Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Venus6971
Topic Author
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:43 pm

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/09/ap_nuke_shift_091208w/

Looks like SAC will be back, next bring back Gen McPeak and court martial him for being a incompentent and totally screwing the USAF
 
Beta
Posts: 279
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:56 am

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:27 pm

Guess time to bring back SAC from the dead. Who was the goofball that folded it?
 
redflyer
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Sat Sep 13, 2008 4:54 pm



Quoting Venus6971 (Thread starter):
next bring back Gen McPeak

You mean Admiral McPeak?  duck 
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27720
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:11 pm

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 2):
You mean Admiral McPeak?   

His poor sense of uniform aesthetics aside (   ), for those who have not heard of him, Merill McPeak was a general in the USAF. His last assignment was as Air Force Chief of Staff.

[Edited 2008-09-13 15:12:17]
 
curlyheadboy
Posts: 849
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Sun Sep 14, 2008 12:18 am

This is an interesting topic... One thing I always wondered about is how cost-efficient would it be to bring the SAC back.
I imagine a new SAC would be smaller than the "old" one, with better equipment, rationally operated not to waste money, but would it be cheaper or more expensive, compared to the current handling of the US nuclear forces?
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:35 pm

Why did they get rid of SAC to begin with?

BTW: I thought the USAF had tactical nuclear weapons used in other commands (At least in the olde days ADC had nuclear weapons -- AIM-26, AIR-2A/-2B Genie, in their inventory)


Blackbird
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3253
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:08 pm



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 5):
Why did they get rid of SAC to begin with?

Because "Admiral" McPeak and the fighter mafia took over the AF and were tired of playing second fiddle to the bomber guys.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:30 pm

I understand the concern, but I also understand that if a consultant had been brought in to review SAC, the answer would have been streamline and get rid of SAC. Just the way consultants work.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but what I understand is basically they are calling for putting the missiles and flying units back together with no other obligations. The missile part is easy. The flying part will be very difficult in today's economic environment. This would mean either:

* taking a BUFF wing (Minot or Barksdale) or the 509th; and/or
* taking one squadron away from each wing

and dedicating them to the nuclear mission. No more rotations; no more conventional missions. What about tankerage? What about security units? Are they to be dedicated also?

I think this will be more difficult than it appears to be, and the result will be something different that what we think it will be.
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:09 pm

Moose135,

Quote:
Because "Admiral" McPeak and the fighter mafia took over the AF and were tired of playing second fiddle to the bomber guys.

*That's* the reason?


Blackbird
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10988
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Sun Sep 14, 2008 6:32 pm

Here's another question, who controls the Navy's nukes and have they had any screw ups, why not leave the situation as is with the Navy being given oversight authority, has to be a price to be paid by the Air Force - Navy oversight - and the country - Navy suffering the ovesight duties -.
 
Venus6971
Topic Author
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:28 pm

Bomber pilots in SAC did have conventional part of their training, all those ARC Light, Linebacker and Desert Storm Buff missions were flown by SAC trained killers , the B-1s were strictly Nuke in SAC. Maybe all the E models can go to back to a SAC and sit Nuclear Alert. The Bomber force compared to Apr 92 and today is really small with all the G model Buffs some h models and the 83 model Bones in the AMARC.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:37 pm

Back in the day...........

SAC controlled all US nuclear forces, under SIOP. There were USN personnel at OFF to manage the SSBNs. SAC only took command of the SSBNs if the NCA was destroyed.

SAC had all bomber, tanker, strat recee, and most ABCC assets. SAC was a specified command, meaning it did not report to HQUSAF, but to the NCA only.

A new SAC of today, if it is to work, must regain all of these assets.

McPeak needs to be hunted down and killed like the dog he is.
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 3253
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:52 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
McPeak needs to be hunted down and killed like the dog he is.

Hey, hey, hey, don't be insulting dogs like that, Boom!
 
Venus6971
Topic Author
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:31 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 11):
McPeak needs to be hunted down and killed like the dog he is.

