Separate Utility Uniforms is Wasteful
The development of separate utility (battle) uniforms for each US Military branch is phenomenally expensive and wasteful. Why does the Air Force, Army, Marines, and Navy need separate camouflage uniforms when they are working in the same environment? Why would the Navy need anything camouflaged? An example of wasteful spending would be the USAF's development of their own Airmen Battle Uniform, ABU. I am a retired USAF Master Sergeant and I dearly love the Air Force, but there has been a lack of fiscal responsibility in the development of this ineffective uniform that has no functional basis.
Wearing the same battle uniform across military branches is nothing new. Since the Air Force's inception we have had our own dress uniform, but our battle uniform has always been the Army's battle tested uniforms. Over the past several years there has been a concerted effort to make us look different then the Army. The end result is a uniform that has no function outside of the controlled environment of an Air Force Base, and is dangerous to a deployed Airmen imbedded in Army units because they stand out on the battle field. Deployed Airmen are not allowed to wear the ABU uniform in battle conditions because it is ineffective, unsafe, and not fire retardant. This has been an incredible waste of money.
My solution is that all the branches of the US military should wear the same battle uniform when they go to war. A desert pattern and a woodland pattern would be more than adequate. I understand the pride and heritage of my beloved USAF dress uniform, but when it comes to field conditions we can all wear the same battle uniforms. We would save millions and millions of dollars.
Voting on Ideas
Vote for your favorite ideas by clicking on the up arrow.To undo an upvote, simply click the arrow again. This second click removes your vote.