Quality of Uniform
 

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed the deteriorating quality of uniform items over the last few years? No 2 trousers that are so thin that they last about 6 months - I'm not too sure the chappie in Clothing Stores was joking when he said that they were made in China. Oxford shoes, the soles of which appear to be made of cardboard and, no matter what you do to them, refuse to keep out the water on rainy days (probably from China too - certainly not from Northampton like the old ones). All probably down to the cheapest bid, rather than the best value for money again I suppose. Grumble grumble. :*

As long as the quality of the wearer remains high!:ok:

Anyone got any views on how the new (Crye pattern) DPM kit is? Can you wear it to fly in yet?

Buy cheap; buy twice!

As the RAF will soon discover with some of the accomodation blocks that are no more then portacabins with brick coats on. I know of one that has major flooding due to shower tiles coming away within 6 months of the opening ribbon being cut, and the construction will never recover after the water damage sustained.

Back to clothing; the trousers are so poor in manafacture that keeping them smart is nigh on impossible due to creasing. Not the corporate image that the hierarchy would like, yet cost cutting is yet again taking precidence over all other matters and it will get worse.

.....and combined catering, if not Messing must be looming up large by now. "Tally Ho; lets get the Hun in the sun" is no more!

Yet there are always exceptions to the rule. The catering at BZN is quite possibly the best in the air force and the New Northolt has got to be seen to be believed. The domestic (workplace) accomodation there is awesome.

It is made in China......well some of the aircrew kit is. The contract is let with a UK (ish)/EU firm who then sub-let the contract to the Far East. Unfortunately, the QA associated with EU firms etc is not in place and therefore, you get what you pay for!!!!!

One would imagine that it is the same for a great deal of the ground pattern clothing as well! The reason being is that we (UK/EU) are not able to compete! or have the ability to manufacture to the same scale!

However, if your (Ground Pattern) kit fails/does not fit/etc then the QMs have a 'Threads' feedback system, which should be used to highlight sub-standard clothing. For aircrew then the SE Fitts should be approached and complete an engineering form (F760?) as the kit is serviced it comes under different rules. Don't be fobbed off on either count as the only way the IPT (Defence Clothing or Aircrew Escape & Survival) can address the issues is with evidence.

If you can't be BOTHERED (aircrew) to submit any form of reply, then speak with the SERE O who's responsible for collating issues with kit!!

Or stop bitching:ok:

Do you think filling out a form in the present and near future climate is going to achieve anything? No money now and less for the future so I'm guessing it's going to be the best value (cheapest bid) for money we can wring out of any budget...

I just don't feel that me filling out a form is going to make anyone sit up and say, 'By jove he's right...This stuff isn't the best money can buy...Lets leap out of our seats and procure the very best product available!'...

Yes it does. No 2 trousers are being changed due to feedback received. Don't whinge about something you know nothing of and can't be bothered to do the right thing about.

Its not just uniform. Y-fronts lasted so long in the late 60's that they were an embarrasment.
By the late-70's they fell apart after a couple of detachments.

Moss Bros, actually, do a very fine job.
You get what you pay for.
Any company winning a Government contract should have to prove their product, then NOT be allowed to sub-contract - especially overseas!

Something similar happened with aircrew long-john Y-fronts. At some point, the manufacturer decided to cut them lower at the waist, but we aircrew continued to pull them up above the beer gut, as we had always done, putting unexpected stress on the seams. The result being that they didn't last as long as before; it didn't take long before the seams lost the battle.

Of course this was long before the obscenity of the 'fitness test' and other sundry embuggerances to aircrew quality of life...:yuk:

But the true clothing mystery is why one's RAFC-tailored No.1 HD was so prone to shrinking whilst sitting quietly in one's wardrobe....:confused:

Managed to get mine to last 30 years though....:uhoh:

Redders, remember our first Cranwellian uniforms in 1968? I'm sure that the wonderfully comfortable hairy blue horsehair would have survived Ivan's thermonuclear nasties, had the Cold War ever turned hot. So comfortable, particularly when worn with issue 'shreddies'....:eek:

Does anyone in the RAF still wear 'blues', apart from PONTIs? I thought that it was all desert DPs or grobags these days?.

Shhh Beags - you'll probably see the Serco Marshalls win a contract for uniform policing if you point that out... Now, where is my car parked illegally?

I didn't I believe say I couldn't be bothered I just think that it'll be falling on deaf ears no matter how much you improve the weave, colour or fall of some trousers...If you could stop the green flying suits from bobbling so much they wouldn't look quite so shabby so quickly but it would feel nit-picky to go into writing about it...we seem to go in circles as far as blues are concerned anyway...the constant chopping and changing of the jumper pattern has to be costing us...

Oh well then - that's OK then. I'll get the Clothing Committee to get their ESP re-tuned to work out your future thoughts on the matter :rolleyes:

It does strike me that if we have put you in a position of trust within this area then you might be a little less terse and slightly more concerned that people like myself (aircrew/operational) feel this way and don't rush out with open arms to embrace the reporting system you obviously think so highly of...:=

Keeping up appearances



Some things dont change then - In our day we were issued with denim
uniforms that appeared to have been discarded by vagrants - Washed out ragged, tattered, torn threadbare that had served countless recruits earlier.

