Air Force may consolidate nuclear control [Archive]

ang1sgt

09-12-2008, 12:42 PM

Gates: Air Force may consolidate nuclear control

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer 3 minutes ago

A Pentagon advisory group recommended Friday that the Air Force, which has been embarrassed by a series of nuclear-related mishaps, should consolidate under a single organization the now-divided responsibilities for its nuclear weapons management.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the group made a strong argument for that action, but he was not sure how it would be implemented.

"One of the concerns that I had" based on previous revelations about shortcomings in the Air Force's stewardship of its nuclear arsenal "is the lack of unity of command and not having one person or organization accountable for the overall mission," Gates said. "I'm not sure what the right answer is."

Gates spoke at a Pentagon news conference before James Schlesinger, who was secretary of defense in the 1970s, unveiled the recommendations of an advisory panel that he led in a study of the Air Force's nuclear weapons management.

Schlesinger said a central recommendation by his group was that the Air Force convert its existing Air Force Space Command — which now has responsibility for the service's land-based nuclear missiles but not other nuclear weapons — into an organization called Air Force Strategic Command. The new organization would "be held accountable for the efficacy of the nuclear mission."

Under the existing Air Force structure, responsibility for the bombers and fighters that can deliver nuclear weapons is held by Air Combat Command, and Air Mobility Command has responsibility for the refueling aircraft that are used to operate with the nuclear bombers and fighters.

Copies of the Schlesinger report were not immediately available, but he told reporters it concluded that over the years the division of Air Force nuclear responsibility had led to an erosion of control and a lack of proper resourcing for the mission.

Schlesinger, who also is a former CIA director and former secretary of energy, headed the Task Force on Nuclear Weapons Management, established by Gates in June to conduct a broad review triggered by a series of Air Force blunders in its handling of nuclear-related materials.

An internal report released in early June was sharply critical of the Air Force, focusing on the mistaken shipment to Taiwan of four Air Force electrical fuses for ballistic missile warheads.

The findings prompted Gates to sack the top civilian and military leaders of the Air Force, and he also linked the action to another startling blunder: the flight last August of a B-52 bomber that was mistakenly armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.

BRING BACK THE STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND!

Couldn't be much simpler than that! I know o3Shooter and I agree on this one. What a blunder when they tore it apart the first time in 1992. The Space Command has been a JOKE when it comes to Nuclear Safety and Control. I think these folks need some of us Old Heads as Contractors!

Billyd

09-12-2008, 01:44 PM

03_SHOOTER

09-12-2008, 06:53 PM

BRING BACK THE STRATEGIC AIR COMMAND!

Couldn't be much simpler than that! I know o3Shooter and I agree on this one. What a blunder when they tore it apart the first time in 1992. The Space Command has been a JOKE when it comes to Nuclear Safety and Control. I think these folks need some of us Old Heads as Contractors!

Thanks Top! I was just talking to an old buddy of mine that I served with a couple of weeks ago, and we both came to the exact same conclusion. The biggest problem in actually doing it though is that the knowledge base that made it work the first time is all gone now, and from what I've gleaned of our "new kinder and gentler military", dragging a bunch of crusty old guys from the "Old Pharts" Numbered Air Force back in and turning us loose to rebuild it would absolutely give AF Command apoplexy!

For the LIFE of me, I cannot even begin to image exactly how they've managed to have more AWWWW SH*TS in such a short amount of time, when there weren't this many in the entire 46 years that SAC existed. All I DO know is that in the "bad old days" a lot of people would be on perpetual wind sock duty (12 hour shifts) in such exotic destinations as Thule Greenland, Shemya Alaska, Reykjavik Iceland, or Diego Garcia until they RETIRED.

SAC_Cop

09-18-2008, 04:59 PM

To err is human, to forgive is NOT SAC policy.

One thing to be said about SAC is that while they would checklist you to death, you couldn't muck it up, because the checklist wouldn't let you. You always knew where you stood. General LeMay must be spinning in his grave to see what they have done to his dream. :eek:

http://www.aero.state.ne.us/lemay_files/image003.jpg

Thats what you get for doing away with SAC, you can't just leave things alone can you!? It's a no brainer, Bring SAC Back! Thanks "ang1sgt" for posting this and "03_SHOOTER" you are so correct, man before the restructuring of the AF MAJCOMs you would get "killed" for misplacing your line badge. I can not even wrap my mind around all these mishaps with nukes, this is NOT LeMay's US Air Force. What a shame...

TSmitty

09-18-2008, 05:45 PM

As one assigned to Air Force Space Command, I have to agree it definitely has issues. Now I wasn't around when SAC was, but I've worked with plenty of people and had plenty of supervisors over my years here on the rocket ranch that were, plus everyone here at Grunts I've spoken to that were around during SAC. I just can't see how they let it get to this point. If it's going to be anything like the SAC I've heard and read about, bring it back! Anything that can fix this mess called Space Command needs to happen, and needs to happen now!

Startingover

09-18-2008, 06:43 PM

ang1sgt

09-19-2008, 05:48 AM

Well from viewing standpoint, its not the first thing that has been a botched idea in the past oh, say History of the working Military, and it certainly is not going to be the last.

From what I have seen, if they do consolodate it, more than none it is going to bring more headaches than relief... and havent we already enough to deal with?

The SAC was a good program, started by a great man. One of the hardest things for the entire world to do it seems it to keep a good thing going. Someone has to come up with something "New", "Easier" or "Modern" to implement and it breaks everything around it to pieces.

We're talking NUKES HERE! Nuclear Weapon CONTROL. Two Man Concept, and so many other programs. Talk to some of the OLD Heads around here that have worked NUKES and see what they have to say. You've already seen a taste here. Just because the Cold War is basically past us, doesn't mean you let down your guard when it comes to maintaining and controlling these items. THAT IS the issue . It is one of TRAINING, and one of COMMAND.

Billyd

09-19-2008, 09:30 AM

Top has hit the nail on the head. When it comes to "strategic assets" you can not allow ANYONE lone access. Reference my comment about checklists above. Under SAC, if you were caought doing anything with out the checklist, it was your a$$. Checklists were not optional, they were mandatory. I saw more than one crew member lose his/her qualifications because they failed to follow the checklist. I even know of two who received Article 15's for doing things that were not on their checklist.

Control of "strategic assets" is not a game. It is serious business. Each AF installation that handles these assets undergoes an evaluation to see how they comply with the various mandates. Failure used to mean the wing CC left on the same aircraft as the inspection team, not to return.

Billyd

09-19-2008, 09:31 AM

Brighteous

09-21-2008, 02:12 AM

SAC_Cop

09-22-2008, 07:44 PM

If anyone is looking for news articles about this I found a few, and even if SAC is brought back won't the leadership in Space Command just take over?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/24/missile.error/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/07/23/guam.b52.crash/index.html
http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080918/NEWS01/809180354/1060

No I do not see that happening a whole new cadre would be brought in, no retreads. If SAC were brought back they may look for any remaining former SAC NCOs & Officers, or at the very least get the new folks SAC'd up as it were.