OMG what did I start, I would settle for a mass humilation and asterik in the USAF history book for being a dumbass.
Unfornuatly our mass SAC fleet lays in ruin at AMARC. With all B-52G's and KC-135A's that were around when ACC took over soon retired before fiscal year 94 started.
A little history lesson, CSAF Mike Dugan was returning from Desert Sheild talking off the record to reporters aboard Speckled Trout which in Washington meens nothing so it makes the front page of the post and SECDEF Cheney fires him and replaces him with McPeak only because he was the one with a plan to make the USAF smaller.
 
sv7887
Posts: 1259
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:31 pm

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:39 pm



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 13):
OMG what did I start, I would settle for a mass humilation and asterik in the USAF history book for being a dumbass.
Unfornuatly our mass SAC fleet lays in ruin at AMARC. With all B-52G's and KC-135A's that were around when ACC took over soon retired before fiscal year 94 started.

How difficult would it be to refurb those aircraft? Do we even have the spares and ability to get them reactivated?
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Mon Sep 15, 2008 11:45 pm



Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 14):
Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 13):
With all B-52G's and KC-135A's that were around when ACC took over soon retired before fiscal year 94 started.

How difficult would it be to refurb those aircraft? Do we even have the spares and ability to get them reactivated?

The B-52Gs have all been destroyed as part of compliance with the START treaty.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Vaeremans

 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Tue Sep 16, 2008 2:10 am

Would be nice to see the old SAC logo brought back...the stylish blue band too while they're at it.

As an ANG member, I say do it...maybe it'll bring some competence back into the AF braintrust and maybe the nuke program will finally be taken care of...right now the program is in bad shape at best- need new nukes, new bombers, etc.

DeltaGuy
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Comm

Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:13 am

It doesn't really matter too much about the old B-52's being trashed -- with some clever fiddling the USAF could probably design back into the B-52's that we have, the ability to release nukes. After all the B-52's couldn't release precision-guided initially, but they can now.

Additionally, even if the B-52's can't be refitted to deliver nukes, the B-1B's can.


Blackbird
Let's hope I don't disappear suddenly, commit suicide, get some incurable disease/cancer, or have a heart-attack. If I do, you know who to blame for it.

[Edited 2008-09-15 20:14:03]
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Tue Sep 16, 2008 3:44 am



Quoting Blackbird (Reply 17):
It doesn't really matter too much about the old B-52's being trashed -- with some clever fiddling the USAF could probably design back into the B-52's that we have, the ability to release nukes. After all the B-52's couldn't release precision-guided initially, but they can now.

The B-52 can carry nukes. Where did you get the idea that it can't?
 
sv7887
Posts: 1259
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:31 pm

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:10 am



Quoting Rwessel (Reply 15):
Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 14):
Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 13):
With all B-52G's and KC-135A's that were around when ACC took over soon retired before fiscal year 94 started.

How difficult would it be to refurb those aircraft? Do we even have the spares and ability to get them reactivated?

Ugh what a waste of a beautiful if ungainly aircraft. Do we have any spare B-52H's sitting around? The rapid retirement of US Airpower concerns me, especially the bomber fleet. We've fooled ourselves into believing we were living in a "new era" but the same old enemies are alive and kicking...

I am not saying we need to get back to Cold War levels, but we need to maintain a higher level of readiness for both conventional and terrorist threats
 
Venus6971
Topic Author
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:47 am



Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 19):
Ugh what a waste of a beautiful if ungainly aircraft. Do we have any spare B-52H's sitting around? The rapid retirement of US Airpower concerns me, especially the bomber fleet. We've fooled ourselves into believing we were living in a "new era" but the same old enemies are alive and kicking...


Another problem is that infrastructure is not there anymore all the northern tier SAC bases are gone or closed.
Loring, K.I.Sawyer, Plattsburgh, Griffiss, Grissom,Wurtsmith,Carswell and others belong to AMC or ACC.
Barksdale, Minot ,Dyess, Ellsworth and Whiteman are the only bomber bases left, I guess we can move a Squadron of tankers into each of these bases just like it was under SAC and move a Squadron of Bombers to Grand Forks, Fairchild with a sq of tankers, AMC would lose control of the KC-135's but they don't move much cargo with them anyhow. With the present amount of bases the whole northeast part of the states has no active USAF component not including Guard or Reserve.
Second is manning , the USAF is alot smaller than it was when SAC stood down in 93. Do we repeat history and pull a bunch of guys out of retirement to stand up SAC to combat ready status with no notice ORI's, the only ones left in the USAF now who were in SAC were junior enlisted and officers back in the early 90's and more or less did not get properly SACumsized.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Tue Sep 16, 2008 7:10 am



Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 19):
Do we have any spare B-52H's sitting around?

