Posted on May 14, 2016
The Navy is ready to dump the military's most pointless uniform
16.2K
41
22
11
11
0
Editor's note: This article was first published on April 22 at 4:23 p.m. EDT and has been updated.
After six years in the fleet and some controversy, the blue-and-gray cammies could be headed for Davy Jones' seabag.
The digital blue Navy Working Uniforms were a fleet mainstay until 2013 after they were found to be unsafe to wear while fighting a fire. One plan is ditching these blue Navy working uniforms in favor of their green cousin. The service could potentially save millions by switching to the woodland cammies already worn by Seabees and master-at-arms. The green-and-tans are also not flame-resistant but would be the standard for ashore wear; flame-resistant coveralls and flight suits are mainstays for at-sea wear.
Dumping the digital blues, also known as the NWU Type I, is a move that's been quietly discussed by leadership in recent years.
“I think that there are a lot of folks who wouldn’t be sad, I guess, if Navy working uniform Type I went away,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said in an interview.
He’s heard sailor's complaints that the heaviness of the fabric makes it hot from shoulders to boots. Sailors have told him it's “very uncomfortable,” he said.
Sure, the blue NWUs have been popular with those who like the battle dress-styling. But its camouflage is an open joke. Sailors have called it their “blueberries” and gagged that their foremost value is concealing paint spills. Even the Navy secretary has mocked it, saying three years ago that “the great camouflage it gives is if you fall overboard.”
Time to ditch the blue cammies? Send us your uniform suggestions at [login to see] .
Richardson, who signs off on all uniform decisions, wants to make sailors' uniforms more functional and to achieve the aim of many previous CNOs: slimming down the seabag, a move that will save the service millions of dollars. Another option to accomplish that is to dump the poly-cotton utility coveralls; like the NWU, these uniforms will melt in a fire but are still issued to every sailor. There's a possibility that the service could make a custom seabag for different types of duty or add a flame-resistant uniform to the seabag.
"Let’s take a look at the whole sea bag and see if we can’t make it a little bit more sensical, where the elements of that sea bag are more suited to their mission," he said. "They are comfortable, they are effective, we can wear them more broadly so that we don’t have people having to change in their workspace before they have to drive home."
The future of fleet uniforms is also up in the air. Fleet sailors are testing two prototypes of flame-resistant uniforms: one a traditional coverall design and the other a blue flightsuit style. In addition, Navy officials have blueprinted a hybrid of the coverall and flight suit.
Walking away from aquaflage in favor of the woodland pattern NWU type IIIs is a tough decision and won’t be easy to execute, but it is being discussed.
“In terms of NWU Type I, NWU Type III, [and] the coverall: All of those things are being considered,” he said. “Those things I think would allow us to look each other in the eye and say, 'This makes a lot more sense than some of the schemes that we have now.'”
What's next
It could be a good time to dump the blueberries. Congress is pressing for cost-savings by consolidating the explosion of service-specific camouflage to what conceals best.
The Navy has spent $224 million just to develop and initially field the NWU Type I's, according to a 2010 Government Accountability Office report.
Then there’s the logistics.
Currently the Navy stockpiles more than a year’s supply of the NWUs with the Defense Logistics Agency, spending $15.4 million in fiscal 2015 to buy 200,059 trousers and 224,232 blouses; plans as of mid-2015 called for the spending even more in fiscal 2016.
Another issue is modifying or breaking the existing contracts through DLA. In 2015, DLA told Navy Times that two contracts that govern the purchase of NWU Type I trousers and blouses. That agreement will expire in 2018.
A separate contract for the poly-cotton coveralls, which can't be worn in the fleet, will expire in 2019.
The good news is that these "indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity" contracts give the Navy some flexibility to draw down its stocks, but the Navy must still purchase a minimum amount.
One contract has a minimum buy of 50,000 units. The other is a bit tricky. It encompasses production of four different types of uniforms, with a minimum of 104,000 units per year.
