Would you support a standard uniform for all branches of service? Why or Why not?

The only real advantage of a single utility uniform (cost effects are negligible) is that we remove a free intelligence signature for an enemy. But more important: service missions differ, operating envelopes differ, and the purpose of camouflage is to reduce tactical signature, not to look cool. Similarly, one uniform cannot adequately cover all priority environments, so services would be sharing a common family of designs. We need to agree for at least fifteen minutes on what the purpose of a combat uniform is, and work from there. (I've been in the field for nearly fifty years; I ain't holding my breath.)

Think like warriors, not like CPA's or fashion designers.

I favor whichever uniform reduces the overall drag (read: volume of the shit) we all have to take with us when we deploy, regardless of the environment. I frankly don't see what was wrong with ripstop BDUs; then the gamechanger of digital camo superseded that uniform, although desert tri-color worked just fine in that setting. (Winter weight camo is good for winter climates, as if anybody here needs to be told that. And if not, you can always layer underneath the ripstops.) The only problem with classic woodland and desert tri-color was the need to iron them after laundering. In a combat zone, though, that should be the least of our worries.

I'm not very fond of the reindeer games that resulted from the various digital patterns within the services throughout these last several years, but I should think multi-cam, probably the direct descendant of woodland, would be the most utilitarian. No, they wouldn't work well at sea, but they could work with a few modifications. (Colored ballcaps and/or t-shirts for specific watchstanders, etc.) Most of those guys wear one-piece coveralls at sea as organizational gear, similar to how mechanics and other wrneches have for working in the motor pool, the pit, etc. But this has cost the taxpayers, which is to say all of us, mightily for these experiments.

In the year 2017 with the above graphics showing essentially a new woodland, it begs the question: why did we ever really mess with this in the first place? The only people it's benefited are the garment and textile manufacturers and retailers. Big Navy is finally coming to its senses and dispensing with NWU Type I (aqua-flage), which is probably about six or seven years overdue. Big Army's largely rid themeselves of ACU, which didn't bother me as much, but nevertheless it didn't last very long or live up to its reputation. Now that multi-cam is the way to go, ACUs are largely superfluous. Big Air Force meant well by trying to implement a variation of the tiger stripes of Vietnam days, but I think they would've been better off going with actual tiger stripes or a close variation instead of what they ended up with.

But I also favor the working uniform that contains the least amount of whizbangs. Name, rank and service branch are, to me, the only things necessary without going to town with however many additional unit patches, combat patches and occupational speciality tabs to sweeten the deal. In that sense, you're a member of the U.S. military first, and everything else should be secondary or simply left at home. If a uniform is truly that, we should probably keep these things in mind and reduce the fighting load that our personnel already have to contend with.

Hell yeah! This uniform situation is asinine. There is no justification for different uniforms that have nothing to do with environment. I understand arctic camo, jungle camo, dessert camo etc. if you are in a specific environment but garrison uniform or uniform in theater's without a specific requirement should be standard. Admittedly, it's budget dust in the greater scheme of things but it's still a stupid fight in the end.

A uniform uniform. How quaint. I don't suppose it would be any worse than a Joint Forces Fighter Aircraft. That worked out well, didn't it?

Can you imagine the "committee" that would design the uniform uniform? Every branch represented. Every uniform uniform requirement thrown into one pot. Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall listening to that debate?

How about the compromises? Every design is a compromise. Imagine compromises between mountain infantrymen, tropical sailors, and SAC ground crewmen.

Nope. I have no objections. I look forward to seeing the results. Just keep in mind that I like bell bottom trousers and camo-suspenders...

Yes. KISS keep it simple stupid.

Folks, I for one think the Department of Defense should cease wasting money on uniforms and use that money for better training. Congress, lobbied by various manufacturers as well as the senior leadership feel compelled to change the uniform. This nonsense needs to stop. I agree that one utility uniform is all we need in two weights, summer and winter.

To be honest I am confused with the amount of cammie uniforms the Army has and that AF and Navy cammie pattern ???????? Not to long ago we all wore the same pattern. The Marines branched out with a new pattern and everyone else followed with something completely different. I think it would make sense to come up with 2 patterns that all use. Tan and green. No Army or Marine emblems buried in the design. Just allow the individual service to wear patches,chevrons and the covers they want.
The Marines used snipers to develop the colors and pattern for the MARPAT uniform. I'm sure if the military involved special forces from all branches, they could come up with a color and pattern that works.

Saves money and can get replacements at any base

I say, Team America!

To my line of thinking I agree with having a common field uniform. Regardless of esprit-de-corps, think about it logistically. We are spending so much money making uniforms in lessee here 7 different patterns. I pretty sure I'd rather have few extra rounds to train with that have a uniform the announces to everybody that I am in the Army... then again I am infantry gimme 30 secs of conversation and I'll tell'em.