Why do we need AF Uniforms?

[Hawk200]

Some in-depth responses that actually explain things. A great many of the "Do away with AF uniforms!" post seemed to be almost hatred of the Air Force. It's nice to know that some of the reasons are more practical, and not just simple hatred.

Some things to consider.

I have been in units where everyone wore the AF variant uniforms because everyone met the standards. Most of those were on military installations. The people most likely to show up at your meeting were military, ex-military, retired, or civil service. Those units are better served wearing military uniforms, and fitting in with the local military environment. And even most Army installations have some Air Force personnel on them, so blues around them isn't really that far out of place.

It seemed like whenever there was a unit on a military installation wearing AF uniforms, there was almost always a unit in the local town that didn't. The more military style unit seemed to get more support from the installation than the non-military style one. It could be surmised that it was due to their more military appearance, even when their commander wasn't military at all.

Personally, I think we ought to present options to the Air Force for the allowance of the ABU, and the green flightsuit for all our members. Does anyone remember when former SECAF Roche wore an ABU? He was actually larger than most of our members wearing alternate uniforms. Why can't our larger members wear some of that AF clothing when the former SECAF could? If we kept our blue nametapes (but preferably in a navy or midnite blue), we would still present a distinctive difference.

Our members not meeting standards could also wear flightsuits without rank insignia, like they used to. And overall, you can find a green flightsuit cheaper than a blue one. I'd give up rank insignia on my own flightsuit if it meant everyone could wear the same one.

For dress, I would modify the CSU a bit. The blue slacks with white shirt is similar enough that it would still show association with those wearing blue shirts. Maybe a black tie would be distinctive enough, but all the insignia needs to be the same. No blue tags here, and grey ones here. Maybe go with black epaulets and nametags across the board. Distinctive, but still similar color schemes.

When it comes to uniformity, wouldn't you rather look a little more associated with the Air Force, rather than a lot less?

If we have cadets in one kind, and seniors in other, then the uniformity is still lacking. Everyone one needs to wear the same, or stuff that is very similar, for "uniformity" to work.

[Dragoon]

Personally, I think we ought to present options to the Air Force for the allowance of the ABU, and the green flightsuit for all our members. Does anyone remember when former SECAF Roche wore an ABU? He was actually larger than most of our members wearing alternate uniforms. Why can't our larger members wear some of that AF clothing when the former SECAF could? If we kept our blue nametapes (but preferably in a navy or midnite blue), we would still present a distinctive difference.

Lots of USAF civilians wear BDUs/ABUs when deployed.  And many of them are fat or have beards.

But the insignia they wear  makes it extremely clear that they are not USAF.  No grade, fer example.  No wings or other skill badges.  You'll never mistake a USAF civilian for a USAF captain.

I'm sure USAF would have no problem with our members all wearing USAF utility suits if we removed all our military stuff.

We used to kind of do this by having fat guys remove grade insignia - but that wasn't good for us.  Because those folks were CAP officers and deserved the same recognition as other CAP officers - but they couldn't get it because of their weight.  (it wasn't as bad in the flight suit, as grade was still on the nametag)

I think we'd have no problems with USAF if we removed grade, but that's a non starter for lots of our members.

The only alternative would be to make it extremely clear that we weren't USAF military by making the uniform even more distinctive - keep the bright colored patches and putting rank somewhere other than the collar, for example.  They MIGHT go for that.

It doesn't bother me at all putting cadets in a different suit than seniors - that's how the service academies do it anyway.

Tags - MIKE

[arajca]

IIRC, it was the AF who said those not meeting the h/w standards were no longer allowed to wear the bdu/flightsuit without grade, not CAP.

[cnitas]

Why does the AF have a problem with this? 
Why was it OK then and not now?
Don't we wear distinctive insignia on our uniforms? 

Why the need to single out some of our members if all of us are already differentiated from the AF by the insignia?

[LittleIronPilot]

As an Army guy, I've seen the value of uniforms a lot.  Used correctly, they build team unity and morale.  Used incorrectly, they foster a "look at me" attitude, or divide folks unneccesarily.

CAP could benefit a lot from adopting a single uniform. Screw the "but I wanna look like a warrior" stuff - it simply doesn't matter.

We need to wear whatever uniform will have the maximum benefit to the corporation.  I personally believe that would be done by getting everyone into the same uniform.  One single, unifying look.  Make us all part of a single team, instead of a bunch of statements of individuality.

