Right, because they're gonna wear their camo in space. Does the Air Force only wear light blue to match the sky? Didn't the Army spent $5 billion on their pixilated UCP uniform?
While the Space Force uniforms are pretty stupid, nothing beats the Navy’s blue berry outfits. “We know our personnel might fall overboard, so let’s make sure they blend in with the ocean as much as possible.”
Can't understand all the uniform styles each branch has. And don't camo uniforms cost more to make than single color ones? Seems to be a huge waste of money to have camo if the person is not deploying to an area that calls for it.
Army, Marines, and Air Force did just fine from the 80s until the early 2000s with the same woodland pattern uniform. Then everybody got cute and had to have their own pattern. Stupid, unnecessary expense.
exactly what I said earlier in the thread. New uniform designs are a big money making racket! Somebody sold this FUBAR idea to the Navy as a cash grab. Dollars-to-donuts the same fucking clothing company had the current Navy uniform in the bullpen waiting for when the Navy woke up and realized the blue uniforms sucked.
When I was in the Air Force in the early 80's we didn't have woodland camo. We had all green uniforms. Maybe some elite forces (like forward air controllers) did but not the average airman. Weird side note - at RAF Lakenheath we had to tuck our shirts in. A few miles away at RAF Mildenhall (wearing the same uniforms) you don't have to tuck your shirt in. Also at Lakenheath you had to roll your sleeves up (depending on the time of year) but only on one side of a street separating the combat/flight line area from the garrison/office and housing side of the street. And cops could ticket you for walking around with your hands in your pockets, but this was Air Force wide.
Woodland wasn't introduced until 1981 and took a while to be widespread issue, just like any new uniform.
I got out in 1984 and it hadn't made it's way to Eielson AFB yet. Granted they probably had it at the nearby Army base (Fort Wainwright) but I don't remember because I wasn't in the army until 1988. I do know from 1988 to 2006 I wore three (maybe four) different versions of PT uniforms in the army, and four versions of the dress uniform. Only one version of the daily camo (woodland pattern) because I got out just in time and I avoided the greyish-green pixilated ACU ! see picture But the army went from that to a much improved multicam pattern right about when my son got out a few years ago - the best version yet so it's no doubt ready to change again!
yes I covered this a few posts back. My NCO customers told me about it. I have no idea why - something about some general's theory of "getting back to old fashioned discipline and pride" or something. Any bets that general has stock in the company providing the uniforms? Just sayin'
That is a horrible idea. That's why if I ever joined the Navy (not likely in all of hell), I'd wear this: By fuck, you're going to see me from space.
I m going to give you some credit here. The US non dress military uniform is designed to be durable and uniform in care. It is meant to get dirty and stained and still be washed and wearable and look uniform to all others. It's design is also meant to show design similarity to all other armed forces, and that has a purpose of an easy visual representation of unity. It would cost more for a new design, and since the space force will be doing mostly earth based things for the forseable future it makes sense to start with what is already designed to save some costs. Where it does make a sort of funny joke on the surface, if you look at it the use of this uniflrm over a completely new design makes sense in a utility and cost conservative approach which should be the focus of our military. That being said I find it a little odd that Trump did not demand a flashy space uniform with his face on the patch.
You made the case in your post. If they are to be on regular military bases they would need a similarly designed uniform with similar care to quickly show they are part of the operation, and also to go along with maintenance of the uniforms and redistribution when uniforms wear out.
Yes, but why have a differing uniform when you are dealing with maintenance, costs, and a visual representation of belonging to the overall armed forces? It would be one thing if they needed a better uniform because they were going to be in space and the new environment demanded it, but in this case they should use the same standard issue uniforms for general activities on base.
ummm…..so you disagree with me? Either you don't understand that I was being sarcastic in that last sentence or you are indeed a "short bus" rider.
In this case he seems to be coherent and making sense. Maybe you can explain why you think what he said is so stupid so we all can get the joke.
I am wondering if chad got hacked by dayton or something because what you said was pretty agreeable in that case.
Yes, soldiers wear camo when not always needed. Because soldiers have camo as their duty uniform. Because... wait for it... wait.... soldiers deploy to places where camo is needed. Space Force will never forward deploy so it makes no sense for them to have camo as a duty uniform.
What?!?!?! The Army and the Air Force most certainly do forward deploy! So it makes sense for the services duty uniform to be camo. The Coast Guard as does under certain circumstances (see all there deployments to the Middle East since 9/11). Space Force will not forward. Having camo as their duty uniform is stupid. Your reflexive defense of all things Trump is showing.
