A search of the word "uniform" didn't reveal anything similar, and to the best of my knowledge uniform specs aren't particularly sensitive. I'm sure if i'm wrong on either of these points someone will let me know.

So ABUs get a lot of hate. Here in comm we have a lot of armchair warriors who have complained that it is not really tactical. It occured to me recently that none of us have any significant training or experience in that area, and i should ask some people that do.

What do you guys think of the ABUs? How do they hold up compared to the BDU or ACU? How do they compare to your ideal utility uniform? To what extent were you guys consulted on the uniform, and how seriously do you feel your advice was taken?

The ABU has been panned in depth and often on this sight. The colors don't blend with any environment, the material is too heavy and doesn't breath well, the pockets are poorly laid out for use with body armor and the boots are not durable enough for field ops. The ABU represents the failure of the USAF to produce a true battle uniform such as the USMC has and to listen to feedback from Operators in the field. The ACU is only somewhat better and the Navy is still identifying their own unique uniform. Why the DOD let all services procure unique utilities is beyond me. The SECDEF should have gotten one good uniform, such as the Marines have, and mandated everyone use it to keep costs down.

My anecdotal opinion on our Uniforms...

I wore the ABUs to Iraq. I did not like them at all, and very few said they did (unless they were preaching the party line.) I worked in a joint environment and got the following feedback: Army likes their uniform with some exceptions. A few folks felt that instead of blending into everything, their digitized uniform blended into nothing. I heard the term "we look like jewel merchants in the field." I thought that was humorous. A few complained about the velcro, and the crotch blowing out. They do have good layering options, and that softshell jacket system is nice. Armytimes has a link to their authorized outergarment manufacturer. I saw a few in Iraq, and they looked nice. The Marines were 100% satisfied with their uniform. Their desert pattern works. Very well. I would assume their woodland pattern does as well.

Navy was still wearing the DCUs. They, are light and comfortable. None of the Navy folks I met were looking forward to their blue/grey/black camo pattern utility uniforms (I'm sure you can find an image on Navytimes.com).

One of the things that irks me is that i was issued a black polarfleece, but had to wear it UNDER my ABU blouse. Wearing a jacket under a shirt, then getting into some place hot, like a chow hall, and not being able to take it off. Insane. The Army and the Navy were authorized to wear their polarfleece jacket as... a jacket!

I got issued tan Belville boots. They worked fine.

Here's my take.

The ABU was designed for our day and age battle field enviornment. However, like Guard MC said, it doesn't blend with any of them. Result, I still wear BDU's for field ops. The ABU was designed to save time/money, i.e. dry cleaning, and boot polishing. I'm still paying money/spending time to have pockets placed in usefull areas....on the uniform that best meets my needs....BDU's.

Point is, and has been made many times before, the ABU commitee did not take into thought the proper considerations during design. It simply failed to meet our needs as operator's.

However, it does fine for most of the Air Force. You can't make everyone happy right?

That is the key BFloyd...even if you were being facetious...it works for the vast majority of AF personnel...even if it was tested by some operators, and others that go "outside the wire".

The fact is those that tested it likely gave some detrimental feedback...as did many others...I mean...a pen pocket on the sleeve for a "battle uniform"...lets get real.

Guard MC is correct...but I know the service's want their own distinctive uniform and I agree they should have it...but let that destinction be in the form of dress uniforms (first and foremost), and in the form of stripes to distinguish the services...along with the service tapes.

Remember, with the woodland camauflage uniform and DCUs, that is exactly what we had...the Army and AF wore them the same, the USMC and Navy rolled the sleeves inside out if they were rolled up, but it was the same basic battle dress uniform...it seems when the Army/USMC (I forget who did it first) made the change, everyone thought they too had to make a change...without regard to costs or even common sense...the USMC has the absolute best combat uniforms right now, and everyone should be wearing them like we did with the BDU.

This just in:

2. Effective 1 Oct 08, the only authorized uniform in the AOR is ABUs (w/exception of Civil Engineering AFSCs – 3E0X1, 3E0X2, 3E1X1 and 3E8X1). However, since the cold weather months are quickly approaching, it is imperative we outfit our Airmen with the proper cold weather gear. Because All Purpose Environmental Clothing System (APECS) demand continues to outpace existing inventory and projected production levels, the DCU Gortex jacket w/liner and the DCU field jacket are authorized for wear with the ABU in the AOR until 1 May 2009.

