Tactical Tailor

ADS Inc Wins USAF Non-FR Combat Shirt Contract

Last week, the Department of the Air Force awarded ADS Inc a contract for $1,908,872.41 to deliver non-FR Combat Shirts under the Defensor Fortis-Load Carrying System 2 program. Intended for use by AF Security Forces, these Combat Shirts differ from the Airman Battle Shirt by being manufactured from lightweight, non-FR materials yet like the ABS, incorporate a mock turtleneck and also sport the Digital Tigerstripe Pattern worn by all stateside Airmen. These are going to be worn by SF on gate duty when they wear body armor such as IBA or equivalent to increase comfort and are not intended to be worn in a deployed environment.

Here is a full description:

All fabric shall be lightweight, breathable, moisture wicking and odor resistant; long sleeve “over the head” style with a semi-tight fit that eliminates bunching or riding up under armor; right & left sleeves shall contain: Air Force Digital Tiger Stripe Camouflage Print, hook and loop cuff closures, anti-abrasion padded elbow patches, two-channel flapped pen pocket on both forearms secured by hook & loop fastener tape, zippered shoulder pockets with 6-1/4 inch opening for all sizes (opening toward front of arm); right shoulder pocket must accommodate hook & loop name tape and rank insignia; fastener tape dimensions: loop fastener for name tape shall be 1 inch wide x 5-1/2 inches long, loop fastener for the rank patch shall be 2 inches wide x 2 inches long; torso & mock turtle neck shall be AF Sage Green 1641 (match color in Tiger Stripe Green) or Army Foliage Green 504; modesty panel covering chest area. These will be available in X-Small through XXX-Large.

There is still no award on the load carriage portion of the solicitation.


17 Responses to “ADS Inc Wins USAF Non-FR Combat Shirt Contract”

  1. Cap'n Drew says:

    I think you’ll notice from the description that the shoulder pockets aren’t dispensed with. While I hate to us investing further in the digital tiger stripe mistake, I’m sure Airmen in warmer climates will appreciate this.

  2. Jeff Clement says:

    Gotta say, we have enough stuff in the system. Why bother with having both non-FR and FR stuff in inventory? The cost differential can’t be *that* high, and if guys are on post where the threat is significant enough to warrant a plate carrier (or equivalent) isn’t having an FR garment at least a “nice to have” if not “probably warranted”?

    • Jeff Clement says:

      And to add on, as a leader, I hated when there was stuff that I had a hard time telling the difference between. E.G. Oakleys M-Frames are ballistic but the Afghans would sell knockoffs that weren’t…so I couldn’t easily check during PCCs/PCIs that my guys were wearing ballistic glasses. As a leader, I’d hate to have non-FR combat shirts in circulation that I’d have to be aware of and check for.

      • straps says:

        PCCS and PCIs? What kind of relic are you lol?

        Far as knockoffs, I’ve never seen “Faux_kleys” with the lens etching. Would be nice if Oakley etched the Z87 or the MIL-PRF-31013 standard. My preferred brand(s) do this.

        On Army side the FR gear has (had?) the little square of tape on the cuff (blouse) and pocket flap (pant). Hopefully USAF will do something similar. Wouldn’t it be obviated by the fact that USAF’s expeditionary (presumably FR) equipment is OCP/Multicam anyway?

        As to cost, FR vs. non-FR is a significant cost difference and a significant lifespan difference (FR being known to fall apart quickly). And I’m not a fan of FR inventory treated with “waiverable” amounts of the chemicals increasingly suspected of killing firefighters with various cancers.

        I’ll take inherently FR wool and aramid over that toxic crap any day…

        • b_a says:

          Isn’t all the stuff that’s nowadays offered inherently FR and not coated?
          At least the clothing fabrics.

  3. shots&hots says:

    It takes a mass. cal. event involving a incendiary device at a CONUS base gate for the military to realize non-FR items have no business in the military.

  4. defensor fortisimo says:

    Are they looking at updatiing the DFLCS then?
    If so, about time

  5. Mac says:

    We’re still waiting on our T3 Geronimo plate carriers to come in. We’ve received pretty much everything else in the new Pro Gear kit. Can’t wait to get these bad boys. In typical AF fashion, the packs they bought us are in black, even though the manufacture makes them in DTS (ABU). Tell me how that makes any sense. I asked during a data call with DC, and their answer was sub par to say at best.

  6. Chuck says:

    These are great in theory, however SF doesn’t typically wear the IBA or DFLCS stateside. So it will get issued and sit waiting to be worn for years. Meanwhile the guys will wear their second chance vests and duty belts, waiting to wear that “cool” shirt.

    • Chuck says:

      I know there are some bases that don’t mind if the guys wear the DFLCS stateside, however the big push is for duty belts only. Just wanted to be a little clearer.

      • Hoff says:

        The last two stations I’ve been at in CONUS mandated the use and wear of DFLCS and nothing else unless specifically authorized by S-3 Supt or higher.

        • chuck says:

          See that’s completely the opposite of the 2 bases I work for (TR and Civ). Oh well. Glad I kept my FR from the deployment in 2011-2012. Now if only they will authorize the moth balled ABSG’s I have….

  7. Brian says:

    The overseas guys (USAFE, and probably PAC) who wear armor on a daily basis can wear these though. I can think of multiple USAFE locations where guys wear pretty much nothing BUT IBA or whatever other hard armor they have, even on gates, every day.

    And knowing USAF supply, they will issue 1.5 of these for every five guys….. not say, I don’t know, 3 per airman, since you might just be pulling gates five or six days in a row, or sitting armored up in your Humvee (in ‘peaceful’ Europe) in a few places every single day of a 3 year tour…..