Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Strategic Air Command Thread  
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10045 times:

Seeing how there are many ex SAC members on this board I thought I would try a general thread on anything SAC. The history, the planes, missiles and the people.

SAC was created in March 1946 as one of three major commands of the U.S. Army Air Forces and became a major command of the U.S. Air Force in September 1947(along with TAC and MATS). Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, built it into a combat-ready force with a peak strength in the late 1950s and early 1960s of 3,200 aircraft and 280,000 people. In the 1960s, aircraft strength dropped, offset by a force of 1,054 intercontinental ballistic missiles. On June 1, 1992, SAC and the JSTPS were replaced by a new unified command, USSTRATCOM. Forty six years seems like a short time in history but many men and woman and a lot of activity passed through during that time.

http://www.stratcom.mil/history/
http://www.strategicairandspace.com/

I just recently read a new book on Gen Curtis Lemay and still am amazed how he came from a humble beginning to a point of leading the most powerful force on the planet, Strategic Air Command.



An excellent read.




OMG-Obama Must Go
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 10023 times:

I was lucky to be part of the historical 509th Bomb Wing at Pease AFB NH. With FB-111A and KC-135A models while i was stationed there it was a great place to fly on and to watch these SAC Aircraft.



509th BMW patch

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/527936_433105843378630_990111057_n.jpg

A 509th BMW KC-135A

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/182142_433099663379248_1915543359_n.jpg

A 509th BMW FB-111A



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 397 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9928 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 1):
I was lucky to be part of the historical 509th Bomb Wing at Pease AFB NH. With FB-111A and KC-135A models while i was stationed there it was a great place to fly on and to watch these SAC Aircraft

Windy95, did you know that Pease AFB is now partial active duty Tankers again? Part of the recent (last few years) restructuring retuned to get rid of having only supere-tanker bases. A lot of the bases that lost some of most of their tankers, when back to active duty! Pease, Seymore Johnson, Scott, March, and Hickam! They are all shared units again!

Just thought you'd like to hear!

135Mech


User currently offlinesonic67 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 292 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9882 times:

I'm surprised that SAC did not need to employ more Bomber models over the years since it inspection in 1946..


SAC Bomber fleet


User currently offlinetaxpilot From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 97 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (1 year 6 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 9846 times:

After my first operational assignment (C/EC 121 at McClellan), SAC was initialy a major shock to my system.

I signed into the 509th at Pease on day one of an ORI. When I asked "Whats an ORI?" The Ops Officer said go home and we willl call you next week.

Can't say I ever enjoyed the relentless alert duties. But I did become SACumcised. I loved flying the A model and our Tanker Task Force mission.   


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9724 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 2):
Windy95, did you know that Pease AFB is now partial active duty Tankers again?

Yes my ex room mate is still a flight chief for the Guard unit there along with several others who are still technicians in the unit.

Quoting taxpilot (Reply 4):
Can't say I ever enjoyed the relentless alert duties. But I did become SACumcised. I loved flying the A model and our Tanker Task Force mission.

I was on alert at Pease when they finally pulled the last alert bird. After 8 years of pulling constant alert duty it was odd seeing it go away in 1990.

Quoting sonic67 (Reply 3):
I'm surprised that SAC did not need to employ more Bomber models

The ability of the B-52 might off had much to do with that. Also toss in the ICBM force and the need for more bomber innovation might have been put on the back burner.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9710 times:

Was lucky enough to see four of those bombers fly. Wish I could of seen a B-58 roll down the runway. Watching the videos is just no the same.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/539069_452803804742167_1423744255_n.jpg

The B-1B

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/300407_280772575278625_445243207_n.jpg

The B-52G

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/312222_282486308440585_1079381481_n.jpg

In cell with a SAC KC-10 over the Pacific on a Tanker Task Force mission

SAC's Tanker task Force missions spent most of their time refueling fighters and air lifters. For us they could be a busy time with many hours in the air and then working the aircraft on the ground. I remember this mission started for me at our home bas at Pease. First a cross country from Pease to March AFB in Riverside , CA. The next day we departed March with 9 KC-135A's and 3 KC-10 from March. The 135's had been a mix of aircraft from other bases like us on their way to Guam for their two month long TTF mission and the others had been from the unit at March. Each 135 had 180K of fuel on board and the 10's had their max load allowed for departure from March. Once airborne we headed east toward's Texas while three of the 135's topped off the KC-10's and then returned to March. We picked up the F-4 unit out of Moody AFB in Georgia and then turned and headed to Hickam AFB, HI. After an overnight in Hawaii and another heavy take off out of Hickam the 6 135's and the 3 KC-10's proceeded to drag the 12 F-4's to Guam and then on to Korea. When I think back about the effort involved in these missions and the amount of fuel that was used it still amazes me. The timing the effort and the resources was huge.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinerc135x From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9674 times:

Quoting windy95 (Thread starter):
I just recently read a new book on Gen Curtis Lemay and still am amazed how he came from a humble beginning to a point of leading the most powerful force on the planet, Strategic Air Command.

This is a fine general summary of material already in the public domain, much of which appeared in Coffey's Iron Eagle and from bits of other books. To date, there really is no definitive study of LeMay as CINCSAC and especially as CoS. The other CINCs are completely ignored.

Similarly, there is no single book on SAC that stands out. Lloyd's book is a good start, but it is short on research and interpretation, placing SAC in context.

SAC was a lot more than just bombers and ICBMs. Its ability to generate a sustained airborne command post enabled the US to change from a single nuclear reaction (which economist Hermann Kahn called "wargasm") to a selective nuclear response, as well as the ability to restrain nuclear war in the event of decapitation (the loss of the National Command Authorities). EC-135 and KC-135 airborne command posts made this possible because of their capacity and endurance.

SAC also developed its own internal reconnaissance fleet which it used to supplement other national sources. In light of the CIA U-2 it is easy to overlook SAC U-2s, RB-47s, RC-135s, and SR-71s. Indeed, during the 1950s SAC RB-47s conducted in excess of 150 direct overflights of the USSR, particularly Siberia, collecting invaluable PHOTINT and SIGINT which SAC used directly in planning its war missions. Until the advent of satellites, this was the only source of such invaluable information.

SAC also had a profound affect on life in the Air Force. LeMay championed better living conditions, and Senators Wherry and Capehart found the money for houses and dorms which still stand today and provided SAC personnel and their families decent places to live in a transient world. Despite his later reputation due to his association with George Wallace, LeMay strongly supported the 1947 integration of the military. In its later years, SAC became the avenue for women to become pilots and navigators and missileers, opening the gates for women in all aircraft and to see combat duty.

Still, SAC was never meant to be a permanent entity. I was literally sitting in the CINCSAC's chair in the SAC underground when then-President Bush announced on a national TV broadcast the end of SAC alert. Although many SAC veterans feel that the demise of SAC was poorly handled by CoS Tony McPeak and the "fighter mafia", the world was a different place. The need for a single organization---with deep financial pockets---to deter small nation-states and non-state actors (like al-Qaeda) no longer made sense.

Ultimately, SAC will be remembered as an air force within the Air Force. At its height it had missiles, bombers, tankers, fighters to protect them, transports to haul around their gear, an autonomous reconnaissance force, cross-service control of nuclear strike plans (SAC, not the AF, "owned" the SIOP), and was the single biggest budgetary recipient in DoD. That it was never used to execute its primary mission is moot testimony to its success.

edited---corrected mistype of SIGINT

[Edited 2012-10-20 09:27:38]

User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9612 times:

Quoting rc135x (Reply 7):
Its ability to generate a sustained airborne command post enabled the US to change from a single nuclear reaction

I remember the first time refueling the 'Looking Glass" as a young airman and having the flight crew explain to me what it was. Seems like forever ago.

Quoting rc135x (Reply 7):
In light of the CIA U-2 it is easy to overlook SAC U-2s, RB-47s, RC-135s, and SR-71s. Indeed, during the 1950s SAC RB-47s conducted in excess of 150 direct overflights of the USSR, particularly Siberia, collecting invaluable PHOTINT and SIGINT which SAC used directly in planning its war mission

According to research published by the VFW, at least 382 U.S. service members were killed due to hostile fire during the "Cold War" [not including Korea and Vietnam].

Quoting rc135x (Reply 7):
. In its later years, SAC became the avenue for women to become pilots and navigators and missileers, opening the gates for women in all aircraft and to see combat duty.

In 1985 I was on a TDY with an all female crew on the 135. Not sure if it was the first for SAC but it would of been close to it. It was at an airshow/open house at Niagra Falls IAP. You would not believe the reaction to the public who walked through our aircraft and could not believe what they were seeing.

