Naval Combat Dress (NCD) uniform [Merged]

[Eland2]

This image was posted today on a Facebook page ("Royal Canadian Navy Today and Yesterday"), and describe as, "New Naval Combat uniform that will eventually be issued":

I've never served in the navy, but I did do a couple of years as an armoured recce crewman in a reserve unit, and I don't like the look of the new NCD that is shown in the picture. While it looks eminently practical with all the extra pockets and the bloused pants, it doesn't look very 'naval'. The old NCD was much sharper and neater in appearance and looked quite naval.

This new outfit looks like the designer tried to shoehorn a naval combat design into something that looks vaguely like a SWAT uniform or army combat clothing, and kinda left behind some of the long-standing naval dress traditions. It's a good thing that the designer didn't add a camouflage pattern, like the US Navy have done with their NCD.

 

[dimsum]

I've never served in the navy, but I did do a couple of years as an armoured recce crewman in a reserve unit, and I don't like the look of the new NCD that is shown in the picture. While it looks eminently practical with all the extra pockets and the bloused pants, it doesn't look very 'naval'. The old NCD was much sharper and neater in appearance and looked quite naval.

This new outfit looks like the designer tried to shoehorn a naval combat design into something that looks vaguely like a SWAT uniform or army combat clothing, and kinda left behind some of the long-standing naval dress traditions. It's a good thing that the designer didn't add a camouflage pattern, like the US Navy have done with their NCD.

I would argue that operational dress shouldn't be designed based on how it looks.  The purpose is to be a working dress on a ship, which means that quick donning to fight a fire or flood is the key. 

I don't understand why the powers that be decided to blouse the boots (or tucking into the boots?) but I'd suspect that the new NCD be quicker to put on and attack a fire than the older NCD if one were to just tuck them in.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I would argue that operational dress shouldn't be designed based on how it looks.  The purpose is to be a working dress on a ship, which means that quick donning to fight a fire or flood is the key. 

I don't understand why the powers that be decided to blouse the boots (or tucking into the boots?) but I'd suspect that the new NCD be quicker to put on and attack a fire than the older NCD if one were to just tuck them in.

Tucking your pants into the socks went out the window (thank god) several years ago when it was finally concluded that wool socks don't have the same fire retardant properties as nomex.

 

[NavalMoose]

Why not one piece overalls, you can put them on in 2 seconds, boots on then off to the fire at 2 in the morning?

 

[jollyjacktar]

There is resistance from some quarters,  the ladies don't find them user friendly.  I also understand there is a hygiene concern of the garment touching the deck while using the facilities (easily overcome by tucking the sleeves into the inside while seated) by some folks.  There are also those that feel they're sloppy looking, not Pusser enough.  I could go on further at the detractors but...

 

[Pusser]

Why not one piece overalls, you can put them on in 2 seconds, boots on then off to the fire at 2 in the morning?

That has been suggested many times, but seemingly rejected for two reasons: 

1)  it's kind of scruffy and doesn't look "military enough" (I'm serious); and

2)  a one piece outfit makes certain functions awkward for females (apparently they don't tend to like entirely disrobing to pee).

I can actually see a certain logic in using the same cut as the Army combat clothing.  There should certainly be some savings to be had by keeping the same set-up for manufacturing it and only having to change out the material.  The RN has actually done exactly this.  They also have a strip that says "ROYAL NAVY" on theirs.  In that vein, if we must have that strip, I would prefer it say, "RC NAVY," or "MARINE RC," but no one asked me.  They should also drop the maple leaf on the "NAVY" strip regardless (there's one on the ensign) and if they are going to insist on the SSI, drop the anchor off the name tape as well.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Sidebar:  A modified version of this (in olive green) could replace the current 2-piece flying suit top - and it doesn't have to be tucked in

Agree!

 

[PuckChaser]

I personally don't think there's enough things on it that say "Navy" or have anchors. Clearly people will never be able to recognize that you guys are sailors.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Why isnt our leadership just coming out and say they have a fetish for Army styled uniforms ?

I have no issue with our current NCDs, infact I prefer them over combats. 

Building pride in your service wont happen becuase people look like SWAT team members it will happen when we look after each other and protect each other from bull**** and chicken**** decisions and regulations.

 

[Eland2]

That has been suggested many times, but seemingly rejected for two reasons: 

1)  it's kind of scruffy and doesn't look "military enough" (I'm serious); and

2)  a one piece outfit makes certain functions awkward for females (apparently they don't tend to like entirely disrobing to pee).