And as far as threats, our old Cold War foe Russia (Soviet Union) is showing that a Leopard can not change it's spots and of course North Korea. SAC and NORAD need to be brought up to speed for many reasons and quickly.

mtnsldr

10-08-2008, 03:51 PM

I'm looking for your intro, and for some reason I can't seem to find it anywhere...

Javelin66

10-09-2008, 10:13 PM

There is clearly a need to do something in order to maintain a credible deterrence and reassure the world that we haven't lost control of WMD.

However, my understanding from this and other articles is that AF SPACECOM will be redesignated AF SAC and consolidate AF nuke accountability and strike capability under a single AF service component command under USSTRATCOM. As an Air Force Major Command, it would not have the same status (or authority) of the old SAC.

In order to bring back the 'true' SAC, SECDEF would have to direct a modification to the UCP establishing it as a specified command (the last of which, I believe, was US Army FORSCOM). We went away from specified commands for a reason.

Specified Commands were Combatant Commands, with direct tasking and reporting relationships with CJCS and SECDEF. Just as importantly, they had their own BUDGET. Unlike a unified combatant command, a specified command consisted entirely of forces within a single service.

As it stands Air Force SPACECOM is just the Air Force service component of STRATCOM (there is no USSPACECOM any more). STRATCOM currently has the closest thing to the old SAC mission, carried out through JFCC Global Strike.

An Air Force SAC would essentially be the main force provider for that mission, but the combatant command authority (and money) would flow through STRATCOM.

03_SHOOTER

10-12-2008, 11:15 PM

We're talking NUKES HERE! Nuclear Weapon CONTROL. Two Man Concept, and so many other programs. Talk to some of the OLD Heads around here that have worked NUKES and see what they have to say. You've already seen a taste here. Just because the Cold War is basically past us, doesn't mean you let down your guard when it comes to maintaining and controlling these items. THAT IS the issue . It is one of TRAINING, and one of COMMAND.

Right you are Top, and BillyD is dead on about the checklists. As anyone who ever worked anywhere NEAR "Priority "A" weapons" will tell you, everything is built around a checklist. There was a joke in SAC (at least in our unit), that really wasn't too far from the truth, the there was a checklist for making a bowel movement! The fact is that so long as you had the checklist, and did everything according to the checklist, everything worked. When you didn't use the checklist, or decided to SWAG it, things went wrong, and with nukes, when things do go wrong, they go wrong in a BIG way.

Take the incident at Complex 4-7 as a primary example of this. 4-7, which was located near Damascus Arkansas, was the home of the 7th of 9 missile sites assigned to the 374th Strategic Missile Squadron of the 308th Strategic Missile Wing at Little Rock AFB. On September 19, 1980 while performing routine maintenance on the missile, an Airman violated the checklist and used a socket wrench instead of a closed end wrench. While tightening the bolts that mounted the RV (Re-entry Vehicle), the 4 lb. socket became dislodged from the wrench, fell down the silo, bounced off of a work platform and punctured the skin of the 1st stage oxidizer tank. This oxidizer is so corrosive that in just over 8 hours it managed to deteriorate one of the fuel lines which resulted in an uncontrolled mixture of over 300,000 lbs. of hypergolic fuels (they ignite when they come in contact with each other) which resulted in the total destruction of the missile, and the silo itself, as well as the death of at least 1 Airman and the injury of 21 others. The 750 ton concrete and steel silo door was literally blown to bits. The explosion was so large that it not only registered on the USGS earthquake monitors, the government had to notify the Soviets about the blast to reassure them that it was in fact an accident, and not an underground nuclear experiment!

As an aside, anyone who doesn't believe in God should have been there, because there was no radiation leakage from the 10 Megaton W-53 warhead, that had been sitting on top of the missile, was blasted through that 750 ton silo door, and thrown nearly a kilometer away!

This is why the checklists are so vital, and what happens when you don't follow them, and exactly why so many of us that served in SAC are so completely befuddled by the fact of all of these recent highly embarrassing incidents are so inconceivable to us!

03_SHOOTER

10-12-2008, 11:23 PM

No I do not see that happening a whole new cadre would be brought in, no retreads. If SAC were brought back they may look for any remaining former SAC NCOs & Officers, or at the very least get the new folks SAC'd up as it were.

And as far as threats, our old Cold War foe Russia (Soviet Union) is showing that a Leopard can not change it's spots and of course North Korea. SAC and NORAD need to be brought up to speed for many reasons and quickly.

Right you are bro. They would have to bring in people who had been "SAC-umcized", otherwise it'll never be SAC, which means that they won't be getting what they really need.

In fact, if I recall correctly, there was a time when there was talk of having SAC as a separate branch unto it's own, simply because once someone had been in SAC for any period of time, and had been SAC-umcized, they never really worked out well in any other Command.

JohnP

12-22-2008, 01:00 PM

1-star tapped to lead provisional command

Staff report
Posted : Friday Dec 19, 2008 14:55:40 EST

The Air Force named a one-star general to lead its provisional Global Strike Command on Thursday.

Brig. Gen. James M. Kowalski will lead the provisional command, temporarily located at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington, D.C., until a three-star general is named to lead the permanent command.

The provisional command, along with detachments at Air Combat Command and Air Force Space Command, are scheduled to be activated Jan. 12, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said.

“With Air Force Global Strike Command, we are establishing a single organization operationally focused on the nuclear and global strike missions,” Donley said in an Air Force news release. “AFGSC represents a crucial commitment to our responsibility for day-to-day excellence and unquestionable stewardship of the nuclear and strategic deterrence missions.”

General Kowalski will be reporting from the Joint Staff Global Operations Directorate where he served as the deputy director for global operations.

The Air Force Global Strike Command will eventually include 8th Air Force, a bomber numbered Air Force currently under ACC, and 20th Air Force, a missile numbered Air Force currently under Air Force Space Command.

I believe this is the next step. Putting a one star in charge, even temporary, doesn't appear to be placing enough emphasis on the problem.

03_SHOOTER

12-22-2008, 02:21 PM

I believe this is the next step. Putting a one star in charge, even temporary, doesn't appear to be placing enough emphasis on the problem.

Well, I for one am glad to see them taking this step, and hope it will be the first in a long line of making AFGSC a true descendant of SAC.

As far as only having a BG in charge to begin with, perhaps it's a "face saving" step so that not too many people will take notice of the Air Forces admission of the Mongolian Clusterfu*k they made by disbanding SAC. Move a BG and not too many people notice it, move a LG, and everybody notices.