And if USAF won't let us all wear USAF suits, the best answer is to put us all in something else.   Those who would quit over that are, quite frankly, a little too concerned with their own image, instead of CAP's image.

A large number of USAF personnel don't wear ABUs or Service Dress. Thousands and thousands of USAF civilians, fer example (and truthfully, that's what we really are - volunteer USAF civilians - and that's something to be proud of.)

So long as we admit then that the "uniformity" ends at the outer shell, the "uniform" only. If a gaggle of people are walking in the same uniform but one some a obese, others have beards and long hair and the others look like military recruits...how do they look uniform?

In the end, part of my "issue" is that some are so caught up in the attitude that NOTHING matters, absolutely NOTHING except being different than the USAF. It seems as if standards, of any sort, have no place in our organization for many people.

The hard reality is that a GTM should be physically fit, and that aircrew also should be fit (maybe not as much as a ground-pounder but fit none-the-less). We should all have the same uniform, and it should fit, be clean and correct. People should be at the meetings as much as humanly possible....I mean if the *mission* is that important one should put it at the front, not the back burner.

What *I* want is a more professional vibe in the group and for us to lose the "I am a volunteer" mentality. I have had people actually say "this is the CAP, I am a volunteer, I will be there or not if I feel like it". Hell their cat could barf and they choose not to show. Then a SAREX pops-up and they "want to play" and get huffy when others get the spots in the aircraft or on the ground team that are at the meetings, train, and take this SERIOUSLY.

I am a pilot and [darnit] I want this organization to be professional, sharp, trained, and high-speed....my life may depend on it. Not some barely-there, "volunteer" means I do not really care, this is for fun organization.

If a uniform change will do that, so be it, I am all for it. However instead I see this discussion as a reflection of a larger societal issue where people want everyone to "just get along", where everyone gets a ribbon for just being themselves, and each person is "special" instead of having standards and holding people to them and accountable to a higher level.

[Dragoon]

So long as we admit then that the "uniformity" ends at the outer shell, the "uniform" only. If a gaggle of people are walking in the same uniform but one some a obese, others have beards and long hair and the others look like military recruits...how do they look uniform?

You're right - if we cloned everyone we'd be more uniform.  If we only allowed blonde, blue eyed....ok, lets' end that one right there.   

Uniformity is a matter of degree.   Today, USAF has folks in uniform of several races and both sexes.  And yet they are a lot more uniform than we are.  BECAUSE THEY DRESS ALIKE.  Sure, if everyone was the same weight, or had the same hairstyle we'd be even MORE uniform.  But getting folks in the same garment is a big step in the right directions.

We can't be perfect - but we can be better.  Much better.

In the end, part of my "issue" is that some are so caught up in the attitude that NOTHING matters, absolutely NOTHING except being different than the USAF. It seems as if standards, of any sort, have no place in our organization for many people.

I can understand your frustration with that point.  But I have an equal problem with folks who believe that NOTHING matters, absolutely NOTHING except being the SAME as the USAF.

It's equally bad.

The real key is to get our act together.  To be one organization.  Looking alike.  Acting like a team.  With the same standards.  They don't have to USAF standards (those are probably not practical), but there should be a single set of standards.

The hard reality is that a GTM should be physically fit, and that aircrew also should be fit (maybe not as much as a ground-pounder but fit none-the-less). We should all have the same uniform, and it should fit, be clean and correct. People should be at the meetings as much as humanly possible....I mean if the *mission* is that important one should put it at the front, not the back burner.

I'm with you, especially on the single uniform and meeting attendance part.  As for fitness, we have to weigh the cost to the benefit.  For the vast majority of our ELT hunting, fer example, if you can waddle you can pull it off.  It's not like we're failing in our missions because our members are fat.

What *I* want is a more professional vibe in the group and for us to lose the "I am a volunteer" mentality. I have had people actually say "this is the CAP, I am a volunteer, I will be there or not if I feel like it". Hell their cat could barf and they choose not to show. Then a SAREX pops-up and they "want to play" and get huffy when others get the spots in the aircraft or on the ground team that are at the meetings, train, and take this SERIOUSLY.

Amen, brother.   If you're gonna do it, do it right.

