)
Exchange to transition to rip-stop airman battle uniform
Posted 6/5/2013       

"6/5/2013 - DALLAS (AFNS) -- As the Air Force transitions from the airman battle uniform, or ABU, to the rip-stop airman battle uniform, the Army & Air Force Exchange Service
will no longer be able to order the ABU once the Defense Logistics Agency's stock is depleted.

"While the ABUs will still be authorized for wear, they will not be carried in Exchange Military Clothing Stores as the RABU will completely replace the older, heavier ABU,"
said Chief Master Sgt. Tony Pearson, the Exchange's senior enlisted advisor.  The RABU is a lighter, nylon/cotton blend that has been available for Airmen at
Military Clothing Stores since June 2012. The RABU is also cooler than the ABU and features a wrinkle-resistant finish."

So, regardless of >what< camo pattern the USAF or CAP eventually falls on or into, I was correct that CAP will >never< wear the ABU, since that uniform has already been officially retired.
That's a level of semantics that most who participate in these discussions don't/won't care about.  The only difference betwen the ABU and RABU is the lighter weight material used for construction.  Everything else is exactly the same.

Exactly, the ABU whether the original weight or the light weight is still the ABU,  and until 36-2903 is revised it will still be listed and referred to as the ABU.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on June 13, 2013, 07:24:13 PM
So, regardless of >what< camo pattern the USAF or CAP eventually falls on or into, I was correct that CAP will >never< wear the ABU, since that uniform has already been officially retired.

Lost in the acronym soup is the fact that what they're saying is that they're no longer going to carry the "temperate"-weight ("twill") ABU uniform (which was a stupid fabric choice on the part of the AF for a new uniform, since the Army stopped issuing temperate-weight BDUs at some point in the early 1990s, and the ACUs have *always* been a lighter weight fabric than temperate uniforms too) in favor of the "Rip-stop" ABU, an ABU uniform made from the lighter-weight hot weather fabric.  Why they decided to complicate things with the acronym "RABU" is beyond me.

ABUs continue to be the uniform of issue in the AF, but now by default (and when the stocks run low of temperate-weight uniforms, only) they will be rip-stop fabric.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Storm Chaser on June 13, 2013, 08:28:34 PM
So, regardless of >what< camo pattern the USAF or CAP eventually falls on or into, I was correct that CAP will >never< wear the ABU, since that uniform has already been officially retired.

Well, considering that the Air Force phased out BDUs years ago and CAP still wears them, I wouldn't be so sure of that. Besides, other than the material, both ABUs and RABUs are practically identical. What do you think will happen with those used ABUs? Possibly the same thing that happened with many used BDUs; they were given to CAP.

I don't know if CAP will ever get ABUs (frankly I don't care one way or another), but I don't think we can make a blanket statement that "CAP will >never< wear the ABU". We just don't know.

I only own BDUs, but a part of me would prefer that CAP move to the BBDU as the sole utility uniform, at least for senior members. I really hate all these different types of uniform that prevent CAP from having any uniformity at all. And even more so, I hate the constant discussions about CAP and ABUs. Even if we ever get the ABU, the Air Force will probably move to another uniform sometime in the future and we'll spend years asking when CAP will get the "new" uniform.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on June 13, 2013, 08:47:24 PM
I propose that further talk about the ABU, until and if finally approved by the CAP and USAF bigwigs, be declared TABU...

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Critical AOA on June 13, 2013, 09:10:07 PM
I propose that further talk about the ABU, until and if finally approved by the CAP and USAF bigwigs, be declared TABU...

Flyer

Too late.  It has already been called stupid, a dead horse, ridiculous and other things.  But hey, let's add tabu or even taboo for that matter.   >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: brent.teal on June 13, 2013, 09:10:36 PM

For that matter, why does the Navy?  (Though they don't wear the NWU aboard ship AFAIK).

4 letters....SEAL

I'm sure we will eventually switch to something else, at some point the decent supply of BDU's will run out.  That might take a while though. 

I'm probably the only one who thinks that the old maroon epaulets looked better, in the single instance of the class A's.  grey and dark blue just don't seem to mix too well. 

In regard to the last ST movie.  ICK, I really didn't like those dress uniforms.  They really could have gone for the maroon's from ST 2-6 with some slight mods.


Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on June 13, 2013, 09:39:56 PM
4 letters....SEAL

They don't wear the blue, they wear the Type III greenies, that or whatever OEF varient is approved this week.
(And also the invisi-kilt we're not supposed to know about.

But regardless, you don't scale the uniform for an entire service based on your special forces.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: lordmonar on June 13, 2013, 10:58:33 PM
4 letters....SEAL

They don't wear the blue, they wear the Type III greenies, that or whatever OEF varient is approved this week.
(And also the invisi-kilt we're not supposed to know about.

But regardless, you don't scale the uniform for an entire service based on your special forces.
Who will immediately determine it is not "good enough" for them and do what ever the hell they want anyways.  :)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NorCal21 on June 14, 2013, 12:32:50 AM

Quote
"While the ABUs will still be authorized for wear, they will not be carried in Exchange Military Clothing Stores as the RABU will completely replace the older, heavier ABU,"
said Chief Master Sgt. Tony Pearson, the Exchange's senior enlisted advisor.  The RABU is a lighter, nylon/cotton blend that has been available for Airmen at
Military Clothing Stores since June 2012. The RABU is also cooler than the ABU and features a wrinkle-resistant finish."

So, regardless of >what< camo pattern the USAF or CAP eventually falls on or into, I was correct that CAP will >never< wear the ABU, since that uniform has already been officially retired.


Hm, that's interesting. I didn't realize that the AF was going to ripstop but first of all... duh. The ABU was entirely too heavy and hot. Second, to be honest I know the ABU is different than the RABU but for all intents and purposes it is the same uniform. I think the average person doesn't distinguish between warm weather ABU, standard ABU and ripstop ABU. Most people base it on color and pattern. My opinion anyway.

I guess with all the money the AF has they can keep changing their uni's.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NorCal21 on June 14, 2013, 12:35:09 AM
I'm probably the only one who thinks that the old maroon epaulets looked better, in the single instance of the class A's.  grey and dark blue just don't seem to mix too well.


No offense, but yeah... you're the only one. Maroon epaulets looked extremely stupid, had no heraldry associated with them like the grey does for the AF, and it made CAP look like the Boy Scouts or the Salvation Army.

To be completely honest, you're the first person I've ever heard say this.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: ol'fido on June 14, 2013, 12:45:21 AM
I propose that further talk about the ABU, until and if finally approved by the CAP and USAF bigwigs, be declared TABU...

Flyer
I don't know about TABU, but this thread went FUBAR a long time ago.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on June 14, 2013, 08:52:04 AM
I'm probably the only one who thinks that the old maroon epaulets looked better, in the single instance of the class A's.  grey and dark blue just don't seem to mix too well.


No offense, but yeah... you're the only one. Maroon epaulets looked extremely stupid, had no heraldry associated with them like the grey does for the AF, and it made CAP look like the Boy Scouts or the Salvation Army.

To be completely honest, you're the first person I've ever heard say this.

Actually, there is some heraldry involved, since early WWII CAP uniforms had red epaulets. Not exactly the same color as the maroon, butt are still both shades of red.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: MHC5096 on June 14, 2013, 02:31:21 PM
The epaulets on the service coat weren't designed for wearing the epaulet sleeves/shoulder marks/soft shoulder boards or whatever you want to call them. Regardless of color, they look ridiculous on the coat. That said, I too thought the maroon ones looked better for the short period of time we had them.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Storm Chaser on June 14, 2013, 04:21:11 PM
I didn't like the maroon epaulets. I was disappointed when the switched from blue and a bit relieved when they introduced the gray. The only thing I hate about the gray slides is wearing them with the service coat. I wish we had a better option.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NorCal21 on June 14, 2013, 05:07:42 PM

Actually, there is some heraldry involved, since early WWII CAP uniforms had red epaulets. Not exactly the same color as the maroon, butt are still both shades of red.

Well when I made that comment I was thinking AF in my head which I didn't type out.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NorCal21 on June 14, 2013, 05:09:55 PM
The epaulets on the service coat weren't designed for wearing the epaulet sleeves/shoulder marks/soft shoulder boards or whatever you want to call them. Regardless of color, they look ridiculous on the coat. That said, I too thought the maroon ones looked better for the short period of time we had them.

OK, well I've now seen two people in my lifetime who liked the maroon. Never say never I guess. I just saw the contrast as too great and reminded me of either old Soviet uniforms (not the image we want to portray) or some banana republic.

I absolutely agree with you about the service coat and the epaulets.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NorCal21 on June 14, 2013, 05:18:57 PM
I didn't like the maroon epaulets. I was disappointed when the switched from blue and a bit relieved when they introduced the gray. The only thing I hate about the gray slides is wearing them with the service coat. I wish we had a better option.

Another person I agree with. I think the slides look stupid on the coat.

Personally, I wish I could have com in enlisted. CAP regs state that I can join CAP as an enlisted person if I were an NCO in the service. Upon applying, and having everyone up through Wing say yes, National says no. Why? Because I was an E-4. An E-4 in the AF isn't an NCO. I replied back to them, with my letter being co-signed by my squadron, group and wing commanders that CAP regs don't require that the NCO be AF equivalent. It simply says NCO.

I wanted that because I earned my rank. While I've earned each officer rank in CAP through CAP requirements, its not quite the same to me. Plus, the benefit would have been (tying it back to this conversation) that I'd sew on the stripes and not have to worry about EVER changing them! Save me lots of money!
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: shuman14 on June 14, 2013, 07:20:50 PM
The epaulets on the service coat weren't designed for wearing the epaulet sleeves/shoulder marks/soft shoulder boards or whatever you want to call them. Regardless of color, they look ridiculous on the coat. That said, I too thought the maroon ones looked better for the short period of time we had them.

Well Sir as the newbie here and as the outsider looking in I agree that the grey epaulets do look a little off and I can see how some CAP members might be put off by them and how it could feel like a "mass punishment" for an offense committed over twenty years ago.

When I was in HS I can vaguely remember CAP Officers wearing the letters "CAP" in place of the letters "US" on the tunic lapels and a different nametag, but otherwise they looked exactly like an USAF Officer.

There is Good, and Bad, in that.

One Team - one Fight, with a common uniform and a common look is the good thing.

Being confused for an USAF Officer is the bad.

Both are subject to abuse by unprofessional CAP members trolling for salutes.

Maybe you could take an example from the USCGAux on their office insignia.

I know the silver vs gold USCG style shoulder boards might not work for CAP but all USCGAux pin-on and sew-on insignia (i.e. rank) all have a superimposed letter "A" for Auxiliary on them. So maybe a solution would be to create rank insignia with a superimposed "CAP" on them? Using red (or maroon) as the letter color will make them stand out on the silver or gold rank device.

Another solution might be to create a colored felt or plastic backer to your rank insignia like the light blue discs used by US Army Infantry personnel. This would create a colored border around your rank which make it clearly different at a glance but not look as "off" as the current grey epaulets. Again a red border (or maroon) around your rank on the blue coat/jacket/tunic epaulets would actually look very good.

Plus with modern embroidery, making epaulet slides for your shirts with either superimposed red "CAP" letters or a red rank borders (or both) on a blue slide would not be hard.

Again just a suggestion from someone outside your organization who thinks you do great work and wants you to look good while doing it.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: brent.teal on June 14, 2013, 07:53:28 PM
I suppose we need a new thread.  I'll start one.

Here http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17543.msg315608#msg315608 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17543.msg315608#msg315608)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: shuman14 on June 14, 2013, 08:25:02 PM
OK, moving my post above there.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Peterbiltprison on June 22, 2013, 01:58:09 AM
If you want new go with the Marine Corps woodland modern, Also why doesn't CAP switch to OD and black name tapes and everything else it seems like we are trying to copy what the air force use to use during Vietnam.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Levi Lockling on June 22, 2013, 05:22:44 AM
Every time someone comments on this thread,  a kitten dies.

Now, we don't want the internet to run out of fuel, now do we?  ::)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: ol'fido on June 22, 2013, 08:17:14 PM
Every time someone comments on this thread,  a kitten dies.