As for the General himself, he spent the first 8 years of his career in SAC, in BUFF's and B1-B's, so unless he's suffering from CRS, he should remember how things are supposed to be done, and provided that he surrounds himself with former SAC people, I do hold out some hope.

JohnP

12-23-2008, 03:07 PM

Kehler: NSI failures part of solution

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Dec 22, 2008 20:58:50 EST

The 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., became on Dec. 17 the third missile wing to fail its nuclear surety inspection this year.

Air Force Space Command leaders insist that’s exactly what they expected.

Gen. Robert Kehler, head of Space Command, and Space Command Inspector General Col. Scott “Scooter” Gilson, said the failures didn’t surprise either one of them during a year in which nuclear inspections got tougher as the Air Force works to repair its nuclear enterprise.

“We don’t like failures, but failures in this case, in terms of identifying the problems, are part of the fix to the nuclear enterprise. It’s like medicine,” Kehler said.

The 90th failed the NSI after its maintenance group did not properly document tests on its missiles, even leaving some tests completely undocumented, said an Air Force official who asked not to be named.

“The inspector general gave us an exceptionally thorough review, looking deep into all areas,” said Col. Michael Morgan, the 90th Missile Wing commander. “Improvement continues, but as highlighted by this inspection, we need to do much better in administrative and equipment control processes.”

The wing became the fifth nuclear unit known to fail its NSI this year. It’s only the fourth time since 1992 that five nuclear units have failed their NSI. The Air Force had zero failures in 2006 and 2007.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/12/airforce_nuke_failure_121908/

This link will show you the whole article. Bring your boots.

03_SHOOTER

12-23-2008, 05:32 PM

Kehler: NSI failures part of solution

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Dec 22, 2008 20:58:50 EST

The 90th Missile Wing at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., became on Dec. 17 the third missile wing to fail its nuclear surety inspection this year.

Air Force Space Command leaders insist that’s exactly what they expected.

Gen. Robert Kehler, head of Space Command, and Space Command Inspector General Col. Scott “Scooter” Gilson, said the failures didn’t surprise either one of them during a year in which nuclear inspections got tougher as the Air Force works to repair its nuclear enterprise.

“We don’t like failures, but failures in this case, in terms of identifying the problems, are part of the fix to the nuclear enterprise. It’s like medicine,” Kehler said.

I think I'm going to be sick.

They "expected" to fail?
"The failures didn't surprise either one of them"???
"It's like medicine"??

Why didn't they simply do their MOTHER******* jobs in the FIRST PLACE, and ensure that ALL of their people were doing the G******ED JOB they're getting paid to do, so that they WOULDN'T FAIL??

Back in the day "Failure is NOT an option" was the motto, and if you did, it was a one-way all expenses paid trip to Thule Greenland where you would be pulling perpetual wind-sock duty, but today it appears that "failure is a learning experience, but nothing to be taken too seriously". ARGGGGHHHHHH!!!

General LeMay is spinning in his grave like a DYNAMO!

HairyEyeball

12-23-2008, 06:22 PM

OK, that tears it. When I take over, 03, you will serve as Minister of War...and failure will still not be an option. This is as absurd as a Marine Battalion without a qualified marksman to be found - it strains credulity.

On a more serious note, should we deem it necessary to nuke, say, Iran, I sure as hell don't want the egg flying by way of Arkansas, or 'accidentally' pickled over Hawaii...and I damned sure certain want it to go 'boom' when it gets where it's going. If 'they' knew the units were going to fail the tests, why in the name of all that's holy did they not take remedial action while it was still an option?

03_SHOOTER

12-23-2008, 10:03 PM

OK, that tears it. When I take over, 03, you will serve as Minister of War...and failure will still not be an option. This is as absurd as a Marine Battalion without a qualified marksman to be found - it strains credulity.

OK, but I'm bringing in my OWN people on this one. Top, BillyD, JohnP, you guys are on top of the list, so get your recall rosters out and get ready to go to work. One of the first things we're going to have to do though is requisition a LOT of extreme cold weather gear, because the populations of Thule Greenland, Attu and Shemya Islands Alaska, and NAS Keflavik are fixing to be going up!

Oh, and for those not familiar with Thule, it's not all that bad, because there's hot coffee and a woman behind every tree.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Aerial_Picture_Of_Thule_Air_Base.jpg
NO TREES!!!

On a more serious note, should we deem it necessary to nuke, say, Iran, I sure as hell don't want the egg flying by way of Arkansas, or 'accidentally' pickled over Hawaii...and I damned sure certain want it to go 'boom' when it gets where it's going. If 'they' knew the units were going to fail the tests, why in the name of all that's holy did they not take remedial action while it was still an option?

I have no idea Hairy! As I said, back in the day, failure was not even an option, and if anyone thought that there was even a possibility that they were going to get anything less than an 'Outstanding' on an ORI, WSE, NSI, IG, or any other inspection, corrective action was taken LONG before the inspections were scheduled, and the beatings continued until morale improved.

03_SHOOTER

12-23-2008, 10:42 PM

Oh, and in case there was any question,

Sheyma
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Shemya_Island-color.jpg

Attu
http://www.hlswilliwaw.com/aleutians/Attu/images/wolfe-pete/attu-cgtomarinearea-1993.jpg

Still NO TREES!

JohnP

01-13-2009, 10:57 AM

Another addition from the Air Force Times:

Provisional nuclear command stands up

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Jan 12, 2009 15:42:01 EST

The Air Force quietly stood up its provisional Global Strike Command at Bolling Air Force Base, Md., on Monday — nine months prior to the scheduled standup of the official command in September.

Brig. Gen. James Kowalski took the reins of the provisional command; he will lead a 55-person team at Bolling tasked with assisting in deciding where GSC’s headquarters will be located and transitioning the nuclear missions from Air Combat Command and Air Force Space Command to the new command.

Air Force leaders unveiled Global Strike Command as part of a road map to cure the service’s nuclear ills — highlighted over the past two years by the unauthorized transfer of six nuclear warheads and the discovery of a mistaken shipment of ballistic missile nose cones to Taiwan.

The Air Force’s three nuclear missile wings and three nuclear bomb wings will be organized under Global Strike Command in September in the service’s largest organizational shake up since Strategic Air Command was disbanded following the end of the Cold War.

“There is an incredibly rich tradition of operational competency in this mission and our Air Force has done a lot of work to restore our focus on deterrence,” Kowalski said in a news release. “We look forward to laying the foundation needed to stand up Global Strike Command.”

It’s still unclear who will take over for Kowalski in September, as a commander for the official command — a three-star billet — has not been named.

Kowalski was the deputy director for global operations for the Joint Staff in the Pentagon before taking over the provisional command. The B-52 and B-1 pilot’s nuclear experience includes commanding the 2nd Bomb Wing’s Operations Group at Barksdale Air Force Base, La.

