[quote=“tango_lima” post=7516]I was chatting to some folks about this the other day and we came to the conclusion that Air Cadets will never be allowed to wear MTP.
Here’s the theory:
RAF introduces blue PCS for ‘techie’ types etc, withdraws dark blue shirt
No dark blue shirts for cadets means blue PCS ends up being introduced as new Air Cadet uniform
Blue PCS perfectly good enough for most Air Cadet activities, no need for MTP PCS or DPM CS95[/quote]
Rumors like this have been flying around in the RAF for years now when we all got the TRF and RAF badges to put on CS95 people were saying ist because we are going green in the future and no more blue.
Blue PCS?? for tech trades is the worst idea ever it would look so wrong.
I would much prefer icubus’s version let the cadets wear number 2 working dress instead of 2C
Just because it might replace the dark blue shirt I think it highly unlikely that blue PCS would become standard cadet working dress.
It would involve a lot of extra cost! At the moment the additional cost of working dress is one cheap, dark blue shirt per cadet.
To introduce PCS would involve the extra cost of issuing three, relatively expensive, extra items of uniform to every cadet.
Never going to happen.
If the dark blue shirt was phased out, then cadets would simply wear light blue as standard. They’re already authorized in dress regs to wear No2 Full or No2A as working dress in the same way that we as staff are.
It’s happening. Royal Navy have trialled and accepted it, RAF are trialling it now…
[quote]
It would involve a lot of extra cost! At the moment the additional cost of working dress is one cheap, dark blue shirt per cadet.
To introduce PCS would involve the extra cost of issuing three, relatively expensive, extra items of uniform to every cadet.[/quote]
Not really. MTP should never be available as surplus and Air Cadets aren’t scaled for combat clothing, so if the RAF wants them to wear it, they would have to issue it.
If they decide that blue PCS is good enough for other wearers of ‘techie shirts’, why not cadets?
Issue cadets with one uniform that’s good enough for everything they do AND maintains the ‘blue footprint’? Winner.
Because it would be a large additional cost for no additional benefit.
Blue PCS for technical trades is intended to fulfill a specific role. Cadets don’t have that requirement and could quite happily wear light blue shirts.
Just because cadets currently wear the same shirt as techies does not follow that they will always wear whatever techies wear.
Why would they continue to issue the standard blue uniform PLUS a set of blue PCS to every cadet?
I don’t have the costs but let’s say a smock is £25, lightweight jacket £15, and trousers £12. That’d be £52 per cadet.
Again, I don’t know the current numbers but let’s assume 30,000 cadets…
That would cost the RAF an additional £1,560,000. That doesn’t include ancilliary items like the mid-layer fleece you suggested, nor blanking plates, web belts, &c. It also doesn’t take into account ongoing costs.
Alternatively, they could replace the issue of one dark blue with an issue of a second light blue at no additional cost.
Spend over £1.5 million or spend nothing more? No brainer.
I’m not talking about blue PCS as a replacement for the dark blue shirt. I’m talking about issuing (cheaper) blue PCS rather than MTP PCS. The withdrawal of dark blue shirts would just be the deciding factor.
Imagine this scenario:
Airship 1: The cadets want to know if we’ll increase the number of wedgewood shirts they get now the dark blue shirt is gone…oh…and they’ve run out of CS95 and want to know if we’ll start scaling them for PCS?
Airship 2: Hang on! We’ve started issuing blue PCS to everyone else who used to get dark blue shirts. Why not kill two birds with one stone?
Airship 1: Ahah! I like you thinking! That’ll stop them running around looking like Army Cadets all the time, too!
End result: CS95 banned as obsolete, MTP general ban never rescinded, blue PCS replaces all Air Cadet uniforms.
They should have issued MTP to Regs\Reserves and left the CF in CS95. This would have the result of identifying between those who can\will serve on the front line and those who don’t\won’t.
gunner, now wait for somebody who does not what they are on about to say that a dual clothing line that small would not be cost effective, its not the corporate image etc etc etc they idiots always start to say once the above has been suggested
[quote=“Gunner” post=7539]They should have issued MTP to Regs\Reserves and left the CF in CS95. This would have the result of identifying between those who can\will serve on the front line and those who don’t\won’t.
