Navy

First Impressions of the Navy’s Test Working Uniform

Categories

Tags

Last year, when the call went out to all hands on the USS Nimitz (CVN-68) for volunteers to test the Navy’s new working uniform, I threw my name in the mix. As the new executive officer, it felt right to demonstrate that I wouldn’t ask the crew to do anything I wasn’t willing to do. Further, I figured this would provide the opportunity to put my uniform-experienced self in the position to contribute to the program. A storage tub in my garage looks like an auction items of costumes from the entire arc of NCIS, so I felt like I had enough uniform experience to know what I liked, what was useful, and what was superfluous.

As you probably saw (and by your collective groan in the comments on Facebook and Navy Times, I know you did) the roll out of the trial uniforms occurred a couple of months ago. Three service members modeled one of the three varieties: all blue, resembling the Coast Guard’s working uniform; light blue top and dark blue bottoms; and all khaki. The second two ignite flashbacks in more senior sailors as they resemble the uniforms worn when I entered the Naval Academy in 1992 (when Nirvana was a band, not a legal cannabis shop outside of base). All three have one thing in common, thus the groan by all who saw: they are worn untucked.

According to the U.S. Fleet Forces representative leading the issuing to the Nimitz crew members as well as the brief provided for command leadership, the design was based on a few factors:

1) A return to classic uniforms, thus the dungaree and khaki looks

2) The need for flame resistant (FR) material so that they could be worn at sea as well as ashore

3) A desire on the part of sailors to minimize uniform changes during the day;

4) A desire for a two-piece uniform so that the top can be removed to cool down when working in hot weather

5) A desire on the part of sailors having served less than ten years for an untucked uniform, as they wear their civilian clothes

Let’s break these down individually. First, the classic uniforms are classic for a reason: they worked. As I walk around the Nimitz, I am surrounded by pictures of the ship’s namesake wearing khakis and his sailors wearing dungarees. In the famous picture of Nimitz, Halsey, MacArthur, and a galaxy full of collar stars accepting the Japanese surrender on the deck of USS Missouri (BB-63), are all wearing khakis, their service or country only distinguishable by their covers (and General MacArthur’s pleated pants). So, from sometime in the 1920s or ‘30s through the late ‘00s this uniform worked fine for a host of uses; returning to that seems like a fine idea. Tradition exists for a reason, and while we should not deny progress for the sake of tradition, it seems the Navy veered off-course when it moved away from these uniforms into a land-based cammie uniform rather than evolving more useful (FR) versions.

The second reason, flame resistance, is valuable, as the Navy currently does not have that in the seabag, and thus do not have a seaworthy uniform among the its required uniform items. Let that sink in. The Navy, as a seagoing service, does not have a seaworthy uniform in its standard kit. I will expand on this later, but having a uniform that can be worn at sea as well as ashore seems obvious and something the Navy has been missing for a while.

I am not convinced of the third reason, minimizing uniform changes. If sailors transit in civilian clothes, then uniform changes are inevitable. If they transit in uniform and then work on dirty jobs (grinding, chipping, painting, working with fluids) then the Navy should want them to save their uniforms and use some sort of “consumable” issued clothing. I believe we owe it to the sailors who buy uniforms to issue them coveralls when they do dirty work. Most sailors at sea work in office environments or watch stations and do basic maintenance that does not necessitate a rugged uniform but does require flame resistance to tackle onboard casualties. Damage control and firefighting are the main drivers of moving to flame resistance, and in those instances, time to change is not normally available. This argues heavily for the incremental evolution of the traditional uniform adapted for FR.

On point four—the desire for a two-piece uniform for wearing as separates for heat mitigation—has some validity, as the Nimitz allowed sailors to wear flight deck pants and t-shirts during the ship’s time in the Arabian Gulf. The only uniforms we have that do not meet this are the flightsuit and current flame-resistant coveralls (FRVs). Looking back at those pictures of Admiral Nimitz in the Pacific, there are plenty of sailors in the classic uniforms down to an undershirt while working in hot conditions, so two pieces are a reason to adapt what worked with modern materials. (In my questioning around the ship, sailors also noted that a two-piece uniform also is desirable for head calls.)

The fifth reason is the least valid of all. Since the majority of sailors have been in less than ten years, the decision reportedly was made to go with the untucked uniform (this was anecdotally passed to me, but briefed to the Triad as “deckplate driven.”) Young sailors have ideas leadership should listen to; however, when it comes to deciding uniform policy for the entire service, majority rule is not the best route. As we can see from the pictures and comments on Navy Times, this untucked uniform looks sloppy, unlike the untucked maternity or female khakis which present a neat and professional appearance. Today’s crew looks sloppy because the current FRV design forces them to wear ill-fitting uniforms—they wash so poorly that everyone must wear a pair two to three sizes too big so they do not shrink beyond fit at the first washing. The untucked look does not solve this. The public expects its military to look and act sharp. The service has a responsibility to present a professional appearance, and the current design of the test uniform does not support that. Further, it is designed to be worn ashore where civilians will see. The untucked look is so unpopular that Fleet Forces sent an email shortly after the trial began allowing the uniform to be worn tucked in, an option I have chosen.

My Thoughts So Far

The uniform looks better tucked in, and the comments as I walk the ship and shipyard back that up. Some chiefs and more senior officers have told me they long for its return to sea, especially now that the enlisted service uniform is half khaki, removing the traditional distinction that turned “khaki” from an adjective into a noun. The uniform is baggy and ill-fitting, and not solely because it is a test uniform with limited options for sizing. The pant legs are like the current FRV coveralls and are so loose that they are a potential catch hazard. The shirts are not tapered and also look baggy. It is designed to be loose, to provide room for people to crouch, reach, and twist, however, the test uniforms are so baggy that do not look professional. I joke that they look like they were shaped by “Broadside” cartoonist Jeff Bacon.