I find some relief that General Kowalski spent time in the old SAC. I'll be interested in watching where this is going.

Billyd

01-13-2009, 12:03 PM

May I suggest Offut AFB as a site for HQGSC?

wukong

01-13-2009, 02:30 PM

Now the real problems will start. When SAC went away the Air Force eliminated a Major Command and two Numbered Air Forces. Each of these organizations had huge staff sections. That manpower was eliminated and is no longer in the Air Force manning authorizations. Since SAC's demise, all other Air Force structure has seen similar reductions as we find in our sister services. For example look at the current force structure of III MEF as opposed to its' force structure in 1991.

These manpower positions will either have to be budgeted or taken from already shaky skeletons. Perhaps the manpower could be taken from an unused Marine Infantry Regiment or maybe mothballing a Navy ship.

03_SHOOTER

01-14-2009, 12:17 PM

Billyd

01-14-2009, 01:45 PM

More than likely, at least at first, it will simply involve "lateral transfer" of those property and personnel currently involved in the Nuclear mission. The name may change, but the people will remain the same, at least until they can weed out those who are incapable of understanding, and accomplishing, a very stringent standard that has no room for error. As they are weeded out, and things progress over the next months, and years, and provided that they can find enough of the "old troops" who are in other Commands and bring them "back into the fold", I have every confidence that they will in fact regain the high standards, and respect, that SAC had. To believe otherwise is unthinkable, more so even than the current dismal situation.

Most unfortunately, there are very few left that were SAC trained warriors. After 17 years, I am quite certain that other than a couple of Colonels and Chiefs, you will not find too many SAC types around that remember how SAC used to be. Some of us old-timers here can remember only because we lived with it for so long it became part of us. Maybe I better dust off the duds and get ready.

Just remember 03, I don't do cold anymore :mad:

03_SHOOTER

01-14-2009, 01:53 PM

Most unfortunately, there are very few left that were SAC trained warriors. After 17 years, I am quite certain that other than a couple of Colonels and Chiefs, you will not find too many SAC types around that remember how SAC used to be. Some of us old-timers here can remember only because we lived with it for so long it became part of us. Maybe I better dust off the duds and get ready.

Me, thee, and a bunch of others. They just need to be sure that the ones that they DO get are deadly serious, and hopefully have NO tolerance for the "dog and pony show" BS that's obviously been going on over the past 17 years.

Just remember 03, I don't do cold anymore :mad:

I never did do it very well (especially since we didn't have any extreme cold weather gear to speak of), but it is what it is..

DaveIn3D

01-24-2009, 12:26 AM

You can keep all your MAJCOMS and save your money. If you dont want all these mistakes anymore, bring in the Marines. Tell some jarheads to arm up and stand near the nukes with the simple order of "these dont go nowhere." Problem solved.

How much money does the Air Force waste every year re-organizing the same old crap into new and improved "high-tech" crap? You dont really need a new command when you biggest issue is officers who dont give a damn about what they are doing. They only give a damn about getting that next promotion. Whatever. Any new word on the Air Force Cyber Command?

Maybe I am just bitter because I am freezing my ass off at the base of Mt. Fuji right now. 45 days of playing war in the snow. OORAH for 3D.

-3D

HairyEyeball

01-24-2009, 12:58 AM

Javelin66

01-24-2009, 11:46 AM

I'm not sure your Marine idea is the best solution here. You may be oversimplifying the problem just a bit, and putting a Marine at the gate won't solve it.

President Obama has to have the confidence that he can deploy nuclear weapons at a moment's notice. This has more to do with a streamlined and reliable C2 system, with an emphasis on the second 'C', that gives him that confidence while presenting potential threats with a credible deterrance.

wukong

01-25-2009, 08:53 AM

Get serious, Marine: You know damned well if they gave us nukes, they'd be declared 'man-portable squad equipment', and we'd have to hump and deploy them. And while some of the cargo aircraft would probably be salvageable - after all, compared to some of the transport we've used, they'd be 'luxury liners' or could carry enough in one load to supply a batallion (sic) for a month ("By order of the Commandant..."), there'd be no use for the aircraft that were formerly used to drop those 'eggs' - but I'm sure we'd find a use for the parts.

You don't realize how close to the truth you may have come in your first sentence. Your leadership is not known for telling you (or the rest of the world) everything. Rather than deal with Marine Corps nuclear capabilities, I would proffer that the strategic nuclear mission would be one that the Air Force would probably willingly offer to the Commandant.

HairyEyeball

01-25-2009, 09:13 AM

You don't realize how close to the truth you have come in your first sentence.

It was written (after a day that began at 0400 and included hearing over a dozen political speeches in an overheated auditorium) only half in jest. One of the reasons we have individual branches is that each has its own specialization, freeing the others up to practice their speicific strengths and missions. If there's a chinese clusterf*** in the way one service handles its mission, cleaning it up in-house makes more sense than taking it away and giving it to another branch whose doctrine doesn't encompass it. Let the AF (and Navy) keep the airborne delivery of nukes (and put people in charge capable of insuring they only drop 'em on the enemy), and we'll just keep to our tradition of ensuring the smallest guy in the platoon humps nothing larger than the 81mm mortar baseplate or the Ma Deuce.

wukong

01-25-2009, 11:27 AM

It was written (after a day that began at 0400 and included hearing over a dozen political speeches in an overheated auditorium) only half in jest. One of the reasons we have individual branches is that each has its own specialization, freeing the others up to practice their speicific strengths and missions. If there's a chinese clusterf*** in the way one service handles its mission, cleaning it up in-house makes more sense than taking it away and giving it to another branch whose doctrine doesn't encompass it. Let the AF (and Navy) keep the airborne delivery of nukes (and put people in charge capable of insuring they only drop 'em on the enemy), and we'll just keep to our tradition of ensuring the smallest guy in the platoon humps nothing larger than the 81mm mortar baseplate or the Ma Deuce.

Of course it was written in jest and we probably all recognize your words a such. My response was not in jest.

I just wish to make a point that a "chinese clusterf*** in the way one service handles its mission" ultimately impacts on the operational capabilities of the other service branches. The Air Force along with the sister services took a significant reduction in manpower, equipment and capability as a "peace dividend" after the fall of the Soviet empire. When I left the Pacific theater in 1991 the 374 TAW had two robust squadrons of C-130 aircraft with a PA of 32 and BAI of 2 C-130s for a total of 34. Today it has an anemic C-130 squadron with PA 10 C-130s. These 34 C-130s had a realistic mission of supporting III MEF as the only mobile force in PACOM. This force included infrastructure to support the mobility mission of the airlift force. Today that structure is gone and probably gone for good.

In the late 80's we had the capability and training funds because of the number of C-130s to move an infantry battalion under war conditions to a training area such as Tinian and conduct MEU scale training. 3D at Camp Fuji moved administratively and probably participates in Company level or below scale training.