If a uniform change will do that, so be it, I am all for it. However instead I see this discussion as a reflection of a larger societal issue where people want everyone to "just get along", where everyone gets a ribbon for just being themselves, and each person is "special" instead of having standards and holding people to them and accountable to a higher level.

Exactly.  It's the triumph of the individual over the group.  That's why I rail a bit against the USAF uniform junkies - they are putting their own personal preference ("I want to look like  real officer") over the team needs (we should all look alike, even if that means not looking like USAF).

[ZigZag911]

I have to wear corporate, can't meet standards.

I can see a great value in all seniors wearing one uniform.

However, the unity and uniformity that move might bring about would cause a severe drop in morale to those who take justifiable pride in wearing USAF uniform.

I understand, I did myself back when I still could.

The trend to limit the combinations, and have the corporate mirror USAF as much as reasonably possible, is probably the most sensible compromise available in our real world situation.

It's important that visually we appear as a single CAP team.

It's just as important that we show the world that we are part of the AF family, even if only 2nd cousins once removed!

[Dragoon]

Agreed.  I just hope we can do the same with the utilities - bring the USAF and corporate stuff closer to gether.  CAP tends to focus on the service suits, which frankly are not what we where when we're doing a lot of our work.   Most SMs can do everything they joined CAP to do in BDUs or a jumpsuit.  THAT'S where we'd get the biggest "bang" for our uniform "buck."

[LittleIronPilot]

We did our squadron Christmas dinner last night. Over 150 people in attendance. Most SM' and Cadets in USAF-style uniforms, several retirees in their uniforms (we had all four branches represented). Color Guard doing opening ceremonies, Rifle Team doing a demonstration, POW/MIA remembrance, 2-star AF General as a guest speaker.

It took that dinner for me to realize that CAP is more than even its three core missions. You know the saying...something is stronger than simply the sum of its parts.

CAP is part of the Air Force, in its traditions, its history, its culture. Sure we are civilians, but we are granted a great honor to wear AF-"light" uniforms and to represent ourselves as their kinsman.

You cannot take the AF out of the CAP and have it survive, period. My wife, who has never been to a CAP anything, was most impressed and stated she was happy that such an organization as CAP existed for me to serve in. She loved what it does for the Cadets and she knows its importance regarding SAR.

Oh and there were also several senior (wing and region) leaders in attendance, and many wore the CAP uniform and some (myself included) simply wore a civilian coat and tie. The amazing part was that regardless of the uniform, we were still all CAP and proud of what it does and its USAF history. Lets not lose sight of that fact when we have these discussions.

[ddelaney103]

The question isn't "are we AF?" it's "how do we fit in the AF scheme?"

I was an AF civilian for a couple of years before moving on to DoD, and was an Army civilian for a few years before that.

I wore a uniform.  I traveled to war zones.  I was part of the team, and sometimes the guy in charge.  However, I wasn't a Soldier/Airman: no salutes given nor received.

When I'm CAP, I'm a member of the AF team.  However, I'm not an Airman.  Am I proud of the uniform?  Sure - but I'm prouder of what I have done for CAP, the AF, and my country.

CAP would be better served by being the best force of civilian volunteers it can be.  The "one team" concept is better served by "one uniform."  Personally, I think we could wear AF ABU's like civilians or CGAUX - either w/o grade or pin on "Auxiliarist" badge when working with the AF. 

If not, then we should go corporate.  One Team, One Fight, One Suit.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I have to say I am very conflicted on this issue.

I can fully understand Delaney's point about one team-one uniform.  I subscribed to that as a 14-year old cadet and as an Army officer.  Our meetings and missions now look like NATO conferences.  Normal people would think there are several different sub-groups in CAP, each with its own uniform.

This is not a good situation.  It is only acceptable because we have gotten used to this chaos.

But, I want to remind y'all about something else I posted once:

The Kachenmeister Law of Military Tradition...  "Whenever a policy, practice, procedure, or offhand comment survives combat, it becomes an Honored And Sacred Tradition."

So the tradition of CAP wearing AAF/USAF uniforms was born of the fact that we are the ONLY military auxiliary in World War II that saw actual combat.  That has earned us the right to wear the USAF uniform, and I'm not willing to throw that tradition into the dumpster.

But the Air Force has decided that some of our members are unworthy to wear the AF blue because they are too fat to fit the AF image.  We can't do anything about that decision except complain among ourselves about how unfair it is and how this decision does not affect fat members of state air militia units.

