Lots of rules. Lots of them. Like a corporation. Thats not a slam, they are very good at what they do. Even if they are all gay.
Nose, that cracked me up. I wasn't expecting the last sentence.
As for the rest of your post, I don't know for sure, but there's probably a strong element of truth to many aspects of it. I do think we have become overly risk averse, and on many occassions we seem to insist on running low level decisions up to an O-6 before we can act on them. But, we're an organization that has 2 Captains flying a $2B bomber. Or a single captain leading 3 other captains in a 4-ship of F-22's worth $1B. I know the Navy has big, expensive equipment too; I'm not saying you don't. We also have the bulk of the nukes, which surely comes with it's own baggage. Is this what has caused everyone to stereotype the differences as "USAF regs tell you what you CAN do, Navy regs tell you what you CAN'T do"? I don't know.
Although carrier ops demand that level of autonomy that you could argue we don't have, I just don't have enough experience to know for sure. My guess is that autonomy you've had in your past history contributes to this culture. And, judging from the comments on AW, this culture may be changing, much to y'alls chagrin. Is it due to modern communications that allow everyone to stay in touch, and reduce autonomy? Or is it the Big Dollar equipment making more folks even more accountable?
As for our organization, I think we do many things more efficiently, due to the "rigidness" we are accused of. For example, for my entire career, I've always noticed that the Navy just doesn't seem to flow their pilot training classes well. I know plenty of guys that were/are SNA's, and just suddenly stop flying for long periods of time. They don't know when they'll get Winged, due to the uncertainties. I have buds that got Winged, went to the F-14 RAG, and surfed and paraglided for 9 months because the RAG wasn't ready to start their training. This just doesn't happen in the USAF. When you show up to UPT, you know that date you'll graduate a year out. After a short break, you show up to the FTU (e.g. "RAG"), and hit the ground running. There's very little dead time. This example is pretty minor, and it's just an observation, but it's a function of the differences in the cultures. Not good, not bad,... just different. Each service seems happy with their method.
I just thought of this. If any of you ever flew the T-38 or F-5, maybe you can relate. A few years ago, I got a couple of BFM hops in a TA-4J at VT-7. I arrived at KNMM in my T-38 which I trained advanced jet students with. And now, here I was, in the Navy's jet used to train advanced jet students. Both the T-38 and A-4 could roll at 720 degrees per second, pull decent G, do basic "jet stuff", and help create a winged Jet Aviator/Pilot. But I couldn't believe how different the A-4 and the T-38 were from each other. Both are great jets, but,... wow! what a difference! A completely different design approach. Mr Northrop and Ed Heinemann obviously never met! Over the years, I've always thought this was a great analogy as to how different the USAF and USN were: both flying jets for the defense of our Nation, and accomplishing that goal with such different methods, and with such a different culture.
Let me caveat: my entire career has been flying jets in the training command (AETC) or flying the U-2. I've never done a staff job, and my outlook is that of career Line Pilot, not that of a well-rounded officer with Joint Staff credit. Plus, being in the U-2 program for so long probably slants my view. The U-2 program, I'm told, is very "un-Air Force like". Maybe that's why it attracts so many Naval and Marine aviators.