I for one would wear trousers from Primark and shirts from Tesco to allow the ever-decreasing budget to focus it's effort on the things that really matter; aircraft, armour, bullets and quality of life (home and abroad).

However, despite my best efforts to turn my half-empty glass into a half-full one, I am quite sure that no matter how much moaning, be it on an official basis through forms and the like, or here on this forum, that nothing will change until the money starts rolling in from the Treasury.

Until the day comes that the quality of blues determines whether I carry out my tasks effectively or not, I agree with Shack37; wear it with pride. Thousands want to, few succeed.

The sad thing is I bet if MOD approached Primark or Tesco, they'd end up with a far better product at a far lower price!!

If it makes you feel any better, the uniforms outside are $hit quality too!

And you feel nowhere near as much pride in wearing it.

But then I do work for Asda...:ok:

If you have access to the Intranet then look on the RAF site for "clothing" and you will find the minutes of the last Clothing Committee meeting in Jan 10. It mentions that the next meeting is this month at RAF Benson and there are reps from HQ 1Gp and 2Gp (Sqn Ldr and Wg Cdr respectively). The minutes mention the following:

1. Introduction of Multi Terrain Pattern CS95 for all starting with those goingto Afg from Apr 10.
2. Renewed contract awarded for heavier weight No 2 trousers (old stocks will be used first).
3. Renewed contract to revert back to smooth knit jersey with v neck - with non-bobble weave (old stock to be used first).
4. Research into heavier weight No 2 shirts for next contract renewal.
5. Approval to wear brevets and All Arms Cdo Cse daggers on RAF CS95 and DCC.
6. Approval to wear RAF pattern slate blue leather jacket with No 2s vice GPJ at personal expense for officers and SNCOs.
7. Improvements to female shirts (more sizes) and maternity wear.
8. Study into individual issue of RAF Stable Belt to all and modification of No 2 trouser belt loops to fit (planned delivery 2012).
9. Study into providing better outerwear and fatigues for those working outside in cold, wet or windy environments.
10. Investigate changing the plastic blue name badges to include a Union Flag, name and brevet (non brevet wearers to get RAF logo).

Of note in the minutes was the lack of "Threads" reports to discuss - which proves the point that they don't get much feedback.

So things are being done it would appear, without spending money we don't have, by changing items at contract renewal and also through taking note of the "Threads" system and Gp HQ reps.

LJ

LJ,

the first point on your minutes fails to clarify that MTP will only be issued to FP troops or infantiers. Us ground trades RAF, irrespective of role, continue to be issued standard desert DPM.

Grabbers

My understanding is also, and rightly so, that MTP will go to those that need it first and then will roll out to all in due course. DCC doesn't work too well in the green zone and if you wear CS95 and go through a river it goes almost black -so MTP will go to those that need it first (infanteers, FP, FAC/JTACs, EOD teams, etc...)

Does anyone know if the flame resistant CS95 for aircrew is going MTP?

LJ

I hate to sound cynical, but personal leather jackets and "improved" plastic name badges with more graphics? Jesus wept.

How about "take whatever the Army & RM have for greens, the RN have for blue working dress, and make our own ceremonial". The Army and RN have their working dress engineered for effectiveness, not designed for appearance.

You and your special colleagues shaped my approach to you - nobody else is responsible for that. I've been whinged at, lied to, insulted, abused and lambasted by the the very best the RAF has to offer - the premier league - the A Team. Without exception, the top of that list were aircrew (operational or non-operational) and wanting the moon on a stick done up with silver string and fairy dust.

You should write to Air Clues about that, throw in a few crappy "Air Power" and "Letters from the Back-to-Front" features and then watch said journal die.

Voila! Money saved on magazine is available for No 2 Kecks.

Well, it worked last time...:)

Worlds best dressed soldier
 

Although brit. uniforms have improved in recent years IMO they have
never matched those of US WW2 pattern when the ordinary GI Joe
uniform could be smarter and of superior quality and cut compared to
that of a British officer.

From these posts it seems that penny pinching in the MoD hasnt changed.

Welcome to the world of 4v1 debriefs, twinkle toes.

Something you seem to do a lot of on here (with the exception of this current, riveting and thoroughly exciting thread about uniform - your area of expertise, granted)

Now be a good lad and go and procure some new uniforms that I can trash/burn/alter as I see fit.

As a non RAF type, I do find the way the RAF go about choosing their uniform as a little odd, but then do understand that the RAF (as a service/force?) must be hard to choose for.

If we get past the fact that the RAF seem to put folks in charge of procuring their uniforms who are possibly inept, and out of touch (or simply not up to the job),
it does help in understanding the problems.

