• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

New Working Uniforms

This latest attempt at a working uniform (the all blue) is on the right track at least. The chest insignia looks terrible IMO but the rest of the uniform seems to make sense.

Then there's that khaki variant. The bloused trousers are horrendous with that IMO.
 
wink said:
Ugly as sin and misused. That is and always should be a should rank device. On the other hand, these chest rank displays give me a reason to stare at passing tits. Imagine how that big RN officer rank will look on a female sporting 36Ds.
Click to expand...
I actually think that moving the chest rank on the potential new uniforms to soft shoulderboards for officers and rating badges for enlisted would be a nice throwback. Keep both versions blue vice the khaki color for officers/chiefs. However, I'm sure somewhere there's a design criteria not to utilize any sewn-on rank/rating devices because somewhere an E-3 with 2 years of service complained about it.
 
brownshoe said:
And dungarees.:)
Click to expand...
I think that a lot of people look back on dungarees with rose-colored glasses. Many enlisted personnel thought they were uncomfortable, ill-fitting, and likened them to a prison uniform. The first two complaints are likely due to changes to the average shape of an American since WWII. The fact that the uniform regs had strict guidelines on where you could stop, and that an overzealous chief would frequently interpret that is thou-shalt-not-ever-be-seen-in-utilities, didn't help. It also didn't help that many a chief would require his men to have perfectly ironed utilities with military creases in a material that didn't crease well, despite the fact it could only be worn on the base and while transiting in a car. I have heard countless stories like these from sailors who used to wear them and they are universally happy that they are no longer a required sea bag item.

I think that if we offered to go back to dungarees the overwhelming majority of enlisted personnel would vote no. While I personally shudder when I see a couple of sailors in blueberries walking around the mall - mostly because the blueberries just look awful in general - it is better than the draconian rules we had on our working uniforms up until then.

Improving on the dungarees/utilities was a good effort, unfortunately we are royally screwing this up. The new potential uniform looks promising, I just wonder why it took 3 iterations of uniform changes in under 10 years to get there. While the type IIIs are just fine and look infinitely more professional than the type Is, I do scratch my head at the decision to use a button fly vice a zipper. Like seriously, wtf.

One concern I have about the new 2-piece FRV is whether they will disintegrate in a couple of months like the FRV coveralls do. Whatever material they are made of wears down rather quickly at friction points (armpits, crotch, belt loops, pockets where mechanics put tools, etc). The FRV coveralls, being an underway uniform, we tolerate a bit more wear on them. They also are relatively cheap in the supply system (under $40). The price of replacing the two piece uniforms frequently to keep them looking good when the armpits and belt loops start to fade vice outright rip is going to make the bean counters want to change the uniform again in short order. For reference I have old coveralls that still look pristine but the new FRV coveralls don't last more than 6 months before looking like they are unserviceable to wear off the ship (if such a thing were actually allowed). Oh, and to put a cherry on top the FRV coveralls shrink at least a full size in the wash.

As for the fire - if you're fighting a major fire you'll be in an FFE. If you're not in an FFE, you're probably already dead since the smoke alone will knock you out. The flame-retardent design criteria is overblown.
 
Last edited:
Spekkio said:
I think that a lot of people look back on dungarees with rose-colored glasses. Many enlisted personnel thought they were uncomfortable, ill-fitting, and likened them to a prison uniform. The first two complaints are likely due to changes to the average shape of an American since WWII. The fact that the uniform regs had strict guidelines on where you could stop, and that an overzealous chief would frequently interpret that is thou-shalt-not-ever-be-seen-in-utilities, didn't help. It also didn't help that many a chief would require his men to have perfectly ironed utilities with military creases in a material that didn't crease well, despite the fact it could only be worn on the base and while transiting in a car. I have heard countless stories like these from sailors who used to wear them and they are universally happy that they are no longer a required sea bag item.

I think that if we offered to go back to dungarees the overwhelming majority of enlisted personnel would vote no. While I personally shudder when I see a couple of sailors in blueberries walking around the mall - mostly because the blueberries just look awful in general - it is better than the draconian rules we had on our working uniforms up until then.