The NWUs were envisioned as the service's everyday uniform, to be worn in classrooms, at shore-based commands and in ships and squadrons. Accessories like the fleece and parka were offered to make it wearable in cold and wet weather. But the uniform has since been ruled unfit for wear aboard ships while underway after revelations it would melt and burn up in a fire, and officials are asking whether it should continue to be a seabag item.
Declining sales and lack of use underway prompted the service to cut the seabag requirement from four pairs to three last year. At the time, officials hinted that move would start a gradual phase out. Even so, the service has spent money developing lightweight blue NWUs.
Many prefer the woodland cammies, saying they're more comfortable in a wide range of climates.
What’s more, outfitting all hands with the same cammies would make the service more uniform and likely save millions every year.
According to Navy Uniform Regulations, all enlisted sailors are required to maintain their complete compliment of aquaflage uniforms in working order — including the three sets of blue NWUs.
With seabag items, enlisted sailors get an initial issue and then are required to maintain those uniforms with their annual clothing allowance.
Not so with organizational clothing, where Type IIIs fall now. When sailors wear out those items, they simply turn in the worn-out item to the supply office and get a new one issued for free.
Thousands in the Navy wear woodland cammies full-time, including Seabees, SEALs, explosive ordnance disposal sailors and divers; they rarely, if ever, take their blue-and-grays out of the closet.
Others, like sailors attached to Navy Expeditionary Combat Command, won't wear their blueberries as long as they're on a NECC tour of duty.
Some 50,000 sailors are paid to maintain three sets of blue NWUs, at $215 a pair. Getting rid of this requirement would thus save the service around $10 million a year in organizational clothing costs for purchasing Type III's.
To be sure, the service would also need to buy more sets of the woodland NWUs, which reportedly have a higher cost than the digital blues, making it unclear how much of the savings the service would see, though with larger purchases, the per-unit cost will naturally drop.
And this is only the start. Richardson says it’s not just working uniforms he’s reviewing — it’s the whole seabag. [login to see]
Slimming the seabag is easier said than done. Many before have tried to tackle it. Few have succeeded.
Beyond saying that nearly everything is on the table, CNO didn’t say which way he is leaning.
"These are important decisions and so you want to do them thoughtfully,” he said. "I would say that in the next few months we might be ready to come out with our next step forward.”
After six years in the fleet and some controversy, the blue-and-gray cammies could be headed for Davy Jones' seabag.
The digital blue Navy Working Uniforms were a fleet mainstay until 2013 after they were found to be unsafe to wear while fighting a fire. One plan is ditching these blue Navy working uniforms in favor of their green cousin. The service could potentially save millions by switching to the woodland cammies already worn by Seabees and master-at-arms. The green-and-tans are also not flame-resistant but would be the standard for ashore wear; flame-resistant coveralls and flight suits are mainstays for at-sea wear.
Dumping the digital blues, also known as the NWU Type I, is a move that's been quietly discussed by leadership in recent years.
“I think that there are a lot of folks who wouldn’t be sad, I guess, if Navy working uniform Type I went away,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said in an interview.
He’s heard sailor's complaints that the heaviness of the fabric makes it hot from shoulders to boots. Sailors have told him it's “very uncomfortable,” he said.
Sure, the blue NWUs have been popular with those who like the battle dress-styling. But its camouflage is an open joke. Sailors have called it their “blueberries” and gagged that their foremost value is concealing paint spills. Even the Navy secretary has mocked it, saying three years ago that “the great camouflage it gives is if you fall overboard.”
Time to ditch the blue cammies? Send us your uniform suggestions at [login to see] .
Richardson, who signs off on all uniform decisions, wants to make sailors' uniforms more functional and to achieve the aim of many previous CNOs: slimming down the seabag, a move that will save the service millions of dollars. Another option to accomplish that is to dump the poly-cotton utility coveralls; like the NWU, these uniforms will melt in a fire but are still issued to every sailor. There's a possibility that the service could make a custom seabag for different types of duty or add a flame-resistant uniform to the seabag.
