The air force’s response is usually, “If I slack off on the enlisted man’s living conditions, he might slack off when he repairs my aircraft.”
In this case, “throwing money at the problem” just consisted of naming a guy who knew what he was doing as the cook, and then letting him do that job. They were using the same raw materials, he said. Which I suppose meant pulling that guy off of some other job, but then, most of what the personnel will be doing at a Cold War European base is probably busywork, anyway. At least, until/unless you get to the Moments of Sheer Terror that were those bases’ reason for existence, but at that point, I don’t think anyone would be complaining about the food any more.
I think air forces have a different concept of money than everyone else. The way they see it, they’re spending tens of thousands of dollars every time they take a plane out for a spin - so what’s a few thousand bucks for better food?
It was subsequently ratified as an Executive Order by Truman.
Why is there no Marine Corps Academy like West Point (Army) or Annapolis (Navy) ?
There is. It’s called the United States Naval Academy.
Less smart ass answer, the Marine Corps has less than half the Officers than Navy does (19k vice 54k). Navy can handle this as it always has with less overhead.
To clarify this, both the U.S. Navy (USN) and the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) are part of the Department of the Navy (DON) which is headed by the Secretary of the Navy, who is a civilian political appointee. The USN, on the other hand, is headed by the Chief of Naval Operation (CNO), who is a 4-star admiral. The USMC is headed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), who is a 4-star Marine general.
The term “Navy” is ambiguous, but is generally taken to mean the USN (as opposed to the Department of the Navy). In that sense, the USMC is NOT part of the Navy (i.e. the USN). Instead, both branch heads report to the Secretary of the Navy. However, if it’s clear that you are referring to the DON, you can say that the “Marines are part of the Navy” (but are guaranteed to tick off the Marines when you do so). But regardless, it’s right on their official seal.
This is also why there is a single military academy for both the USN and USMC (i.e. the U.S. Naval Academy), and why NROTC units (like I was a member of in college) have both “Navy option” and “Marine option” midshipmen.
The Navy and the Marines have other overlaps as well. For one thing, the Marines do not have medical personnel. All medical personnel (physicians, nurses, and corpsmen) assigned to Marine units and Marine bases are actually in the USN. So the “medic” in the field with USMC units (wearing camouflage utilities just like the Marines) is actually a Navy corpsman (typically a Petty Officer).
I wouldn’t exactly call the installation near Saratoga Springs a “Naval base.” You are presumably referring to the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (KAPL) site in West Milton, New York, where I was stationed back in the early '90s. The West Milton site was developed as a place in the middle of nowhere to build land-based prototypes of shipboard nuclear reactor plants. These prototype nuclear reactors were (and are) fully operational and were therefore convenient to use to also train Navy personnel in the operation of naval nuclear power plants.
As I mentioned, I was stationed there for that reason (i.e. for training) in the early '90s for about six months as a junior officer. There were no base facilities to speak of. I had to rent an apartment in the next town over (Ballston Spa).
The rumors of the local residents as to why there was such a large installation in the middle of nowhere were entertaining. The reality was less so – it was first built there in the 1950s away from large population centers in case there was a nuclear accident. (Although on this note, I will say that the nuclear power plants on site were extremely well designed, operated, and maintained. Similar to getting surgery at a teaching hospital, everything was done by the book.)
Maybe, but then doesn’t a navy spend thousands of dollars per hour each time a warship is out on a voyage?
Most of it is historical legacy; the USMC was separate from the Navy since its founding, but it’s also been part of the Department of the Navy since 1834.
Back then, you had the Army and the Navy, and the USMC was basically something fairly similar to the Royal Marines (their inspiration, I’m sure), and was a force of infantrymen that specialized in stuff like keeping order aboard ships, sniping and similar stuff on Age of Sail warships, boarding enemy vessels and raiding on land/landing party stuff.
In terms of command, the Marine Corps has always been independent, but in practical terms, Marines were typically divided up among ships, or in Marine units that were used as part of Navy goals, such as amphibious landings for example.
During WWII through 1947, the USAAF (US Army Air Forces) was very similar- for all practical purposes, the USAAF was independent, but shared a service academy (West Point) and were both part of the Army/Department of the Army.