Improving on the dungarees/utilities was a good effort, unfortunately we are royally screwing this up. The new potential uniform looks promising, I just wonder why it took 3 iterations of uniform changes in under 10 years to get there. While the type IIIs are just fine and look infinitely more professional than the type Is, I do scratch my head at the decision to use a button fly vice a zipper. Like seriously, wtf.

One concern I have about the new 2-piece FRV is whether they will disintegrate in a couple of months like the FRV coveralls do. Whatever material they are made of wears down rather quickly at friction points (armpits, crotch, belt loops, pockets where mechanics put tools, etc). The FRV coveralls, being an underway uniform, we tolerate a bit more wear on them. They also are relatively cheap in the supply system (under $40). The price of replacing the two piece uniforms frequently to keep them looking good when the armpits and belt loops start to fade vice outright rip is going to make the bean counters want to change the uniform again in short order. For reference I have old coveralls that still look pristine but the new FRV coveralls don't last more than 6 months before looking like they are unserviceable to wear off the ship (if such a thing were actually allowed). Oh, and to put a cherry on top the FRV coveralls shrink at least a full size in the wash.

As for the fire - if you're fighting a major fire you'll be in an FFE. If you're not in an FFE, you're probably already dead since the smoke alone will knock you out. The flame-retardent design criteria is overblown.
Click to expand...

Here is a question I need answered - why do our working uniforms need to "look good"? They are meant to do work in. If you're in the engineering spaces or on the ramp maintaining aircraft, they are going to get dirty and disgusting. If you're flying in an aircraft they are likely going to get sweaty and disgusting. About the only people who don't risk getting dirt on their working uniform is the admin office - although if you've ever seen a toner cartridge explode upon forced removal you know they should probably wear working uniforms too just in case.

I don't get it. We do manual labor - we aren't doing pass and review every day. Who gives a shit if Seaman Timmy wants to stop at 7-11 for a Red Bull after a 12 hour shift and he's got grease on his pants? Is some unknowing civilian going to think "God, our military is so unprofessional because this 19 year old kid is stopping at the store to get some caffeine and he has a STAIN on his mechanics uniform?" Do we even care if they do?

The only things working uniforms need to be are functional, safe, and comfortable. I don't press my jeans and starch my shirt before I go work on my car or paint my house, but that's the same kind of work we are talking about. Need to go someplace business casual? We have another uniform for that. Formal event? Wedding/Funeral? We have uniforms for that too. Stop trying to make the working uniform something it isn't meant to be - a show piece for civilians.

And FFS if MCPON could tell the whole worldwide mess to lay off the nonsense enforcement of bullshit uniform rules, I think we might actually develop morale again. Nothing worse than a 50lbs overweight chief with khakis above his ankles huffing and puffing at some poor kid because he wore his PT uniform into the wrong side of the Jacksonville NAS in violation of local instruction (true story).
 
Spekkio said:
I think that a lot of people look back on dungarees with rose-colored glasses. Many enlisted personnel thought they were uncomfortable, ill-fitting, and likened them to a prison uniform.
Click to expand...


I was just being facetious, I know they'll never be brought back as a working uniform.
But you are wrong, in my day, we loved them! Great working uniform!
 
Angry said:
Here is a question I need answered - why do our working uniforms need to "look good"?
Click to expand...

Because the people that wore them (officer and enlisted) complained when they couldn't wear them off base. Really, that's what it boils down to.

Rewind a few years and you had flight suits, which were short stops only, and <whatever the post-dungaree uniform was called> blue utilities, which couldn't be worn off-base. The people complained. Then came NWUs, which were still no-go off-base, but while the uniform itself was a disaster, there was a plan to make this available off-base eventually (or at least so it eventually appeared to be the case). Then NWUs were good off-base, but flight suits weren't. Well, that makes no sense, and so then came the "everyone wears black shirts" rule. The end of the world was decried, but as it turns out (and as I predicted, by the way), this was just prepping for being able to wear flight suits off base. And now everyone was happy. Pilots and YNs alike could wear their uniform off-base and the world rejoiced. Next came the NWU Type III, so at least there was a little less snickering at the NWU out in public.

So now, can you imagine taking all of that away?
 
Gatordev said:
Then NWUs were good off-base, but flight suits weren't. Well, that makes no sense, and so then came the "everyone wears black shirts" rule.
Click to expand...
I thought that was the "everyone wears dark blue shirts, except with flight suits which have to wear black shirts" rule.

It was as if the uniform board didn't have anybody who knew what it's like to pack for a shipboard deployment when you have limited storage or knew how ship's laundry works, but let's squeeze a few more T shirts into the seabag. Or maybe it was if the uniform board didn't have anybody with common sense. Wait, it wasn't a question of "maybe."
 
Angry said:
Here is a question I need answered - why do our working uniforms need to "look good"?
Click to expand...
For several reasons, which I'll cover below.
They are meant to do work in. If you're in the engineering spaces or on the ramp maintaining aircraft, they are going to get dirty and disgusting. If you're flying in an aircraft they are likely going to get sweaty and disgusting. About the only people who don't risk getting dirt on their working uniform is the admin office - although if you've ever seen a toner cartridge explode upon forced removal you know they should probably wear working uniforms too just in case.
Click to expand...
We have coveralls for exceptionally dirty work that would soil the NWUs, so I'm not sure what you're driving at here. They're even provided at no cost to the sailor.

I don't get it. We do manual labor - we aren't doing pass and review every day.
Click to expand...
You don't do manual labor. Some of our men do. Those sailors are afforded coveralls as organizational clothing, even in port. And if they're not, then you can fix that. However, the majority of sailors don't do work in the course of a normal day that you describe above.

Who gives a shit if Seaman Timmy wants to stop at 7-11 for a Red Bull after a 12 hour shift and he's got grease on his pants? Is some unknowing civilian going to think "God, our military is so unprofessional because this 19 year old kid is stopping at the store to get some caffeine and he has a STAIN on his mechanics uniform?" Do we even care if they do?
Click to expand...
Because our public image and public relations actually matters. We like it when towns welcome military bases, not shun them because it brings in greaseballs who walk around in ripped clothing. We like it when people think of the military as a worthy profession from all walks of life, not something you do when you are impoverished or you can't make it in another job. We've actually made a lot of headway as an organization in the last couple decades in this area. Presenting a neat and orderly appearance in public is part of that image.

Aside from that, putting on something you can be proud of raises morale. The NWU Type Is were better than utilities, but missed the mark a bit in this case. I don't hear any of those snickers about Type IIIs. You're deriding uniform changes away from a uniform that looks like a prison uniform as someone who didn't have to wear them. The fact of the matter is that they were overwhelmingly unpopular. Aside from being uncomfortable for most people, our men just want to be able to stop for gas and maybe some groceries on the way home without being screamed at, and they don't want to spend 30 minutes a day pressing their uniforms when they spend 60-80 hour on the ship in-port or 50+ hours a week at sea standing watch. That's not a lot to ask.

The only things working uniforms need to be are functional, safe, and comfortable. I don't press my jeans and starch my shirt before I go work on my car or paint my house, but that's the same kind of work we are talking about. Need to go someplace business casual? We have another uniform for that. Formal event? Wedding/Funeral? We have uniforms for that too. Stop trying to make the working uniform something it isn't meant to be - a show piece for civilians.
Click to expand...
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want working uniforms to be allowed to be worn in town (which I think we all do), then they have to be presentable for the reasons that I detailed above. And again, if your sailors are painting or working with grease in NWUs, your command is doing it wrong.

And FFS if MCPON could tell the whole worldwide mess to lay off the nonsense enforcement of bullshit uniform rules, I think we might actually develop morale again. Nothing worse than a 50lbs overweight chief with khakis above his ankles huffing and puffing at some poor kid because he wore his PT uniform into the wrong side of the Jacksonville NAS in violation of local instruction (true story).
Click to expand...
Why do you need the MCPON to come do it when you could just do it yourself?

When it came to utilities, the goat locker was mostly enforcing the rules of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top