"Let’s take a look at the whole sea bag and see if we can’t make it a little bit more sensical, where the elements of that sea bag are more suited to their mission," he said. "They are comfortable, they are effective, we can wear them more broadly so that we don’t have people having to change in their workspace before they have to drive home."
The future of fleet uniforms is also up in the air. Fleet sailors are testing two prototypes of flame-resistant uniforms: one a traditional coverall design and the other a blue flightsuit style. In addition, Navy officials have blueprinted a hybrid of the coverall and flight suit.
Walking away from aquaflage in favor of the woodland pattern NWU type IIIs is a tough decision and won’t be easy to execute, but it is being discussed.
“In terms of NWU Type I, NWU Type III, [and] the coverall: All of those things are being considered,” he said. “Those things I think would allow us to look each other in the eye and say, 'This makes a lot more sense than some of the schemes that we have now.'”
What's next
It could be a good time to dump the blueberries. Congress is pressing for cost-savings by consolidating the explosion of service-specific camouflage to what conceals best.
The Navy has spent $224 million just to develop and initially field the NWU Type I's, according to a 2010 Government Accountability Office report.
Then there’s the logistics.
Currently the Navy stockpiles more than a year’s supply of the NWUs with the Defense Logistics Agency, spending $15.4 million in fiscal 2015 to buy 200,059 trousers and 224,232 blouses; plans as of mid-2015 called for the spending even more in fiscal 2016.
Another issue is modifying or breaking the existing contracts through DLA. In 2015, DLA told Navy Times that two contracts that govern the purchase of NWU Type I trousers and blouses. That agreement will expire in 2018.
A separate contract for the poly-cotton coveralls, which can't be worn in the fleet, will expire in 2019.
The good news is that these "indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity" contracts give the Navy some flexibility to draw down its stocks, but the Navy must still purchase a minimum amount.
One contract has a minimum buy of 50,000 units. The other is a bit tricky. It encompasses production of four different types of uniforms, with a minimum of 104,000 units per year.
The NWUs were envisioned as the service's everyday uniform, to be worn in classrooms, at shore-based commands and in ships and squadrons. Accessories like the fleece and parka were offered to make it wearable in cold and wet weather. But the uniform has since been ruled unfit for wear aboard ships while underway after revelations it would melt and burn up in a fire, and officials are asking whether it should continue to be a seabag item.
Declining sales and lack of use underway prompted the service to cut the seabag requirement from four pairs to three last year. At the time, officials hinted that move would start a gradual phase out. Even so, the service has spent money developing lightweight blue NWUs.
Many prefer the woodland cammies, saying they're more comfortable in a wide range of climates.
What’s more, outfitting all hands with the same cammies would make the service more uniform and likely save millions every year.
According to Navy Uniform Regulations, all enlisted sailors are required to maintain their complete compliment of aquaflage uniforms in working order — including the three sets of blue NWUs.
With seabag items, enlisted sailors get an initial issue and then are required to maintain those uniforms with their annual clothing allowance.
Not so with organizational clothing, where Type IIIs fall now. When sailors wear out those items, they simply turn in the worn-out item to the supply office and get a new one issued for free.
Thousands in the Navy wear woodland cammies full-time, including Seabees, SEALs, explosive ordnance disposal sailors and divers; they rarely, if ever, take their blue-and-grays out of the closet.
Others, like sailors attached to Navy Expeditionary Combat Command, won't wear their blueberries as long as they're on a NECC tour of duty.
Some 50,000 sailors are paid to maintain three sets of blue NWUs, at $215 a pair. Getting rid of this requirement would thus save the service around $10 million a year in organizational clothing costs for purchasing Type III's.
To be sure, the service would also need to buy more sets of the woodland NWUs, which reportedly have a higher cost than the digital blues, making it unclear how much of the savings the service would see, though with larger purchases, the per-unit cost will naturally drop.