Now, we don't want the internet to run out of fuel, now do we?  ::)
Somebody tell Al Gore to invent harder.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on June 22, 2013, 10:42:35 PM
Every time someone comments on this thread,  a kitten dies.

Now, we don't want the internet to run out of fuel, now do we?  ::)
Somebody tell Al Gore to invent harder.
Every time someone listens to Justin Bieber, we get further away from ABUs.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: ol'fido on June 23, 2013, 01:51:08 AM
Every time someone comments on this thread,  a kitten dies.

Now, we don't want the internet to run out of fuel, now do we?  ::)
Somebody tell Al Gore to invent harder.
Every time someone listens to Justin Bieber, we get further away from ABUs.
I don't listen to her either.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NorCal21 on June 23, 2013, 05:56:54 AM
On topic but changing it...

A great movie to watch to see the old fatigues in action is Super 8. Good movie, and you really get to see the old uniforms. I actually kind of like them.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on June 23, 2013, 07:42:24 AM
Could have been a CAP unit from the 80s!
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Equinox on June 24, 2013, 12:51:43 AM
On topic but changing it...

A great movie to watch to see the old fatigues in action is Super 8. Good movie, and you really get to see the old uniforms. I actually kind of like them.

The Colonel in that movie wasn't wearing his collar insignia correctly. Just saying...
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Equinox on June 24, 2013, 12:53:04 AM
Here we go...

(http://aminaalhalawani98.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/20238-29654.jpg)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Cessna Man on August 02, 2013, 08:31:31 PM
I actually like BDUs a whole lot better than ABUs. And also we aren't trying to hide from anybody so why worry about the uniform. :clap:
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: AngelWings on August 02, 2013, 09:30:07 PM
I got a call from Ronald Regan. He says he wants his cold war era uniforms back.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Hawk200 on August 03, 2013, 03:49:55 AM
I actually like BDUs a whole lot better than ABUs. And also we aren't trying to hide from anybody so why worry about the uniform. :clap:
Interesting statement considering that the woodland camo pattern is more effective than the ABU pattern.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Archer on August 03, 2013, 03:59:07 AM
If they added "ABU" to the curse filter, could you imagine how terribly out of context this entire thread would look like o an outsider?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: AngelWings on August 03, 2013, 04:18:48 AM
If they added "ABU" to the curse filter, could you imagine how terribly out of context this entire thread would look like o an outsider?
What would we replace it with, though?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: AlphaSigOU on August 03, 2013, 04:41:48 AM
If they added "ABU" to the curse filter, could you imagine how terribly out of context this entire thread would look like o an outsider?
What would we replace it with, though?

That Uniform Which Shall Remain Nameless (TUWSRN)!  ;D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Cessna Man on August 03, 2013, 01:30:06 PM
The woodland pattern is pretty. It is a more interesting pattern than the ABUs
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Danger on August 03, 2013, 08:38:17 PM
It would be a whole lot easier if we all go back to the pickle suits  >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Private Investigator on August 03, 2013, 08:49:10 PM
Quote
... it seems like we are trying to copy what the air force use to use during Vietnam.

Beaucoup dinky dao  ???
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on August 03, 2013, 10:33:36 PM
Quote
... it seems like we are trying to copy what the air force use to use during Vietnam.

Beaucoup dinky dao  ???

Numba 10.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: ol'fido on August 03, 2013, 11:28:15 PM
Quote
... it seems like we are trying to copy what the air force use to use during Vietnam.

Beaucoup dinky dao  ???

Numba 10.
"Agent Orange, all Agent Orange"....
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Private Investigator on August 04, 2013, 02:36:00 PM
Quote
... it seems like we are trying to copy what the air force use to use during Vietnam.

Beaucoup dinky dao  ???

Numba 10.

Somedays numba 1, other days numba 10. Today is numba 4.   8)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on August 04, 2013, 03:08:11 PM
It would be a whole lot easier if we all go back to the pickle suits  >:D

Said by the person who has probably never ever seen a set of OG-507 Fatigues. >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on August 05, 2013, 08:52:15 AM
Still got a "shrunked up" set of them in the retired clothing closet.  8)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: a2capt on August 05, 2013, 04:48:50 PM
How about .. ;-)

(http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/9994/f2s0.jpg)
Surely they wouldn't confuse us .. and we'd definitely be able to be spotted. ;)

Some contractor in Bangladesh would love the additional revenue.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: jeders on August 05, 2013, 05:25:56 PM
My eyes...it burns.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on August 05, 2013, 06:15:34 PM
I know some people here already have ABUs.

The plumed hats and sabres are in the closet.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on August 05, 2013, 06:27:28 PM
Still got a "shrunked up" set of them in the retired clothing closet.  8)

A few more pounds and this will fit comfortably. My dad gave me his old shirt from the 80s.

(http://i.imgur.com/kNJdrBB.jpg)

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on August 05, 2013, 06:53:39 PM
I'm a little disappointed no duckface...
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on August 05, 2013, 07:01:19 PM
I'm a little disappointed no duckface...

That WAS my duckface.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on August 05, 2013, 07:04:18 PM
I'm a little disappointed no duckface...

That WAS my duckface.

"lemme see your duckface!"
(http://076dd0a50e0c1255009e-bd4b8aabaca29897bc751dfaf75b290c.r40.cf1.rackcdn.com/images/files/000/003/740/original/original.jpg)
"It didn't scare me. Work on it."
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: AngelWings on August 05, 2013, 11:40:24 PM
^ :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Private Investigator on August 06, 2013, 05:17:15 AM
Still got a "shrunked up" set of them in the retired clothing closet.  8)

A few more pounds and this will fit comfortably. My dad gave me his old shirt from the 80s.

(http://i.imgur.com/kNJdrBB.jpg)

I hope he has his pants on  :'(
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on August 06, 2013, 05:51:20 AM
Why are you looking down there? >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Brad on August 06, 2013, 06:29:54 AM
I know some people here already have ABUs.

The plumed hats and sabres are in the closet.

Like these?

(http://offthebase.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/n648554746_881546_633.jpg)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on August 06, 2013, 10:32:49 AM
Weaksauce.

More like this:

(http://knoxify.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/IMG_1069-plumed-hats.jpg)

BTW, I think those belts are a player, too.  Mostly cuz they're a reversible PT belt...
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: ol'fido on August 06, 2013, 10:01:55 PM
Here you get the plumed hat and the bling:

http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/images/8706780.jpg (http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/images/8706780.jpg)

Schutzenfest: That's my kind of party! ;)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: shuman14 on August 07, 2013, 02:41:50 AM
Quote
... it seems like we are trying to copy what the air force use to use during Vietnam.

Beaucoup dinky dao  ???

Numba 10.

Hey Gee Eye, buy me drinkie?  ;)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: GroundHawg on August 07, 2013, 02:49:07 AM

3. The USAF and US Navy still wear Woodland Camo.


Both are in phase out. The USAF replaced them with the ABU and the USN and USCG with the NWU. We will be one of the few who still wears them. (I think some SDF's still wear them?) I pray we just go back to OD Green. Wishfull thinking on my part I know, but its my dream so  :P
Actually the USCG isn't considering the NWUs and the desert camp is similar to the DCUs but are different, they are keeping the ODUs.

I didn't say they were ditching the ODUs. The USCG, when deployed wears the green or desert NWU. PSUs wear the NWU, MSST, wear the NWU, RAID teams wear the NWU, any USCG member when imbedded with another service wear the NWU... you get the drift.

And to complete the perfect necro post, I have tied in a bagpipe to go with the kilt/bagpipe thread....
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Brad on August 07, 2013, 04:25:55 AM
Weaksauce.

More like this:

(http://knoxify.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/IMG_1069-plumed-hats.jpg)

BTW, I think those belts are a player, too.  Mostly cuz they're a reversible PT belt...

I'm hoping to become a KT one of these days. Still need to get started on my York Rite stuff though, just a regular blue lodge Master Mason at the moment.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Private Investigator on August 07, 2013, 07:58:31 AM
Why are you looking down there? >:D

Uniform inspection protocol; I noticed something was missing between his gigline and his boots   >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on August 07, 2013, 11:38:50 PM
Just started the Doctor Who episode "A Good Man Goes to War" and discovered something I hadn't noticed the last time I saw the ep. The military people are all wearing ABUs. And they aren't supposed to be Earthlings or anywhere near the 21st century.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: HGjunkie on August 08, 2013, 07:41:29 PM
Just started the Doctor Who episode "A Good Man Goes to War" and discovered something I hadn't noticed the last time I saw the ep. The military people are all wearing ABUs. And they aren't supposed to be Earthlings or anywhere near the 21st century.

It's the BDU of the Future.

Or so they say... That episode struck me as odd with the berets too.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on August 08, 2013, 10:25:46 PM
Just started the Doctor Who episode "A Good Man Goes to War" and discovered something I hadn't noticed the last time I saw the ep. The military people are all wearing ABUs. And they aren't supposed to be Earthlings or anywhere near the 21st century.

It's the BDU of the Future.

Or so they say... That episode struck me as odd with the berets too.

Oh, and the altered AF logo...
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on September 04, 2013, 04:27:44 AM
This was the most recent, unlocked thread on the subject.

The Senate wants one pattern as well.  I'd say the writing is on the wall, and some sources say
the date is 2018.  So now you have both the house and the senate indicating they want a multi-service
combat uniform.  I may not have to buy that steak after all.

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130801/NEWS07/308010041/Senators-join-push-toward-common-combat-uniform (http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130801/NEWS07/308010041/Senators-join-push-toward-common-combat-uniform)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-09/camouflage-uniforms-of-many-colors-questioned-in-congress.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-09/camouflage-uniforms-of-many-colors-questioned-in-congress.html)

http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20130811/LOCAL12/308119933/1028/local12 (http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20130811/LOCAL12/308119933/1028/local12)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: tsrup on September 04, 2013, 09:02:21 AM
The writing is on the wall eclipse...

Unless CAP is deploying to Afghanistan any time soon, the Multi-cam style camouflage will be further away than the ABU uniform.

Medium or medium rare is what you should be concerned about.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on September 04, 2013, 11:09:26 AM
Medium or medium rare is what you should be concerned about.

Nice!
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: a2capt on September 05, 2013, 03:37:45 AM
I know that whatever uniform they settle on, I'll wear it properly, and go on with our mission. Because that's what matters.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on September 05, 2013, 03:55:11 AM
I know that whatever uniform they settle on, I'll wear it properly, and go on with our mission. Because that's what matters.

Bah! Typical!  A few more people with your attitude and we'd...oh, wait...
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Honor Guardsman on September 14, 2013, 09:10:01 PM
CAP's name tapes are actually being switched some time soon to a different color more like a greyish. The American flag on our shoulder is also being amen away as we'll I anticipation to the a is most likely in 2016-2018.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on September 14, 2013, 09:12:40 PM
CAP's name tapes are actually being switched some time soon to a different color more like a greyish. The American flag on our shoulder is also being amen away as we'll I anticipation to the a is most likely in 2016-2018.

Cite.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Honor Guardsman on September 14, 2013, 09:23:54 PM
From RCLS
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on September 14, 2013, 09:26:21 PM
From RCLS

Again cite otherwise is hearsay.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on September 14, 2013, 11:23:37 PM
That was the nat.conference ABU. Nothing official yet.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on September 15, 2013, 12:50:02 AM
From RCLS

Again cite otherwise is hearsay.

Seriously. That rumor doesn't even match the publicly available briefing on proposed changes.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Angus on September 19, 2013, 08:49:10 PM
The only part I've heard from that via Wing CC is that the flag patch is supposed to go away.  The premise behind the idea is that it will bring us more in line with the AF since they don't wear the flag patch on their field uniform. 

We should see it in the new 39-1 supposedly coming out in time for Christmas. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: ColonelJack on September 20, 2013, 10:02:45 AM
... the new 39-1 supposedly coming out in time for Christmas.

Which year?

Jack
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Angus on September 20, 2013, 02:13:11 PM
... the new 39-1 supposedly coming out in time for Christmas.

Which year?

Jack

He said this Christmas, but as he's heard it before it was amended with a "hopefully"
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on September 21, 2013, 10:26:36 AM
The holdup will be the graphics.

Which are being worked on, but it takes time to get right.