I can actually see a certain logic in using the same cut as the Army combat clothing.  There should certainly be some savings to be had by keeping the same set-up for manufacturing it and only having to change out the material.  The RN has actually done exactly this.  They also have a strip that says "ROYAL NAVY" on theirs.  In that vein, if we must have that strip, I would prefer it say, "RC NAVY," or "MARINE RC," but no one asked me.  They should also drop the maple leaf on the "NAVY" strip regardless (there's one on the ensign) and if they are going to insist on the SSI, drop the anchor off the name tape as well.

I suspect that whoever designed the 'NAVY' identifier strip may have placed a maple leaf in the middle to act as a visual separator between the English and French words. Think of it this way, what looks better and more readable?

1. NAVY  MARINE (no separator)

or

2. NAVY    X    MARINE (where the 'X' represents a maple leaf)

(1) is potentially confusing because people who don't read or speak French won't know if you're referring to the Navy or US Marines, or something along those lines.

(2) to my eyes looks better, but there is too much space between the words 'Navy' and 'Marine' in the actual design.

One problem is that the maple leaf in the middle seems too small somehow, adding to the sense of too much space.

If I were the designer, I might have gone with something like this instead, and put the maple leaf somewhere else, maybe next to the sailor's name on his or her nametag:

But don't mind me, I'm just blathering on here.

 

[Eaglelord17]

3) Don't like the "army" type big pockets on the pant. Mark my word (and by personal experience) these damn things will get caught all the time in the fittings protruding everywhere on ships, especially in machinery spaces.

The present NCD trousers have pockets and this has not been an issue that I have seen, experienced or heard of to date.

This happened to me several times when I was a Stoker. You likely don't hear about it, as usually we would just go get a new pair instead of complaining about it.

Why not one piece overalls, you can put them on in 2 seconds, boots on then off to the fire at 2 in the morning?

There are people on the ships who have them, Hull Techs, and flight deck Stokers (this last one is a point of debate). I believe they are also used on subs as well.

Overall it was something that the Stokers who were working wanted, as NCDs aren't really the best clothes for crawling in the bilge. Our NCDs could get pretty ratty, pretty quickly, with all the oils, grease, dirt and diesel you were working with on a regular basis.

Personally I feel that all MSE trades should get coveralls as a minimum, however it likely won't happen.

 

[Furniture]

The new NCD design looks sharp to my eye, maybe they could drop blousing the pants at the top of the boots but that's pretty minor.

The pockets are handy to have since they don't make '82 pattern webbing anymore, and utility pouches as "war bags" will run out. People use the leg pockets on the current NCDs to carry flash gear, field dressings, and triangular bandages. Firefighters and police switched to cargo pockets as well because they are more useful than a hindrance. The design looks to consist of a shirt and pants with a black undershirt, that removes the need for an extra shirt/jacket saving cost and space in the locker. To those saying it looks too "army" I ask, what in particular screams "navy" about a work shirt and cargo pants like we wear now? Screams repair man/furnace installation to me...

As to flags/badges, that is the current military fashion all over the world. Large flags are easy to identify and help us stand out as military.

Coveralls... the only people I've met that actually like coveralls are people who get them issued on a small scale, or they are an odd size. Coveralls are always in my experience too big or to small, imagine trying to get a common size as the last ship to be issued the new uniform. They are inconvenient for anything except throwing on in a rush, or crawling around in confined/dirty spaces.

 

[dimsum]

Tucking your pants into the socks went out the window (thank god) several years ago when it was finally concluded that wool socks don't have the same fire retardant properties as nomex.

Good.  I was convinced at the time that it was all a grand plan to make sure that we were wearing the (then-issued) "socks, wool, itchy".  :nod:

 

[Grimey]

Good.  I was convinced at the time that it was all a grand plan to make sure that we were wearing the (then-issued) "socks, wool, itchy".  :nod:

I had a seven year break between sea postings with no refresher training.  First bong-bongs after my lengthy sojourn ashore, my pants get tucked into socks like it's 1999.  Oh, how the others laughed.

 

[CombatDoc]

The pockets are handy to have since they don't make '82 pattern webbing anymore, and utility pouches as "war bags" will run out. People use the leg pockets on the current NCDs to carry flash gear, field dressings, and triangular bandages.

They should be carrying flash gear, tourniquets, QuickClot gauze and Israeli/Olaes-type bandages if they are serious about saving lives (theirs or their shipmates).  The RCN has been slow to adopt the hard-learned combat casualty care lessons from Afghanistan. Naval combat is, after all, blast and burn, with drowning and hypothermia added to the mix.

 

[Underway]

They should be carrying flash gear, tourniquets, QuickClot gauze and Israeli/Olaes-type bandages if they are serious about saving lives (theirs or their shipmates).  The RCN has been slow to adopt the hard-learned combat casualty care lessons from Afghanistan. Naval combat is, after all, blast and burn, with drowning and hypothermia added to the mix.

Burn, falling/impact injuries, and inhalation injuries (ie smoke).  Problem with Afghanistan combat is that the mechanism of injury was very different so the casualty care needs to be different.  Also hypothermia, hyperthermia are problems with the army as well, guys were getting hypothermia in the middle of the dessert because of the temp differential at night.

  Not sure how handy quick clot is in burn injuries, seeing that it cooks the flesh when its working.  Also quick clot and israeli bandages do not mix well with water.  At all.  Maybe a need for a few tourniquets onboard but losing a leg is not a very likely injury, maybe in every first aid kit (with the quick clot).  But with an entire casualty care system in place onboard all we really need to do is stock them, not carry them on every member.  Ideally you'll be handing your first aid over to a casualty clearing team within 6 minutes of an injury, usually much faster.  It's usually about getting the casualty clear of the fire and then treating at a safe point. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

The new NCD design looks sharp to my eye, maybe they could drop blousing the pants at the top of the boots but that's pretty minor.

The pockets are handy to have since they don't make '82 pattern webbing anymore, and utility pouches as "war bags" will run out. People use the leg pockets on the current NCDs to carry flash gear, field dressings, and triangular bandages. Firefighters and police switched to cargo pockets as well because they are more useful than a hindrance. The design looks to consist of a shirt and pants with a black undershirt, that removes the need for an extra shirt/jacket saving cost and space in the locker. To those saying it looks too "army" I ask, what in particular screams "navy" about a work shirt and cargo pants like we wear now? Screams repair man/furnace installation to me...

As to flags/badges, that is the current military fashion all over the world. Large flags are easy to identify and help us stand out as military.

Coveralls... the only people I've met that actually like coveralls are people who get them issued on a small scale, or they are an odd size. Coveralls are always in my experience too big or to small, imagine trying to get a common size as the last ship to be issued the new uniform. They are inconvenient for anything except throwing on in a rush, or crawling around in confined/dirty spaces.

There is a downside to the new look in that we're going to lose one layer of fire protection with the jacket gone.

The trousers have elastic bottoms, so there will be blousing whether you want it or not.

Coveralls are like Keith's.  Those who like them, like them a lot.  I  have worn them at sea and there are advantages. Speed in getting dressed or into bunker gear especially so.

I understand the new gear will start to roll out with the AOPS crews.

 

[jollyjacktar]

They should be carrying flash gear, tourniquets, QuickClot gauze and Israeli/Olaes-type bandages if they are serious about saving lives (theirs or their shipmates).  The RCN has been slow to adopt the hard-learned combat casualty care lessons from Afghanistan. Naval combat is, after all, blast and burn, with drowning and hypothermia added to the mix.

I would be happy to see a Naval TCCC come on line and to more guys than just the CCT.  The more guys who know things is beneficial in my eyes.

 

[MedCorps]

I would be happy to see a Naval TCCC come on line and to more guys than just the CCT.  The more guys who know things is beneficial in my eyes.

This has been looked at (RCN TCCC) by the CF H Svcs Gp but the RCN has been slow to adopt. I am not exactly sure why, as it was well researched and then endorsed by at least two RCN Surgeons.

If you look at the injury patterns suffered by the RN in the Falklands (which we did in modifying the CA TCCC to RCN TCCC) you will soon see the utility of such a course and having the required lifesaving interventions at hand. Waiting 6 min to handover to a CCT without arresting massive bleeding from an Exocet missile hitting you above the waterline and causing a fierce fire will result in you handing over a dead shipmate.

MC

 

[jollyjacktar]

I know Dr Hache was ready to do the training himself when he was on PRE.  I strongly believe as many of us should have the knowledge as possible, for the very reasons you give MC.  My sandbox time convinces me further.