Air Force Community - Air Force Times

Don’t call this a battle uniform

The first time I heard about the airman battle uniform program, there was a glimmer of hope that the new uniform would be the answer to extensive after-market modifications of the current uniform.

The ABU was advertised as functional, updated and low-maintenance compared to the battle dress uniform. It just turned out not to be true.

If it was the intention of the Air Force to make a uniform that was distinctive and could easily be worn on casual Fridays at the office, they have succeeded. But, to call this an airman battle uniform is a fallacy.

For quite some time, airmen in the rescue, special tactics, TACP and security forces fields have modified their uniforms to make them more functional, but those are for field use only and never allowed in garrison.

BDUs are altered by putting the breast pockets on the sleeves and the waist pockets on the chest. In addition, Velcro goes all over the uniform for name tags, rank, blood type or glint tape. But those modifications were denied by in designing the ABU.

When it comes to being updated, here is another example of the program falling short.

The tiger-striped pattern was developed during the Vietnam War by the South Vietnamese Special Forces and adopted by American special operators and various aircrews. The original pattern was very good against the naked eye, but was dropped when it was discovered that the black stripes made the wearer easy to see with night-vision devices.

Some other good ideas were ignored, too.

Elbow and knee pad pockets are a huge leap forward in comfort compared to the old strap-on pads we’ve been using for years. It doesn’t matter if you’re loading bombs or on patrol, knee pads make life a little better.

Also, anyone who has ever been firing Air Force Qualification Course and had a hot 5.56mm casing drop down their neck can see why a closable collar should have been a no-brainer addition to the new uniform. In the Middle East, this type of collar would help against the friction caused by the body armor that everyone wears.

Also, why change the boots and T-shirts?

The current regulations allow for brown and black T-shirts with the BDU. Both could have remained to be worn with the ABU.

And if the currently issued tan/black boots were left as the authorized foot wear, the Air Force would have saved thousands of dollars, because they are already in the supply system. Plus, several companies make them, allowing people to buy their favorite type of boot, based on their own foot structure and job. As mentioned in the July 7, Air Force Times, the black boots could be for the maintainers and the suede for all others.

The only issue that is correct about the new uniform is the ease of maintenance; it is a true wash-and-wear uniform. I applaud the Air Force for not making airmen starch the ABU. Had that order not been given, it was only a matter of time before someone wanted it heavily starched and suddenly we’re all back to the old ways of doing things.

In conclusion, we have ended up with a uniform that is neither functional nor updated, but is low-maintenance.

This new uniform should have been designed around the needs of those who actually go outside the wire or work the flightline, not those who work in air conditioning.

———

The writer, a former Marine, has been a pararescue jumper since 1997. Now a freefall instructor and master sergeant in Yuma, Ariz., he has deployed to Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

DISCUSS: ABUs