Yeah, I have a thought. The damn Army should hire the Navy's marketing team. "An Army of One"? Are you serious? In a branch that promotes team work? Hell, how about, "We do more before 6AM than most people do all day"? Who in the **** would be enticed by that?
(10-12-2009 12:57 AM)Rebel Wrote: Yeah, I have a thought. The damn Army should hire the Navy's marketing team. "An Army of One"? Are you serious? In a branch that promotes team work? Hell, how about, "We do more before 6AM than most people do all day"? Who in the **** would be enticed by that?
somehow the Sopranos made a whole episode titled and based on that slogan, "Army of One". If I remember correctly, Tony didn't get it either.
They all need new slogans like the Navy, and to make people understand how forces abroad affect their liberty at home. fatigue, absent another attack, is just going to lead to more protectionist and isolationist moods as time goes by.
A Global Force for Good.. alas only 280 ships, with the newer classes way over budget and in the case of the San Antonio class LPD's.. a floating POS that need another 6 months in the yard to get all the systems working right.
I've heard the trend is toward a 220 ship Navy at least for the intermediate term, although I don't think that's what anyone has recommended. It's just a combination of backtracking on prior long term plans and ships coming out of service.
With the new USCG, USMC, and USN plan there are provisions for new marketing within all of those branches. We really need new people in the Coast Guard (immediately). We have a girl that's been out of boot for 2 weeks training on-the-job for lead gunner, when she has never touched a weapon, due to the fact that we have a lack in manpower. That adds to the stress of those non-rates because they also have to run all of these details and deal with the fact that they are on the front trigger when they can't even drink yet. Now that can be a good thing because we can say that the new guys will be experts and supervisors by the time they are 20, but we are still undermanned. I can't wait until our new campaign comes out.
But as far as advancing our fleet, we need to make sure that we can refurbish and/or build some ships. Some of the berthings are actually cots held up by chains. We need more funding.
(10-12-2009 01:58 PM)I45owl Wrote: I've heard the trend is toward a 220 ship Navy at least for the intermediate term, although I don't think that's what anyone has recommended. It's just a combination of backtracking on prior long term plans and ships coming out of service.
220 (counting submarines along with amphibs and ships like the LCS) is 7 or 8 carrier groups. That won't work. You can't keep your crews because of long term deployments required from 8 groups. Didn't the base NROTC obligation just go up to 5 years?
With 11 carrier groups under the current deployment structure you are looking at 6-8 month deployments as it is. Cutting back to 7-8 groups makes sense only when you look at the "naval fighter procurement gap." The F-18C as well as some of the E/F "Rino" will be worn out by 2015-- there won't be enough planes for 11 carriers.
(10-12-2009 12:57 AM)Rebel Wrote: Yeah, I have a thought. The damn Army should hire the Navy's marketing team. "An Army of One"? Are you serious? In a branch that promotes team work? Hell, how about, "We do more before 6AM than most people do all day"? Who in the **** would be enticed by that?
The best commercial I've seen is the one where they show a beach at night and then the screen goes dark as the moon is covered by clouds. When the moon light re-illuminates the beach there are 4 sets of footprints on it.
(10-12-2009 12:57 AM)Rebel Wrote: Yeah, I have a thought. The damn Army should hire the Navy's marketing team. "An Army of One"? Are you serious? In a branch that promotes team work? Hell, how about, "We do more before 6AM than most people do all day"? Who in the **** would be enticed by that?
The Army always has good membership because of their benefits, they don't need a lot of advertising and whatnot. But, I do have friends that think they should get rid of one thing for aesthetic purposes, the standard issue berets. On Rangers and Special Forces they look tough; on cooks and admins, they look like they aren't earned.
(10-12-2009 12:57 AM)Rebel Wrote: Yeah, I have a thought. The damn Army should hire the Navy's marketing team. "An Army of One"? Are you serious? In a branch that promotes team work? Hell, how about, "We do more before 6AM than most people do all day"? Who in the **** would be enticed by that?
The best commercial I've seen is the one where they show a beach at night and then the screen goes dark as the moon is covered by clouds. When the moon light re-illuminates the beach there are 4 sets of footprints on it.
(10-12-2009 12:57 AM)Rebel Wrote: Yeah, I have a thought. The damn Army should hire the Navy's marketing team. "An Army of One"? Are you serious? In a branch that promotes team work? Hell, how about, "We do more before 6AM than most people do all day"? Who in the **** would be enticed by that?
