8
8
0
Considering the ridiculous expenditure of money that has been spent on uniforms, all branches should adopt the same Combat Uniform(s). There can be several ones for different environments IE woodland, desert etc, but it is a absolute waste of money to have different uniforms for every branch. Why have we as a nation wasted hundreds of millions on ACUs and AF Service uniform which offer no camouflage unless you are fighting in a stone quarry. And who is the genius who thought blue uniforms were good at sea? You don't blend into the ship and if you fall overboard no one can see you. It does not seem to make much sense.
That is one area that would save hundreds of millions of dollars.
I believe the best choice would be the MARPAT uniform.
So should the different branches cooperate and have one uniform and what choice would be best?
That is one area that would save hundreds of millions of dollars.
I believe the best choice would be the MARPAT uniform.
So should the different branches cooperate and have one uniform and what choice would be best?
Posted in these groups: 
Uniforms
Uniforms
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
0
0
0
0
0
0
Totally agree. When I joined the entire military had one desert pattern, one woodland pattern, etc etc now there's like 15, and they aren't even necessarily better.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
COMRADE CAPTAIN THE SAME IS GOOD...LETS GO STAND IN THAT LONG LINE OVER THERE...
ROFLMAO SMELLS COMMUNISTIC TO ME
ROFLMAO SMELLS COMMUNISTIC TO ME
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
There would be advantages - but not as much as people seem to think. In the end, the bulk of the cost would still be in the actual uniforms, not in the overhead. Since we would still need to clothe just as many service members, the savings would be reduced by quite a bit.
In addition, only the Marines have fielded a new, effective uniform - they also had the lowest development costs. This means that the issue isn't in the development, but the abysmal acquisition process of the Army and Air Force (the navy spent on par with the Marines per new working uniform but came out with a stinker - that's a separate issue). Since it's likely that the Army would have led any new initiative, that means that, not only would we still be having to try again - but we would have to re-uniform all the branches, rather than just one.
It's important to understand that uniformity has its advantages - but it also has its risks.
In addition, only the Marines have fielded a new, effective uniform - they also had the lowest development costs. This means that the issue isn't in the development, but the abysmal acquisition process of the Army and Air Force (the navy spent on par with the Marines per new working uniform but came out with a stinker - that's a separate issue). Since it's likely that the Army would have led any new initiative, that means that, not only would we still be having to try again - but we would have to re-uniform all the branches, rather than just one.
It's important to understand that uniformity has its advantages - but it also has its risks.
(0)
(0)
WO1 (Join to see)
Yes we would still need to clothe just as many service member so the upfront cost would be high but after that it would pan out.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google