As a retired Army guy, I have to agree with the general idea. But instead of all $70 billion from the Army, I would take some of that from USMC and DOD.
The USMC Commandant has already cut the "premier amphibious force", and we no longer need amphibs to cart them around and think we are going to perform an amphibious assault under fire, or set up shore "batteries" with 6-18 missiles. They will be rolled up like a cheap carpet.
Shift that money plus the Army funds and go drones. The Red Sea has shown that we can't park a CVBG off a hostile shore 500 miles away and withstand daily drone attacks without going Winchester in a week or two. $200 million of SM-2 and SM-6's would buy a good start on drones.
What drones? The USN barely understands drones, all three major warfares have programs that are still trying to explore their technical feasibility. Even NAVAIR which is arguably further along with its MQ-25, continues to push-back its IOC date, which is now slated for 2026....this is just a tanker, not any kind of arsenal ship, ISR or, loyal wingman platform.
I wholeheartedly concur. BUT, we're "hoping" (hope is not a winning strategy) that we can purloin 70 Billion from the USA and then what? Take 10 years to build a frigate? 16 for a CVN? 15 to put a gun on the F-35? We don't have the luxury of time and when we're good and ready tell China "ok, we're ready to take you on"?
Agree 100%...if we don't improve the shipbuilding and upkeep of existing ships the $40B wii go for naught. No amount of funding will help our current propensity to design and build tiffany ships.
Well, we don't have the amphibs either. Assuming you want them to get across the Pacific. I guess you can do cool things in San Diego harbor with them.
Were I an enemy of the US I would be more than willing to trade $50,000 drones for $1,000,000+ missiles for as long as possible. Isn't one of the putative reasons for the collapse of the USSR our military spending competition which drove them into bankruptcy?
I might phrase that as "only 'potential' amphibious force". As was discussed on MidRats yesterday the Gator Navy is on its ass and USMC hasn't really played amphibious in this century - I'd gladly stand corrected on that last assertion if someone can do so.
Yes, we SHOULD. Of course I "should" be rich and handsome too. I was shocked to read some CMC essentially say USMC was out of the Amphib business some years ago.
I question whether or not we can even say we have any amphibious capability today, though again, I'd be happier to learn we might have some.
FWIW I have practical experience with Amphib Ops in the 70's and 80's when we were indeed capable.
Agree with this assessment. Overcoming the "gods of inertia" who will default to, and insist upon the traditional "30-30-30-10" budget allocation (Army / USAF / USN / USMC) will require focused, coordinated fires. Given the confirmation of the new SecDef, I'm cautiously optimistic that the congress can be convinced (or coerced, getting primaried is a genuine motivator!) to see the light. Now we'll see how the Military Industrial Complex (MIC / TM) reacts to the change in the budget battlefield. How the senior brass react as well is important. The career path of military transition to well paid MIC board member may be in jeopardy (we'll see) and that may trigger a violent response...which might be beneficial in identifying some real...well...careerist incompetents. We'll see. Watching with interest.
I find Elbridge Colby is grandson of William Colby. Ergo: the proper genes are present. And DJT has employed him prior. I expect there will be money from Army to Navy if DJT backs off from NATO. I would say DJT's tariff and related policies - if Congress goes along - is a much cheaper way for us - as THE Hegemon - to persuade NATO members to do what we want than all the NATO military expenditures since before noah was learning to swim. I would buy lots of popcorn to watch such a redirection DOD monies. Long unemployment lines among army goods lobbies (let-em pursue Iron Dome stuff). The probability is that our attention most likely will be captured by a Pacific Ocean War, west of International Date Line, rather than army boots on the ground (and boots on the ground - long or short term - doesn't offer to us "sanguine expectations"......looking backward at our Chinese Chapters: just ask Teddy Roosevelt about sending another Wm. H. Taft out west on an Asian cruise with his daughter.)
The Marines lost their tanks. Will the Army be next? Schlepping tanks around the globe to get blown up by drones and IEDs requires a lot of transport capability and logistics.
Slash Flag Officer billets and staffs, drastically. Most of them are craven wokesters anyway, who climbed to power by genuflecting to communist ideology (in the bad old days that just ended). Besides, taking out a flag here & there is very effective "pour encourager les autres." Just ask my fellow Coasties. 😎
While we're talking personnel cuts: slash SES billets as well as civilian staffers GS-13 and above.
