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

I think all the armed forces branches should have their own variations of the camo- type uniforms. Adds to the distinction of each branch.

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 I frankly don't see what was wrong with ripstop BDUs; then the gamechanger of digital camo superseded that uniform, although desert tri-color worked just fine in that setting.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...

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.

Yes. KISS keep it simple stupid.

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.

I'd just be scared of what group of morons would decide the pattern. We might end up all wearing that pink and purple camo.

Supposed to be one team one fight right?

CW3 (Join to see) MSG Andrew White PO2 Rick Fox SFC Pete Kain MSG Tom Earley SSG William Jones Capt Tom Brown CSM Richard StCyr SPC Kenny Watson LTC Greg Henning MAJ Ken Landgren SPC Jovani Daviu SFC Stephen Atchley MSG Frederick Otero SGT Rick Colburn LCpl Shane Couch Sgt Randy Wilber PO3 Steven Sherrill Cpl Scott McCarroll TSgt David L.

SFC Michael Jackson, MBA If this happened, then what would the military industrial complex (uniform makers) do? they'd go broke, the U.S. Military could save tons of money or put it to better use. How dare you bring up something so sensible!! I almost down voted you for making such a statement!!

I like the idea of a common combat/field uniform with branch specific rank etc. Each branch, by all means, should keep their unique dress uniforms.
Seems like a common combat/field uniform would simplify the procurement process and possibly reduce DoD budget since they would not have to rely on multiple vendors for several different uniforms. I like either the ACU or MARPAT, from what I have read the AF goes to ACU's when deployed anyway.

As long as the Marines and the Navy get to keep an eight-pointed utility cover, I'd be fine if the rest was the same for field uniforms. I was never a fan of the Army/Air force version.

From a economic, logistic and functional standpoint, yes having a common field uniform is the way to go. Service individuality/pride is adequately expressed by service and dress uniforms.

Wow our memories are short, or we've really just turned over that many personnel! The BDU and DCU were common uniforms, and I don't think the basic flight suit varies between services either except for rank insignia and patches. This isn't a far out concept here. For in garrison work I get it - personally I think it's silly to wear anything camo'd up in an office, always have, but unless we're willing to go even further back and put everyone in olive drab fatigues (the old pickle suit), let's just pick something and stay with it for utilities. Dress uniforms, let's just stop obsessing over this already.

While over the years they have been many efforts at cross service standardization most of those efforts fail. Why? Because each branch of the service has its own unique culture and prioritization of values. The bottom line each branch is going to wear what it wants to wear. The Marines are never going to adopt a uniform from the Army because they want to look like Marines and not Soldiers. (Whom they consider an lower order of being.) The Air Force wants their own look so that's why they wear green boots when Army boots (for now) are tan or "coyote brown" (whatever that is).

Is the Navy going to abandon its white uniforms because none of the other services have them? No. Robert Redford made sure that the service dress "choker" whites for Navy officers would be around for another 100 years in the movie "The Way We Were" in 1973. (How many fashions which were cool in 1973 are still cool today? Plaid men's shirts? PLEAASSSEE!) The Marine Corps dress blues are probably the closest thing to fashion perfection ever invented and will NEVER change.

Sure, there's some room for standardization in the area of utility/combat uniforms. But, again, the problem is that one service doesn't want to be like the other.

Sooo.... After they spend 6 trillion dollars on the F-35 and have built only 100 of them before the cancel the program. They will realize that trying to build a "one size fits all" jet fighter doesn't work.

Let each service handle its own procurement and it will cost less in the long run.

I for one have worn the pickle suit, the woodland camo, at that time the utility uniform was universal across the services. Then the 5 services went insane and each service developed their service specific utility uniforms. What a WASTE!!!!! We are short of money for almost everything, weapons, vehicles, maintenance, pay, bonuses, to name a few! But we allocate money for a committee to develop a service specific utility uniform and field gear. I was in the Air Guard for a time, I picked up a surplus Air Force Arctic Parka, My brother joined the Navy and became a submariner. He was in New London pulling deck watch,and freezing. We were talking on the phone and he asked about my parka. I told him I still had it, he asked me to send it to him. I did and the deck watch used it to keep warm. He was talking with me later and said I wish I had the stock number for that parka, I told him it was on the label inside the collar. He attempted to order some parkas for the sub deck watch, the requisition got to base supply, and was turned back, Air Force item not authorized for the Navy. The Navy has a similar item for Navy use. It was not the same nor as warm. I would recommend a joint service committee to develop utility and field equipment. I would make sure all specifications were necessary. Case in point I was aware of a butcher's apron, duck cloth with RED STITCHING. These were used to cut meat for cooking, they are used to protect the cooks uniform from getting bloodied up. The stitching is only a means to assure that a certain provider gets the contract! The Army 2 piece rain suit specified a SILK label to assure the correct contractor was awarded the contract! All specifications should be checked for necessity, and make sure that it does not circumvent the Competitive Bid process!

This is a terrible, being a Marine, we like the fact that we are different. You can tell a Marine by the care of his/her uniform and telling us to wear the same uniform as another branch doesn't do us any justice. Enemies see marpat green/desert and know that hell is coming. We don't want to be associated with another branch

We never should have gotten away from it. The Marines started it then all of the other services had to jump in. Such a waste of resources...and we cry poverty when it comes to training dollars and O/M money.

Answer: Yes, provided the camouflage actually blends in all environments were the forces are operating.

Reason: Cost savings to the tax payers. Yeah, it's that simple.

I think of pride in the branch of service an individual enters in when I think of something like this. I agree with those who say they wouldn't support something like this.

No, not unless in a common operational area.

All things aside, I think we tend to take pride in being clearly distinguished from other services. Granted, we all fight the same fight, but the uniform uniqueness adds a bit of pride to branch service. In my opinion.

No I think all need their own identity SGT Joseph Cardenas CSM Michael Boom SPC Margaret Higgins COL Mikel J. Burroughs CPL Dave Hoover SMSgt Minister Gerald A. "Doc" Thomas LTC Stephen F. LTC Stephen C. SPC Douglas Bolton CPT Chris Loomis SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth CW5 Jack Cardwell

Here's my 2¢... Every service needs to maintain their own their own service & dress uniforms. These uniforms are stepped in history & tradition. Their roles... But DOD meds to pull it together on Battle Dress Uniform/Utilities. Completely ridiculous!

Whoever decided that blues and greys in camouflage pattern deserves the same fate as dose the creator of the ACU... a sound beating. If a situation warrents a pattern, then the color scheme should resemble the terrain. And they should all be the same. Exceptions to this could include service specific details, such as Army name tappes, the Marine Corp EGA, etc.

I would also be a fan of the camo uniform only be used during training or deployment, and bringing back the utility/work uniform...

With so many more joint operations with different branches of the service it seems at least the pattern of any camouflage uniform should be the same. Keep the service specific insignia. With people from different service all in the field together and not matching doesn't seem to make much sense. Patterns that blend with the location Would help, some of these uniforms stand out say against woodland as an example only a little better than white would. At least the Marines have figured out what colors and in nature and set out to blend with that. Seems the other services could learn from that. Instead of wasting money on all sorts of patterns that don't work, adopt one that does for all services. Only difference should be where the task is, dessert, woodland etc. Only class A and Class B uniforms should be specific to any one branch of the service. Shown here is one sampling of a number of different camouflage patterns and even more types have been added since this chart.

It's down to parts commonality; small group of vendors producing a quality battle uniform that not only readily identifies US forces but has all respective services using the same resources (i.e. Joint base carries one uniform with service-unique rank, badges, etc). We should have immediately recognized the waste from having every service strike out on their own to research and produce a distinctive uniform, the duplication of effort is mind-boggling in this era of financial constraints vying against new weapon systems with runaway budgets. If more than one uniform, then at least operational environment-specific uniforms, in lieu of service-specific.

Yes. This ain't no fashion show... to speak in old "hardass" NCO terms. We're here to fight and win wars. We (all) need the most effective camouflage pattern for the terrain we are in. If you want to wear different uniforms when not in combat, go back to the class-A/class-B garrison uniform. Camouflage is designed to blend in to the surrounding area, if you're just trying to look different than your ally counterparts, it might be time to rethink your priorities. I think it's well beyond fraud, waste and abuse the way we've spent millions of tax dollars (between all the branches) just to pick the prettiest (often least effective) pattern.

One team, one fight.

Another good one. The Marines went to digital, then Army did... The Navy and USAF were still sporting DBDUs... then they decided they needed a new uniform too... Riddle me the this batman.... why does the Air Force need Sage Green Tiger Stripes? and Green Boots? Why do Sailors need blue digital camouflage? You would think the Navy would have orange, so if they fell off a ship, someone could see you.... The ACU concept was a worthy idea (one camo pattern for every where) except it worked no where...

That aside, I think we all should have standard utility uniforms, with minimal markings (you know the Army gets carried away as does the Air Force with utility patches and badges...) and then a few variants for the most likely environments we will face.

I like the idea of a single combat uniform. So long as there are variants for different climates and terrain...

I love the Navy and our traditions, but it probably no longer makes sense even to have separate services. Our military budget is larger than all other countries' on the planet, COMBINED. Does it really make sense to have 5 separate air arms and at least 4 sets of Special Forces? I'd say it doesn't. Not only is it more expensive the way we do things now, but our equipment doesn't always interoperate. An F-15 or 16 or whatever the USAF is using now can't land on an aircraft carrier. Even if it could, the pilots don't have those skills. It makes most sense to move toward a common force, which many would say we're doing already. Marines have been used to operate at least hundreds of miles from water, as have SEALs. Navy and Marine Aircraft assault as far inland as USAF and Army aircraft. I've even known Surface Warfare Officers (ship guys) like me to command FOBs in Afghanistan. CENTCOM sent me there instead of Army officers on staff. Maybe we should just stop pretending and go all out integrated.