So, is the solution to pitch and ditch the tradition of wearing the USAF uniform and wear only the Corporate Clothes?  Or is there some middle ground that will permit both a close sartorial association with the Air Force for all CAP members, AND meet the Air Force requirement of only anorexics wearing their uniform?

We're all pretty smart guys here.  Well, MOST of us are, anyway.  The dummies have a way of being culled out.  If we can't come up with a solution, how can we expect the brain-dead folks at Maxwell to come up with something?

[JayT]

But the Air Force has decided that some of our members are unworthy to wear the AF blue because they are too fat to fit the AF image.  We can't do anything about that decision except complain among ourselves about how unfair it is and how this decision does not affect fat members of state air militia units.

So, is the solution to pitch and ditch the tradition of wearing the USAF uniform and wear only the Corporate Clothes?  Or is there some middle ground that will permit both a close sartorial association with the Air Force for all CAP members, AND meet the Air Force requirement of only anorexics wearing their uniform?

Well, I'm willing to bet that these State Air Guard guys have a worst relationship with the Air Force then we do, and I'm also willing to bet that they are even less known to Air Force command types then us. We're offical, are they?

Second, don't we have the middle ground solution now?

[JohnKachenmeister]

But the Air Force has decided that some of our members are unworthy to wear the AF blue because they are too fat to fit the AF image.  We can't do anything about that decision except complain among ourselves about how unfair it is and how this decision does not affect fat members of state air militia units.

So, is the solution to pitch and ditch the tradition of wearing the USAF uniform and wear only the Corporate Clothes?  Or is there some middle ground that will permit both a close sartorial association with the Air Force for all CAP members, AND meet the Air Force requirement of only anorexics wearing their uniform?

If we has a SATISFACTORY middle ground solution, this thread would not have gone on for 7 pages.

Well, I'm willing to bet that these State Air Guard guys have a worst relationship with the Air Force then we do, and I'm also willing to bet that they are even less known to Air Force command types then us. We're offical, are they?

Second, don't we have the middle ground solution now?

I screwed up that quote again.  Sorry.  I need a drink!

[Ned]

[H]ow can we expect the brain-dead folks at Maxwell to come up with something?

John,

Sorry, but in the holiday spirit, I cannot let a cheap shot like that go unchallenged, even if it was made in jest. 


First, the NHQ crew does NOT make uniform policy.  For better or worse, our volunteer leaders on the NEC and NB do that.  The poor NHQ crew does have responsiblity for trying to write the regulations and clarifications that implement the rapid changes dictated by our leaders.  I have great sympathy for anyone associated with having to write or revise a complex regulation like the 39-1.

Second, even if the corporate team did make policy, it is worth noting that the current policy is a compromise designed to meet the often-conflicting concerns of uniformity, functionality, and externally-imposed standards by the USAF.  Like any compromise, pretty much everyone is unhappy with some part of it.  You and me included, I suspect.

Third, the corporate team deserves better than this.  I get to spend a couple of weeks each year in and around NHQ and have found the employees there without exception to be conscientious and well-meaning.  Most of them could get higher pay and better benefits working for Uncle Sam or in business, but have chosen to work for a non-profit.

Us.

Sure, every organization has a bad apple now and then.  And if that happens, the system almost always responds and corrects the situation.

But your comment -- even if made in jest -- is unfair when bad-mouthing folks behind their backs and who are unable to respond.



Tell you what: if you use your "edit" button, I'll use mine.

Merry Christmas.

Ned Lee

[JohnKachenmeister]

Duly chastised, Ned.

And you are right, I was kidding.

[RiverAux]

I'm not sure where the idea that SDF members are fatter than CAP members is coming from.  FYI, there are only two states with flying SDF units that I'm aware of (Virginia and Alaska).  California and Texas have ground-based SDF units supporting Air National Guard units. 

[ddelaney103]

We have a middle ground: simply take the CAP items in use on the current AF-style uniform and use them on the corporates.   It's easily implemented, brings the uniforms in line with one another and means fewer items in the uniform box.

Unfortunately, it would mean dropping the idea of looking more like the AF: no metal grade or blue epaulet slides.  They harken back to some golden age when the uniforms looked really alike.  This is opposed to our glory years during the war when we wore military uniforms with differences like colored epaulets.  So, by adopting the current AF-style uniform for the corporates, we'd look more like our original idea of a uniform used during WWII.