The best commercial I've seen is the one where they show a beach at night and then the screen goes dark as the moon is covered by clouds. When the moon light re-illuminates the beach there are 4 sets of footprints on it.
I concur, that is the best Navy one. I think the Marine Corps has the strongest of almost any campaign I have ever seen. Every time I watch it, I double think my decision to join the Navy. Then I realize I really don't like PT all that much and go back to eating my Cheezy Poofs while sitting on my couch watching football.
(10-12-2009 12:57 AM)Rebel Wrote: Yeah, I have a thought. The damn Army should hire the Navy's marketing team. "An Army of One"? Are you serious? In a branch that promotes team work? Hell, how about, "We do more before 6AM than most people do all day"? Who in the **** would be enticed by that?
Well they finally realized they were in trouble when they had to release ads that explained the meaning more fully.
(10-12-2009 08:10 PM)WMD Owl Wrote: There is serious consideration to allowing women sailors on submarines... which gives "Hot Bunking" a real possibility.
From the PR its been getting I would bet 80% chance AT THE LEAST of this happening. If it keeps getting all this attention along with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell debates, there's no way Congress could possibly stop this if its got ADM Mullen, Roughead, and the SECNAV and SECDEF's backing. It'll be fun to see who gets stuck with trying to get the boats ready by Congress's rediculous timeline though.
Finally, I can't stand watching the AF commercials. "Do something amazing"? Like fix planes or write reports? Load cargo on and off a cargo plane? Sit behind a monitor and watch satellite reports from inside an underground silo? The CG does more exciting stuff in a week than the AF does in months. God forbid you enlist. The primary aircraft the AF pushes is there recently canned Raptors. Of which there are only 145 in service, and oh BTW, you have to be an officer to fly. Sorry enlistees.
Sorry to rant, but the AF really irks me. Maybe its just being around all the AFROTC cadets who think they're hot **** cause they're all gonna be pilots (which they're not). Yeah they have a mission (at times), but its really not that exciting except for the lucky few.
(10-12-2009 08:10 PM)WMD Owl Wrote: There is serious consideration to allowing women sailors on submarines... which gives "Hot Bunking" a real possibility.
From the PR its been getting I would bet 80% chance AT THE LEAST of this happening. If it keeps getting all this attention along with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell debates, there's no way Congress could possibly stop this if its got ADM Mullen, Roughead, and the SECNAV and SECDEF's backing. It'll be fun to see who gets stuck with trying to get the boats ready by Congress's rediculous timeline though.
I wasn't in the service, but from the submariners I've known, it's hard for me to reconcile opposition to both Don't Ask, Don't Tell and co-ed submarines. Just sayin...
(10-12-2009 08:10 PM)WMD Owl Wrote: There is serious consideration to allowing women sailors on submarines... which gives "Hot Bunking" a real possibility.
From the PR its been getting I would bet 80% chance AT THE LEAST of this happening. If it keeps getting all this attention along with the Don't Ask, Don't Tell debates, there's no way Congress could possibly stop this if its got ADM Mullen, Roughead, and the SECNAV and SECDEF's backing. It'll be fun to see who gets stuck with trying to get the boats ready by Congress's rediculous timeline though.
I wasn't in the service, but from the submariners I've known, it's hard for me to reconcile opposition to both Don't Ask, Don't Tell and co-ed submarines. Just sayin...
It ought to be interesting since they already allow women in Nuke School for carriers sooner or later they will graduate a female nuke for a submarine.
(10-13-2009 12:29 AM)T-Monay820 Wrote: Finally, I can't stand watching the AF commercials. "Do something amazing"? Like fix planes or write reports? Load cargo on and off a cargo plane? Sit behind a monitor and watch satellite reports from inside an underground silo? The CG does more exciting stuff in a week than the AF does in months. God forbid you enlist. The primary aircraft the AF pushes is there recently canned Raptors. Of which there are only 145 in service, and oh BTW, you have to be an officer to fly. Sorry enlistees.
Sorry to rant, but the AF really irks me. Maybe its just being around all the AFROTC cadets who think they're hot **** cause they're all gonna be pilots (which they're not). Yeah they have a mission (at times), but its really not that exciting except for the lucky few.
Don't believe the USCG excitement hype. Most of our work is also moving papers, painting, and cleaning. The only thing more exciting than the rest of the services is because you are placed into a leadership billet right after you get on the job training. The truth is that hurricanes, immigrants, and drug busts don't happen everyday and that's where our excitement lies. If the AF isn't more exciting than us that is sad.