September 9, 201411 yr The new Army uniform should be the standard utility for both the Army and the Air Force. The Navy and MC should use the MARPAT, except take out the globe & anchor from the Navy uniforms to make the Marines happy (although I doubt anyone other than Marines would notice or give two shits). Army and AF heavy/helo pilots should wear the aviation version of the new Army uniform. Ejection seat aircraft continue to wear the bag. Navy/MC flyers can keep wearing their bags since they never developed an aviation version of the MARPAT or whatever the hell that abortion of a Navy utility is called. That way there's plenty of standardization, yet there's some amount of "distinction" (why we need this concept in a utility/combat uniform boggles my mind, but whatever). The Army and Air Force have always been closely related, and the MC is part of the Dept of the Navy, so that's about as much "distinction" you need. To recap: Army & Air Force utility/combat uniform: New Scorpion (or whatever it's called) uniform. Army & Air Force non-ejection seat flying uniform: Aviation version of the above Air Force ejection seat flying uniform: Traditional one-piece flight suit Navy/MC utility/combat uniform: MARPAT or MARPAT Minus the Globe/Anchor Navy/MC flying uniform: one-piece flight suit Seems easy enough and I think most people would be fine with that uniform combination. Except CMSgts, who will scream about not having something "distinctive" enough to remind them they belong to the USAF. Maybe a SGM or two who will bemoan the heresy that Air Force pukes get to wear "their" uniform...etc.
September 10, 201411 yr The new Army uniform should be the standard utility for both the Army and the Air Force. The Navy and MC should use the MARPAT, except take out the globe & anchor from the Navy uniforms to make the Marines happy (although I doubt anyone other than Marines would notice or give two shits). Army and AF heavy/helo pilots should wear the aviation version of the new Army uniform. Ejection seat aircraft continue to wear the bag. Navy/MC flyers can keep wearing their bags since they never developed an aviation version of the MARPAT or whatever the hell that abortion of a Navy utility is called. That way there's plenty of standardization, yet there's some amount of "distinction" (why we need this concept in a utility/combat uniform boggles my mind, but whatever). The Army and Air Force have always been closely related, and the MC is part of the Dept of the Navy, so that's about as much "distinction" you need. To recap: Army & Air Force utility/combat uniform: New Scorpion (or whatever it's called) uniform. Army & Air Force non-ejection seat flying uniform: Aviation version of the above Air Force ejection seat flying uniform: Traditional one-piece flight suit Navy/MC utility/combat uniform: MARPAT or MARPAT Minus the Globe/Anchor Navy/MC flying uniform: one-piece flight suit Seems easy enough and I think most people would be fine with that uniform combination. Except CMSgts, who will scream about not having something "distinctive" enough to remind them they belong to the USAF. Maybe a SGM or two who will bemoan the heresy that Air Force pukes get to wear "their" uniform...etc. But that would make too much sense
September 10, 201411 yr This enrages you? Then reach under and hold it up for him while he finishes his duty. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App! #SAPR See how that worked out here
September 10, 201411 yr The new Army uniform should be the standard utility for both the Army and the Air Force. The Navy and MC should use the MARPAT, except take out the globe & anchor from the Navy uniforms to make the Marines happy (although I doubt anyone other than Marines would notice or give two shits). Army and AF heavy/helo pilots should wear the aviation version of the new Army uniform. Ejection seat aircraft continue to wear the bag. Navy/MC flyers can keep wearing their bags since they never developed an aviation version of the MARPAT or whatever the hell that abortion of a Navy utility is called. That way there's plenty of standardization, yet there's some amount of "distinction" (why we need this concept in a utility/combat uniform boggles my mind, but whatever). The Army and Air Force have always been closely related, and the MC is part of the Dept of the Navy, so that's about as much "distinction" you need. To recap: Army & Air Force utility/combat uniform: New Scorpion (or whatever it's called) uniform. Army & Air Force non-ejection seat flying uniform: Aviation version of the above Air Force ejection seat flying uniform: Traditional one-piece flight suit Navy/MC utility/combat uniform: MARPAT or MARPAT Minus the Globe/Anchor Navy/MC flying uniform: one-piece flight suit Seems easy enough and I think most people would be fine with that uniform combination. Except CMSgts, who will scream about not having something "distinctive" enough to remind them they belong to the USAF. Maybe a SGM or two who will bemoan the heresy that Air Force pukes get to wear "their" uniform...etc. No.
September 11, 201411 yr No. Why? It makes sense. You're part of the problem. Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!
September 11, 201411 yr DoD wide-- -Ground combat/utility uniform -Non-ejection seat aircrew uniform -Ejection seat aircrew uniform Services get to add however many pieces and styles of flair they feel appropriate.... "Distinctive" uniforms get to be service dress, mess dress, etc...you know, stuff you wear in a business-casual to formal environment.