And this is only the start. Richardson says it’s not just working uniforms he’s reviewing — it’s the whole seabag. [login to see]
Slimming the seabag is easier said than done. Many before have tried to tackle it. Few have succeeded.
Beyond saying that nearly everything is on the table, CNO didn’t say which way he is leaning.
"These are important decisions and so you want to do them thoughtfully,” he said. "I would say that in the next few months we might be ready to come out with our next step forward.”
The Navy is ready to dump the military's most pointless uniform
Posted from navytimes.comPosted in these groups: 
Uniforms
Uniforms
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 8
7
7
0
Where they Bloody Well Belong. The Most Ignorant Uniform ever conceived. Navy Dungarees have worked forever and lets get back to basics. We are not out playing anywhere where we need any form of "Cammys"
(7)
(0)
PO3 David Fries
Sorry, but I disagree on two things. First, I hated dungarees. I felt like a convict in them. Second, the only sailors that wear Marine Corps uniforms are Corpsman assigned to Marine Corps units. Given the synergy between Corpsman and Marines, there is nothing wrong with it. Granted, I am biased.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I always thought it was funny that they wore "camoflouge". Even if it did make them blend into the environment, it's not like an enemy Navy or aircraft is going to look at the ship and think, oh thank heavens, there is another completely abandoned naval vassrl just floating around in the ocean. Fifth one we reported today.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
When I was in the Service Uniform noted above was for the Marines not Sailors and I thought that should have remained that way. If they wanted to add a less formal service uniform I would have preferred they brought back the Salt and Peppers that was rather nice looking.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Thank seems very reasonable SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL. I had been very curious about the Navy camp pattern for ship board and home station sailors for a long time. I am glad the SEALS never had to deploy or operate in that uniform.
(4)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
Why just SEAL's sir I find that statement demeaning as there are over 65,000 troops other than just SEALs that need to not be in the other uniform (green Digi Type III and desert Type III) on ground. There are many units that work in the same places as them and in just as much danger. They are Seabees, EOD, Riverine and many other Ground NECC UNITS support, work with and operate down range with Joint Force ground units and missions all over the world. SEALS are not the only Navy ground guys down range in harms way. My community has paid a high price on the ground conduction missions also.
(1)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
CPO (Join to see) - I emphasized SEALS since when I chanced to be around them in the early 2000's the SEALs wore BDUs just like virtually everybody else at that time which is when the military Services looked the most joint.
I recognize that the Seabees and others require ground focused camouflage uniforms and expect that they already have been able to wear reasonable uniforms when in country. I was a combat engineer in the early 1970s.
A classmate and old friend of mine commands SOCOM now and I expect he will ensure common sense applies to uniform or in mufti requirements. His last post was as commander of JSOC.
I recognize that the Seabees and others require ground focused camouflage uniforms and expect that they already have been able to wear reasonable uniforms when in country. I was a combat engineer in the early 1970s.
A classmate and old friend of mine commands SOCOM now and I expect he will ensure common sense applies to uniform or in mufti requirements. His last post was as commander of JSOC.
(1)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
LTC Stephen F. - They do all wear them they are the only ones in the Navy allowed to wear the Type III and II we are a major support element in SOCOM right now and the other NECC elements are doing the same thing. All NECC and NSW elements are in the Type III in CONUS and outside would depend on mission and AOR and that includes SEALs. We have CSST elements (These teams go through a pretty rough 12 week training program for weapons and convoy movements and other NSW stuff they will have to do with SEALS) that are assigned to NSW and they wear the type II when in AFG and Iraq and the Battalion elements that support the SOTF in same AOR will have the Army Multi-Cam, This is to ensure no one mix's up who is NSW and those elements support ODA and other SOF. I understand what you were saying, just wanted to pint out that there are other dirt sailors that work and operate in dangerous places also and have lost lives in this conflict. Everyone when they think Navy ground troops they just go right to the SEAL thing. Navy EOD is considered special operations also and know one gives them any attention and we do are thing helping the fight everywhere and same thing. The every earth quack, Hurricane or any Disaster we are the prime response not SEAL's us. The Ebola thing we were the ones tasked to help with that along with AF medical personnel but who knows that.