The entire USCG (active & reserve) is smaller than a Marine Expeditionary Force, yet it has 2 Admirals, 4 Vice Admirals, 21 RADMs, and 21 RDMLs … which is absurd.
I am overjoyed that Donald Trump is now the POTUS.
I am however troubled by his attitude toward Russia.
There is no scenario by which we can fight Russia and China at the same time. Now is the time to see if we can separate Russia from China rather than push her even further into the arms of China with even more useless sanctions.
I sorta get the vibes that Russia would be happy if we backed off awhile on all that neo-con/uniparty hysteria about them. It is time our pearl clutchers let go of them a bit: jeez, we are a quarter of the way through the 21st century allready.
Russia has trouble beating a third rate Ukrainian army. The Ukrainian war shows Russia can be handled by European forces. No reason for us to plan on fighting Russia. Let Europe act as the primary force for a potential Russian threat. The U.S. can provide logistics support to NATO forces.
If Russia is having difficulty beating a third rate Ukrainian army (funded and armed by the West) it might be because of restraint to minimize collateral damage and a goal to only relieve the easternmost Russian populated Ukrainian provinces. Agree that we have no reason to fight Russia. Let the Europeans see to their own defense with only some logistical support from us. But I doubt that the Europeans will or can step up to the plate as the Ukrainians tried to do. After seeing a large percentage of Ukrainian civilians fleeing to the West at the start of the war and the squandering of young men 17 to 70 as canon fodder, I doubt that many in Europe have the stomach for fighting. If it comes to that, Spain better be ready for refugees. But it won't come to that. I doubt Russia has larger ambitions in Europe other than to compete in trade. Just my prognosticating 2¢'s
The Russian disaster vs. Ukraine has probably done more to discourage Chinese aggressive impulses than anything else that has happened in the past five years. And the Ukes have shown us the kind of creative thinking, accurate assessment of possibilities, initiative and resiliency we're going to need as we go on. Taking Ukraine's part was the right move for the US, no matter who gets credit for it. They and Israel are the essence of "fight outnumbered and win."
If the Logistics weenies can figure out how to retrofit/upgrade aircraft built 50 years ago (BUFF: Expected to fly into the 2050's), why not vessels? I've read several well-reasoned pieces on certain Destroyer types better suited for current deployment than the boondoggles being presently built.
Do we really need close to 300 Naval Flag officers? We truly need to change the method of designing, procuring, constructing & maintaining both Naval & Air assets. See the Constellation Frigate or LCS... Ownership cost and readiness need to drastically improve. New ideas and maybe the current funding level starts to look better?
Four years as a soldier can be a path to success. Get them fresh out of high school, turn them into men and kick them out, with a GI plan for college or vocational tech, and let them slide into the reserves.
Maybe all they need is a year of active duty; a good year, with good training, but how long does it really take to be a good soldier? Some folks take to it like a duck to water.
I doubt that you could build or sustain an Army corporate memory without a large cadre of lifers, both Officer & NCO. You can be a "good" soldier on day 1, but to become a thoroughly competent one (mech, tech, log, admin, med, operator, grunt, etc.) may take longer. Me? Force converted from a very able RD1 (ASAC, EW Operator, CIC LPO, NGFS) to an EW1 noob with 51 weeks of training. I was just hitting my stride as an EW Technician two years later when I promoted to Chief and then got redirected into a dozen collateral duties that weren't "tech-ish". Not every enlistee is a duck.
I believe the Navy is fundamentally different from the Army. The sea is a harsh mistress. A sailor is a mariner, first and foremost. You can't fight the enemy if you capsized and are drowning. Pushing a hull through the water requires expertise in a way that humping a pack through the woods does not. The Machinist. the Boatswain, the Gunner and their mates have technical expertise which soldiers neither have, nor need.
The soldier is an infantryman. We need brave, strong, men and women trained to run to the sound of gunfire, but, they don't need years of technical training to do that.
I have no Army nor Air Force expertise, and little outside my Navy experience. Still, I think the Army would need a sizable cadre of lifers around which noobs could coalesce in time of war.
Beg to differ on a couple of accounts. If you are talking Infantry, first we need MEN, not women. And "running to the sound of the guns" can get you ambushed. Successful Infantry fighting and soldiering require a lot of skills in addition to lots of time in the field to acquire, hone and refine them. As even BM's are more than mere "paint chippers" - and obviously we need more of them if the material condition of many of the hulls I've seen is any indication - so an Infantryman is more than a pack humper.