[/quote]
Cadet Forces have no need of MTP which was originally designed as a replacement for those serving in a different environment to former theatres such as Europe; and to negate the need for differing styles of uniform to be produced such as woodland and desert DPM, junglies etc. Cadet Forces and their staff do not serve on the front line, ergo, there is no need for MTP to be issued to us. Our lives do not depend on us being able to conceal ourselves from the ‘enemy’.
There are some people who also reckon that they ‘can’t tell the difference between an airman\soldier and a cadet’ despite the wearing of distinguishing insignia such as TRF’s, beret badges etc. Keeping us in CS95 would address this perceived issue. Personally, I think those who can’t differentiate should go to specsavers.
Not all CFAV’s are walts but as you’ve brought it up, I’ll respond. There are some out there - and we have them in our own Wg - that reckon service in the CF is akin to being in the SAS. Some staff are actually desperate to get into MTP and some of them will no doubt want to look as if they’re off to mix it with Johnny Taliban when in fact, they’re going down the road to do some airfield diorama modelling with a bunch of kids. The wearing of CS95 heads-off that sort of behaviour.
My question to you is, why might you think that Cadets need MTP when they can have CS95 woodland kit that will suffice for the amount of outside activities that we do? Wearing MTP won’t make people better shots so wearing it for range work is of no use and it also won’t make people learn how to handle a wpn any better when it comes to wpn trg.
[quote=“Gunner” post=7554]Cadet Forces have no need of MTP which was originally designed as a replacement for those serving in a different environment to former theatres such as Europe; and to negate the need for differing styles of uniform to be produced such as woodland and desert DPM, junglies etc. Cadet Forces and their staff do not serve on the front line, ergo, there is no need for MTP to be issued to us. Our lives do not depend on us being able to conceal ourselves from the ‘enemy’.
[/quote]
Cadets don’t need MTP any more than they need DPM. Since you are the one pushing for a return to DPM I think it should be up to you to justify it. That is how the business world works! Yes, CS95 would suffice but so would PCS.
I have been an ACF instructor for a good few years now and was a cadet for a few years as well. I have never experienced any issues with regards to cadets being mistaken for soldiers. With PCS the cadet rank slides are now to say “CADET” in red at the top. That should be a helpful hint to anyone having problems.
Are are walts who were never actually in the Armed forces too. I’m not sure how being in CS95 rather than MTP will make them less of a walt? They have have been “issued a special uniform as they are taking out a target in central Europe”. Also, if they want to be walts they can go and buy PCS on ebay anyway.
[quote]
My question to you is, why might you think that Cadets need MTP when they can have CS95 woodland kit that will suffice for the amount of outside activities that we do? Wearing MTP won’t make people better shots so wearing it for range work is of no use and it also won’t make people learn how to handle a wpn any better when it comes to wpn trg.
I’d be interested to hear your POV.[/quote]
As I said earlier, you are right - they don’t need MTP, however they also don’t need to not be in it! I just don’t see that there is much to gain in a move that would distance us from our parent organisation. Remember that for the ACF, combats are, by and large, our only uniform, not an extra one that we only wear occasionally.
[quote=“Gunner” post=7554]Cadet Forces have no need of MTP which was originally designed as a replacement for those serving in a different environment to former theatres such as Europe; and to negate the need for differing styles of uniform to be produced such as woodland and desert DPM, junglies etc. Cadet Forces and their staff do not serve on the front line, ergo, there is no need for MTP to be issued to us. Our lives do not depend on us being able to conceal ourselves from the ‘enemy’.
There are some people who also reckon that they ‘can’t tell the difference between an airman\soldier and a cadet’ despite the wearing of distinguishing insignia such as TRF’s, beret badges etc. Keeping us in CS95 would address this perceived issue. Personally, I think those who can’t differentiate should go to specsavers.
Not all CFAV’s are walts but as you’ve brought it up, I’ll respond. There are some out there - and we have them in our own Wg - that reckon service in the CF is akin to being in the SAS. Some staff are actually desperate to get into MTP and some of them will no doubt want to look as if they’re off to mix it with Johnny Taliban when in fact, they’re going down the road to do some airfield diorama modelling with a bunch of kids. The wearing of CS95 heads-off that sort of behaviour.
My question to you is, why might you think that Cadets need MTP when they can have CS95 woodland kit that will suffice for the amount of outside activities that we do? Wearing MTP won’t make people better shots so wearing it for range work is of no use and it also won’t make people learn how to handle a wpn any better when it comes to wpn trg.