3. Additionally, those Airmen who process through an Army Power Projection Platform and are issued ACU patterned cold weather gear may wear the uniform items inside the wire, as determined by their commander.

4. Our continued objective is to preclude mixing uniform items, therefore commanders must make every reasonable effort to minimize the wear of mixed uniforms.

5. Please disseminate this policy within your wings.
------
We're working on Air Force level guidance for our Guardian Angel weapons system to allow relaxed grooming standards and non-standard uniforms. I'm wondering why this policy is in place since the mandatory wear date for the ABU isn't until 2011.

We've moved from fighting a war against salafist jihadist muslims, the worst of the worst (with many myths associated with their kind...just ask) to making our AOR bases bastions of military correctness, to include uniforms...without regard for the tactical realities that exist in the AOR. The Air Force espouses the fact that we're at war, our Airman are filling numerous "in lieu of" taskings, and has gone so far as to add a couple weeks to BMT for combat related training...yet when we're in the AOR, we must comply with the strict edicts that govern our military.

Don't get me wrong, good order and discipline is essential, but when we sacrifice common sense and the ground truth for reasons that can only be seen as "normalizing" the AOR to comply with non-combat locations, essentially making our forward operating locations "Air Force Bases"...we are heading in the wrong direction.

I can't wait until Indoc, CCSC, and AST move to Baghdad...with the swim test conducted in the Euphrates river (with 10 minutes added to the max time due to hostile fire)...

On another note, this policy specifically references exceptions for CE, but not for flyers...the question is then raised...is the Desert Flight Suit still authorized in the AOR? (Not according to the policy). If not, then our flyers are working in the ABU which is not designed for flight operations...Whoever drafted this policy for the General to sign should be re-assigned as it seems to have been drafted from a flyer's point of view (i.e..."of course the desert flight suit is authorized)...without regard to overall force management...and leaving a critical void in the policy...that of aircrew protection and survivability...such a lack of inclusion of an exception to the basic mission of the Air Force calls into question the entire policy.

I fully agree TE on re-assigning whoever drafted that policy, as that policy also forgot my AFSC, 3E7X1 (Fire Protection). You have to wonder how AFSCs that deal with electrical burn hazards, IEDs, and the like get clear mention - yet the one career field who specifically trains and works in extreme heat environments fails to get mentioned on the policy.

However, the good news is, that policy will change very shortly...

I'm currently out processing for a voluntary deployment to the AOR and the word my team lead got was that the USAF finally has ABUs approved for CE career fields that are needing some level of flame retardant material for their duty uniform. However, due to the time frame of our ship out date the manufacturer was not be able to send us the ABUs in time so I can't add any additional commentary on thickness, air flow, material construction and weight at this time in the form of a review. If I see these new ABUs being used down range by my fellow CE brothers, I'll be sure to chime in and post any findings I have. Beyond that, I'm just pleased to still be wearing the 100% cotton BDU/DCUs due to the abundance of negative criticism the standard issue ABUs have received. The only down side of cotton BDU/DCUs is they wrinkle easily, and as you know within the military, nothing says dirt bag like wrinkles; which of course effects your shooting accuracy, cardio vascular endurance, and the like

Now set aside from my one bad joke of the day, I was wondering in full curiosity if flame retardant uniforms have ever been considered for operational use by the career fields this website focus on with the growing threat of burn related injuries in todays battlefield and being on flight status? Also I was wondering if those within the 1T2X1 AFSC have ever felt the need to have a duty uniform that was resistant to blood born pathogens like your civilian EMS counterparts, or is a body fluid isolation kit more cost effective like those used in conjunction with obstetrics emergencies?

Lets hope your AFSC is included in the sure to follow "updated" policy letter...I still can't believe the lack of clarification in this guidance.

We have considered flame retardant ABU/BDU...the Army has a great desert BDU that is basically a flight suit...the AF does not...we basically accept the risk when it comes to flame retardant material...we fly in BDUs/ABUs.

As for blood born pathogens...we take basic BSI precautions when working with foreign nationals...but any pilot we pick up is, by defintion, desease free (or should be)...but the same precautions are taken. Personally I feel no need to have a uniform resistant to pathogens...and every ride along I've gone on doesn't provide such a uniform.

Fire-resistant textiles, Flame-retardant, heat resistant textiles are a difficult subject as durability and other environmental considerations of duties performed need to be considered.