Do some land navigation at night sometime - while remaining hidden - and you'll gain some appreciation for the "technical expertise" required of the Infantryman.
Tanks and Strykers may not sit in seawater but they suck when they capsize too. More seriously, like Boat Guy says, we don't march shoulder to shoulder in a phalanx, nor do we volley fire at the redcoats anymore. There is a lot of technical expertise involved in getting a professional army to work. Some can be shake-n-baked. Some needs to be learned over time. I would argue that part of why we're seeing the appalling casualty rates for both sides in the Ukraine and part of the inability to manuever is because most of the prewar experience is gone (leadership and rank and file).
That may have been true a century or two ago, but times have changed. Even in the American Civil War there were various specialists, including signallers, farriers, engineers, etc. Infantrymen are now a minority even in Infantry divisions.
Taken in sheer numbers, yes Infantrymen might indeed be a "minority" but they are the reason that division exists. Our "tooth to tail" ratio is far longer than it needs to be in some cases, but ALL of those "specialists" have ONE job; support the Infantry in finding, closing with and destroying our enemies.
It was true a century ago and it was true millennia ago. It will be true as long as wars are fought on land.
Put 50% of the tariffs into shipbuilding/facilities? Hull with 64 Mk. 41 tubes or a few ASW helicopters as Burke "assistants"? Put a squadron or 2 of USMC F-15EX on as many islands as can handle them?
There also needs to be more standardization. Why do the services all need their own camo uniforms? We used have one. Why do the Army/USAF use different tactical trucks than the USMC/Navy? We all used the same ones until circa 2000. There are lots more examples.
Also, the Air Force is probably due for another round of base closings given how small its fleet of aircraft has gotten. Would cost more up front but would hopefully free up funds in the long term but has to be balanced with survivability obviously.
Absolutely. Getting rid of all DEI should save money. But clean out the FO ranks. Navy cannot afford to lose any more real estate. I'm surprised that General Brown has not been fired yet.
With respect to uniforms, hiding in the water is a lot different than hiding in the sand. We'd hate to have anybody who falls overboard actually be spotted.
I dunno, Orwell. I heard about a survey done years back...97% of sailor's named "Oscar" wanted an International Orange camo pattern uniform. There weren't that many "Dale's" in my Navy, but I'm calling it 100% for them.
Blueberries on a ship always cracked me up. Good thing we’re camouflaged…onboard a boat. Then again, the way the SWO’s have done - collisions, grounding, bagging our own jets - maybe the camo had a purpose: made it easier for the guilty ‘shoe’ to hide, I suppose.
Nobody needs a camouflage uniform except infantry, and they don't need it either. The whole business has been a waste of billion$ and would be laughable otherwise.
As a retired Army National Guard, I agree with this assessment.
As a retired Army guy, I have to agree with the general idea. But instead of all $70 billion from the Army, I would take some of that from USMC and DOD.
The Marines are already underfunded, especially for a war west of Wake. Cutting our premier (only?) amphibious force is a bad idea.
The USMC Commandant has already cut the "premier amphibious force", and we no longer need amphibs to cart them around and think we are going to perform an amphibious assault under fire, or set up shore "batteries" with 6-18 missiles. They will be rolled up like a cheap carpet.
Shift that money plus the Army funds and go drones. The Red Sea has shown that we can't park a CVBG off a hostile shore 500 miles away and withstand daily drone attacks without going Winchester in a week or two. $200 million of SM-2 and SM-6's would buy a good start on drones.
What drones? The USN barely understands drones, all three major warfares have programs that are still trying to explore their technical feasibility. Even NAVAIR which is arguably further along with its MQ-25, continues to push-back its IOC date, which is now slated for 2026....this is just a tanker, not any kind of arsenal ship, ISR or, loyal wingman platform.
I wholeheartedly concur. BUT, we're "hoping" (hope is not a winning strategy) that we can purloin 70 Billion from the USA and then what? Take 10 years to build a frigate? 16 for a CVN? 15 to put a gun on the F-35? We don't have the luxury of time and when we're good and ready tell China "ok, we're ready to take you on"?
Agree 100%...if we don't improve the shipbuilding and upkeep of existing ships the $40B wii go for naught. No amount of funding will help our current propensity to design and build tiffany ships.