But I know they want to get that right, unlike the last manual.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on September 21, 2013, 05:56:53 PM
Two ribbon racks put together, upside down? :)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Panache on October 02, 2013, 03:53:25 PM
At our meeting last night, the CC passed along some info from Wing about uniform revisions.  Most of what was passed down has already been mentioned here (ABU's, new 39-1 is December, holdup on new 39-1 is pictures, the exact shade of blue of tapes/grade is still be finalized but will probably be navy, patches will be optional on ABU outfit, no US flag on ABU).  I bring this us because this is the first "official" confirmation we've gotten about this from the chain of command.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on October 02, 2013, 04:02:20 PM
At our meeting last night, the CC passed along some info from Wing about uniform revisions.  Most of what was passed down has already been mentioned here (ABU's, new 39-1 is December, holdup on new 39-1 is pictures, the exact shade of blue of tapes/grade is still be finalized but will probably be navy, patches will be optional on ABU outfit, no US flag on ABU).  I bring this us because this is the first "official" confirmation we've gotten about this from the chain of command.

Patches already are optionial outside of grade, tapes and the flag, unless there is an approved supplement.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on October 02, 2013, 07:07:50 PM
At our meeting last night, the CC passed along some info from Wing about uniform revisions.  Most of what was passed down has already been mentioned here (ABU's, new 39-1 is December, holdup on new 39-1 is pictures, the exact shade of blue of tapes/grade is still be finalized but will probably be navy, patches will be optional on ABU outfit, no US flag on ABU).  I bring this us because this is the first "official" confirmation we've gotten about this from the chain of command.

Patches already are optionial outside of grade, tapes and the flag, unless there is an approved supplement.

Patches may be optional for *some* things.

If your wing has a wing patch, and your wing commander has said "We wear wing patches on our utilities in this wing.." its not precisely "optional."

C/Amn Smith can't say "Sir, 39-1 says wing patches are optional, so I've opted out!"  8)

Likewise, if your unit has a patch and its been approved thru channels, then while its technically "optional" (as in "not all units must have a patch"), if your unit has said "We have a patch and its worn here.." then its not really "optional."

If you have attended an NCSA then you're authorized to wear or not wear your NCSA's patch at your option. Thats more like truly "optional" at the individual level.

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on October 02, 2013, 07:29:08 PM
If your wing has a wing patch, and your wing commander has said "We wear wing patches on our utilities in this wing.." its not precisely "optional."

C/Amn Smith can't say "Sir, 39-1 says wing patches are optional, so I've opted out!"  8)

Likewise, if your unit has a patch and its been approved thru channels, then while its technically "optional" (as in "not all units must have a patch"), if your unit has said "We have a patch and its worn here.." then its not really "optional."

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree on both of the above.  if either of those echelons wants to make the regulations stronger, there is a
process for that, supplement, OI, etc.  "Because I said so..." doesn't fly in the face of regulations which restrict a given authority to a higher level.

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: JeffDG on October 02, 2013, 07:32:20 PM
If your wing has a wing patch, and your wing commander has said "We wear wing patches on our utilities in this wing.." its not precisely "optional."

C/Amn Smith can't say "Sir, 39-1 says wing patches are optional, so I've opted out!"  8)

Likewise, if your unit has a patch and its been approved thru channels, then while its technically "optional" (as in "not all units must have a patch"), if your unit has said "We have a patch and its worn here.." then its not really "optional."

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree on both of the above.  if either of those echelons wants to make the regulations stronger, there is a
process for that, supplement, OI, etc.  "Because I said so..." doesn't fly in the face of regulations which restrict a given authority to a higher level.
OI won't cut it.

OIs only apply to the unit involved.  A Wing OI doesn't apply to anyone other than the -001 unit.  Only supplements apply to subordinate units.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on October 02, 2013, 08:07:24 PM
I meant the OI for a unit patch, though I'm not sure that would be procedurally correct.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Angus on October 02, 2013, 08:13:07 PM
At our meeting last night, the CC passed along some info from Wing about uniform revisions.  Most of what was passed down has already been mentioned here (ABU's, new 39-1 is December, holdup on new 39-1 is pictures, the exact shade of blue of tapes/grade is still be finalized but will probably be navy, patches will be optional on ABU outfit, no US flag on ABU).  I bring this us because this is the first "official" confirmation we've gotten about this from the chain of command.

At the meeting I was at our Wing CC said ABU's weren't even requested yet. However I had heard something last year at RSC from people who were on the committee.   But we'll just have to wait and watch for if and when a new 39-1 comes out. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Walkman on October 03, 2013, 01:40:17 AM
At the meeting I was at our Wing CC said ABU's weren't even requested yet. However I had heard something last year at RSC from people who were on the committee.   But we'll just have to wait and watch for if and when a new 39-1 comes out.

You may have missed this earlier thread: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17800.0 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17800.0)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on October 03, 2013, 05:07:08 AM
If your wing has a wing patch, and your wing commander has said "We wear wing patches on our utilities in this wing.." its not precisely "optional."

C/Amn Smith can't say "Sir, 39-1 says wing patches are optional, so I've opted out!"  8)

Likewise, if your unit has a patch and its been approved thru channels, then while its technically "optional" (as in "not all units must have a patch"), if your unit has said "We have a patch and its worn here.." then its not really "optional."

I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree on both of the above.  if either of those echelons wants to make the regulations stronger, there is a
process for that, supplement, OI, etc.  "Because I said so..." doesn't fly in the face of regulations which restrict a given authority to a higher level.

I suppose I mean that the "wing patches are worn in this wing" would be appropriately documented and authorized via supplement, not just the wing commander drolly waving his hand and saying "Make it so, Number One."

Same with the squadron.

But the definition of "optional" in terms of a wing or unit patch is "at the unit's option," not the individual's option.

IOW, the wing decides "OK, yeah, we're not getting rid of wing patches on BDUs" and has a duly promulgated & authorized supplement that says that. 


That way, C/SMSgt VentureCrew doesn't go "Oh, wing patches are optional per 39-1, so let me wear my Venturing patch there instead." (yes, I have the picture of this one) 

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Private Investigator on October 03, 2013, 08:11:53 AM
If your wing has a wing patch, and your wing commander has said "We wear wing patches on our utilities in this wing.." its not precisely "optional."

Likewise, if your unit has a patch and its been approved thru channels, then while its technically "optional" (as in "not all units must have a patch"), if your unit has said "We have a patch and its worn here.." then its not really "optional."


#1, actually all Wings have a Wing patch.

#2, not all Squadrons or Groups have a patch. But Units that do have a Unit patch, I do not recall any that has made the Unit patch a mandatory uniform item.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on October 03, 2013, 02:02:08 PM
If your wing has a wing patch, and your wing commander has said "We wear wing patches on our utilities in this wing.." its not precisely "optional."

Likewise, if your unit has a patch and its been approved thru channels, then while its technically "optional" (as in "not all units must have a patch"), if your unit has said "We have a patch and its worn here.." then its not really "optional."


#1, actually all Wings have a Wing patch.

#2, not all Squadrons or Groups have a patch. But Units that do have a Unit patch, I do not recall any that has made the Unit patch a mandatory uniform item.

As far as I know, my squadron's unit patch is a part of our uniform.  Its not like "here, you can wear this, or not wear this, whatever you feel like this week, dude."

At least, thats the way the squadron's operating instructions were written back when we first got the unit patch approved by wing.

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: MIKE on October 03, 2013, 02:25:25 PM
When I was at my last squadron I was given a patch... so I put it on the blouse I had with the COMM patch on and almost never wore it.  Had two more pairs that were sans patches except for the MAWG patch.  It was a fugly patch anyway.  >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on October 03, 2013, 02:27:54 PM
Raises a coffee-house question about cadets.

We can't require they wear any uniform that is not issued, so can we require they purchase optional insignia?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: arajca on October 03, 2013, 02:47:00 PM
My unit can require it as we provide it at no cost, unless they want to pay to have it sewn on, to the members. It is presented to cadets when they complete Ach. 1 and seniors when they complete Lvl 1 at our awards nights.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on October 03, 2013, 03:30:02 PM
Raises a coffee-house question about cadets.

We can't require they wear any uniform that is not issued, so can we require they purchase optional insignia?

My unit charges $25 when a new cadet joins to cover their "initial issue".
This includes a squadron baseball cap, squadron t-shirt, squadron patch, name tapes(2), CAP tapes(2), flag patch, name tag, wing patch.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Angus on October 03, 2013, 05:28:38 PM
When I was at my last squadron I was given a patch... so I put it on the blouse I had with the COMM patch on and almost never wore it.  Had two more pairs that were sans patches except for the MAWG patch.  It was a fugly patch anyway.  >:D

The MAWG patch is still ugly.  I feel like it makes me look as if I were for the Mass Turnpike Authority.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SAREXinNY on November 10, 2013, 02:49:23 AM
My apologies if this was discussed somewhere else but I haven't seen it addressed.  I have heard that we are keeping the same black boots with the new uniforms.  Does anyone know if this is correct?  I had just assumed we were moving to the same sage green boots that the AD guys and gals wear.  I was excited to not have to shine another boot!!
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: a2capt on November 10, 2013, 03:01:11 AM
Until the manual is published, we know nothing. It's all speculation.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 10, 2013, 03:01:49 AM
The proposal shown at the last boards keeps the black boots, but nothing has been approved.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on November 10, 2013, 10:55:27 AM
The proposal shown at the last boards keeps the black boots, but nothing has been approved.

I had an opportunity to get Sage Green boots for $25.  So I'm set either way.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: TexasCadet on November 11, 2013, 06:11:29 PM
Forget sage green boots. ::)
http://www.danner.com/melee-8-multicamr-military-boots.html (http://www.danner.com/melee-8-multicamr-military-boots.html)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Panache on November 11, 2013, 06:13:34 PM
Forget sage green boots. ::)
http://www.danner.com/melee-8-multicamr-military-boots.html (http://www.danner.com/melee-8-multicamr-military-boots.html)

(looks at price)

(has heart attack)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 11, 2013, 06:25:06 PM
The last thing I would be recommending to a cadet with growing feet is $200 dollar boots, especially since they
will probably never see anything but pavement, tile floor, and carpet.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: RogueLeader on November 11, 2013, 06:25:58 PM
Forget sage green boots. ::)
http://www.danner.com/melee-8-multicamr-military-boots.html (http://www.danner.com/melee-8-multicamr-military-boots.html)

(looks at price)

(has heart attack)

Not much more than a good pair of black or tan boots of similar quality.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on November 11, 2013, 06:26:53 PM
Forget sage green boots. ::)
http://www.danner.com/melee-8-multicamr-military-boots.html (http://www.danner.com/melee-8-multicamr-military-boots.html)

(looks at price)

(has heart attack)

Not much more than a good pair of black or tan boots of similar quality.

My Black 8" Bates set me back $105 a few years back. And that's the "Low end" of the "decent" scale.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Panache on November 11, 2013, 06:37:10 PM
Original SWAT Classic 9-inch size-zip. (http://www.originalswat.com/us_en/classic-9-side-zip-754.html)  $110.00 (usually cheaper online from retailers)

The most comfortable pair of boots I've ever worn.  With daily (5 days a week) wear, they seem to last about 3-4 years.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: TexasCadet on November 11, 2013, 07:29:51 PM
I never would buy a $200 pair of boots. Just making a joke. ;D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: BHartman007 on November 11, 2013, 11:25:10 PM
Original SWAT Classic 9-inch size-zip. (http://www.originalswat.com/us_en/classic-9-side-zip-754.html)  $110.00 (usually cheaper online from retailers)

The most comfortable pair of boots I've ever worn.  With daily (5 days a week) wear, they seem to last about 3-4 years.

I get these from the local army surplus for $80.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on November 12, 2013, 04:14:58 PM
We have a local "Big Lots"-style store that is carrying Wellco boots in weird sizes (ie. 4.5 and 12) which is great for those cadets who need crazy sizes (this BCT flight has 3-4 cadets out of 12 who are literally smaller than XS-Short BDUs).

They have them in Black, Sage Green & Desert.  Its *awesome*  $25 a pair.