Sadly this was the last airshow for the Blue Angels with the A-4's. On the first day of the show the two solos collided during a maneuver right in front of our aircraft destroying both aircraft and killing one of the Pilot's. They went home the next day and came back the next season with the F-18's

Quoting rc135x (Reply 7):
This is a fine general summary of material already in the public domain, much of which appeared in Coffey's Iron Eagle and from bits of other books. To date, there really is no definitive study of LeMay as CINCSAC and especially as CoS. The other CINCs are completely ignored.

Sounds like you have much work ahead of you. Send me a signed copy when you are done.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineFSXJunkie From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 49 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 6 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 9462 times:

Quoting rc135x (Reply 7):
Still, SAC was never meant to be a permanent entity. I was literally sitting in the CINCSAC's chair in the SAC underground when then-President Bush announced on a national TV broadcast the end of SAC alert. Although many SAC veterans feel that the demise of SAC was poorly handled by CoS Tony McPeak and the "fighter mafia", the world was a different place. The need for a single organization---with deep financial pockets---to deter small nation-states and non-state actors (like al-Qaeda) no longer made sense.

SAC's destablishment was poorly handled in the sense that SAC made up 2/3rds of personnel and carried the bulk of the Air Force's political backing, What remained of the USAF as a whole after the bombers were gutted in the desert would but cut down another third over the next decade.

When the Soviet Union fell it didn't take nukes with it (Pakistan joined the club in '96, North Korea got'em recently, and Iran is bucking for it's own) but, when the USSR collapsed it took Communism with it (Flexible Response: To fight Communism through small but limited wars.) So the Army was deep poop.

...On that front keep in mind that SAC was a Specified Command of the DoD, in order to kill it you need the consensus of the Joint Chiefs.

What should McPeak have done? In the 19th Century the Navy had a problem simmilar to what the fighter run Air Force faced in the 80's and 90's. The Navy had this component called the Marine Corps, early wars against Barbary Pirates lead to this US Navy Marine Corps to grow quite large and it's culture started clashing with the USN 's primary sailing culture. The delima ultimately created was resolved by separating the Marines into a separate service retained with in the department of the Navy, this US Marine Corps would maintain it's historical missions with in the Navy and would share supporting functions with the Navy.

Given the way SAC was structured, the extent of it's autonomy, and the bitch of a time SAC was giving the fighter mafia in said mafia's efforts to remake the Air Force...SAC should've been separated along similar lines, as aseparate service retained under Department AF, maintains it's responsibilities within the AF, and shares supporting functions. The beauty of doing it this way if you are McPeak is that you get everything you wanted right down to the "airline pilot" service dress (Fogleman and everybody else afterward can't counter a damn thing because the Air Force MUST maintain a distinct identity from US-SAC.)


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9323 times:

I was a Boom Operator at Pease AFB, NH twice. 1978-1980 and 1985-1990. I served at both FB-111 wings being at Plattsburgh AFB, NY before I got to Pease in '78. Between my two tours at Pease, I was a CCTS Instructor at Castle AFB, CA, and finished my carrier at Carswell AFB, TX. Carswell was the worst assignment I ever had, the BUFF crews had no sense of humor.

Yes, I was a "SAC trained killer", and, as the FB guys called us, a "Tanker Toad".

SAC won the Cold War.


User currently offlinefsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9271 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
I served at both FB-111 wings being at Plattsburgh AFB, NY before I got to Pease in '78


Any insight into the Plattsburg Pease rivalry. I was in AFROTC in upstate NY and heard lot of stories about a rivalry but did not know if that was just boasting. I did my tour in SAC at Offutt between 89 and 92 and was there for the shutdown. All I kept thinking was at least they had the decency to wait until LeMay passed away before doing it. I also remember being in the Command Center when we got a call from General Chain who was airborne on the, only he knew it, last Looking Glass mission. We got the radio call "Gentlemen, stand down Looking Glass". The relief Looking Glass crew taxied back to the stand and shut engines down. When the plane with General Chain landed, it was the first time in 29 years there was not a EC-135 on station over the US.

[Edited 2012-10-21 16:10:05]

User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 9235 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
I was a Boom Operator at Pease AFB, NH twice. 1978-1980 and 1985-1990




Then I am pretty sure that we went TDY or pulled Alert together since I was there from 85 to closing.