Well, we don't have the amphibs either. Assuming you want them to get across the Pacific. I guess you can do cool things in San Diego harbor with them.
Were I an enemy of the US I would be more than willing to trade $50,000 drones for $1,000,000+ missiles for as long as possible. Isn't one of the putative reasons for the collapse of the USSR our military spending competition which drove them into bankruptcy?
I might phrase that as "only 'potential' amphibious force". As was discussed on MidRats yesterday the Gator Navy is on its ass and USMC hasn't really played amphibious in this century - I'd gladly stand corrected on that last assertion if someone can do so.
Shouldn't we have that capability?
Yes, we SHOULD. Of course I "should" be rich and handsome too. I was shocked to read some CMC essentially say USMC was out of the Amphib business some years ago.
I question whether or not we can even say we have any amphibious capability today, though again, I'd be happier to learn we might have some.
FWIW I have practical experience with Amphib Ops in the 70's and 80's when we were indeed capable.
The USMC is the leanest group; what are you cutting? Troops?
No reductions to the USMC. They are already at the bone, and they do not waste money like Army/Navy/USAF.
They have also figured out how to properly account for their equipment which no other service has done to date.
I happen to like many of the choices for the second tier appointments.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4035130/new-officials-sworn-in-at-the-department-of-defense/
Sworn in on inauguration day, the team seems to be well thought out. Just enough variability in positions and thought to avoid "group think".
Never heard of any of them but noticed one of them has the title of confidential advisor to SECDEF. are the other advisors non-confidential?
Agree with this assessment. Overcoming the "gods of inertia" who will default to, and insist upon the traditional "30-30-30-10" budget allocation (Army / USAF / USN / USMC) will require focused, coordinated fires. Given the confirmation of the new SecDef, I'm cautiously optimistic that the congress can be convinced (or coerced, getting primaried is a genuine motivator!) to see the light. Now we'll see how the Military Industrial Complex (MIC / TM) reacts to the change in the budget battlefield. How the senior brass react as well is important. The career path of military transition to well paid MIC board member may be in jeopardy (we'll see) and that may trigger a violent response...which might be beneficial in identifying some real...well...careerist incompetents. We'll see. Watching with interest.
I would take it one step further. Senior staff who take MIC jobs lose their retirements. Simple. Clean. Effective.
Retired career enlisted taking a job as support contractor can keep the pension. A guy making real decisions can lose the pension, or have it reduced.
Would take a very smartly written law, though.
Don't forgo a carveout from the Special Activities Center / CIA paramilitary as well. And from DHS.
I find Elbridge Colby is grandson of William Colby. Ergo: the proper genes are present. And DJT has employed him prior. I expect there will be money from Army to Navy if DJT backs off from NATO. I would say DJT's tariff and related policies - if Congress goes along - is a much cheaper way for us - as THE Hegemon - to persuade NATO members to do what we want than all the NATO military expenditures since before noah was learning to swim. I would buy lots of popcorn to watch such a redirection DOD monies. Long unemployment lines among army goods lobbies (let-em pursue Iron Dome stuff). The probability is that our attention most likely will be captured by a Pacific Ocean War, west of International Date Line, rather than army boots on the ground (and boots on the ground - long or short term - doesn't offer to us "sanguine expectations"......looking backward at our Chinese Chapters: just ask Teddy Roosevelt about sending another Wm. H. Taft out west on an Asian cruise with his daughter.)
I enjoyed Randall B. Woods' biography "Shadow Warrior: William Egan Colby and the CIA."
The Marines lost their tanks. Will the Army be next? Schlepping tanks around the globe to get blown up by drones and IEDs requires a lot of transport capability and logistics.
Dunno that USMC "lost" their tanks so much as gave them up.
Tanks - if accompanied by Infantry - absolutely have their place on the battle field.
Key word, "field."
Personnel is always a huge cost.
Slash Flag Officer billets and staffs, drastically. Most of them are craven wokesters anyway, who climbed to power by genuflecting to communist ideology (in the bad old days that just ended). Besides, taking out a flag here & there is very effective "pour encourager les autres." Just ask my fellow Coasties. 😎
While we're talking personnel cuts: slash SES billets as well as civilian staffers GS-13 and above.
Enjoy the windfall, SECDEF & SECNAV.
It may be coming sooner than you think. Maybe....an announcement this week?
Was expecting an announcement today but we can surely await for an announcement this week.