[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: lordmonar on November 12, 2013, 04:38:22 PM
http://www.airforcetimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013311060022 (http://www.airforcetimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013311060022)
http://www.airforcetimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013311050026 (http://www.airforcetimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013311050026)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 12, 2013, 04:51:53 PM
How ridiculous is it that we have to "buy" rights to use our own uniform?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on November 12, 2013, 04:59:13 PM
How ridiculous is it that we have to "buy" rights to use our own uniform?

No, they have to buy the rights to the pattern, which was developed by a private company and they copyrighted/patented it.  I'm not saying its right, but every time you see a rucksack or similar piece of gear in Multicam, the "Crye Tax" is the reason its $25-40 more than its black/coyote/UCP/Sage counterparts.

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 12, 2013, 05:02:35 PM
How ridiculous is it that we have to "buy" rights to use our own uniform?

No, they have to buy the rights to the pattern, which was developed by a private company and they copyrighted/patented it.  I'm not saying its right, but every time you see a rucksack or similar piece of gear in Multicam, the "Crye Tax" is the reason its $25-40 more than its black/coyote/UCP/Sage counterparts.

I understand, but that's my point - I don't care about private sales, but the adoption should have come with lifetime rights or similar. Eisenhower was right.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on November 12, 2013, 05:09:03 PM
I understand, but that's my point - I don't care about private sales, but the adoption should have come with lifetime rights or similar. Eisenhower was right.

Oh yeah, no doubt.  Poor negotiation on someone's part.

But you gotta figure they're not stupid.

"Lets see, $2.5Bn in uniforms = $400M in licensing revenue for us.  If you want non-exclusive rights, thats fine. We'll give you a hell of a deal: $395M and not a petty less."

 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: GroundHawg on November 12, 2013, 06:40:32 PM
How ridiculous is it that we have to "buy" rights to use our own uniform?

No, they have to buy the rights to the pattern, which was developed by a private company and they copyrighted/patented it.  I'm not saying its right, but every time you see a rucksack or similar piece of gear in Multicam, the "Crye Tax" is the reason its $25-40 more than its black/coyote/UCP/Sage counterparts.

Crye Tax! Love it!... That's what I'm going to be calling it at my shop. When my customers complain why multicam/ATACS/Kryptek is so much more expensive than other patterns or solids, Crye Tax. I hate explaining the whole trademark issue thing. I have lots of folks buying OD Digital aka MARPAT because it is so much cheaper than any other camo pattern.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Patterson on November 12, 2013, 09:05:48 PM
Just a quick question: did the Air Force approve the CAP request for ABUs when they approved the CAP NCO request??

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: TexasCadet on November 12, 2013, 09:18:19 PM
ABUs? No way! Try these instead.

http://www.amazon.com/Ultra-Force-Pink-Camouflage-Pants/dp/B004H1X0BY (http://www.amazon.com/Ultra-Force-Pink-Camouflage-Pants/dp/B004H1X0BY)

Guaranteed, wearers will be seen on ES missions.

Just a quick question: did the Air Force approve the CAP request for ABUs when they approved the CAP NCO request??
No, we can't wear ABUs.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 12, 2013, 09:19:21 PM
No.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: a2capt on November 12, 2013, 11:59:47 PM
Do you honestly think that such an approval is going to just slip out and not get noticed by more than say .. 3 people, who will go "oh, that's nice.."? ;)

This forum is going to light up like a flare factory on testing day.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on November 13, 2013, 01:11:42 AM
I never would buy a $200 pair of boots. Just making a joke. ;D

The boots I wear to climb telephone poles cost over $200. Red Wings aren't cheap, but you get what you pay for.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: TexasCadet on November 13, 2013, 01:54:13 AM
I never would buy a $200 pair of boots. Just making a joke. ;D

The boots I wear to climb telephone poles cost over $200. Red Wings aren't cheap, but you get what you pay for.

Why do you need special boots for climbing telephone poles? I thought those little rungs on the side were to help with climbing. Unless, of course, they're not and I'm mistaken.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on November 13, 2013, 02:34:32 AM
I never would buy a $200 pair of boots. Just making a joke. ;D

The boots I wear to climb telephone poles cost over $200. Red Wings aren't cheap, but you get what you pay for.

Why do you need special boots for climbing telephone poles? I thought those little rungs on the side were to help with climbing. Unless, of course, they're not and I'm mistaken.

Not all poles are stepped.  And try standing on a pair of pole steps for more then say 5 minutes or so.
You'll quickly understand the reason for steel shanks in climbing boots. So your toes won't be touching your heels... :o
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on November 13, 2013, 02:35:59 AM
Only  wussies climb the rungs.  ;) Real climbers wear spikes, and they tend to tear up boots. The rungs also tear up boots. Either way, cheap boots don't provide the necessary arch support.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Panache on November 13, 2013, 03:38:31 AM
http://youtu.be/tgO4Gd4RhvM (http://youtu.be/tgO4Gd4RhvM)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on November 13, 2013, 04:12:42 AM
Only  wussies climb the rungs.  ;) Real climbers wear spikes, and they tend to tear up boots. The rungs also tear up boots. Either way, cheap boots don't provide the necessary arch support.

If you're climbing in a semi-civilized way Dave, you won't tear up your boots!  We don't climb lumberjack style!
Which is why I can still hook poles at 57 years old.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: swanson on November 13, 2013, 04:25:15 AM
Do you honestly think that such an approval is going to just slip out and not get noticed by more than say .. 3 people, who will go "oh, that's nice.."? ;)

This forum is going to light up like a flare factory on testing day.

I love your analogy. Thanks for the laugh...
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on November 13, 2013, 06:00:19 AM
Only  wussies climb the rungs.  ;) Real climbers wear spikes, and they tend to tear up boots. The rungs also tear up boots. Either way, cheap boots don't provide the necessary arch support.

If you're climbing in a semi-civilized way Dave, you won't tear up your boots!  We don't climb lumberjack style!
Which is why I can still hook poles at 57 years old.

I live in a rural area. Most of the poles out here are your standard rungless wooden poles.  :P
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NCRblues on November 13, 2013, 07:18:50 AM
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20131105/NEWS07/311050026/ (http://www.navytimes.com/article/20131105/NEWS07/311050026/)

How about that...
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on November 13, 2013, 10:03:15 AM
Not a subscriber. Won't show me the article with that link.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NCRblues on November 13, 2013, 02:23:42 PM
Not a subscriber. Won't show me the article with that link.

Dang it!! It was an open article last night, they must have restricted it overnight...

I shall try and find it unrestricted someplace.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: a2capt on November 13, 2013, 02:57:45 PM
You're the second one to post that link, and it was subscriber only previously, too. If it was real news, it would be available other places.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: gruntmp on November 13, 2013, 04:49:36 PM
There are cheap boots and expensive boots out there! The biggest problem is that they are all green! I like tan, brown and black boots, because they can all be worn with civvies! What do you do with green? Well, I guess they are still good hunting boots!

I can tell you that most of the green boots look tan quick enough! they tend to fade!

On our train up to Afghanistan a couple years ago, I was issued new hot weather green boots. By the time I finished my 6 weeks in El Paso, they were tan!

Knowing we were going to be patrolling in MRAP's off base, a couple of us bought FR rated green Rocky boots at about $200 a pair! We get to Afghanistan and were issued Multicams! We could still wear ABU's and the FR rated ABSG's on base but could only wear Multicams off base. Only tan or brown boots were authorized with the Multicam uniforms!

By the end of the deployment I had two pair each of green and brown boots. The brown boots sucked! I also had three different uniforms. I had ABU's as part of standard issue, about $4,000 worth of ABSG's that quickly faded, and, another $4,000 worth of Multicams that not only faded quickly, but basically rotted quickly! I shipped two foot lockers full of crap home and still had four full bags on the plane home!

As for the ABU issue, I could care less about the pattern! We don't need camo anyway, but, if we get them through Uncle Sam cheaply or for free, cool! The new ripstop is comfortable in warm weather. The ABU is cut the same as a BDU with a couple pockets added. Cool! Propper is no longer making Woodland BDU's. Time to change! If we are going to live in the past, then give me Jungle fatigues!

Or better yet! Bring back the Khakis! We can wear silver wings and crusher caps!
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: 68w20 on November 13, 2013, 06:50:15 PM
Propper is no longer making Woodland BDU's.

Um...

http://tinyurl.com/ngh9m58 (http://tinyurl.com/ngh9m58)

http://tinyurl.com/nbvwck3 (http://tinyurl.com/nbvwck3)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Angus on November 13, 2013, 08:51:30 PM
Propper is no longer making Woodland BDU's.

Um...

http://tinyurl.com/ngh9m58 (http://tinyurl.com/ngh9m58)

http://tinyurl.com/nbvwck3 (http://tinyurl.com/nbvwck3)

Where do you see that?  I just see them on sale.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: gruntmp on November 13, 2013, 09:04:15 PM
Yeah! let's see!

I saw another retailer selling BDU's the other day and saw they were listed as on closeout! I checked the Propper site, and, yep, they are on closeout! I never said you can't still find them, Propper is still listing them! I'm just saying the source is drying up and it should come as no surprise that the uniform is going to change!
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: shuman14 on November 14, 2013, 01:40:12 AM
Or better yet! Bring back the Khakis! We can wear silver wings and crusher caps!

And people call me crazy.  ;)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Private Investigator on November 14, 2013, 01:50:17 PM
Or better yet! Bring back the Khakis! We can wear silver wings and crusher caps!

(http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=20403)

Khakis .. Good memories, good times indeed   8)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SARDOC on November 14, 2013, 02:01:19 PM
^^^^ I would dig that.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Panache on November 14, 2013, 02:24:19 PM
Indeed.  Somebody upthread posted a suggestion about khakis, with our "blue accents" being AF blue hats, shoulder marks / sleeve chevrons, belts, and nameplates. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on November 15, 2013, 02:22:42 AM
Or better yet! Bring back the Khakis! We can wear silver wings and crusher caps!

(http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=20403)

Khakis .. Good memories, good times indeed   8)

I, for one, would not welcome their return. They were such a PITA to properly maintain.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on November 15, 2013, 02:41:02 AM
Or better yet! Bring back the Khakis! We can wear silver wings and crusher caps!

(http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=attach&section=attach&attach_rel_module=post&attach_id=20403)

Khakis .. Good memories, good times indeed   8)

I, for one, would not welcome their return. They were such a PITA to properly maintain.

Yeah, those of us who actually wore them don't want to wear them again.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SARDOC on November 15, 2013, 02:55:59 AM
We could update the actual material they are made of to make them less maintenance intensive all while using the overall scheme.  It's been a long time since we've worn these.  The technology has improved....and this uniform addresses our historical tradition as well as our relationship with our parent service.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on November 15, 2013, 03:06:58 AM
We could update the actual material they are made of to make them less maintenance intensive all while using the overall scheme.  It's been a long time since we've worn these.  The technology has improved....and this uniform addresses our historical tradition as well as our relationship with our parent service.

The Air Force has not worn anything but blue for over thirty years now.
So please tell me how wearing a uniform that hasn't been worn by the Air Force for over thirty years shows our attchment with the Air Force.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 15, 2013, 03:16:48 AM
So please tell me how wearing a uniform that hasn't been worn by the Air Force for over thirty years shows our attchment with the Air Force.

I dunno, seems to be perfectly acceptable for more then 1/2 the seniors...
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SARDOC on November 15, 2013, 04:45:08 AM
We could update the actual material they are made of to make them less maintenance intensive all while using the overall scheme.  It's been a long time since we've worn these.  The technology has improved....and this uniform addresses our historical tradition as well as our relationship with our parent service.

The Air Force has not worn anything but blue for over thirty years now.
So please tell me how wearing a uniform that hasn't been worn by the Air Force for over thirty years shows our attchment with the Air Force.

See Eclipse's comment above.  Half of our senior members already can't wear anything that even resembles anything the Air Force has worn in over thirty years.

If you notice I mentioned our historical Tradition.  Our organization actually dates back to the Army Air Corps.  But I'm betting that when most people look at the photo above they see this as the early Air Force.  It's obviously clear that the Air Force doesn't want a large section of our membership to even appear like them using the subjective standard of low light at a distance.  You've been on this forum enough to know the criteria they've set forth.

This uniform is something that WE as an organization can take pride in and allow all of our membership to actually be uniform.  This in no way can fail the Air Force's subjective standard...but commemorates OUR heritage using a Uniform they no longer use.