Quoting fsnuffer (Reply 11):
Any insight into the Plattsburg Pease rivalry. I was in AFROTC in upstate NY and heard lot of stories about a rivalry but did not know if that was just boasting.




The Pease tankers spent the summer of 85 at Plattsburgh while our runway was down for repairs. I also spent 3 or 4 days on alert on a Platsburgh Tanker when we had to evacuate Pease for Hurricane Gloria. Also spent tons of time TDY on TTF mission's with Platsburgh tanker crews and never really felt that there was a rivalry. Maybe more so for the 111/135 crews when it came to things like Bomb-Comp. If I remember right the 45th Air Division was made up of Loring, Griffis, Plattsburgh and Pease so we all fell under the same command.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineavnut43 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 20 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 6 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9202 times:

I just want to pass this along for any fans of the Jimmy Stewart film "Strategic Air Command", if they are interested the soundtrack is now available at Screen Archives Entertainment. It is a good period film.

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9104 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 12):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):I was a Boom Operator at Pease AFB, NH twice. 1978-1980 and 1985-1990



Then I am pretty sure that we went TDY or pulled Alert together since I was there from 85 to closing.

I'm pretty sure we did. I was the 509th Air Refueling SquadronFirst sgt. in '86 and '87 and was also the wing tanker/bomber scheduler. Drop me a line on the IM here.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 12):
Quoting fsnuffer (Reply 11):Any insight into the Plattsburg Pease rivalry. I was in AFROTC in upstate NY and heard lot of stories about a rivalry but did not know if that was just boasting.



The Pease tankers spent the summer of 85 at Plattsburgh while our runway was down for repairs. I also spent 3 or 4 days on alert on a Platsburgh Tanker when we had to evacuate Pease for Hurricane Gloria. Also spent tons of time TDY on TTF mission's with Platsburgh tanker crews and never really felt that there was a rivalry. Maybe more so for the 111/135 crews when it came to things like Bomb-Comp. If I remember right the 45th Air Division was made up of Loring, Griffis, Plattsburgh and Pease so we all fell under the same command.

The Pease and Plattsburgh Tanker crews got along very well. P'Burgh had the 310th and 380th Air Refueling Squdron, we had the 509th and the Pease Tanker Task Force, which moved to P'Burgh (for a few years) as Pease was closing. The main compitition was between the FB-111 crews, although it was a friendly rivalry. Now Bomb Comp was a very different story. The first objective of the FB-111 crews was to beat the B-52 crews, then it was dog eat dog between the Pease Bomber crews and the Plattsburgh Bomber crews. IIRC, the 380th Bomb Wing won 4 Fairchild Trophies, and the 509th won 3.

We tanker crews at both wings used to tease the bomber crews by telling them the FB-111s were stationed at Pease and Plattsburgh so they could complete a one way, non-air refueling strike mission against Montreal   


User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 928 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9030 times:

Windy95...when you mean "pull", were the fighters linked to the takers all the way accoss the ocean? i.e. you were the "online fuel tank?" Seems a tad bit dangerous. Or was it safer to just stay liked up rather that having to re-engage when the fuel ran low?


Carpe Pices
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2239 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9019 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting bhill (Reply 15):
Windy95...when you mean "pull", were the fighters linked to the takers all the way accoss the ocean? i.e. you were the "online fuel tank?" Seems a tad bit dangerous. Or was it safer to just stay liked up rather that having to re-engage when the fuel ran low?

It's just a bit of slang - they don't leave the fighters hooked up for the entire trip (and in fact there'd usually be several). But basically you'd have a tanker or three with a gaggle of fighters following them, rotating on and off the booms as needed. But metaphorically, the tankers would be "pulling" the fighters across the ocean. Also sometimes "drag," as in "drag the fighters across..."


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8994 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 16):
rwessel

Almost correct. For fighter drags, there are scheduled refuelings, no matter how small the offload may be. In some cases I only offloaded a few hundred pounds of fuel to each fighter, other times it was few thousand pounds. The fighters had to keep enough fuel aboard to reach the nearest suitable alternate airport. This was called "BINGO" fuel. If a fighter had to divert, another fighter would go with him, or one tanker and all the fighters assigned to tha tanker would go, depending on what the reason for the divert was.