Little known fact. When the rangers 75th went in in AFG and some ODA elements went before the Marines came in with 40 man element that was tasked with support and was the first element into a place now known as Camp Rhino. C-17 Landed first 17 tactical landing ever had the SeaBee team on it and was dropped off tactical spin around 30 mikes on ground and 17 was off the only people on deck was a 12 man ODA team and a small unit of Rangers. Bees had to help reinforce the element until Marines could get their advance security elements on ground 4 days after Bess were on deck. They had to work around clock along with also having to help man fighting positions when under attack. The unit received 2 Bronze stars and 3 NAVCOMMS with V and 5 Nams with V 's and the whole unit received a JUC and all received CAR's (Combat Action Ribbon)his is just one action with serval others like this in PI, Iraq and back in AFG after the build up in 2008. Navy EOD has and still is conducting raids with SOF teams all over and Navy Riverine deployed in Iraq helped in serval snatch and grabs of bad guys in the river villages. Point being it is not just SEAL's doing and helping in the fight, There are other Navy Forces on the frontline also.
Little known fact. When the rangers 75th went in in AFG and some ODA elements went before the Marines came in with 40 man element that was tasked with support and was the first element into a place now known as Camp Rhino. C-17 Landed first 17 tactical landing ever had the SeaBee team on it and was dropped off tactical spin around 30 mikes on ground and 17 was off the only people on deck was a 12 man ODA team and a small unit of Rangers. Bees had to help reinforce the element until Marines could get their advance security elements on ground 4 days after Bess were on deck. They had to work around clock along with also having to help man fighting positions when under attack. The unit received 2 Bronze stars and 3 NAVCOMMS with V and 5 Nams with V 's and the whole unit received a JUC and all received CAR's (Combat Action Ribbon)his is just one action with serval others like this in PI, Iraq and back in AFG after the build up in 2008. Navy EOD has and still is conducting raids with SOF teams all over and Navy Riverine deployed in Iraq helped in serval snatch and grabs of bad guys in the river villages. Point being it is not just SEAL's doing and helping in the fight, There are other Navy Forces on the frontline also.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Who ever ran the textile testing for the Navy should get fired. All textiles are required to be tested for flame resistant, to see who long it takes for them to either resist the heat or don't catch fire for a certain amount of time.
Famously, the Marines developed MARPAT on an efficient $319,000 budget. That’s compared to $3.1 million the Air Force spent in 2007 to design a “tiger stripe” pattern that was later determined to be flawed and unfit for combat deployments, and $3.2 million in 2005 to develop an “Army Combat Uniform,” or ACU, which is also being retired due to poor performance and the Navy spent $224 MILLION on uniforms that are not the least bit fire retardant. Anyone want to volunteer to be Johnny Blaze "The Human Torch"?
Famously, the Marines developed MARPAT on an efficient $319,000 budget. That’s compared to $3.1 million the Air Force spent in 2007 to design a “tiger stripe” pattern that was later determined to be flawed and unfit for combat deployments, and $3.2 million in 2005 to develop an “Army Combat Uniform,” or ACU, which is also being retired due to poor performance and the Navy spent $224 MILLION on uniforms that are not the least bit fire retardant. Anyone want to volunteer to be Johnny Blaze "The Human Torch"?
(3)
(0)
PO1 Phil Eldridge
I bet it was because those doing the non-Marine uniform testing were in bed with the companies contracted to make the uniforms haha! But yeah, I agree, the Marines did it right with the MARPAT... works well and manages to look sharp as hell to boot. But the first time I saw a Marine in MARPAT I thought, at first, he did a lousy job at sewing on his tapes... ;-)
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google