There are 94 B-52Hs in existence, of 102 built. Nine of which are Reserve, and one belongs to NASA.

While there are on the order of 73 B-52s of various vintages (and varying degrees of completeness) in various museums or otherwise on display, it's extrodinarilly unlikely that any of those will ever fly again. That includes about nine more-or-less complete B-52Gs with probable time left on the airframes.

Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 19):
I am not saying we need to get back to Cold War levels, but we need to maintain a higher level of readiness for both conventional and terrorist threats

An issue is that START rather limits both the total number of warheads (6000 for START I) and the number of launch vehicles (1600). Various launchers (different missiles, bombers, etc) are assumed to count in various ways towards to warhead limit. For example, a US heavy bomber equipped to carry ALCMs counts as ten warheads, while a heavy *not* equipped for ALCMs counts as a single warhead.

In addition START I rules allow 75 ("non-modern") heavy bombers which are not equipped to carry nukes of any kind, plus 20 (IIRC), test aircraft.

SORT further cuts the warhead limit back to 1700-2200, which theoretically will happen by 2012.
 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Tue Sep 16, 2008 1:12 pm



Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 19):
We've fooled ourselves into believing we were living in a "new era" but the same old enemies are alive and kicking...

Yes...and unfortunately there are politicians running on that platform, with further intent of disarmament and stand-down of our nuclear alerts, leaving our fly open for just about anyone. The players may have changed in the world, but the danger sure hasn't

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 20):
Loring, K.I.Sawyer, Plattsburgh, Griffiss, Grissom,Wurtsmith,Carswell

Don't forget McCoy  Smile

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 21):
SORT further cuts the warhead limit back to 1700-2200, which theoretically will happen by 2012.

SORT is pretty screwed up as it is- no provision for confirmation of weapon distruction, and apparently nukes could be put in storage just to be used again at a later date.

Quoting Rwessel (Reply 21):
That includes about nine more-or-less complete B-52Gs with probable time left on the airframes.

Wow...that's all that's left out there in one piece huh? Would take alot to bring one back online.

DeltaGuy
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:31 pm



Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 22):
Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 20):
Loring, K.I.Sawyer, Plattsburgh, Griffiss, Grissom,Wurtsmith,Carswell

Don't forget McCoy

Don't forget Pease  bigthumbsup 

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 22):
Quoting Rwessel (Reply 21):
That includes about nine more-or-less complete B-52Gs with probable time left on the airframes.

Wow...that's all that's left out there in one piece huh? Would take alot to bring one back online.

It would be easier to buy back the F-111Gs for the RAAF, and reconvert them back to FB-111As. While we are at it, buy the RAAF F-111Cs, too.
 
sv7887
Posts: 1259
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 7:31 pm

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Tue Sep 16, 2008 5:31 pm



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 23):
Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 22):
Quoting Rwessel (Reply 21):
That includes about nine more-or-less complete B-52Gs with probable time left on the airframes.

Wow...that's all that's left out there in one piece huh? Would take alot to bring one back online.

It would be easier to buy back the F-111Gs for the RAAF, and reconvert them back to FB-111As. While we are at it, buy the RAAF F-111Cs, too.

This brings me to a related question: We have a ton of aircraft at AMARC. How hard would it be to upgrade the F-111's in the boneyard along with any other relevant aircraft we have.

I read somewhere we have a ton of airframes with useful life left on them....With the costs of the F-22 and F-35 being so high, does it make sense to get some of these aircraft back into action?
 
Venus6971
Topic Author
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: Advisors:Consolidate Nuke Weapons Under 1 Command

Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:46 pm



Quoting Sv7887 (Reply 24):
I read somewhere we have a ton of airframes with useful life left on them....With the costs of the F-22 and F-35 being so high, does it make sense to get some of these aircraft back into action?

In the current USAF supply system the parts just don't exist anymore to bring these acft back online along with the funds. With our current troubles on Wall street I think our response to Europe in the next contigency is that you are on your own.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos