Thread: SAC is back
View Single Post
Old 08-17-2009 | 01:27 PM
  #13  
MD10PLT
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by hindsight2020
hehe This thread made me chuckle.....SAC is not really back in its formal definition, and there's way more to the recent NSI busts than a nostalgia-driven "these young guys suck". Rumor mill switch: ON(P/CP)

The airplane leg of the nuclear game in its present form is merely a game of political posturing. As such (along the nuclear mission in general), it is psychologically unappealing to the median aircrew. Leadership further compounds the problem by telling people to do more with less (i.e. simultaneous conventional and nuclear currency requirements) in the very environment where doing more with less literally highlighted the community on freggin' CNN.

The rumor mill is that nixing the Buff nuke mission would be an easy way of saving a crapload of money with minimal impact to our deterrence footprint (the latter is a numerical FACT, the nixing part is the rumor). As such I hear it is being entertained at the two star level and above. I know a LOT of people at the O-5 and below level, with skin in the game, that want that to happen. To have global strike do their little dog and pony show in the midst of said conspiracies is just the mother of all ironies.

Of course, the real irony is that the nuke budget is the only real source of monetary support for the Buff outright, conventional mission included! To say that out loud in the presence of pentagon leadership would be blasphemy, but it's the ugly truth. As such, there is a love-hate relationship with the nuke enterprise in the air asset arena; they need the money but hate the mission for the PITA that it brings when added to conventional requirements.

Having that perspective in hand, it must certainly shines a more comprehensive light into the idiosyncrasies of these so-called NSI failures and the ill-fitting comparisons to the aircraft nuclear missions of yesteryear.... Set up people for success and you'll get success, constantly shortchange your warriors and that's exactly what you'll get: chump change. The nuke thing is not something people should be cutting corners on, you'd think the Air Force side of the triad had learned that lesson in 2007. guess not. As scary as that is if my Santa wishlist gets done this will all be moot in two fiscal years. Here's to the Navy, they got some extra credit taskings to tackle if this thing falls through.....
You're right, I kind of started this thread as a joke. SAC is really not back, it never will be with the downsizing of the Nuke mission.

However some of what you say highlights the problems with the Air Force and the young guys.

The Nuke mission never was and never will be the glamorous mission, therefore nobody (young and old) ever put any effort into it. That is the root cause of all the NSI failures.

It is true though, the AF could use a good dose of what SAC was and that is a good focus on the mission, above all else.
Reply