When SAC was cut apart a great amount of manpower authorizations went with it to the grave. New and expensive systems have been brought into our military capability. For example the C-17, B-2, F-22 and CV-22. In addition a new and expensive cure all the F-35 is out in the near future. We do not know of the life cycle cost of the CV-22. We do know that it is expensive and the cost will probably be paid by more reductions in manpower. The new SAC will require funding and expensive manpower authorizations. The Air Force has already been tasked to provide manpower for missions that in the past were the responsibility for our sister services such as convoy security and Air Base security "beyond the wire." In the past the other services (SeaBees, Army Engineers, Force Engineers) were responsible for forward air base construction/rehab. Now Air Force Red Horse units are acquiring an airborne capability to rehab captured air fields. These additional Air Force requirements are a direct result of our sister services reducing their required support for the Air Force mission. The Marines were not assigned the mission of securing Iwo Jima for the purpose of a photo op. These Marines fought and died to secure a B-29 capable airfield.

If you have ever attempted to read Marine Corps doctrine such as Operational Maneuver From the Sea (OMFTS), you cannot miss the obvious intent to write the Air Force out of the doctrine. The Marines can have this "juche" attitude but there is a price to pay. The 1st MAW kept it's KC-130 squadron at MCAS Futema. Although these Herks have the 463L Dual Rail System, the Marines have no mobility infrastructure. What III MEF lost is the AF infrastructure, joint doctrine and joint training that comes from exercising. In our next crisis we will once again operate on an "ad hoc" basis as if Chosin, Khe Sanh and other events never happened and learn our business again as if it were the first time.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/omfts.htm

The strategic nuclear mission will get the funding and manpower it needs because of national priorities. Don't be surprised when the "cost" comes out of Navy, Marine Corps, or Army budgets.

Javelin66

01-27-2009, 09:56 PM

Wu is spot on, although as an Army guy I disagree with some of the minor details (like the need for so many new fighter jets when we don't have enough infantry squads).

Most guys in joint assigments drink the purple kool aid while they are there, but their heart always belongs with their own service. I have occasion to get over to JFCOM quite often to observe/participate in Joint exercises and experiments. These are anything but joint, but are in reality an interservice catfight, with everyone trying to posture their latest program to be a success in the exercise. The Navy and Air Force are easy targets right now due to the nature of the fight we are in, but we may find ourselves in a different conflict entirely within the next 10-20 years (especially if the Iranian/Russian/Chinese axis continues to gain strength.

The Marines are currently in an identity crisis, finding themselves in a long war in a nearly landlocked coury while begging to become solely responsible for an even longer war in a comptely landlocked country. Meanwhile their major program is the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, which is sort of an armored speedboat. The Army is trading tanks for MRAPs and training artillerymen to kick doors, while trying to get DoD to pay for the FCS. The Air Forc is selling fighters to buy Preds but trying to sell us on the need for the F35. The Navy is chasing pirates and sending SKs out to fill supply sgt jobs, but wants us to buy more LCSs like the San Antonio.

DaveIn3D

02-06-2009, 05:01 AM

3D at Camp Fuji moved administratively and probably participates in Company level or below scale training.

Actually it is 12th Marines. As in 12th Marines REGIMENT. And it is BATTERY level training. Company level training is for the grunts. Since we have 2 BTRYs and a headquarters out here, I will let you know if I see anything "company level or less."

The Marines were only really out of their element in Anbar. Marines go in, destroy, and get out to attack somewhere else. Holding territory aint our bag. But since our sister services couldnt do jack in anbar, we went in and bailed them out. If I recall correctly, it was Marines, doing the job of the Army, who pacified the most dangerous area of iraq. We went out of our comfort zone and we still dominate.

In afghan, since the Air Force cant seem to keep its bombs from killing wedding parties, the ground elements have needed to step up. Again, America called on the Marines and we sent a MEU over to play around. That first MEU was extended 2 months to capitalize on its successes. Now we are shifting a good chunk of our forces over to the theatre. I will, however, not take anything away from the Army for their efforts in afghanistan. They have been top notch through some very difficult conditions.

The Air Force can keep bragging about its " beyond the wire capability." Staying within sight of the base is not the "field." Leave the real war fighting to the mens club.

-3D

wukong

02-06-2009, 09:02 AM

Dave, I think you missed the point but you do surface some areas that could be discussed.

First, the Air Force never wanted nor was ever manned and equipped for a "beyond the wire" role in American style warfare. No one in the Air Force would "brag" about this unwanted capability and would readily leave "the real war fighting to the mens club." Our security forces were organized to protect our service clubs, golf courses, 5 star billets from Army and Marine intruders and resource permitting to keep hostile hands off our aircraft. As I'm sure Hairy will admit that Marines from III MAF were originally sent to Viet Nam to guard Air Force installations in the Da Nang vicinity. Only after being familiarized with the locals and observed walking around with their hands in their pockets were they tasked to attend local tea parties and other social and cultural Vietnamese affairs.

A beyond the wire capability is a budget strain on Air Force priorities, cuts down on the manicure of our golf courses and limits the number of "wedding parties" that we can bomb.

Next, I've been to Camp Fuji. I am quite certain that you did not get there in a combat exercise aboard amphibious ships. Nor were you deployed directly in to Camp Fuji in the ass end of a C130 or C17 with your toys to immediately operate as a "mens club." I would bet you were processed at Kadena AB where you were not only separated from your toys, but also from your razor and toothbrush. You entered an airplane single file and offloaded at Yokota AB single file where you were probably reunited with your razor and toothbrush. You were then put aboard a bus or truck to Camp Fuji where you were then given toys. Artillery, from my limited education of two weeks of Air Ground Operations School (AGOS), normally fires in support of maneuver elements such as a battalion or regiment. How many infantry battalions were running around Fuji?

Finally, Marines are basically an amphibious animal. We only possess enough amphibious lift to move a Marine Brigade. We have 3 active duty Marine Divisions and one reserve Division with associated Air Wings. This is basically 12 times the amount of teeth that has tail to move it. If one were tasked to take a scalpel to DOD fat or look for manpower to build an understrength Army need, would not this over emphasized capability be a good place to start?

DaveIn3D

02-06-2009, 10:04 AM

A beyond the wire capability is a budget strain on Air Force priorities, cuts down on the manicure of our golf courses and limits the number of "wedding parties" that we can bomb.

Next, I've been to Camp Fuji. I am quite certain that you did not get there in a combat exercise aboard amphibious ships. Nor were you deployed directly in to Camp Fuji in the ass end of a C130 or C17 with your toys to immediately operate as a "mens club." I would bet you were processed at Kadena AB where you were not only separated from your toys, but also from your razor and toothbrush. You entered an airplane single file and offloaded at Yokota AB single file where you were probably reunited with your razor and toothbrush. You were then put aboard a bus or truck to Camp Fuji where you were then given toys. Artillery, from my limited education of two weeks of Air Ground Operations School (AGOS), normally fires in support of maneuver elements such as a battalion or regiment. How many infantry battalions were running around Fuji?