By the time of the ABU changeover we could have:

AF-style service w/gray epaulets and TPU w/gray epaulets
ABU with blue on gray tapes/full color on gray grade and Gray BDU with blue on gray tapes/full color on gray grade
Sage flight suit with full color on gray grade and gray flight suit with full color on gray grade

Perfect?  No.  Everyone happy?  No.  But we'd look like one team - the CAP team.

[FlyingTerp]

I'm not sure where the idea that SDF members are fatter than CAP members is coming from.  FYI, there are only two states with flying SDF units that I'm aware of (Virginia and Alaska).  California and Texas have ground-based SDF units supporting Air National Guard units. 

The aviation brigade in the VADF wears Army uniforms as allowed by AR 670-1.  I'm not sure what Texas wears.  I'd be willing to bet if the AF was aware that SDFs were using their uniforms (even with grooming and weight standards) they would have a problem with it.

Here's the section of AR 670-1 that allows SDFs to wear Army uniforms:

30–8. Wear of a uniform similar to the Army uniform
c. State defense forces (SDF) may adopt the Army service and BDU uniforms, provided all service uniform buttons,
cap devices, and other insignia differ significantly from that prescribed for wear by members of the U.S. Army. State
insignia will not include "United States," "U.S.," "U.S. Army," or the Great Seal of the United States. Personnel of the
SDF may wear a State-designed SDF distinguishing badge or insignia centered on the left pocket flap. The red
nametape or nameplate will include the full title of the SDF (for example, "Texas State Guard"). The utility uniforms
will contain a State SDF tape in lieu of "U.S. Army" over the left breast pocket. States wishing to adopt the Army
service and utility uniforms will register with the Chief, National Guard Bureau.

Individual SDFs can adopt grooming and height/weight standards at their option, but the Army does not mandate it.

[JohnKachenmeister]

We have a middle ground: simply take the CAP items in use on the current AF-style uniform and use them on the corporates.   It's easily implemented, brings the uniforms in line with one another and means fewer items in the uniform box.

Unfortunately, it would mean dropping the idea of looking more like the AF: no metal grade or blue epaulet slides.  They harken back to some golden age when the uniforms looked really alike.  This is opposed to our glory years during the war when we wore military uniforms with differences like colored epaulets.  So, by adopting the current AF-style uniform for the corporates, we'd look more like our original idea of a uniform used during WWII.

By the time of the ABU changeover we could have:

AF-style service w/gray epaulets and TPU w/gray epaulets
ABU with blue on gray tapes/full color on gray grade and Gray BDU with blue on gray tapes/full color on gray grade
Sage flight suit with full color on gray grade and gray flight suit with full color on gray grade

Perfect?  No.  Everyone happy?  No.  But we'd look like one team - the CAP team.

Delaney:

I may not understand your post, because I'm a little confused.

The condition you are describing is a fairly close variation to the situation we have now.

The way I understand your post, you would still have 2 sets of uniforms... AF and CAP, but would take some steps to minimize the difference between the two?

Like I said, I am very conflicted.  I want to look like one team in one uniform, and I also do not want to throw out more than 60 years of tradition, which is about as much tradition as you can get in the Air Force.  I really don't have an opinion.

[ddelaney103]

Here's my personal preferences, in order:

One uniform - AF style.  This was the uniform WIWAC, and no one seemed to have conniptions about large people in blues and fatigues.  However, Big Blue seems unwilling to go there.

One uniform - corporate.  If we can't look like the AF, we should look like CAP.  It's more important to our organization that we be uniform.  However, besides the expense, there is the simple fact that some people are in love with wearing the AF style uniform and consider corporates "fat boy suits."  So, we seem to be stuck with two uniforms.  If that's the case, then...

Two uniforms - but make them as similar to each other as possible.  If we used the mandatory items from the AF style suit (grey epaulets, CAP hat badge) and added them to the TPU, we would end up with suits that, while different, would at least give the impression that they were from the same org.  However, some people still chafe at the grey, even though we originally wore colored shoulder straps and braid to differentiate CAP from the AAF, and love wearing AF metal grade and blue epaulets.  So we end up with two uniforms, both different from the AF and distinct from each other.  That's the worst of both worlds.

If we're going to shape the future uniforms, we should try to get ahead of the curve and get a holistic solution to the polyform problem.