If a fighter ever had to ditch, a tanker would be assigned to stay over him flying cap. If needed we would depressurize, open the aft hatch and drop the 20 man raft to him from low altitude and as slow an airspeed as possible. The 20 man raft had more survival equipment than the seat kit and one man raft did. The tanker would talk to the guys in the water over UHF Guard (243.0 MHz) and coordinate a rescue with the USN, USCG, or the closest ship. The tanker would stay until the tanker hit BINGO fuel before departing, or rescue forces were on-scene.


User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 11
Reply 18, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 8976 times:

Speaking of Pease and fighter drags...I spent a week there in the spring of 1987 (so Windy and TopBoom were both there as well!) We flew in from Grissom, heading to a TDY with the European Tanker Task Force. We were supposed to meet up with a KC-10 and a gaggle of F-4s out of Seymour-Johnson, but for four days it was the same thing - brief at O'Dark Thirty, preflight, then sit in the cockpit for an hour until they decided that the weather wasn't going to clear at the en-route alternates, and scrub for the day. We were staying in a motel in town, and they would just give us back our old rooms each morning. We did get to see a Red Sox game from the bleachers at Fenway (our Nav was a Boston native) and took a drive up the Maine coast another day. We eventually dragged them across and made it to Mildenhall.


KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (1 year 6 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 8899 times:

Yeah, we flew a lot of the PTTF missions. They also planned our Volent Boom missions, AWACS and RC-135 deployment missions, which we had a lot of too. Loring, Plattsburgh, and Griffiss also did several of these types of missions. The 4 active duty bases (5 squadrons of KC-135A/Q), plus the NHANG, MEANG, NJANG, and PAANG all had KC-135Es and did a lot of work too. The NE US corrridor needed a lot of tankers.

User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8693 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 16):
Quoting bhill (Reply 15):Windy95...when you mean "pull", were the fighters linked to the takers all the way accoss the ocean? i.e. you were the "online fuel tank?" Seems a tad bit dangerous. Or was it safer to just stay liked up rather that having to re-engage when the fuel ran low?
It's just a bit of slang - they don't leave the fighters hooked up for the entire trip (and in fact there'd usually be several). But basically you'd have a tanker or three with a gaggle of fighters following them, rotating on and off the booms as needed. But metaphorically, the tankers would be "pulling" the fighters across the ocean. Also sometimes "drag," as in "drag the fighters across..."

Correct the slang was dragging fighters. I believe I used the word "pull" for alert. Another use of slang. We did not go to alert or work alert we "pulled" it.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
In some cases I only offloaded a few hundred pounds of fuel to each fighter, other times it was few thousand pounds. The fighters had to keep enough fuel aboard to reach the nearest suitable alternate airport. This was called "BINGO" fuel

Had a few Atlantic crossings with F-15's with their drop tanks and we only had to top them off once on the way into the UK. Now and F-4 or a A-10 it seemed like they had been constantly rotating off the boom.

Maybe someone else knows but why did all the A-10 drags to Europe and back go through Lajes Field?



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2690 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8691 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
If a fighter ever had to ditch, a tanker would be assigned to stay over him flying cap.

Which is why we went with EF-111, FB-111's and the F-15's across the Atlantic even though they did not need the fuel with drop tanks. Made for a quick crossing though.

Someone else might remember this also but on some of the big deployments they sent a TAC 135 that was used as a command post along. It might of been the CINC TAC bird out of Langley. I remember that on a few of the ETTF's.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2248 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8691 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Yes, I was a "SAC trained killer", and, as the FB guys called us, a "Tanker Toad".

Keeping the BX safe for democracy!



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 397 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8683 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 8):
Quoting rc135x (Reply 7):
This is a fine general summary of material already in the public domain, much of which appeared in Coffey's Iron Eagle and from bits of other books. To date, there really is no definitive study of LeMay as CINCSAC and especially as CoS. The other CINCs are completely ignored.


Sounds like you have much work ahead of you. Send me a signed copy when you are done.

I'll definitely take a copy!  
Quoting windy95 (Reply 20):
Maybe someone else knows but why did all the A-10 drags to Europe and back go through Lajes Field?

I believe it's because of the extensively SLOW pace. My last TATL fighter drag (hehe) was A-10's [2 years ago]; and because of their 240kias max speed... we and they, burn so much fuel getting there and it takes so long to do it. If you remember, we're near stalling and they are screaming the whole way. Also as you said, A-10's are regularly hitting you up for a top-off and Lajes is the safe and logical mid-way stop. It took several days (of course with them breaking) to get them to Sicily.