I don't think it woild work. Not only because every service CHOOSES to have its own distinctive uniform, but because each service also has its own globe of dominance, woth very few exceptions. Army on the ground, Navy/Marines/Coast Guard (who may be my only exception) on the sea, Air Force to the sky. Therefore, each needs a duty uniform duly displaying their separate realms of authority. Combat uniforms should be unanimous only if the services are all deploying to the same environment, much like the multicams are used for. But duty and dress uniforms should NOT be the same military-wide.

I support it even though retired. Seems like a waste ro have more than one pattern per area of the world. I could see a couple but they should be the same across all services. The field is the field. Might save a few dollars.
I think the Army went astray by prescribing the field uniform for almost all wear. I think if ID becomes important, one can read the branch on a nametape.

Yes. The cost to maintain 4 different "combat uniforms" is becoming prohibitive. Keep the dress uniforms separate. The concept of a camouflaged uniform is to prevent the enemy, when in or near contact, from seeing you. On a ship, it doesn't matter if the enemy sees you, they are in a plane or another ship and YOU are not the target. Same thing with a flight line or hangar. The new OCP uniform and/or MARPAT are both equal in camo, so either is fine. Having one uniform, would increase the quantity of the contract, decreasing the cost of the uniform and provide a stable base of matching OCIE as well. So, the costs of all accessories like t-shirts, belts, socks, boots etc would all go down as well. Simple equation. Take the emotion out of the decision and make a smart business decision. All these items costing less equals less tax dollars needed, cheaper replacement costs in AAFES for the warrior as well. And while we are at it, name-rank-unit-branch-combat patch ONLY. I don't need to know you, like everyone else who attended, graduated Air Assault. That information is not necessary to fight and win. It's not like I move around the battlefield, wanting to set up a DZ, looking for dope on a rope. I know who my Pathfinder and AA guys are. More reduction in cost to the Soldier, less stuff for the 1SG to waste his time inspecting. We have to start reducing costs in a dwindling budget economy or more important stuff like weapons, armor, ISR gear will be sacrificed.

I'm all for a unified camo uniform. But for dress uniforms, tradition and culture matters. As much as I never liked my cracker jacks, I'd be sad to see them go.

Doesn't the military have better things to spend money on besides a fashion statement?

Each service should have a different uniform. It promotes pride in service. and those in that uniform are part of that team. However, since you ask, I do not approve of the periodic dress uniform change that goes on in each military branch every so often. I think the return to the Pinks & Greens by the Army is just a waste of money that can be used elsewhere. Work/Camo uniform changes I can understand because of the constant change of technology on the battlefield. However, the dress uniform is nothing more than a make money scheme for certain suppliers. I think if we follow the money we could find out who is friends with who in our procurement system. If someone tells me this constant change promotes pride in service, I say BS. Just saying.

I was in more or less universal field or utility uniforms for a good part of my career. The fatigue uniforms had generally the same patters with the Marines having a map pocket in their version. When we went to the newer fatigues with the thicker buttons, the marines lost their map pocket the Air Force lost their black steel buttons. Then the services went to woodland camo and we were all still the same, to differentiate themselves from the other services they rolled their sleeves differently. I was in the Air National Guard for 6 years I went into the salvage store at McClellan AFB and bought a surplus Air Force Arctic Parka. My brother was serving as a submariner and on deck watch was freezing. He called me and asked me to send my surplus Air Force Arctic Parka. I did so and the entire crew used it on deck watch. He told me he wished he had the stock number for that parka. I told him in was on the label on the back of the collar, he ordered it and the requisition got up to base supply and it was rejected as not authorized for navy. Too bad the best item can not be used for all services!!!

Absolutely not. People join the various branches of service for a multitude of reasons. Those reasons are as expressive as the individuals. By differentiating the uniforms, we allow all of those entering each branch to be immediately identifiable by, and take pride in the uniform of their CHOSEN branch.
Thomas Agostini,
SGT., USMC

For the Combat Uniform, this is doable. This is exactly what we did with the BDU / DCU uniforms. All the services wore the same combat uniform for years and modified them for their particular services. That made too much sense. Then somewhere down the line with the development of the ACU, all the other services didn't like it and therefore went off to develop their own combat uniform(s). It just adds to confusion on the battlefield. This color uniform, that color uniform, these color boots, those color boots, it’s redundant, rediculious and a waste of taxpayer money.

As for each services dress uniform, I do not agree that one uniform is best. The Marines by far have had that corner of the market covered for years. They don’t look like anybody else and nobody else looks like them and by tradition that should stay that way. The Navy is second with their own unique uniforms, though without all the pomp of the the Marine Uniform. The current Army and Air Force uniforms, specially before the issuing of the Army Service Uniform, looked almost identical, except made with different color cloth. I guess that is a carry over from when the Air Force was still the Army Air Corps.

So when I see you on the battlefield, all I really need to know is that you are an American combatant and I’m really not concerned with service you represent, unless there is a specific need, and we can easily figure that later if necessary. But if I’m watching a parade, I want to see each service stand out destictively, wearing uniforms representative of each service.