So, O'Coastie..."Semper pare at us", is it? Sounds good. ☺
The entire USCG (active & reserve) is smaller than a Marine Expeditionary Force, yet it has 2 Admirals, 4 Vice Admirals, 21 RADMs, and 21 RDMLs … which is absurd.
Post of the day so far...amen!
I am overjoyed that Donald Trump is now the POTUS.
I am however troubled by his attitude toward Russia.
There is no scenario by which we can fight Russia and China at the same time. Now is the time to see if we can separate Russia from China rather than push her even further into the arms of China with even more useless sanctions.
I sorta get the vibes that Russia would be happy if we backed off awhile on all that neo-con/uniparty hysteria about them. It is time our pearl clutchers let go of them a bit: jeez, we are a quarter of the way through the 21st century allready.
"If it wasn't for Putin, I coulda been an oligarchs" crowd will fight tooth and nail against a saner Russia policy.
Russia has trouble beating a third rate Ukrainian army. The Ukrainian war shows Russia can be handled by European forces. No reason for us to plan on fighting Russia. Let Europe act as the primary force for a potential Russian threat. The U.S. can provide logistics support to NATO forces.
If Russia is having difficulty beating a third rate Ukrainian army (funded and armed by the West) it might be because of restraint to minimize collateral damage and a goal to only relieve the easternmost Russian populated Ukrainian provinces. Agree that we have no reason to fight Russia. Let the Europeans see to their own defense with only some logistical support from us. But I doubt that the Europeans will or can step up to the plate as the Ukrainians tried to do. After seeing a large percentage of Ukrainian civilians fleeing to the West at the start of the war and the squandering of young men 17 to 70 as canon fodder, I doubt that many in Europe have the stomach for fighting. If it comes to that, Spain better be ready for refugees. But it won't come to that. I doubt Russia has larger ambitions in Europe other than to compete in trade. Just my prognosticating 2¢'s
The Russian disaster vs. Ukraine has probably done more to discourage Chinese aggressive impulses than anything else that has happened in the past five years. And the Ukes have shown us the kind of creative thinking, accurate assessment of possibilities, initiative and resiliency we're going to need as we go on. Taking Ukraine's part was the right move for the US, no matter who gets credit for it. They and Israel are the essence of "fight outnumbered and win."
I remember how well we did against the Taliban
even if Navy gained more money, they need Time. Building traditional marine vessels (aka "warships") takes too much Time. and Manning...
I'm waiting here to alleviate that, somewhat, with proper rigid hulled, amphibious airships, Navy. gimmee a call.
If the Logistics weenies can figure out how to retrofit/upgrade aircraft built 50 years ago (BUFF: Expected to fly into the 2050's), why not vessels? I've read several well-reasoned pieces on certain Destroyer types better suited for current deployment than the boondoggles being presently built.
No salt in the sky. No salt in the great lakes either and those ships last 100 years. Your answer to why would appear to be salt.
How about we prioritize SSNs that are in need some loving maintenance care about now???
Do we really need close to 300 Naval Flag officers? We truly need to change the method of designing, procuring, constructing & maintaining both Naval & Air assets. See the Constellation Frigate or LCS... Ownership cost and readiness need to drastically improve. New ideas and maybe the current funding level starts to look better?
We had about 200 or so in WWII. I'm sure we could jettison an even hundred or so and be the better for it.
probably 200 at least
The list I saw was right at 200
Correction -233. For a Navy with well over 1000 ships.
Full speed ahead...this assessment and recommendation is spot on!
The Army is a young man's game.
Four years as a soldier can be a path to success. Get them fresh out of high school, turn them into men and kick them out, with a GI plan for college or vocational tech, and let them slide into the reserves.
Maybe all they need is a year of active duty; a good year, with good training, but how long does it really take to be a good soldier? Some folks take to it like a duck to water.
Or mandatory two-years in any branch followed by mandatory 4 years reserves/guard. And proficiency training at EVERY drill.
See Gary Hart's book from the 1990's called "Army of the People" for a pretty good idea of how this would work.
I doubt that you could build or sustain an Army corporate memory without a large cadre of lifers, both Officer & NCO. You can be a "good" soldier on day 1, but to become a thoroughly competent one (mech, tech, log, admin, med, operator, grunt, etc.) may take longer. Me? Force converted from a very able RD1 (ASAC, EW Operator, CIC LPO, NGFS) to an EW1 noob with 51 weeks of training. I was just hitting my stride as an EW Technician two years later when I promoted to Chief and then got redirected into a dozen collateral duties that weren't "tech-ish". Not every enlistee is a duck.
