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.....

liftr92

I won't sleep well again until the Christmas trees are loaded and someone is airborne at the failsafe point 24/7.

MD10PLT

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.

III Corps

Like many cultures, SAC was at one time THE command. it took care of its people, demanded high standards and was exemplary. Like many cultures, some took the benchmarks as the the measure when it was really about the people and leadership.

We had an ORI when I was in SAC and the tankers hit all refuelings and nav legs. The bombers tossed great bombs. The wing got an unsat because the crews didn't wear hats and they addressed line personnel by first name rather than by rank. It was all to cozy for the ORI IG. We were told we would be inspected again soon. We were not military enough.

About 4-5 months later, another ORI. Many of the tankers didn't get airborne. Some missed their refuelings. Bombers tossed bombs all over Nebraska and the good bombs were even near targets. Everyone saluted. Everyone wore the uniform properly and rank/protocol was done per book. We passed.

??? Bombs on target or wearing hats and saluting? Go figure.

That is a common mistake. Benchmarks of performance can not be substituted for people. And that remains true. The incident last year where a new commander was relieved because some BUFs were carrying unarmed weapons is unfortunately typical. A guy spends 20yrs to get to command a wing and one screw up by the culture and he is toast so the next level commander can show how tough he is. That is NOT leadership. It is a blame culture and it seems to still exist to the detriment of the commands.

tomgoodman

One tanker pilot told me about the time he almost lost his job. He diverted from a practice refueling mission to save an F106 with a fuel problem, but he had failed to get permission from the command post. The Wing CC was furious and threatened dire consequences, but the 106 driver's report reached CincADC, who called his old buddy, CincSAC, with profuse thanks. So the order came down from Offutt to decorate the tanker pilot for "reflecting great credit on SAC".

Winged Wheeler

for many reasons. Here is the first one that occured to me:

In those days passing the ORI showed up on your list of priorities only behind sitting alert and "nuclear combat". If your aircraft was launch capable but not mission capable, you took off, declared an emergency (got MX their points) and then landed.

I don't think this ethos exists any more in the AF.

WW

III Corps

We had a -105 driver with his 100 missions come into out squadron. Doug had one mission where he came home with missile stuck in the tail.. it was a dud. Anyway, Doug came back from a KC-135 sortie with an engine shut down and had failed to notify the Command Post although he had declared an emergency per 60-16. He landed safely and without incident. Doug got chewed out royally for not playing the game and having a command post conference about what to do. .

A few months later, Doug had to shut down another J-57 and being a quick study, called the Command Post. Reportedly he said something like, 'Alpha Control, this is Bongo 51, we have shut down number 3. We have 35,000lbs of fuel on board. What are my intentions???" We thought it was hilarious. The Wing weenies didn't. Doug got counseled again.

MD10PLT

I heard this complaint over a hundred time while I was in the AF. I often wonder if it was just an urban legend that some guy said this, because everyone I met was personal friends with that guy.

However, for those that care, the reason SAC required the DO/OG (O-6) to be informed of all emergencies and authorize the landing for the emergency aircraft, comes from the Rolling Thunder and Arc light days. They were launching upwards or 72 B-52s from the Anderson AFB in Guam. There were so many aircraft on the field the second runway was actually being used for parking aircraft. Most bombers were so heavily loaded they had very few divert options when returning to Anderson. If an aircraft came home with an emergency and landed without approval there was a real potential they could close the runway and as many as 70 airplanes would be left without an option. Yes it was possible, depending on the emergency, the OG/DO would say "go ditch it I can't risk closing the runway".

MD10PLT

Boy you showed them.

I never have understood why the Company Grade officers seem to think it is cool to resist following the rules and adhering to the traditions of the AF. Life is always much easier if you just follow the rules and do your best job.

Box Office

You missed his point entirely. Congratulations General.