There are levels of heat and flame protection that can be designed into protective clothing. The typical new flight suit provides its best flame protection. The primary purpose of the flight suit is to not being a fuel contributing to combustion and not necessarily to prevent getting burned. Burns do not need flame to happen, all that is needed is the transfer of heat.

The durability of the typical military flight suit to retain the protection it is expected to provide is not very impressive. As it is worn and washed the flame protection lessens. The typical flight suit--even when brand new--provides minimal levels of heat protection. The typical flight suit is also lacks the fiber performance for avoiding wear and tear during extended highly physical activity while concurrently providing inadequate suitability for the climate, weather, terrain and other environment conditions typically encountered of being the extension of the aircraft performing duties on the ground or in the water. I do not consider it a high performance personal protection from flame and fire protection clothing item. It is also why PJs were approved and authorized to perform crew duties wearing BDUs, or wet suits in lieu of flight suits and LBE in lieu of survival vests way back in the 1970s.

When discussing fire protection clothing it is important to understand it is the energy being generated (rate of heat release) that determines how effective the clothing will be. At some point of rate of heat release all clothing will burn and even if rate of heat release doesn’t burn heat is still being conducted through the clothing may, can and will be sufficient to cause burns.

The difficulty in determining the most functional daily duty uniform for a PJ is complicated by the extended range of geography, climate, terrain, weather, and other hazards a PJ might be put into on any given alert, duck butt, mission tasking, or other response. This is even true with training as although home station might be Moody AFB, a exercise tasking could put the team into a training situation that was created for training purposes in Montana, Alaska, or any place else it was decided to do so. The PJs' primary purpose is to be the capability of airpower put on the ground to do what the aircraft can not do.

PJs differ from typical rescue aircrew who are tied to duties performed on Search and Rescue mission design series aircraft. The pilots, Flight Engineers, and gunners participating in doing the mission perform duties almost absolutely at a crew position within the aircraft. PJs contribute to performing duties within the aircraft but also as an extension of the aircraft with the potential once down the hoist or employed by parachute from the aircraft to provide extended mission capability on the ground. When you add the hazards of direct participation in ground combat and providing SERE it becomes a trade off of what clothing characteristics provides the better functional flexibility for life and health survival.

Very informative post Yukon, it answered a lot of questions I had; thank you.

I just wanted to also add that while generally speaking, at least addressing my AFSC, the choice of our duty uniform isn't specified to combat or provide protection against heat transfer - that's what the bunker/proximity gear is for. However, the duty uniform under direction from NFPA 1975 (Standard on Station/Work Uniforms for Fire and Emergency Services) mandated the material design so that if you ever do experience a significant heat exposure in the work place, we don't have melting nylon and other dangerous synthetics boiling and sticking to our skin - I guess my take on the original question would be, how come these safety standards are only in place within few select AFSCs and haven't been adopted in other AFSCs if the technology and/or availability is there?

...I believe the Army's first version of the ACUs did not incorporate resistances to melting hazards, and over time with continuous IED attacks, and the burn related injuries from them, they produced and began to issue the FR-ACU for ground units, and the FR-A2CU for aircrew in CENTCOM areas.

The cost. Not necessarily the initial issue but the upkeep of such clothing in serviceable condition. Plus also the black market. Do you have a clue on how much equipment and consumables some members of the Air Force are capable of pilfering to supplement their income before they get caught?

During my time as a PJ the local purchase of clothing, tents and sleeping bags was very preferable. However, the costs of war readiness and placement of sufficient replacement inventory positioned at deployed location to support higher wear and tear of sustaining many weeks and months of high tempo operations at a deployed location was not in the awareness of many PJ in their first enlistment. Logistics is a very important aspect of conducting both civil SAR and combat rescue operations.

For example a 7.62 round might only cost $0.03, but it adds up when a GAU-2 is pumping out 2000 to 4000 rounds per minute. One round doesn’t weigh much either, but (Alzheimer’s) I forget how many rounds go in an ammo can but it is heavy. Shipping that weight from manufacturer to each base costs money, the storage and inspection management of all the lot numbers cost money too. The same issues apply to clothing, but worse. There are sizing issues, gender issues, environmental issues, durability issues, etc.

There is no simple solution, but overall force management and cost effectiveness would be to adopt the same ground duties battle uniform. This certainly was the reason when the BDU was adopted by all the services in the mid or late 1980s. Sometimes the Air Force leadership is staggeringly bewildering me with the decisions they are making these days.