I believe the Navy is fundamentally different from the Army. The sea is a harsh mistress. A sailor is a mariner, first and foremost. You can't fight the enemy if you capsized and are drowning. Pushing a hull through the water requires expertise in a way that humping a pack through the woods does not. The Machinist. the Boatswain, the Gunner and their mates have technical expertise which soldiers neither have, nor need.
The soldier is an infantryman. We need brave, strong, men and women trained to run to the sound of gunfire, but, they don't need years of technical training to do that.
I have no Army nor Air Force expertise, and little outside my Navy experience. Still, I think the Army would need a sizable cadre of lifers around which noobs could coalesce in time of war.
I think all the forces have lost their mechanical know how. Rome's army engineered every day. The contractor wasn't getting flown out.
Beg to differ on a couple of accounts. If you are talking Infantry, first we need MEN, not women. And "running to the sound of the guns" can get you ambushed. Successful Infantry fighting and soldiering require a lot of skills in addition to lots of time in the field to acquire, hone and refine them. As even BM's are more than mere "paint chippers" - and obviously we need more of them if the material condition of many of the hulls I've seen is any indication - so an Infantryman is more than a pack humper.
Do some land navigation at night sometime - while remaining hidden - and you'll gain some appreciation for the "technical expertise" required of the Infantryman.
Tanks and Strykers may not sit in seawater but they suck when they capsize too. More seriously, like Boat Guy says, we don't march shoulder to shoulder in a phalanx, nor do we volley fire at the redcoats anymore. There is a lot of technical expertise involved in getting a professional army to work. Some can be shake-n-baked. Some needs to be learned over time. I would argue that part of why we're seeing the appalling casualty rates for both sides in the Ukraine and part of the inability to manuever is because most of the prewar experience is gone (leadership and rank and file).
"The soldier is an infantryman."
That may have been true a century or two ago, but times have changed. Even in the American Civil War there were various specialists, including signallers, farriers, engineers, etc. Infantrymen are now a minority even in Infantry divisions.
Taken in sheer numbers, yes Infantrymen might indeed be a "minority" but they are the reason that division exists. Our "tooth to tail" ratio is far longer than it needs to be in some cases, but ALL of those "specialists" have ONE job; support the Infantry in finding, closing with and destroying our enemies.
It was true a century ago and it was true millennia ago. It will be true as long as wars are fought on land.
True enough. I would put in that not all of the "Mandatory" budget outlay programs really are. Medicaid comes to mind as a starter.
Put 50% of the tariffs into shipbuilding/facilities? Hull with 64 Mk. 41 tubes or a few ASW helicopters as Burke "assistants"? Put a squadron or 2 of USMC F-15EX on as many islands as can handle them?
There also needs to be more standardization. Why do the services all need their own camo uniforms? We used have one. Why do the Army/USAF use different tactical trucks than the USMC/Navy? We all used the same ones until circa 2000. There are lots more examples.
Also, the Air Force is probably due for another round of base closings given how small its fleet of aircraft has gotten. Would cost more up front but would hopefully free up funds in the long term but has to be balanced with survivability obviously.
BRAC for USAF and Army. Leave Navy untouched.
For Navy, get rid of FO billets instead of ships and real estate.
Absolutely. Getting rid of all DEI should save money. But clean out the FO ranks. Navy cannot afford to lose any more real estate. I'm surprised that General Brown has not been fired yet.
With respect to uniforms, hiding in the water is a lot different than hiding in the sand. We'd hate to have anybody who falls overboard actually be spotted.
I dunno, Orwell. I heard about a survey done years back...97% of sailor's named "Oscar" wanted an International Orange camo pattern uniform. There weren't that many "Dale's" in my Navy, but I'm calling it 100% for them.
Blueberries on a ship always cracked me up. Good thing we’re camouflaged…onboard a boat. Then again, the way the SWO’s have done - collisions, grounding, bagging our own jets - maybe the camo had a purpose: made it easier for the guilty ‘shoe’ to hide, I suppose.
Nobody needs a camouflage uniform except infantry, and they don't need it either. The whole business has been a waste of billion$ and would be laughable otherwise.
Just guessing, but the Marines need their truck to fit on the turn table.