If you find something else that could meet their standard but is more modern in the Air Force lineage I'd be willing to entertain it as well. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on November 15, 2013, 05:07:25 AM
Hey, all you folks waiting for ABUs, I finally took one for the team.  Since I "un-retired" earlier this year, I resisted getting BDUs, knowing that ABUs and their approval were "in the pipeline."

I've finally gone out and gotten a set of BDUs.   Insignia will be here next week.  This means that as soon as I get everything sewn on, ABUs will be announced.

You're welcome.

 :P

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: shuman14 on November 15, 2013, 05:14:51 AM
Indeed.  Somebody upthread posted a suggestion about khakis, with our "blue accents" being AF blue hats, shoulder marks / sleeve chevrons, belts, and nameplates.

That would be me... your friendly neighborhood troll.  8)

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17973.140 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17973.140)

Page 8 of the thread... about a third down the page itself.  ;)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Panache on November 15, 2013, 05:30:35 AM
I, for one, would not welcome their return. They were such a PITA to properly maintain.
Yeah, those of us who actually wore them don't want to wear them again.
Now, I've never worn them in a CAP context, but I routinely wear a khaki uniform as part of a part-time state law-enforcement job, and even after stomping around in the woods all day, they're still pretty easy to keep decent.  Generally speaking, they're wash-and-wear.  Usual poly-cotton stuff.

That would be me... your friendly neighborhood troll.  8)

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17973.140 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17973.140)

Page 8 of the thread... about a third down the page itself.  ;)

Actually a pretty fine idea, in my opinion.  Keep the cadets in Blues and ABU's, the seniors in Khakis uniforms and fatigues... I think it would do wonders for our professional image.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on November 15, 2013, 05:51:57 AM
I, for one, would not welcome their return. They were such a PITA to properly maintain.
Yeah, those of us who actually wore them don't want to wear them again.
Now, I've never worn them in a CAP context, but I routinely wear a khaki uniform as part of a part-time state law-enforcement job, and even after stomping around in the woods all day, they're still pretty easy to keep decent.  Generally speaking, they're wash-and-wear.  Usual poly-cotton stuff.

That would be me... your friendly neighborhood troll.  8)

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17973.140 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=17973.140)

Page 8 of the thread... about a third down the page itself.  ;)

Actually a pretty fine idea, in my opinion.  Keep the cadets in Blues and ABU's, the seniors in Khakis uniforms and fatigues... I think it would do wonders for our professional image.

505's and 1505's weren't poly-cotton. The 505's required a metric crapton of Sta-Flo starch to look good and the Permament Press 1505's weren't.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Panache on November 15, 2013, 06:11:34 AM
505's and 1505's weren't poly-cotton. The 505's required a metric crapton of Sta-Flo starch to look good and the Permament Press 1505's weren't.

Well, hopefully if (and I realize this is just spit-balling) we decide to go that route, we would go with more manageable materials like wash-and-wear poly-cotton, and nothing too complicated.

If it requires starch or dry-cleaning (for a regular "duty" or "field" uniform), that would be a no-go.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: a2capt on November 15, 2013, 06:33:41 AM
You say that like if this is an official venue for discussion of the direction this organization takes..

Sure, look at 39-1 now with regards to off the shelf items. There's no standard specification, but at least fits a common description.

Now lets change that to something you can't even buy in more than six places perhaps.

You just know there's going to be howling about that. ;-)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: shuman14 on November 15, 2013, 06:47:37 AM
505's and 1505's weren't poly-cotton. The 505's required a metric crapton of Sta-Flo starch to look good and the Permament Press 1505's weren't.

Well, hopefully if (and I realize this is just spit-balling) we decide to go that route, we would go with more manageable materials like wash-and-wear poly-cotton, and nothing too complicated.

If it requires starch or dry-cleaning (for a regular "duty" or "field" uniform), that would be a no-go.

I wear Blauer Streetgear at work in LAPD Blue. Excellent uniform, wash-n-wear, requires very little maintenance and I do believe they make them in silver-tan khaki.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Panache on November 15, 2013, 06:55:03 AM
You say that like if this is an official venue for discussion of the direction this organization takes..

Sure, look at 39-1 now with regards to off the shelf items. There's no standard specification, but at least fits a common description.

Now lets change that to something you can't even buy in more than six places perhaps.

You just know there's going to be howling about that. ;-)

It can be argued that Khaki/silver-tan is easier to acquire than AF blue uniforms, which as far as I know has only two official outlets: AAFES and Vanguard.

And khaki/silver-tan uniforms are pretty common in several private and public sector professions. 

I did a quick search, for example, and found these:  Shirts (http://www.flyingcross.com/category.aspx?zcid=109&Color=Silver+Tan), pants (http://www.flyingcross.com/category.aspx?zcid=110&Color=Silver+Tan), and Propper has plenty of khaki field uniforms listed.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Panache on November 15, 2013, 06:57:59 AM
I wear Blauer Streetgear at work in LAPD Blue. Excellent uniform, wash-n-wear, requires very little maintenance and I do believe they make them in silver-tan khaki.

Indeed they do. (http://www.blauer.com/fire/shirts/l/color-silver_tan.html?limit=all)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: shuman14 on November 15, 2013, 07:19:20 AM
I wear Blauer Streetgear at work in LAPD Blue. Excellent uniform, wash-n-wear, requires very little maintenance and I do believe they make them in silver-tan khaki.

Indeed they do. (http://www.blauer.com/fire/shirts/l/color-silver_tan.html?limit=all)

So I guess the trick would be to get them to produce a Class A Service Jacket/Tunic/Blouse in a matching color and material.

If CAP were to adopt it, I'm sure that Blauer would see the profit in producing them.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on November 15, 2013, 07:53:28 AM
I wear Blauer Streetgear at work in LAPD Blue. Excellent uniform, wash-n-wear, requires very little maintenance and I do believe they make them in silver-tan khaki.

Indeed they do. (http://www.blauer.com/fire/shirts/l/color-silver_tan.html?limit=all)

So I guess the trick would be to get them to produce a Class A Service Jacket/Tunic/Blouse in a matching color and material.

If CAP were to adopt it, I'm sure that Blauer would see the profit in producing them.

Are you sure? Ever hear of economy of scale? I'm going to use a nice round, but unrealistic, number to demonstrate. It's 60,000 as the membership number, and disregards gender.

You're talking about producing uniforms to fit 60,000 members in, oh, let's say, 100 sizes. That's likely a low estimate. That's an initial outfitting of 6,00 units per size. That's a drop in the bucket, and might not worth spending the startup costs for adding something new to their line.

Regular, daily wear, users might wear out a uniform in as little as a year, so there's continuous throughput in sales. CAP members wear their stuff about once a week, and if this is a dress uniform, might be worn as little as once a month. Once the initial run is sold off, the sales will drop off. That's not a good business model.

YMMV.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Panache on November 15, 2013, 07:59:33 AM
Aaah, but there's already a widely-distributed and well-sold khaki service coat on the market already.

The Navy's.

All we have to do is change the buttons out and... ta-da.  There we go.  And it's already the same shade as the tunic and pants that the Navy uses.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: AlphaSigOU on November 15, 2013, 08:06:49 AM
Aaah, but there's already a widely-distributed and well-sold khaki service coat on the market already.

The Navy's.

All we have to do is change the buttons out and... ta-da.  There we go.  And it's already the same shade as the tunic and pants that the Navy uses.

[sarcasm] And ya think the Squiddies are gonna roll over and let the 'wannabe Air Farce' wear their khakis? [/sarcasm]
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Panache on November 15, 2013, 08:14:30 AM
[sarcasm] And ya think the Squiddies are gonna roll over and let the 'wannabe Air Farce' wear their khakis? [/sarcasm]

We already look like USCG while wearing the BBDUs, so we might as stick with the theme!  :P
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on November 15, 2013, 08:18:50 AM
Aaah, but there's already a widely-distributed and well-sold khaki service coat on the market already.

The Navy's.

All we have to do is change the buttons out and... ta-da.  There we go.  And it's already the same shade as the tunic and pants that the Navy uses.

Even the Navy Chiefs and officers aren't wild about wearing that thing.

Another consideration - do they make this coat in 12 yo sizes?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Panache on November 15, 2013, 08:42:02 AM
Another consideration - do they make this coat in 12 yo sizes?

My suggestion was the cadets stay in AF blues/BDUs (or ABUs).  Only the seniors would wear the khaki uniforms.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: shuman14 on November 15, 2013, 08:44:28 AM
Aaah, but there's already a widely-distributed and well-sold khaki service coat on the market already.

The Navy's.

All we have to do is change the buttons out and... ta-da.  There we go.  And it's already the same shade as the tunic and pants that the Navy uses.

Even the Navy Chiefs and officers aren't wild about wearing that thing.

Another consideration - do they make this coat in 12 yo sizes?

My intent was for it to be a Senior member only uniform and for the cadets to continue to wear the USAF Style uniforms.

BUT

If the cadets were to switch to khaki as well, that would increase the numbers of buyers and that "might" effect Biauer's willingness to produce a siver-tan Service coat to match the shirts and trousers they already produce.  ;)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on November 15, 2013, 09:40:02 AM
OOPS! Now you've dropped the numbers in half, and the number of sizes by about a third. Let's say 60 sizes. That's now just 500 uniforms in each size. 30,000 uniforms isn't going to get anything more than a giggle from the manufacturer. They probably won't agree to using a Navy item as is, because of existing regs, so something would need to be modified, changing it into a new product.

While we're at it, how about rank insignia, especially the NCOs? For officers, the grey stuff won't work as-is, because the shirt and coat designs differ from what the AF uses.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Panache on November 15, 2013, 10:01:16 AM
While we're at it, how about rank insignia, especially the NCOs? For officers, the grey stuff won't work as-is, because the shirt and coat designs differ from what the AF uses.

Sew-on CAP chevrons for NCO's, and pin-on metal grade on the collars for SM officers.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: shuman14 on November 15, 2013, 10:06:56 AM
OOPS! Now you've dropped the numbers in half, and the number of sizes by about a third. Let's say 60 sizes. That's now just 500 uniforms in each size. 30,000 uniforms isn't going to get anything more than a giggle from the manufacturer. They probably won't agree to using a Navy item as is, because of existing regs, so something would need to be modified, changing it into a new product.

While we're at it, how about rank insignia, especially the NCOs? For officers, the grey stuff won't work as-is, because the shirt and coat designs differ from what the AF uses.

You didn't read the other thread did you?

As to rank, the current blue chevrons would go right onto the proposed khaki uniform, again part of the USAF Blue "highlights" to the uniform (IE Blue flight caps and/or combination cap, blue tie, blue belts).

If pin-on rank is used, no issues, just pin it on and for the service coat, pin on would be the insignia used.

As to the shirts, if you carefully undo the X-stitch on the shirt epaulets, normal military rank slides will fit on them without issue. Our LTs at the VA use Army 1LT shoulder slides on their shirts and they fit fine. So using current USAF Blue rank slides would be an option and would add another USAF Blue highlight.

If Ma Blue has an issue, pretty sure Vanguard will have khaki rank slides ready in two shakes of a dragons tail.  ;)

personally I like old school, pin-on rank on right shirt collar and pin-on C.A.P. on left collar for Officers and sleeve rank and disc C.A.P. on both shirt collars for NCOs.

Silver name tag on service coat and old school two-line blue plastic name tag on shirts (another USAF Blue highlight). 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on November 15, 2013, 11:37:24 AM
All of the khaki/silver-tan dress shirts I saw had no epaulets.

Since there appears to be more than one supplier, which one do you use, to ensure uniformity, and who chooses?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Panache on November 15, 2013, 11:56:00 AM
http://www.flyingcross.com/Duro-Poplin-Mens-Short-Sleeve-Shirt.aspx (http://www.flyingcross.com/Duro-Poplin-Mens-Short-Sleeve-Shirt.aspx)

http://www.flyingcross.com/Command-Mens-Side-Pocket-Pants-2-in-Belt-Loops-Pocket-Flaps.aspx (http://www.flyingcross.com/Command-Mens-Side-Pocket-Pants-2-in-Belt-Loops-Pocket-Flaps.aspx)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: jeders on November 15, 2013, 01:57:40 PM
Orrrr...Since we're already designing a new Senior Member only uniform with no real purpose, why don't we go with something that everyone should already have in the back of their closet or something that they can easily pick up at someplace like Sears/Wal-Mart/Target. I'm thinking a white shirt with some kind of dress pants, grey is pretty common. Oh, and for a dress uniform, just throw on a blue blazer.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on November 15, 2013, 02:37:19 PM
Blazer != Service Coat.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: jeders on November 15, 2013, 03:07:15 PM
Blazer != Service Coat.