I’d be interested to hear your POV.[/quote]
Here Here,Gunner when I was a Cadet in the 80’s we wore coveralls for Range work and field activities…
one reason for CS95 over MTP PCS is the cost! CS95 is so much cheaper then PCS. Plus if cs95 was done as separate CF line then it will be easier to justify smaller sizes. Also PCS is cut/designed for integration with body armour and that plays a big part in the layer system (main reason why the the new smock is thinner/mesh lined)Plus the ancils left in dpm will be enough to issue to cadets as they are often more hard wearing and less used then the uniform itself. Plus with the MOD moving to brown boots any remaining stock can be issued to cadets plus if cadets/staff wish to buy boots then the black boots are cheaper.
I have seen some older cadets confused as regular serving and have seen CFAV swanning round camps think they are the bees knees because they are 20 year old sgts (and above) I will admit the majority of staff don’t do this or walt it up but there are a number who do. If you say you don’t see then most likely you are the kind of person who does it (just what I have seen from personal experience and not pointing the finger at any individual on this site)
It is easy to justify small sizes now, and we get the same sizes in PCS as we got in CS95s. The cost isn’t just about the clothes themselves, it is about the entire supply chain for them. It is easier to maintain a single line, even if those clothes are a bit more expensive.
Let us not forget something crucial: Every time the MOD has tried to do something specifically for cadets it has ended up being an abysmal failure. In reinstating the CS95 supply line I am sure they will manage to screw it up somehow and pay over the odds for the privilege.
By who?
At the end of the day it doesn’t really matter. The PCS roll out is in progress and we won’t be switching back to CS95 anytime soon!
TBH, I really couldn’t care less whether we’re in PCS or CS95. I’m not really sure that it matters having a different uniform to the regulars - most people wouldn’t know the difference anyway, and those that do would probably be able to tell by other factors.
As CS95 is cheaper (apparently this is one of the reasons for making blue PCS - due to the licensing from Crye it’s much more expensive to make any item in MTP than an other colour) it probably would have made sense to order loads extra and stockpile it for future use. However, now that production has ended, I can’t imagine it makes much financial sense to put cadets in a different uniform.
At the end of the day, what I do care about is that we have a decent, serviceable ‘combat’ uniform which we can actually get hold of!
That’s a bit of a misconception… the MoD doesn’t have to pay Crye to produce things in MTP. After Crye designed it the MoD paid a one-off fee to purchase the ‘licence’ to it, which means nobody else is allowed to order MTP material from Crye.
Anyone who wanted to manufacture MTP kit would have to pay a fee to the MoD, because they are the licence holders as well as pay Crye for the manufacture, etc.
The MoD has no intention of allowing the manufacture of MTP kit by anyone else, hence the proliferation of copycat patterns that are close but just different enough to avoid having to shell out to Crye and the MoD.
[quote=“MattB” post=7575]Maybe it’s just much more expensive to print then, or something.
In that case, there’s not really much justification for keeping two lines going, as I can’t see that CS95’s really going to be any cheaper.[/quote]
Yeah. Fair point.
(Going back a few steps)I did ask the question ages ago about why blue PCS, which is a blue version of a uniform designed for infantry types lugging body armour around and not blue CS95, which would look a bit smarter?
Slightly OT, but I’m picturing the dog’s breakfast which will be my CCF in September if, as I fear, the Army isn’t able to issue enough MTP for the entire Army section. Result: half and half MTP and CS95…
If I’m lucky I may be able to get one platoon in each, but the ones in CS95 will whinge.
I think there is some logic to issuing dark blue PCS to cadets and abolishing all other orders of dress, which is why it probably won’t happen…
Quite frankly… who cares? As long as we have a suitable “combat” uniform does it matter if its MTP or CS95?
There will always be those that itch to get into the latest “gucci” kit, who treat combats as akin to uniform “porn”. My personal view is these people need to get a life…
The thought of blue PCS makes me retch to be honest, whats wrong with a smart blue uniform, and a smatish green uniform (CS95 or MTP) that does the camo job?
Arguments regardign cost will no doubt float around forever, but lets face it, whatever we say, hear, theorise about will undoubtedly be completely different to what will be decided above (probably with the contact being awarded to the mate of some government minister - not that im cynical at all!)