September 11, 201411 yr No. Just curious...why not? Do you have a love affair with the useless Airman "Battle" Uniform? Or would you rather waste a few more million bucks to design an "Air Force distinctive uniform" and keep a separate supply chain for that too? I've worn the Multicams (or OCP, whatever you want to call it), both the ground and the flyer versions. I like them and so do most people who wear them...not to mention you can actually blend in to something other than the foundation of a building.
September 13, 201411 yr The biggest question is who makes it? I'll buy their stock knowing that it's about to blast off with some free government money. Step 1. Steal underwear Step 2. ??? Step 3. Get $1billion uniform that hasn't changed and make profit since the govt paid for everything
September 13, 201411 yr I say don't change the bag. I don't trust he AF to get it right. Bag wearers will end up with some retarded version sporting the ABU pattern with retarded pockets and a shitty fit Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
September 17, 201411 yr Why? It makes sense. You're part of the problem. Just curious...why not? I say don't change the bag. I don't trust he AF to get it right. Bag wearers will end up with some retarded version sporting the ABU pattern with retarded pockets and a shitty fit Let me clarify... No to two piece flight suits. nrodgsxr said it. I may be flying a heavy, but I damn sure don't want some 2 piece multicam old navy cargo pocket looking flight suit.
September 17, 201411 yr Why not, exactly? Adolescent Top Gun inspired self image misconceptions aside, it looks like a Jiffy Lube outfit. It's a uniform. As long as I can get better functionality and don't end up wearing dungarees, meh... Posted from the NEW Baseops.net App!
September 17, 201411 yr Let me clarify... No to two piece flight suits. nrodgsxr said it. I may be flying a heavy, but I damn sure don't want some 2 piece multicam old navy cargo pocket looking flight suit. The multi cam flight suit is pretty comfortable.
September 17, 201411 yr If congress passed a law saying we had to all choose the same uniform, does that apply to flight suites too?
September 17, 201411 yr If congress passed a law saying we had to all choose the same uniform, does that apply to flight suites too? I wouldn't think so. Maintainer's have a unique uniform, same goes for tankers, and many other jobs. So unless the standard uniform for everyone would incorporate nomex then I'd safely assume special duty uniforms will still be somewhat unique (maybe just in material and not camo pattern though).
September 17, 201411 yr What's up with the Navy's blue digital camo pattern? Blends in quite well with water when they fall overboard, makes them easy to spot against the grey paint on deck.
September 17, 201411 yr What's up with the Navy's blue digital camo pattern? Blends in quite well with water when they fall overboard, makes them easy to spot against the grey paint on deck. Same as the Air Force's ABU. Not practical or useful in combat, but is distinct enough for recruiting and feel good purposes.
September 18, 201411 yr Let me clarify... No to two piece flight suits. nrodgsxr said it. I may be flying a heavy, but I damn sure don't want some 2 piece multicam old navy cargo pocket looking flight suit. Have you worn the Multicam aviation uniforms? I like them. Most people that have worn them like them. When it's hot you can take the top off. It's pretty comfortable and very workable. I preferred it over the bag. You can always wear your wings to keep your self-esteem up, however.
September 18, 201411 yr What's up with the Navy's blue digital camo pattern? Blends in quite well with water when they fall overboard, makes them easy to spot against the grey paint on deck. That is why they call it aquaflauge.
September 18, 201411 yr You can always wear your wings to keep your self-esteem up, however. I don't think there's an option for it on the multi cam flight suit, unless you wear your desert name patch on your shoulder pocket.
September 18, 201411 yr I don't think there's an option for it on the multi cam flight suit, unless you wear your desert name patch on your shoulder pocket. Everyone I see wearing the multicam flight suit has wings velcro'd on.
September 18, 201411 yr Everyone I see wearing the multicam flight suit has wings velcro'd on. I've seen this too. I know when the Aviation ACUs first came out in the Army a number of years ago, they originally told them they couldn't wear wings...but then that directly conflicted with the regs that require personnel to wear their aviation qual badges.
September 19, 201411 yr I've seen it both ways with the aircrew OCP's. Seems like it's a post purchase modification to get the extra velcro on it though. Mine doesn't have it so I just throw my name tag on the shoulder or go without when I feel fancy and want to rock the ISAF patch.
September 19, 201411 yr I've seen this too. I know when the Aviation ACUs first came out in the Army a number of years ago, they originally told them they couldn't wear wings...but then that directly conflicted with the regs that require personnel to wear their aviation qual badges. Yea it depends on who made them I think; when we were first issued Multicam in early 2012 they were a weird thick material and no Velcro for wings. That was the year of the rainbow--- guys in the same squadron during the same deployment wore the desert 2 piece, desert one piece, ABU 2 piece, and both versions of the Multicam 2 piece (which fade into very different colors after a dozen washes). Oh, and "issued" civilian clothes too, some of us still wore those to fly. I'm glad we've finally standardized with a decent incarnation of the Multicam 2 piece. The final step is dumping the green one piece at home and simply having one flying uniform. There is no practical reason to maintain both.
Create an account or sign in to comment