Works well enough for me.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Papabird on November 15, 2013, 03:26:53 PM
Blazer != Service Coat.

Works well enough for me.

Could we possibly lose the old US Army nameplate on this then?  You know, the big black one with pins stuck in it?  Do we need the Wing on it still, and the old CAP crest (which is larger directly underneath in the Blazer)?   :o

It made sense when would could/would wear the nameplate on the white shirt by itself, but now that is out...Just looks odd.

Oh well.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on November 15, 2013, 03:29:29 PM
http://www.flyingcross.com/Duro-Poplin-Mens-Short-Sleeve-Shirt.aspx (http://www.flyingcross.com/Duro-Poplin-Mens-Short-Sleeve-Shirt.aspx)

http://www.flyingcross.com/Command-Mens-Side-Pocket-Pants-2-in-Belt-Loops-Pocket-Flaps.aspx (http://www.flyingcross.com/Command-Mens-Side-Pocket-Pants-2-in-Belt-Loops-Pocket-Flaps.aspx)

I have a Flying Cross brand shirt (Distinguished, I think, the line is) that is an exact duplicate of the USAF blues shirt (mitred pocket corners, etc) but white. Then, I got a new blues shirt. Whoops, its a Flying Cross as well! :)

They make good stuff.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on November 15, 2013, 03:31:02 PM
BTW, this thread just made a *gigantic* turn into the absurd with all this khaki.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Panache on November 15, 2013, 04:13:46 PM
BTW, this thread just made a *gigantic* turn into the absurd with all this khaki.

It wouldn't be a uniform thread otherwise, would it?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on November 15, 2013, 04:48:08 PM
Blazer != Service Coat.

Works well enough for me.

Works != Same. Duh.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: jeders on November 15, 2013, 07:16:14 PM
Blazer != Service Coat.

Works well enough for me.

Works != Same. Duh.

You're right, they aren't the same. They are, however, equivalent.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 15, 2013, 07:27:15 PM
You're right, they aren't the same. They are, however, equivalent.

Not even a little.

39-1 can say whatever it wants, photos tell a different tale.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on November 15, 2013, 07:44:40 PM
Blazer != Service Coat.

Works well enough for me.

Works != Same. Duh.

You're right, they aren't the same. They are, however, equivalent.

Sure are. Doesn't put them on the same level no matter what though. In fact, even if I never again get back in the H/W Standards, I'll never wear the getup. If that's what an event would require, then I guess I wouldn't be going. Not wasting my money on an ugly blazer and pocket slide.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on November 16, 2013, 07:23:32 AM
Nuthin' sez you gotta wear the funky slide. I pin my crest directly onto the pocket.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: ol'fido on November 16, 2013, 01:04:12 PM
The pin on crest is the most expensive part of my blazer which I got at Goodwill.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on November 16, 2013, 01:07:51 PM
The pin on crest is the most expensive part of my blazer which I got at Goodwill.

You sir, posted the most #winning thing in this thread. (My goodwill blazer outgrew me. As did two of my suits which are headed that way today)

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: ol'fido on November 16, 2013, 11:53:45 PM
 
The pin on crest is the most expensive part of my blazer which I got at Goodwill.

You sir, posted the most #winning thing in this thread. (My goodwill blazer outgrew me. As did two of my suits which are headed that way today)
;)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on November 17, 2013, 06:27:04 AM
Facts are facts.

There is no way that the "aviator" uniform is going to have any changes to it, for several reasons:

1. Too many people like it because it's cheap and non-standardised.  There are very, very few hard-and-fast standards on how it must be worn.

2. CAP higher-ups are scared of the colour blue, except for the so-dark-it's-almost-black for the blazer.

3. Too many people feel "it ain't broke don't fix it."

4. Too many people like the (fiction) that one does not have to observe C&C's in this order of dress.

5. I would say a plurality (not a majority) of CAP Senior Members do not want to look military.

6. Too many people simply dislike change, in whatever form.

So, it's nice to dream about khaki/silvertans, etc., but the hard facts remain the hard facts.

We had our chance at a nice, good-looking uniform (CSU) that was popular with a large segment of the membership, and CAP, in it's infinite wisdom, smacked our collective patties and said "no, you cannot have that, if you cannot wear the AF uniform, you vill wear ze grey/white/blazer und you vill like it, because you have no alternative."

At one time I had a complete uniform proposal to supplement/supplant the G/W kit ready to send up the chain.

I scrapped it, as it would be a useless waste of energy.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Brad on November 17, 2013, 02:31:20 PM
At one time I had a complete uniform proposal to supplement/supplant the G/W kit ready to send up the chain.

I scrapped it, as it would be a useless waste of energy.

Still have it filed away somewhere for simple post-mortem analysis? I'd be curious to read over it just because.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on November 17, 2013, 03:58:55 PM
We had our chance at a nice, good-looking uniform (CSU) that was popular with a large segment of the membership, and CAP, in it's infinite wisdom, smacked our collective patties and said "no, you cannot have that, if you cannot wear the AF uniform, you vill wear ze grey/white/blazer und you vill like it, because you have no alternative."


Still riding that horse?   You need to move on man before it makes you bitter about everything.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 17, 2013, 04:56:47 PM
Facts are facts.

There is no way that the "aviator" uniform is going to have any changes to it, for several reasons:

1. Too many people like it because it's cheap and non-standardised.  There are very, very few hard-and-fast standards on how it must be worn.

2. CAP higher-ups are scared of the colour blue, except for the so-dark-it's-almost-black for the blazer.

3. Too many people feel "it ain't broke don't fix it."

4. Too many people like the (fiction) that one does not have to observe C&C's in this order of dress.

5. I would say a plurality (not a majority) of CAP Senior Members do not want to look military.

6. Too many people simply dislike change, in whatever form.

So, it's nice to dream about khaki/silvertans, etc., but the hard facts remain the hard facts.

We had our chance at a nice, good-looking uniform (CSU) that was popular with a large segment of the membership, and CAP, in it's infinite wisdom, smacked our collective patties and said "no, you cannot have that, if you cannot wear the AF uniform, you vill wear ze grey/white/blazer und you vill like it, because you have no alternative."

At one time I had a complete uniform proposal to supplement/supplant the G/W kit ready to send up the chain.

I scrapped it, as it would be a useless waste of energy.

Facts or your opinion?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: CAPglider792 on November 17, 2013, 05:36:48 PM
I honestly am of the opinion that we look like a bunch of Somali Pirates in these woodland BDUs we now wear, but that is just me.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: abdsp51 on November 17, 2013, 06:27:32 PM
I honestly am of the opinion that we look like a bunch of Somali Pirates in these woodland BDUs we now wherewear, but that is just me.

FTFY
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: CAPglider792 on November 17, 2013, 06:53:17 PM
My mistake, a truly terrible typo it was too.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on November 17, 2013, 09:58:26 PM
My mistake, a truly terrible typo it was too.

C'mon, 'fess up - you used the wrong word. No real typo there.  ;)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: AirForceBlue117 on November 17, 2013, 11:31:14 PM
Question: If the DoD has a problem with us having digitalized patterns, why does JROTC have them? They don't do any activities that require them to wear the ABU, ACU, MARPAT, and NWU outside of Raider/PF Competitions, and it would be more appropriate for us to have them (ABU) because of our close connection to the USAF, despite what anyone says. - Nick
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on November 17, 2013, 11:38:10 PM
Simple.

The relation between JROTC and the military is much, much closer than that of CAP and the Air Force...

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on November 18, 2013, 12:09:51 AM
Question: If the DoD has a problem with us having digitalized patterns, why does JROTC have them? They don't do any activities that require them to wear the ABU, ACU, MARPAT, and NWU outside of Raider/PF Competitions, and it would be more appropriate for us to have them (ABU) because of our close connection to the USAF, despite what anyone says. - Nick


Because AFJROTC does not have to comply with AFI 10-2701, we do.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 18, 2013, 12:16:49 AM
^ This, and in further to that, JROTC doesn't have an adult cadre, nor an operational component.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: shuman14 on November 18, 2013, 04:50:51 AM
Question: If the DoD has a problem with us having digitized patterns, why does JROTC have them? They don't do any activities that require them to wear the ABU, ACU, MARPAT, and NWU outside of Raider/PF Competitions, and it would be more appropriate for us to have them (ABU) because of our close connection to the USAF, despite what anyone says. - Nick

Because:

1. They can assert more direct control over the JROTC programs, as the actually instructors are retired military NCOs and Officers.

2. The programs share their parent Service components name (IE Army JORC, Air Force JROTC, etc.).

3. I believe (not 100%) the parent Service components directly supply the class materials and the uniforms for the cadets.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: AngelWings on November 18, 2013, 12:02:47 PM
24 pages of ABU discussion? I'm glad to see CAPTalk hasn't changed at all  ;D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: a2capt on November 18, 2013, 05:07:16 PM
24 pages of ABU discussion?
Just wait until 39-1 gets released in revision. This thread will be eclipsed in no time flat.

[Only 10 pages for me, less clickery]
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Майор Хаткевич on November 18, 2013, 06:23:24 PM
Just look at the NCO topic. Almost double the pages in a much shorter time. Of course we had some 50 other ABU topics closed.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Angus on November 18, 2013, 07:12:23 PM
24 pages of ABU discussion?
Just wait until 39-1 gets released in revision. This thread will be eclipsed in no time flat.

[Only 10 pages for me, less clickery]


If a 39-1 ever gets released.  I'm still on the train of we won't see it any time soon.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: arajca on November 18, 2013, 07:19:53 PM
24 pages of ABU discussion?
Just wait until 39-1 gets released in revision. This thread will be eclipsed in no time flat.

[Only 10 pages for me, less clickery]


If a 39-1 ever gets released.  I'm still on the train of we won't see it any time soon.
Of course, when it does get released, the CAPTalk servers will explode.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Panache on November 18, 2013, 07:40:31 PM
Of course, when it does get released, the CAPTalk servers will explode.

(http://www.pyroworks.co.nz/images/services/special_effects/fireball2_700x434.jpg)
"And you said I was silly for moving the CAPTalk server into the outside shed. Who's silly now?"
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on November 18, 2013, 08:13:07 PM
Still have it filed away somewhere for simple post-mortem analysis? I'd be curious to read over it just because.

If I find it, I will PM you with it.  I will not post it here.

Mods: Please delete...unintended duplication.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on November 18, 2013, 08:42:03 PM
Still riding that horse?   You need to move on man before it makes you bitter about everything.

Actually, no, ladies, fish and gentlemen.

I would have been truly bitter had I shelled out for the whole kit and kaboodle.  As it is, I was only out the cost of the blue Captain's rank slides, a set of metal railway tracks from the local Army/Navy (and those are in use - one on my BBDU cap and gave one to a squadron mate for the same purpose), the blue nameplate and the brushed-silver service coat nameplate (the only item that didn't get used).

If there's any "bitterness," it's because I still can't figure out why we were never told what happened, but moreso that even though there have been a lot of suggestions here on CT to modify/change the "corporate" uniform to something more attractive, it's not going to happen.  I don't post much here anymore (probably a blessing to all of you!  :-X) but I lurk and look and have been reading a lot about the putative 39-1...if it ever comes out (http://tinyurl.com/ifithappens (http://tinyurl.com/ifithappens))...and most of what has been revealed deals with the ABU (which I'm actually noncommital on), but I remember reading one quote that said something about "no changes to the corporate uniform."

So I would say it's much more "perplexed" than "bitter."

Still have it filed away somewhere for simple post-mortem analysis? I'd be curious to read over it just because.

If I find it, I will PM you with it.  I will not post it here.


Because AFJROTC does not have to comply with AFI 10-2701, we do.

Which is a bit illogical, given that they are so much more closely connected with the AF...one would think that the AF would hold them to an even higher standard.