In 1947, they split off, and formed their own service academy a few years later in 1954 and Department within the DoD. Presumably this is because air warfare is sufficiently different and not tied to the Army in the way that the USMC is.
(fun fact- Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins, Frank Borman and Ed White were all USMA grads, but all were USAF pilots for their entire careers; no USAAF for them, since they all graduated in that 1947-1954 stretch when the services shared the USMA.)
Yes, but at as far as the Navy is concerned, they often come out of different pots of money. A warship might pay for food out of its own operating budget, but fuel and/or maintenance costs might be paid for differently (at the squadron or group level, for example).
This can result in weird, unintended consequences. For example, I heard about nuclear cruisers back in the 1980s that were sometimes sent to sea when operating budgets got tight. It was actually cheaper to send them to sea, where their fuel (a nuclear reactor core) was already paid for, instead of tied up to a pier and paying for shore power.
Between the different services, the old joke was that when building a base, the Navy would build piers and maintenance facilities first, then worry about the amenities. The Air Force would build the officer’s club, the golf course and other amenities first, then go back to Congress for more money to build the runways. 
I agree with almost everything that has been said, but to explain the Air Force mentality, the phrase “we fight from our bases” comes up a lot in relation to the priority they place on infrastructure. From their perspective, the other branches basically load up at their bases and go on some sort of expedition, on land or sea. The Air Force sees its bases as the beginning and endpoint of each sortie, so infrastructure tends to be viewed as an important investment to generate combat power.
Each service certainly does have its own way of thinking on what it needs to produce combat power. In another contrast, the end strength of the Army tends to be a really big deal for Army leaders, but end strength doesn’t tend to rate as highly as a priority for the Air Force. (For example, the Air Force is thousands of airmen short of what they probably need for aircraft maintainers, but they have the “luxury” of being able to contract for some of that work as a stopgap, so the Air Force is at times substantially more willing to accept manpower risk than the Army is.)
Right, infrastructure like the golf course.
In any event, the purported Air Force phrase “we fight from our bases” still seems like a load of self-justifying B.S. to me. The Navy sees its bases as the beginning and endpoint of each “sortie,” too – it’s just that the Navy’s “sorties” (i.e. deployments) last a lot longer. Why? Because a ship has far more endurance on station than an aircraft.
Heck, when the Navy does deploy aircraft (excepting shore-based patrol planes), they bring a spare base (i.e. aircraft carrier) along as well.
All of this is maintained and supported by shore bases. In other words, a Navy base is more than just a place to load up and deploy a ship.
That’s true, but conceptually, that money is divided up between the hundreds or thousands of people on board each ship, whereas the Air Force spends all that money on a single guy in an F-15. It’s like the Navy is driving semitrailers and the Air Force is driving Ferraris - even though they cost basically the same, the the latter *feels *more expensive. The Air Force is the conspicuous consumption branch.
I concur.
No matter how the Services got to where they’re at, the Air Force is an outlier culturally. They take more time off, and have come to expect more creature comforts than the other Services do. This doesn’t make them bad people, or ineffective war fighters, but they are unique in this respect. This does cause some friction, although most of that is good natured.
Frankly, most Air Force Officers that I know and work with would agree with this.
I was referring to Naval Support Facility Saratoga Springs.
Who trains the Army’s fixed wing pilots?
As an example of the different AF mentality, during my first deployment I was in a Joint unit. During the year we were there each Air Force slot had 4 airman rotate thru. Right around when they got to know their job it was time for them to go home.
I don’t mean to say that the USAF is right in their perception and no other service is. But imagine two people of similar incomes, and one says that they really need vacations and the other one has other priorities. To the extent that the first says they need something and they dedicate their resources to it, whether you actually agree with their priorities or not, at least they are being consistent.
The Navy could make its infrastructure a priority, but I’ve got to say - most Navy bases I’ve been to belong on a historical preservation list. Not just the buildings (like the PHNSY buildings with bullet holes still in them) but the roads too!
Well, that’s an example that proves both our points. The Navy does not starve carriers of funding, that’s for sure.
I agree, but it’s clear that Navy priorities lie in the shipbuilding account to the near-exclusion of most other things.