Finally, Marines are basically an amphibious animal. We only possess enough amphibious lift to move a Marine Brigade. We have 3 active duty Marine Divisions and one reserve Division with associated Air Wings. This is basically 12 times the amount of teeth that has tail to move it. If one were tasked to take a scalpel to DOD fat or look for manpower to build an understrength Army need, would not this over emphasized capability be a good place to start?

Marines are whatever animal the American people need us to be. Just because we are specialists in amphibious warfare compared to the other services does not mean we cant beat some ass in landlocked areas.

I actually got here, with my unit and all our gear on one boat. We landed at the naval base in tokyo and convoyed to Fuji. Typical SOP for a Marine unit.

Understrength army? Last I heard, America doesnt threaten to send in the army, air force or navy. America threatens to send in the Marines. You can take your understrength army and shove it up your ass, Ike.

-3D

HairyEyeball

02-06-2009, 10:51 AM

Your febrile attempts at satire aside, Wu, you have mined a diamond of pure truth in your last paragraph, and walked right past it:

Marines are basically an amphibious animal...If one were..to take a scalpel to DOD fat or look for manpower to build an understrength Army need, would not this over emphasized capability be a good place to start?

The doctrine that determined Marine operations was the ability to strike any time, anywhere, from an indefensible location, at a point of our choosing - to go in hard, kick butt and take names (and we weren't issued pencils), not to fight protracted land battles (although we've proven pretty good at that, too). When technology was limited to seaborne assaults, we mastered them, when it had advanced to make vertical envelopment a practical option, we mastered that.

The differences in doctrine between the Army and the Corps is what makes us so effective at what we do: Consider that in Vietnam, when we were misused in the 'Fort Apache' role so beloved of the Army, our efforts were less than optimal. To simplify to a level suitable for comprehension by airplane drivers, we are a 'strike force' - and much of our effectiveness requires integral air and artillery support - while the Army, by its size and organization, is an 'occupying force'. Nowhere was this better demonstrated than during the war in the Pacific, where the assault was made on each island by a force primarily composed of Marines; when the objective was tactically accomplished, we were relieved by the Army which conducted 'mop-up' operations and garrisoned the territory. Oh, and if memory serves, the primary objective of taking Iwo Jima was not to promulgate a pretty picture for the ages, it was to provide a place for airplane drivers to land on the way home from littering the Japanese home islands without getting your foppish Wellingtons damp, after you'd foolishly burned all of your fuel and broke your own aircraft.

Additionally, the Marine Corps is the Marine Corps because of its exclusivity - even during the Great Southeast Asia War Games, we were the last to buckle to the DoD directive mandating those without a high school education be allowed to enlist - the concept of 'doing more with less' may not have originated with us, but historically we have been 'low man on the totem pole' at appropriations time, getting only what larger services hadn't already, or what they had abandoned in favor of 'newer and flashier', as in the 'pecker-track' maintenance records system of the late 1960s, or getting less than optimal (for our purposes) 'tools of the trade' because the Army wanted to 'standardize', as in the Garand rather than our chosen Johnson weapons system.

And who can forget another lesson gleaned from Vietnam: Close Air Support. To your blue-business-suited throttle-jockeys, 'close' meant dropping down to almost a thousand feet. Naval Air was slightly better - perhaps four to six hundred feet above ground...but when Marine Air was tasked to support Marine ground units, they came in at 'wheels down' altitudes: They came home with grass and tree branches needing to be plucked from the aircraft. Marines support our brother Marines, other services do not have that same commitment to 'the Brotherhood'. Combined assets are fine, but what do you tell the outnumbered platoon under fire when the AF controller has sent his 'combined' assets on a milk run to the other side of the country? Perhaps you have heard the expression "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? This is what it applies to.

It may have become almost a mantra by now, but what you see depends on where you stand (or, in the case of some services, where your upholstered armchair and scantily-clad Filipino houseboys delivering alcohol have you sit), but where one sees only numbers and duplication, another sees effectiveness of integration.

Were the DoD serious about 'cutting the fat', perhaps a reasonable starting point would be pulling the prima donnas out of civilian accommodations and pretending they were at least quasi-military: 'Home' is the barracks - or equivalent (to the real military) local construction when deployed; mess hall food; and a 'workday' - when operational tempo allows for such 'normalcy' -equivalent to that undertaken by military officers.

wukong

02-06-2009, 03:00 PM

Would it be fair to suggest that you would argue that the Air Force should continue to seek increased budget authority for ground maneuver forces for air base protection and create our own airborne protection teams to protect our own airborne engineers. We could become a creature such as the German Luftwaffe with our own airborne divisions. I have never denigrated the Marines as a combat force although I have repeatedly seen the opposite from Marines. I do poke good natured fun at all services including my own more than any others. Get over it.

The question that I raised was whether we need 4 MEFs for a brigade worth of amphibious lift. I don't care what Marines, the Army, the Navy, or Air Force did yesterday. I do care what we can and should do for tomorrow.

but what do you tell the outnumbered platoon under fire when the AF controller has sent his 'combined' assets on a milk run to the other side of the country? Perhaps you have heard the expression "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? This is what it applies to.

You could start with the truth instead of passing the buck. Just as many other misconceptions, those decisions are made by a grunt somewhere in the grunt chain of command. The allocation of tactical air assets is made by a unified or joint force commander on the wishes of a component commander. The Air Force executes those decisions. The Air Force does have the authority to select the appropriate airframe and weapons for the grunt directed mission. When you got those airdrops of "kotex and eggs" at Khe Sanh, some Army or Air Force unit did not get their orange sherbet. Whether an Army or Air Force unit thought they were as deserving does not amount to a hill of beans. That reallocation of airlift was made by General Westmoreland at the request by the Marine Commanding General and not General Momeyer or any other "blue suiter." Momeyer did make the decision of whether to airland or airdrop your stuff.

Personally I see no need to cry about the C-47s and gliders shot down by the Navy during the assault on Sicily. That does not mean that we should try to improve on how we organize, train and plan for future combat operations. Perhaps if we built a reason for the Navy to depend upon Army combat forces at some point, we could find a solution to the Sicily problem.

Have you ever read Marine Corps doctrine OMFTS? The basic thesis starts out as "assume the Army is already there!!!!!" I got news for those of that mindset. Pretty soon the Army will not already be at those theres!

HairyEyeball

02-06-2009, 03:58 PM

Given that you only appear to recognize humor or satire when it flows from your computer, that point can provide meat for another discussion, and is not necessary to further belabor here.