So, am I to understand that the RAF choose a uniform, sometimes based on style,
and not always using guidelines from the the other services, and then once these uniforms are in issue, they ask the folks who wear them to comment on them, and point out any flaws or good points (which is the system used in the comercial world, but not in the same order:}).

IMHO the RAF has things tougher than the other services as they are not sure
what they are! The army are clearly a force, as are the Royal Navy. The F in RAF stands for force, but some personnel seem to think they are in a service, and I feel this is wear some issues arise. The army wear boots..What do the RAF wear?
(and yes this can be a big issue with the other services, making them see the RAF as office boys, living in slipper city (as do some RAF folks on det see those who aren't, or who never go anywhere))

The RAF want the new multi cam, as they should. They also want it for aircrew
as they should, as it is good for security of personnel, BUT they also don't want to wear combats, as it is not the RAF way, and looks scruffy (obviously, I am picking random views and not talking of everyone here).

Some in the RAF don't like the idea of wearing beret's, but think peaked caps
look silly on det.

Some in the RAF don't want to wear any TRF's or 'army type' patches on their uniforms, yet do not want to be seen as army (when wearing army combats), and
yet also want some of the old unit patches back (while others don't)

The other services just wear what they are issued, or buy their own kit, while the RAF want to be special, and get everything they ask for ( I personally see two distinct groups here..One that will wear anything, and another group that wants something just how they like it...And both have posted in this thread).

IMHO the 'RAF' that is hard at work on operations are worried about bullets and mortar rounds, not seeing their mates get hurt, and just doing there job in some very tough circumstances (you get a huge :ok::ok::ok: from me) are not at all bothered about how well their trousers hold a crease, or whether their jumpers bobble!

But, maybe there is another 'RAF' where these things do matter, and so do feedback forms and committees....as well as any other form of mundane petty nonsense, just to justify an existence!

As I said above, I am not from an RAF background, and so may see the issue differently to those within the RAF. I also see some parallels to the shiny RAF in the commercial world too. I was once teaching a course, and as the temperature was rising the students would need to walk through melted snow (oddly enough called snow melt:}) rather than thick snow. I tried to telephone the office staff to see if they had any extra ropes (as only they could supply any equipment..sound familiar), and they had gone home, as the office heating was broken and at only 16 degrees C it was too cold for them to work!

Seem to remember back in the 60s when a new No. 1, known as the T63 was introduced. The following was rumoured to have appeared in Wittering SROs.

"Due to a shortage of material, the issue of various items of the T63 will be delayed. WRAF skirts will be held up until officers without trousers have been satisfied."

The bloody rot set in when officers could get cheap clothing items from Supply Sqn instead of doing the decent thing and getting some good stuff from the military tailors.

You wanted cheap. You got cheap. Live with it.

I Never worried about what I wore in the 50s and 60s - within reason.

I was in the Air Force and flying.

John Botwood

I have filled out a feedback form in the past, pointing out safety and practicality issues I had with flying safety kit. I pointed out the problems, and even offered suggested alternatives, along with my details and an offer to discuss said issues in person.

I never heard any reply, and I have seen no change. Whilst I'm sure the system might work for some, my experiences mean that I am unlikely to try again.

Re post #19
 

I find that the need to "study" the provision of better cold/wet gear in 2010 somewhat odd. Obviously there are (or still should be) certain privisos for the gear worn by techies (ie anti static etc) but there are many manufactures of quality kit around whose gear is top class.
Or does it have to made down in quality specially for the forces in far off sweatshops??

The best uniform I have ever had was issued to me in China. It beat all the ones issued to and bought by me when I was in the RAF hands down.

That would have been for the equipment sponsor rather than anyone to do with clothing per se. Probably someone from your own Branch who makes that call.

Fair call :ok:

Yup, flying kit is different as it is Aircrew Equipment Assembly (AEA) and part of the aircraft's Release to Service - hence C-17, and previously F4J, Jocks wore USAF Flying Suits.

However, what No 14 dress constitutes (ie. aircrew dress) is part of the dress committee's business.

Make sense? :ok:

Uniform
 

OK - as I originated the thread I feel that I must reply to Barnstormer. My observations were simply that, - a comment on how some people seem to get "cost" and "value" mixed up. I was quite happy with the kit I got when I went to "sandy places". What I am unhappy with is the fact that we are now expected to accept stuff that, had it been sold in civvy street, I would have returned with comments about unmerchantable quality; here in the outpost of civilisation I have to take whatever is provided so I'm afraid it's not simply a case of popping into town to see Mr Moss Bros - sorry if I have offended anyone's sensibilities with what set out to be a relatively serious thread.
CB :*

Yeah, I guess it's non-operational, non-flying uniform we're talking about.

I could never understand that (albeit an comfortably proportioned officer). I could get M&S slacks to fit beautifully off the peg, but Auntie Betty's blues (usually) needed tweaking by the Stn tailor..........:confused:

Whilst not undermining any of the many valid points here, I do feel we have much more fundamental problems heading our way.......

Sadly, MGD, I fear you are correct...:(