Facts or your opinion?

So far, facts, given the absence of any countering evidence from reliable sources like Colonel Lee.

However, I would gladly accept, indeed welcome, such evidence.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on November 18, 2013, 08:59:40 PM
Quote
By Cyborg:
Which is a bit illogical, given that they are so much more closely connected with the AF...one would think that the AF would hold them to an even higher standard.

The Air Force has probably published a separate instruction for JROTC. AFI 10-2701 is only for the CAP.

Yet I think the fact that only retired or full-time military officers and NCOs can teach in the JROTC program... is because they are already held at a higher standard! No retired National Guard officers or NCOs are allowed to teach in the JROTC, and Reserve were allowed only recently. Again, I think this implies the military does hold JROTC to a higher standard than the CAP...

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Ned on November 18, 2013, 09:18:50 PM
Yet I think the fact that only retired or full-time military officers and NCOs can teach in the JROTC program... is because they are already held at a higher standard! No retired National Guard officers or NCOs are allowed to teach in the JROTC, and Reserve were allowed only recently. Again, I think this implies the military does hold JROTC to a higher standard than the CAP...

Flyer

Ummm, no.  For a couple of reasons.

First, Guard officers are indeed welcome to serve as JROTC instructors.  (Or at least would be if there wasn't a national hiring freeze for JROTC instructors just now.)  Take a look  here.  (http://www.usarmyjrotc.com/employment/prerequisites).

Second, the accession, commissioning, and promotion standards are the same for Guard / Reserve / AD.  And have been for a while.  Which kinda makes sense since we all participate side -by-side in the same wars.

But thanks for thinking of us Guard guys as somehow "lower" than our Reserve counterparts.

Ned Lee

MAJ, IN, USA Retired
(Former CA ARNG)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: 68w20 on November 18, 2013, 09:23:43 PM
Yet I think the fact that only retired or full-time military officers and NCOs can teach in the JROTC program... is because they are already held at a higher standard! No retired National Guard officers or NCOs are allowed to teach in the JROTC, and Reserve were allowed only recently. Again, I think this implies the military does hold JROTC to a higher standard than the CAP...

Flyer

Ummm, no.  For a couple of reasons.

First, Guard officers are indeed welcome to serve as JROTC instructors.  (Or at least would be if there wasn't a national hiring freeze for JROTC instructors just now.)  Take a look  here.  (http://www.usarmyjrotc.com/employment/prerequisites).

Second, the accession, commissioning, and promotion standards are the same for Guard / Reserve / AD.  And have been for a while.  Which kinda makes sense since we all participate side -by-side in the same wars.

But thanks for thinking of us Guard guys as somehow "lower" than our Reserve counterparts.

Ned Lee

MAJ, IN, USA Retired
(Former CA ARNG)

My favorite line:
"Wait, you're deploying overseas?  I thought you were just National Guard."
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on November 18, 2013, 10:28:42 PM
Ned-

Yet you forgot this part, and I quote from your link:

Quote
“Gray-Area” National Guard and Reserve members with at least 20 years of creditable service for retired pay and a minimum of 3600 total points for retired pay and who meet all other prerequisites may be considered for AJROTC hard-to-fill-instructor positions.


My own emphasis.

I did not dwell on the reasons, so it was a bad conclusion of your part to say I think lower on Guard!

But Ned, this is for Air Force Blue who posted a question about the DOD having a problem with CAP using digitized patterns and no problem with JROTC use of the same. The fact remains that the military establishment trusts more on active or retired military personnel to wear the uniform in a better way than CAP members; that active or retired military personnel can carry the military tradition better than CAP personnel; and therefore they will allow JROTC personnel unrestricted, more or less, wear of digitized patterns before CAP personnel do.

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on November 18, 2013, 10:30:59 PM
If a 39-1 ever gets released.  I'm still on the train of we won't see it any time soon.

It is my understanding that there is a more recent draft that is awaiting the completion of the photos and then we very well may see a public comment period. I thought the intent was to have the draft reviewed and approved by the CSAG in its December meeting, however, hahaha, joke's on me: CSAG's meeting was 1-2 November. Durrr.

If I don't miss my guess, we'll probably see the draft for comment sometime in the next 30 days.

Don't quote me, of course, but that's a guess.

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 18, 2013, 10:37:26 PM
But Ned, this is for Air Force Blue who posted a question about the DOD having a problem with CAP using digitized patterns and no problem with JROTC use of the same. The fact remains that the military establishment trusts more on active or retired military personnel to wear the uniform in a better way than CAP members; that active or retired military personnel can carry the military tradition better than CAP personnel; and therefore they will allow JROTC personnel unrestricted, more or less, wear of digitized patterns before CAP personnel do.

Where are you pulling that?  They have no choice in the matter, it's their uniform, period.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on November 18, 2013, 10:48:23 PM
Eclipse-

From what I see.

There are some CAP senior members that do take care to follow CAP regulations regarding uniforms, and D&C properly.

Yourself have posted some messages critical of how some senior members do not follow them.

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Eclipse on November 18, 2013, 10:56:12 PM
Yes, but that has nothing to do with the how's and why's of our uniforms, or what AD/RES/ROTC wears.

If that were really the case we simply wouldn't' have access to USAF style uniforms at all.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Ned on November 18, 2013, 11:07:07 PM
You know, it is OK to say "Hmm, it looks like I overstated my position when I said 'No retired National Guard officers or NCOs are allowed to teach in the JROTC, and Reserve were allowed only recently.'"   ;)

Because Guard officers and NCOs are allowed to teach in JROTC.  You're right that AD types have priority in the Army JROTC program, as indicated in my link.  Not exactly the same thing as "No retired Guard Officers or NCO's are allowed," which was your position, I believe.

But you can look  here  (http://www.au.af.mil/au/holmcenter/AFJROTC/grayarea.asp) where the AFJROTC folks indicate that retired Guard and Reserve Officers are eligible for their programs by law, and apparently on an equal footing with former AD folks.



I did not dwell on the reasons, so it was a bad conclusion of your part to say I think lower on Guard!
 

Hey, you were the guy pointing out that JROTC had "higher standards" since they did not use Guard officers or NCOs.  If I somehow misunderstood your point, I apologize.  But since your point was incorrect ab initio, perhaps we can both just move on.


Quote
The fact remains that the military establishment trusts more on active or retired military personnel to wear the uniform in a better way than CAP members; that active or retired military personnel can carry the military tradition better than CAP personnel; and therefore they will allow JROTC personnel unrestricted, more or less, wear of digitized patterns before CAP personnel do.

Trust has nothing to do with it.  And never has.  Nor did anyone in the DoD reflect even for a moment on who could "better carry the military tradition." 

On what did you base your assertions?

I've posted several times that the AF has not indicated any problem with the general notion of CAP wearing ABUs.  The problem arose with a memo from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which allowed the use of the ABUs for ROTC & JROTC, but did not mention CAP one way or another.

As part of my job, I have personally spoken with multiple AF senior officers and officials on this subject, and they unanimously believe that it was a simple oversight in the memo writing and approval process.  Which is why the incredibly bureacratic process of workithg through the Air Staff to the DoD is underway, but what with a war or two going on, is understandably very slow.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: nmkaufman0 on November 26, 2013, 05:30:21 AM
Believe it or not, when I'm in the general public in my BDU, some people actually think I'm active duty Air Force. It is hard enough to explain to them that I'm not active duty; let alone a civilian auxiliary. I'm a 15-year-old Cadet Airman. That problem would probably be even worse if I wore the ABU.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: nmkaufman0 on November 26, 2013, 05:33:09 AM
According to my flight sergeant, we may never get the ABU.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: a2capt on November 26, 2013, 06:36:36 AM
..and unless your flight sergeant is on the uniform committee, offspring of the national commander, or some other fairly high level position .. (who wouldn't be talking anyway) then I hope you got a bottle of salt along with that statement. 
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Panache on November 26, 2013, 06:50:57 AM
But you don't understand, a2capt.  He's a flight sergeant....
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SarDragon on November 26, 2013, 07:16:14 AM
(http://forums.cadetstuff.org/images/smilies/icon_spit_water.gif)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: TexasCadet on November 26, 2013, 01:06:01 PM
I predict we will wear ABUs...wait, what was that expression? Something about hell freezing over...
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on November 26, 2013, 05:27:34 PM
And the clock is running... >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: AlphaSigOU on November 26, 2013, 06:08:25 PM
Tick-tock... can't stop the lock clock! :D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: a2capt on November 26, 2013, 06:13:28 PM
Tick-tock... can't stop the lock clock! :D
Is that all you know how to post?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: The CyBorg is destroyed on November 26, 2013, 06:19:10 PM
The problem arose with a memo from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which allowed the use of the ABUs for ROTC & JROTC, but did not mention CAP one way or another.

A sin of "omission" rather than "commission?"
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on November 26, 2013, 08:27:31 PM
The problem arose with a memo from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which allowed the use of the ABUs for ROTC & JROTC, but did not mention CAP one way or another.

A sin of "omission" rather than "commission?"

I tend to think that perhaps the coordinating party on the AF side didn't think about the whys and wherefores before they said "Yeah, works for the AF"

Read the memo yourselves.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/MD/2008-001041-Disposition_Policy.pdf (http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/MD/2008-001041-Disposition_Policy.pdf)

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: ol'fido on November 26, 2013, 11:44:03 PM
(http://forums.cadetstuff.org/images/smilies/icon_spit_water.gif)
(http://appleseedinfo.org/smf/Smileys/newsmileys/bowdown.gif)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Nearly Dark Side on November 27, 2013, 05:43:25 PM
I like not touching threads about ABUs until they are about 400 posts in, then reading the first and last page of posts and seeing how far the discussion has gone away from the topic.
Title: Occam's razor
Post by: VNY on November 27, 2013, 08:07:39 PM
As part of my job, I have personally spoken with multiple AF senior officers and officials on this subject, and they unanimously believe that it was a simple oversight in the memo writing and approval process.  Which is why the incredibly bureacratic process of workithg through the Air Staff to the DoD is underway, but what with a war or two going on, is understandably very slow.

All this discussion because whoever wrote the memo didn't know CAP existed - or else forgot.
Title: Re: Occam's razor
Post by: RogueLeader on November 27, 2013, 08:11:24 PM
As part of my job, I have personally spoken with multiple AF senior officers and officials on this subject, and they unanimously believe that it was a simple oversight in the memo writing and approval process.  Which is why the incredibly bureacratic process of workithg through the Air Staff to the DoD is underway, but what with a war or two going on, is understandably very slow.

All this discussion because whoever wrote the memo didn't know CAP existed - or else forgot.

Seeings as the specifically mention that we, CAP, were explicitly authorized to not only receive Woodland BDUs as well as the three color Desert Combat Uniform (DCU) I've got a feeling that they know we exist; again, just an oversight that takes a while to get corrected.
Title: Re: Occam's razor
Post by: TexasCadet on November 27, 2013, 08:29:16 PM
As part of my job, I have personally spoken with multiple AF senior officers and officials on this subject, and they unanimously believe that it was a simple oversight in the memo writing and approval process.  Which is why the incredibly bureacratic process of workithg through the Air Staff to the DoD is underway, but what with a war or two going on, is understandably very slow.

All this discussion because whoever wrote the memo didn't know CAP existed - or else forgot.

Two questions, VNY:

1. Why did you change the name?
2. What is "Occam's Razor"?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SARDOC on November 27, 2013, 10:10:11 PM
As part of my job, I have personally spoken with multiple AF senior officers and officials on this subject, and they unanimously believe that it was a simple oversight in the memo writing and approval process.  Which is why the incredibly bureacratic process of workithg through the Air Staff to the DoD is underway, but what with a war or two going on, is understandably very slow.

All this discussion because whoever wrote the memo didn't know CAP existed - or else forgot.

Seeings as the specifically mention that we, CAP, were explicitly authorized to not only receive Woodland BDUs as well as the three color Desert Combat Uniform (DCU) I've got a feeling that they know we exist; again, just an oversight that takes a while to get corrected.