The material, of which I have three of the four versions, is varied. One version is rip-stop, much like current flight deck pants or Navy working uniforms (NWU). It is thick and heavy, and instantly will be half-masted in the Arabian Gulf. A recent Navy Times article noted that Bahrain-based sailors experienced this, though there is not a uniform in existence that would feel comfortable in Bahrain in the summer. Temperatures hit the mid-80s in Bremerton, Washington, this July and the uniform was warm. Another version is almost exactly like FRV material. It seems to work well enough. My favorite, however, is one that more closely aligns with the old “wash” khakis. It breathes well when it is warm, and the intent is to have a long-sleeve undershirt option as well as existing jacket options for warmth in colder weather. When ironed, it will look good for shore-based work. The uniforms come with moisture-wicking FR t-shirts, short- and long-sleeved, each in tan and black.

Some design choices beyond the fit are questionable. Each has an uncovered pen pocket on the left upper arm, which is convenient those having developed that muscle memory in flightsuits more than 20 years. (I once went to an interview in a civilian suit during a fellowship, and when I went to write something down I naturally reached for my left tricep; it is ingrained deep.) However, if the intent is to wear the uniform in an ashore environment, then a pen pocket looks too utilitarian. In an aircraft carrier environment, even in the below decks spaces, there is a hazard to dropping pens, which is why the flightsuit pen pocket has a flap. Sailors can be just as effective with pens in the chest pockets under flaps.

On two of my versions, the shirt buttons are covered by a flap. I am not sure why this exists except to keep buttons from getting torn off while working in and around machinery. Yet the buttons still are there and are still in danger of being ripped off, so the aesthetic detracts from a professional look without providing a benefit, and actually may hide a missing button, thus hiding a hazard in machinery spaces. On one version, the chest pockets have horizontal zippers (on the other versions the chest pocket has a flap with no button). I have found these zippers less than useful. Zippers work best with gravity, so going horizontal makes them tough to operate, and they require two hands to do so, making grabbing a pen while holding a notebook (or coffee cup; I am the XO after all) nearly impossible.

My Recommendation

The classic uniforms worked and needed updating to provide better protection for sailors at sea. Moving forward, I would recommend khaki version C, the wash khaki-like material with exposed shirt buttons and no button on the chest pockets. Removing the left arm pen pocket would make the uniform look more professional. I would lengthen the shirt to allow it to stay tucked in and mandate tucking in the uniform (all versions). Wearing the uniform tucked in allows better access to flashlights, radios, and multitools, which makes the current NWU blouse and fit worse.

I also would go with a wicking, FR white t-shirt. This will keep people cooler in casualties while providing the shore-based professional appearance of current and classic uniforms. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I would recut the uniform more like today’s khaki uniforms, with just a bit more room in the armpits and crotch for work positions, but not as much as in the test versions. The pant legs should be tapered like current uniform pants to allow them to be worn with dress shoes ashore or safety boots on ship, and the shirts tapered some to make them look more professional. I am sure we’ve all seen the Sailor who wears their uniform shirt one size too small to show off their physique (callsign: Baby Gap); that is not the intent of this uniform. However, making it fit more professionally will have little impact on doing shipboard work. Those jobs that require a higher level of dexterity and range of motion, as well as threat to ruin a uniform, should be done in a coverall.

Ultimately, I would propose the addition of this uniform in a fit better suited for sea and shore. Further, the Navy should remove the NWU and today’s polyester khakis/Navy service uniform from the seabag, reducing the size of the seabag while providing versatility and a professional appearance. A better fit khaki or dungaree uniform with a lighter FR material could be ironed and worn with a warfare device and ribbons ashore and will fulfill the needs of most shore and ship-based requirements. For more official office environments, say the Pentagon or Navy Yard, summer whites and service dress blues (SDBs) could be worn in higher-level meetings. SDBs worn without the coat or with an Eisenhower jacket often are the year-round meeting uniform of Washington, D.C., anyway, as the offices are air conditioned and the other meeting attendees are in suits.

As a sea service, our focus should be on seagoing units first and foremost, not on shore commands. As necessary as the tail is to support the tooth, our recent uniform decisions have been too focused ashore. For those units deploying somewhere requiring cammies, let’s turn that into organizational clothing. The argument that the Navy has been in combat in austere locations since late 2001 has some validity, but we fought World Ware II, Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War in khakis and dungarees. Supporting the seagoing sailor must be the focus of the efforts, and the movement to NWUs as a shore-based uniform and the loss of a seagoing uniforms lost sight of that.

The Real Issue

As I wear the test uniform around the ship, many of the crew tell me they don’t care what the uniform is, as long as we settle on something. The recent changes (more uniform changes in the last 10 years of my career than in the first 12) frustrate sailors, impact their wallets, and create a scene of chaos as commands go through transition periods with some portion of sailors wearing different uniforms. This is a valid complaint, yet, I do not think that is the real issue with the current uniform situation. The fact that the Navy does not have a sea-going uniform in the seabag, that it views going to sea—the primary job of the Navy!—as something unique that we can equip with organizational clothing is a symptom of the real issue. The real problem is that decisions are made throughout the Navy in all facets of support with—what appears to the waterfront and flight line—to be a disregard of the impact to the men and women executing the Navy’s primary mission while creating products and policies that make sense only to those in a headquarters environment. More to follow next time.

Back To Top