To address your salient points: No, the AF should not "...seek increased budget authority for ground maneuver forces for air base protection...", it should channel the significant funding it wastes on modern 'dormitory' construction in combat areas into training dedicated units for such tasking. This will have the additional advantage of instilling more of a 'warrior' mindset among such troops, as well as placing them on a more equal footing with the 'combat' troops of more 'traditional' warfighters. They will live like combat troops, they will eat like combat troops, they will train like combat troops - within the scope of their mission - and they will become combat troops - within the scope of their mission. They might even, under such circumstances, gain the respect of combat troops - which might cripple a goodly segment of military humor, but be worth the trade-off.

It has long been an article of faith among professional warriors that adaptability is one of the keys to success: Our worst performance is when we 'fight the last war'. The current war on terrorists is not WW II or Vietnam or - Lord help us - Somalia or Macedonia, we have to adapt and adopt to fight this war - the entire paradigm must change, not merely from 'they are the enemy, kill them' to 'we can't kill civilians'. That encompasses how we utilize our human resources - Marines are more effective 'out in the field' taking the fight to the enemy than standing around insuring that all the hooch maids who enter AF 'vacation estates' are truly of the female persuasion. AF security forces - which you once had, and they were good at the job - can protect AF assets, and do so with the pride and aggressiveness that comes with protecting 'your own'. That doesn't require standing up 'combat brigades' or Luftwaffe-style proprietary divisions.

As to the MEF far outnumbering its amphibious lift capacity, I don't suppose it has occured to you that at any given time, and for the foreseeable future, a substantial portion of MEF assets are already deployed in combat zones going after the gremlins, while a significant portion is honing its skills, training to maintain its edge or standing in readiness to travel to the next sewer where people need killing - leaving the remainder embarked on that available amphibious lift near to that next conflagration, and poised to strike.

While the 'basic thesis' may open with that presumption, 'real life' hasn't been so pretty - or organized. Who was it that admitted no battle plan survives the first enemy bullet?

A casual search of prior posts should make the question of who overstates the capabilities of 'his' service - or his own importance - perfectly clear: My contention has always been that my Marines have a specific task, and we do it damned well - with or without the 'assistance' of other branches (whose assistance is welcome, even if some of their personnel isn't). If pointing out the fact that different branches would not exist did their missions not justify that existence is 'denigration', than my only suggestion would be 'get over yourself'.

And apropos of little beyond a gentle 'reminder' to those unfamiliar with the discussion, I have no less respect for the Navy and AF throttle jockeys who braved the SAMs of Hanoi, or the 'flying truck drivers' who kept us in boots, beans, bullets and bandages at Khe Sanh, or the Army 'slicks' who pulled wounded out from under the guns of the enemy, than I do for my own Marines. Since some of our 'participants' may have forgotten, and others never known what it's like at the sharp end of the stick when the excrement contacts the ventilation impulsion system, this is something to keep in mind when 'evaluating' some of the more acerbic commentary. I trust at least most of us who have BTDT have a similar perspective.

03_SHOOTER

02-06-2009, 07:08 PM

Would it be fair to suggest that you would argue that the Air Force should continue to seek increased budget authority for ground maneuver forces for air base protection and create our own airborne protection teams to protect our own airborne engineers.

From the perspective of one who was trained to defend Air Force bases, I for one would emphatically say...YES! The rather painful experience learned at Ton Son Nhut AFB during the '68 Tet Offensive, when the Marines were pulled away from their positions "outside the wire", without the benefit of anyone notifying the Base Commander, and the single Squadron of AP's being forced to utilize "what they brung with 'em", and "what they could scrounge together" to do the job that had just the day before been assigned to a Marine Regiment, is all the reason in the world to continue to increase the training and capabilities of the Security Forces for that task. Frankly, and no insult to any of my Army or Marine brothers for the decisions made by the total ****tards who left us in a lurch, we learned that we really can't depend on anyone else. To be honest, and speaking as a former SP, I'd much rather be outside the wire and KNOW that the perimeter is secure than to hope and pray that the Army or Marines really are out there, and not off somewhere else doing whateverthehellelse it is that their "higher ups" might have found for them to do that is "more important". As one of my former Flight Chiefs (who was there) said, it REALLY sucks when you suddenly find yourself in the middle of a Mongolian Cluster***k, and up to your ass in screaming hordes of VC, all because your DSS decided to pick up in the middle of the night and take a trip down the road without telling anyone about it.

As to having Airborne qualified SP's to protect our Airborne Engineers, who else would you suggest do the job? Given the necessity of the Air Force to be able to develop remote "forward deployed" airfields on short notice, and from scratch, in order to support the rest of the war fighters in the 21st century, having Airborne Engineers who are capable of quickly developing these airfields without having to wait for Army or Navy Engineers to be able to "shake loose" to do the job only makes sense, and as the SP's have already begun sending their people to Airborne School on a somewhat regular basis, having one or two Airborne qualified Squadrons designated to support the Engineers naturally follows.

wukong

02-06-2009, 11:11 PM

To address your salient points: No, the AF should not "...seek increased budget authority for ground maneuver forces for air base protection...", it should channel the significant funding it wastes on modern 'dormitory' construction in combat areas into training dedicated units for such tasking. This will have the additional advantage of instilling more of a 'warrior' mindset among such troops, as well as placing them on a more equal footing with the 'combat' troops of more 'traditional' warfighters. They will live like combat troops, they will eat like combat troops, they will train like combat troops - within the scope of their mission - and they will become combat troops - within the scope of their mission. They might even, under such circumstances, gain the respect of combat troops - which might cripple a goodly segment of military humor, but be worth the trade-off.
I have traveled quite a bit in my 20 year career and my experience is that Air Force people under similar circumstances were not billeted or lived that much different from Army, Navy or Marines personnel for that matter. During the Team Spirit exercises of the 80's Air Force augmentees in Korea lived in tent cities just as the Marines at Pohang AB. We did not tear down any of the existing service clubs or exchanges but Air Force people lived in tents and dined at the "soup kitchens." As a matter of fact, the airlifters at Kimhae AB, where there were no hard facilities lived exactly as the Marines at Pohang. The Air Force people who deployed to Desert Shield/Desert Storm lived in tents that looked exactly as those at Pohang except for the snow and ice. When I see television shots of military personnel in Iraq all seem to be existing at the same level of lifestyle at the same locations. When our TACPs go to the field they live exactly as any gun toter. But were field duty becomes static living conditions do improve for Air Force Personnel by design. The Air Force normally deploys people to overseas locations for longer periods of time and we do provide amenities by policy. We normally have fewer disciplinary problems with our people and our retention rates are higher with subsequent reduced training and recruiting cost. I consider this to be a positive trade off. You can either put your money in your people or in your mouth. Air Force personnel don't spend a great deal of time looking in the mirror and saying, "We be bad."