Actually, If you read the memo a little more closely, you will see that it only indicates the Woodland Style BDU and not the Desert Three color DCU.
Title: Re: Occam's razor
Post by: SarDragon on November 28, 2013, 04:08:45 AM
As part of my job, I have personally spoken with multiple AF senior officers and officials on this subject, and they unanimously believe that it was a simple oversight in the memo writing and approval process.  Which is why the incredibly bureacratic process of workithg through the Air Staff to the DoD is underway, but what with a war or two going on, is understandably very slow.

All this discussion because whoever wrote the memo didn't know CAP existed - or else forgot.

Two questions, VNY:

1. Why did you change the name?
2. What is "Occam's Razor"?

Knowing the second answers the first.

Occam's Razor states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Stated differently - the simplest answer is usually the best.

In this case, it wasn't. CAP was mentioned at one point in the memo.
Title: Re: Occam's razor
Post by: VNY on November 28, 2013, 03:31:40 PM
In this case, it wasn't. CAP was mentioned at one point in the memo.

So CAP not being mentioned is not an assumption then.  It just makes the simplest answer something else, probably that they merely didn't think CAP needed the uniform and didn't anticipate this level of reaction to the decision.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on November 28, 2013, 03:46:19 PM
Logical assumptions aside, guys.

CAP was mentioned as being authorized to wear BDUs (which we are). And "acquire" BDUs (ie. from DRMO, etc)

The memo went on to say who was authorized uniforms with "IFF technologies" and that was basically "AD, Reserves, senior ROTC" etc.

Since CAP was in BDUs, and the ABU was not even mentioned by CAP (let alone the Air Staff or the DoD) nobody thought "We should coordinate this with CAP so if at some later point they want ABUs, this memo doesn't prohibit it.."

No, we were in BDUs.  Unless the Air Staff or the Department of the AF was asking for ABU auth, and there was none in the pipeline, then no reason to make a change.

I also think that memo was not intended to still be in effect 6 years down the road, but rather incorporated into an acquisition reg after a period of time.

No shadowy efforts by anti-CAP forces in the halls of the Pentagon. Just bureaucracy in action.

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on November 28, 2013, 03:50:06 PM
Quote
From NIN

No shadowy efforts by anti-CAP forces in the halls of the Pentagon. Just bureaucracy inaction.


FTFY (Eliminated the space, should be one word not two.)

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: a2capt on November 28, 2013, 04:06:26 PM
Whatever it is, CAP isn't mentioned. It matters not why, just that it's not.

It is to be, the order needs to be revised, supplemented, or itself done away with.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: SARDOC on November 28, 2013, 04:50:25 PM
I agree with NIN, the memo only talks about materials that can be dissementated to which organizations.  I don't read this as a prohibition of us wearing the uniform...just the Air Force can't provide them to us.  If we were to purchase them through AAFES or a Third Party vendor that's a work around as we are responsible for providing our own uniforms anyway.  I think that it's just a convenient excuse for us not to change.

That being said....I'm not vested in this argument either way, as I'm a BBDU type.  I think it looks better and is more appropriate to our mission.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on November 28, 2013, 10:58:25 PM
Where is this memo? I want to see it.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: a2capt on November 28, 2013, 11:28:27 PM
I also think that memo was not intended to still be in effect 6 years down the road, but rather incorporated into an acquisition reg after a period of time.
So, we're not the only ones with that problem?

http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/MD/2008-001041-Disposition_Policy.pdf (http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/MD/2008-001041-Disposition_Policy.pdf)
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on November 28, 2013, 11:48:26 PM
I also think that memo was not intended to still be in effect 6 years down the road, but rather incorporated into an acquisition reg after a period of time.
So, we're not the only ones with that problem?

http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/MD/2008-001041-Disposition_Policy.pdf (http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/MD/2008-001041-Disposition_Policy.pdf)

Spend 5 minutes under the thumb of the DoD... you'll see.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Garibaldi on November 29, 2013, 12:16:42 AM
I also think that memo was not intended to still be in effect 6 years down the road, but rather incorporated into an acquisition reg after a period of time.
So, we're not the only ones with that problem?

http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/MD/2008-001041-Disposition_Policy.pdf (http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/MD/2008-001041-Disposition_Policy.pdf)

Spend 5 minutes under the thumb of the DoD... you'll see.

Interesting that one paragraph kinda says we can use the DCU and another says no. I say kinda, then I saw where our use was restricted to just a few items.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: VNY on November 29, 2013, 04:46:33 AM
http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/MD/2008-001041-Disposition_Policy.pdf (http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/MD/2008-001041-Disposition_Policy.pdf)

Interesting how this DOES allow CAP to get the 3 color desert uniforms - and nobody seems interested at all.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: a2capt on November 29, 2013, 05:00:31 AM
Even if they were interested, it's not like they're any more available than the BDUs.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: shuman14 on November 29, 2013, 05:24:31 AM
http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/MD/2008-001041-Disposition_Policy.pdf (http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/MD/2008-001041-Disposition_Policy.pdf)

Interesting how this DOES allow CAP to get the 3 color desert uniforms - and nobody seems interested at all.

Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico wings only.  :P
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: TexasCadet on November 29, 2013, 05:30:07 PM
http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/MD/2008-001041-Disposition_Policy.pdf (http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/sci/MD/2008-001041-Disposition_Policy.pdf)

Interesting how this DOES allow CAP to get the 3 color desert uniforms - and nobody seems interested at all.

Look at attachment 2A. CAP is authorized to wear 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5V, 5W, and 5X. There is no authorized DBU item for CAP. If we wear authorized to wear the DBU, shouldn't it be authorized?

Quote from: Disposition Policy for U.S. Military Combat Uniforms, Attachment 2A

b. Civil Air Patrol (CAP), an authorized auxiliary unit of the Air Force limited to the NSNs of the PGCs in 5.a, 5.b, 5.c, 5.d, 5.v, 5.w, and 5.x below.

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on November 29, 2013, 06:57:09 PM
You guys...  <smh>

Its much simpler than that.  The Acquisition folks broke it down into "old-style uniforms" (BDU/DCU) and "newfangled uniforms" (ie. with "IFF technologies").

BDUs and DCUs fall into the former category, while ACUs/ABUs/et al fall into the latter.

The intent was never to allow CAP to wear DCUs, only that DCUs are in the same essential classification together with BDUs, and that we're allowed to be authorized to wear other uniforms from that classification (ie. "uniforms that do no incorporate IFF technologies").

I never do quite get why its so darn byzantine.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: JK657 on November 29, 2013, 09:51:02 PM
You guys...  <smh>

Its much simpler than that.  The Acquisition folks broke it down into "old-style uniforms" (BDU/DCU) and "newfangled uniforms" (ie. with "IFF technologies").

BDUs and DCUs fall into the former category, while ACUs/ABUs/et al fall into the latter.

The intent was never to allow CAP to wear DCUs, only that DCUs are in the same essential classification together with BDUs, and that we're allowed to be authorized to wear other uniforms from that classification (ie. "uniforms that do no incorporate IFF technologies").

I never do quite get why its so darn byzantine.

So what you're saying is that CAP is authorized Multicam  >:D
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on November 29, 2013, 11:07:51 PM
So what you're saying is that CAP is authorized Multicam  >:D

And it was black boots over green due to cost until you came along.  8)

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: TexasCadet on November 30, 2013, 04:55:36 PM
So what you're saying is that CAP is authorized Multicam  >:D

And it was black boots over green due to cost until you came along.  8)



HOLD IT!! We have a very important question! Would we wear tan patches, Multicam patches, or full-color patches?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on November 30, 2013, 05:02:43 PM
Answered already but worth repeating.

Full-color patches.

Some people here state
Quote
It does not make sense to wear camo when searching for lost people.

The answer to that is that we become visible in a forest because of all the full-color patches we have!

 :P

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on November 30, 2013, 05:54:02 PM
Answered already but worth repeating.

Full-color patches.

Some people here state
Quote
It does not make sense to wear camo when searching for lost people.

The answer to that is that we become visible in a forest because of all the full-color patches we have!

 :P

Flyer


No, we become visable in a forest because we're wearing the orange vest that we have always been required to wear for over 20 years now.

Amazing how many "experts" forget about that little requirement. :o
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: TexasCadet on November 30, 2013, 06:11:32 PM
Answered already but worth repeating.

Full-color patches.

Some people here state
Quote
It does not make sense to wear camo when searching for lost people.

The answer to that is that we become visible in a forest because of all the full-color patches we have!

 :P

Flyer


No, we become visable in a forest because we're wearing the orange vest that we have always been required to wear for over 20 years now.

Amazing how many "experts" forget about that little requirement. :o

I remember that requirement. However, how many members go on GT missions everyday? Do two or three full-color patches really make a difference? Most members spend more time at their home squadron. And most squadrons are not inside a forest. So, again I ask. Do two or three full-color patches really make a difference?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on November 30, 2013, 06:36:04 PM
Amazing how many people here answer messages from others tongue-in-cheek or in a funny way then turn on others who answer in the same way!

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on November 30, 2013, 07:01:48 PM
No, we become visable in a forest because we're wearing the orange vest that we have always been required to wear for over 20 years now.

Amazing how many "experts" forget about that little requirement. :o

I could surely be wrong, but I'm reasonably certain that the "orange vest over everything" requirement is not 20 years old.

Maybe in your neck of the woods, Phil. Not in mine.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on November 30, 2013, 07:08:37 PM
No, we become visable in a forest because we're wearing the orange vest that we have always been required to wear for over 20 years now.

Amazing how many "experts" forget about that little requirement. :o

I could surely be wrong, but I'm reasonably certain that the "orange vest over everything" requirement is not 20 years old.

Maybe in your neck of the woods, Phil. Not in mine.

When we first started wearing BDU's, there was much whining from the Rescue Ranger types about being in camoflage.
The orange vest was the reply and IIRC that came from National.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: TexasCadet on November 30, 2013, 07:11:35 PM
Amazing how many people here answer messages from others tongue-in-cheek or in a funny way then turn on others who answer in the same way!

Flyer

What do you mean?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on November 30, 2013, 07:11:46 PM
Amazing how many people here answer messages from others tongue-in-cheek or in a funny way then turn on others who answer in the same way!

Flyer

Wasn't "turning on you".  If you feel you were attacked please contact a Mod to have your grieveance addressed.
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: NIN on November 30, 2013, 07:12:20 PM
When we first started wearing BDU's, there was much whining from the Rescue Ranger types about being in camoflage.
The orange vest was the reply and IIRC that came from National.

I was a GTM and subsequently a GTL from somewhere around 1990 until sometime in 2004 or so. About 13 years of that in BDUs.

before all the "it has to be X sq inches of orange" hoopla, I owned two of the older Army road guard vests that are probably not ANSI compliant nowadays.  Used them more for "traffic control" than "ground team."  I am pretty sure I never wore one "constantly" in the field.

Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: Luis R. Ramos on November 30, 2013, 07:26:37 PM
Sorry if I took offense since you quoted me then stated "no, we become..."

If criticism or "put-down" was not intended, I apologize.

For the record, when the orange vest was announced I bought 4 or 5 which I carry in the trunk of my car.

One for me in my 24-hour pack, the rest as loaners.

I have been Safety Officer of two of the squadrons I have been in, Senior in the Safety Track, and at least twice Safety Officer at Group-level events and some bivouacs.

In other words, you will never hear me saying anything in violation of any CAP safety directive.

Flyer
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: a2capt on November 30, 2013, 07:59:14 PM
When we first started wearing BDU's, there was much whining from the Rescue Ranger types about being in camoflage.
The orange vest was the reply and IIRC that came from National.
Funny, I don't seem to recall there being much in the way about reflective vests during the latter two thirds of my going into 13 years of CAP..

Is this from the same "knowledgebase" that you got "every nuclear power plant is a no-fly zone" from?
Title: Re: ABUs
Post by: PHall on November 30, 2013, 09:08:12 PM
When we first started wearing BDU's, there was much whining from the Rescue Ranger types about being in camoflage.
The orange vest was the reply and IIRC that came from National.
Funny, I don't seem to recall there being much in the way about reflective vests during the latter two thirds of my going into 13 years of CAP..

Is this from the same "knowledgebase" that you got "every nuclear power plant is a no-fly zone" from?

The vest requirement has been in ES regs and not the uniform manual.
Makes about as much sense as the soaring uniform being in the 60-1 vs the 39-1.
But there it is...