Cheers,
135Mech

[Edited 2012-10-23 14:52:39]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12065 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (1 year 6 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8679 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 20):
Maybe someone else knows but why did all the A-10 drags to Europe and back go through Lajes Field?

The refueling airspeed for the A-10s (and C-130s) was very low. So we and the receivers had to land at Lajas AB as we would all run out of crew duty day before we got to Europe. These missions were always '0 dark 30 briefings, preflights and take-offs, and put us into Lajas about 10-12 hours later, which turned into a 16+ hour day by the time we debriefed, maintenance debriefed, cleared Portgual Customs, got to billeting, then hit the club.

Quoting moose135 (Reply 22):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):Yes, I was a "SAC trained killer", and, as the FB guys called us, a "Tanker Toad".
Keeping the BX safe for democracy!

Yeap......the 'commies' never got close to any BX......


25 rc135x : These were Tactical Air Command EC-135K HEAD DANCER airborne command posts (55-3118---the first KC-135 built and preserved at Tinker AFB, OK; 59-1518
26 rc135x : I believe my disagreement here is that the dissolution of SAC was a correct choice. SAC's mission no longer existed with the demise of a mirror image
27 KC135TopBoom : I'm afraid I have to disagree with you, rc135x. SAC's mission has never gone away. SAC's demise was pure politics of the 'fighter mafia'. The US kept
28 rc135x : This is somewhat misleading, as there were Chiefs prior to LeMay with fighter experience and afterward as well. Although bomber-background chiefs had
29 rc135x : I respectfully submit that this is wrong. SAC has long been synonymous with U.S. strategic nuclear doctrine, which was---as a matter of national poli
30 Post contains links windy95 : "Nobody Wins a Nuclear War" But "Success" is Possible Mixed Message of 1950s Air Force Film on a U.S.-Soviet Conflict National Security Archive Electr
31 Post contains links and images windy95 : The 135 Graveyard.. What a sad sight A variety of 135 models in this picture.
32 rc135x : During the 1950s some U.S. policy makers and a large portion of the general public considered nuclear war possible, if not probable. A few even belie
33 rc135x : In addition to the many KC-135A "buck tankers" in the photo, there are a number of "white top" EC-135s from the SAC Post Attack Command and Control S
34 Post contains links and images KC135TopBoom : Actually, SAC had extensive plans, and experience with conventional warfare. We dropped millions of "iron bombs" during the Vietnam War, and thousand
35 windy95 : I think the difference is though that these missions which would also include Korea where not actual SAC missions but groups pulled from SAC and fell
36 Post contains images 135mech : Unfortunately this bird has been "poled" and is sitting with a pole up her A** propped up at rotation angle with NO nose support at the front gate of
37 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : http://www.airliners.net/photo/USA--...d=223b0fb51b21b62779f7c571e0dbbd9c
38 rwy04lga : Truly, by every measure...Mission Accomplished!! Some 'SAC' moments in my history....Dad (former POW in Germany) flew B-29s and B-47s out of Goose Ba
39 KC135TopBoom : When was that? 58-0045 was one of our KC-135Qs. I was assigned to the 310th AREFS at P'Burgh from 1974 to 1978, then moved to the 509th AREFS at Peas
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Strategic Air Command Thread
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bombers Of The Strategic Air Command posted Tue Jan 28 2003 06:42:17 by FlagshipAZ
Official 'Great New England Air Show' Thread posted Tue Jul 8 2008 08:28:30 by ChrisNH
Air Force Association Magazine On F-35 posted Tue Oct 2 2012 20:48:37 by ThePointblank
“the Worst I’ve Ever Seen.” - Air Force General posted Mon Sep 17 2012 19:01:10 by tommytoyz
New Air Force One: 748, 777-X Or Something Esle? posted Sat Sep 15 2012 13:00:41 by olddominion727
Air Force One Replacement posted Thu Sep 6 2012 23:16:42 by HIRSCH777
Colombian Air Force In Red Flag 12-4? posted Fri Aug 24 2012 01:49:21 by gabo787
Air Force X-51A Test Failed posted Wed Aug 15 2012 12:49:08 by casinterest
Air Force One & Marine One posted Fri Aug 10 2012 13:54:04 by JayinKitsap
Air Force One Visit - Which Airport? posted Thu Aug 9 2012 13:20:24 by smitty1960

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format