The Navy seems to be catching on to this efficiency as evidenced by:
http://www.dod.gov/execsec/adr98/navy.html

Quality of Life

The Department of the Navy recognizes quality of life as a vital component in recruiting and retention. The Departmental focus is provision of an acceptable level of quality shelter, health care, and community support services to Sailors, Marines, and their families, regardless of duty station. Key elements of the quality of life program include an adequate compensation and benefits package, as well as a positive environment that provides personnel the requisite tools to reach their full potential. To this end, the Department of the Navy has established minimum quality of life standards, and is working towards consistent and professional delivery of all quality of life components.

The Air Force has been doing this successfully since the days of General Lemay at SAC. The training cost of one pilot will build or rehab a lot of barracks. The retention rate of Marine pilots and trained technical personnel is certainly not greater than the Air Force. When is the last time you saw an Air Force recruiting ad on TV? Only those services with recruiting/retention problems get the advertising dollars.

I know wiki is not the best source but this is about the best one sentence statement available

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps

The United States Marine Corps (USMC) is a branch of the United States Armed Forces responsible for providing force projection from the sea, using the mobility of the U.S. Navy to rapidly deliver combined-arms task forces.
The US has not done a whole lot if projection from the sea since WWII. But we have done a whole lot of sustained land war and occupation. If land war and occupation is where we need the people why not transfer resources from some place that we don't have a lot of need to a place where we do. The Navy is not going to go before congress and give up a carrier for a equivalent dollar capability of amphibious shipping. With the carriers they do not need seizure of advanced naval bases.

I am very aware of Marines being deployed in lieu of the Army in land combat zones. How does this diminish an argument for the transfer of assets to an organization that is doctrinally better prepared to use the existing manpower? You and the forum know full well that although an airborne advocate, I am doctrinally against an Air Force organic airborne ground capability. I consider it a very limited use capability that should be resident in a service that would have a need to exercise the capability more often than the Air Force. An Arny airborne brigade should have enough engineering capacity to capture and rehab a landing zone suitable to airland Air Force engineers.

You can learn a lot when you have the opportunity to work with other services. One of the little known facts of interservice cooperation is that when the CBG Midway was in Korean waters during Team Spirit, every Sunday a 4 ship of F-15s were put on pilot in cockpit alert to cover the CBG so the carrier could stand down for 24 hours.

Lastly, have you reviewed OMFTS and its companion STOM? This doctrine is driving the CV-22 and the fast armored boat tank whatever its acromym. Someone in congress may one day raise an objection to the whole grandiose scheme.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/omfts.htm
Operational Maneuver from the Sea OMFTS)
http://www.tulane.edu/~nrotc/documents/marines/USMC%20Ship%20to%20Objective%20Maneuver.pdf
Ship-To-Objective Maneuver
Look at page II-12

wukong

02-11-2009, 03:14 AM

Every military person should be required to watch this interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRNdE3pmiOw

Sacred cows are a herd that needs to be slaughtered. We all have our service sacred cows.

JohnP

02-11-2009, 06:15 PM

I don't know if this article belongs here or on another thread, but I figured it was worth merit and it might make '03 Shooter a happy camper.:)

This is from today's issue of the Air Force Times.

341st Missile Wing passes nuke inspection

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Feb 11, 2009 11:28:26 EST

There months after failing a nuclear surety inspection, the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont., passed a reinspection.

Air Force Space Command inspectors returned to Malmstrom with oversight from Air Force Inspection Agency and U.S. Strategic Command officials to ensure errors found during the NSI held in November had been fixed. Inspectors had found problems with the wing’s Maintenance Group and its personnel reliability program, which monitors who can work with nuclear weapons, an Air Force official said.

The wing was one of five nuclear units known to fail an NSI in 2008. It’s only the fourth time since 1992 that five nuclear units have failed their NSI, according to a report by the Task Force on DoD Nuclear Weapons Management. The Air Force had zero failures in 2006 and 2007, according to the report.

Col. Scott Gilson, AFSPC Inspector General, acknowledged that the NSIs have been harder to pass the past 12 months than in previous years.

“This year, we’ve made a tough test even more challenging by increasing intensity, depth and rigor of inspections, and by directing the IG teams to focus on more consistent application of stringent nuclear standards,” he said in a press release.

The 341st received a grade of “satisfactory” on the inspection — the only passing grade a unit can receive on a nuclear surety inspection. An NSI takes place every 18 months and measures a unit’s readiness to execute nuclear operations.

Gen. Robert Kehler, head of Air Force Space Command, allowed the wing to keep its certification to handle nuclear weapons despite the failed November inspection.

Col. Michael Fortney, 341st Missile Wing commander, said his airmen have made progress, but there is still work to be done.

“I wish I could tell you that now we can get back to business as usual, but as you’ve heard me say many times, business will never again be ‘as usual’ at a nuclear wing,” he said in a press release.

Oh my God!!!

They got one right! It's another cold day in Minot!

03_SHOOTER

02-11-2009, 07:33 PM

I don't know if this article belongs here or on another thread, but I figured it was worth merit and it might make '03 Shooter a happy camper.:)

<snip>

Oh my God!!!

They got one right! It's another cold day in Minot!

You're right, it does, they did, and it is, but all I can really say is.."it's ABOUT DAMNED TIME!" Let's hope and pray that we never again see a time when our nuclear forces get anything but a "satisfactory" rating on an inspection, because anything less is unacceptable.

JohnP

02-17-2009, 01:22 PM

You're right, it does, they did, and it is, but all I can really say is.."it's ABOUT DAMNED TIME!" Let's hope and pray that we never again see a time when our nuclear forces get anything but a "satisfactory" rating on an inspection, because anything less is unacceptable.

Here's another breaking story from the Air Force Times that something is being done to fix the problem:

2 Guard refueling units pass nuke inspection

Air Force Times
Staff report
Posted : Tuesday Feb 17, 2009 11:43:23 EST

Two Air Guard refueling wings recently passed nuclear surety inspections, Air Mobility Command announced Feb. 13.

The 121st Air Refueling Wing at Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base, Ohio, and the 155th ARW at Lincoln Municipal Airport, Neb., received overall grades of “satisfactory” — the highest possible — from AMC inspector general teams.

Major nuclear operational readiness inspections at the bases began Jan. 21 and ended Feb. 12, according to an Air Force news release.

“I am extremely pleased with the results of these inspections,” Lt. Gen. Bud Wyatt, director of the Air National Guard, said in the release. “The skill and dedication displayed by our Airmen at the 121st and 155th Air Refueling Wings reflect the professionalism our entire Air National Guard team demonstrates every day."

Of course the question of the day is: Did they meet the high standards set by SAC or were the standards lowered to keep the heat off the upcoming Global Strike Command?