This only address one small point brought up throughout this post but as I quickly skimmed much of this post I noticed some concentration of thought on a flame retardant BDU, ABU, ACU (Uniform, regardless of pattern). Prior to my cross train out of Fire Protection there was a Nomex BDU produced and issued to us. It was made by Lion Apparel a popular manufacture of civil firefighter and police uniforms. They were produced in response to NFPA requirement that all duty uniforms would be made from a natural and flame retardant material. This may be over simplifying it but the production of a different pattern on that material strikes me as pretty dam straight forward.

Unfortunately I'm not up to speed with textiles and clothing items as I was when I was running Pararescue/non-aircraft Rescue acquisitions at HQ AMC to include choice of deciding what clothing was actually selected for test and evaluations.

As a off on a tangent side note it was a very interesting job. In regards to parachutes I did the MAJCOM acquisitions of the Interim MT-1X/S, MT-1X/X and MT-1I tandem Tandem Ram Air Parachutes before the MC-4 and MC-5 got put on line. This include writing and keeping current the TO to include all safety supplements for all Army, Navy, Air Force Users. I was in charge of all munitions forecasting for MAC/AMC which at the time included 23rd AF which became AFSOC. It was my job to budget and make sure the flying units has flares, Chaff, 7.62, 9mm, fire extinguisher squibs (when you get an aircraft engine fire and pull the lever a little explosive device releases the fire fighting agent), refueling hose squibs (if tanker can’t reel in drogue refueling hose it has to be guillotined), I was also in charge of the MAJCOMs watercraft which at the time included a harbor dredge and tender at the Azores. The MAJCOM DO’s/XO’s staff had several nick names for me; CINC Admiral of the Fleet, Cecil B. DeMille’s (a $200K training Film I was project manager for—used lots of special effect, open sequence is my voice on a combo of live footage, testing dummy footage of me bouncing into the ground because of a total malfunction and failure to deploy reserve), and CINC Bombs and Bullets. I was also involved with NAVSTAR in regards to ensuring combat rescue assets had a frequency and bandwidth user priority (back in the old days when there were not very many satellites for such purposes and even less radios available to use such capability. Anyhow-I also did clothing and sleeping bags, and etc which they now have CROs to do all this desk flying. BTW-I also sustained full mission readiness during this assignment at the local Army aviation unit. Initially on UH-1s and C-47s and then H-60s. I even did a SAR or two with this unit.

Back to clothing. The process of making clothing flame resistant changes other properties of the textile. For instance it may be incompatible with the water repellency and breathing properties of Gortex. It may change the reflected property so that the cloth becomes so reflected that anybody wearing the clothing item appears to be lit up like a Christmas tree when looked at by somebody using NVGs or when illuminated by an IR source.

If I’m a convoy driver worried about IEDs the flame and heat protection will have stronger importance. If I’m unmounted (on-foot) doing a tactical operation the camouflage concealment and not lighting up like a Christmas tree when looked at by somebody wearing NVGs would have stronger importance.

Back in 1982 or 1983 when I was a SSgt on team at 41st ARRS McClellan AFB I wrote the MILSPEC and table of allowance authorization for the local purchase of tactical dive watches. It was pretty thorough, I got significant attaboys on the thoroughness from throughout the DOD. During this same time I also wrote the first justification and authorization to use AimPoint sights on M-16s/GAU-5s. MeClellan’s SPs and CATMs were pissed because they couldn’t get them and use them. They wanted me to write their justification which I did not do because I caught them taking our weapons to the range and playing with them without asking. This level initiative is how and why I eventually ended up on a HQ staff taking care of acquisitions, logistics, and on the fringes of Test and Evaluations of new equipment. I got to test and evaluate the silenced Berretta that was eventually stock listed and authorized in the TA for PJ and CCT use.

On a side note this level of initiative is typical of most PJs especially of those that decide to make a career of it. It is why the 1730th Pararescue Squadron that had only two officers, its commander and exec officer was so successful.

The 1730th PRS depending on year was at Eglin AFB or McClellan AFB. It existed from July 1987 to August 1989. It had nine geographically separated detachments around the world. Each Detachment was run by a Senior NCO PJ. Each of the detachments and the squadron itself earned awards and recognition of performing exceptional Meritorious Service. It was awarded Air Force Outstanding Unit Award and at least one, perhaps two Battle Streamers.

Sorry about the tangent history, but suitable tactical and protective clothing is as I said a more difficult subject than many realize.

I agree. Not only is the Marine cammo more tactful, but it is laid out better.