[ARCHIVED THREAD] - return of SAC (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/18/2008 8:00:00 PM EDT
| should SAC be brought back to the USAF? |
Fuck NO... Given how royally they fucked things up from the 50s to the 70s, when they 'ran the show'... NE-VER... Nuclear weapons should be a small, minor corner of ACC... Either AMC or the tactical side of ACC should run the AF... There is not, nor will there ever be, a significant mission for what we used to call 'SAC'... War has changed, they are for the most part obselete... All fixed-wing aircraft are now primarily tactical support assets... |
| As in, a separate MAJCOM for nukes and other strategic assets? Maybe, but most of the former strategic only assets (U-2s, KC-135s, B-52s, B-1s, B-2s) are now used for both conventional/tactical use and strategic force projection. I don't think it would be a bad idea to form a new MAJCOM for our few remaining pure strategic assets, those being the E4Bs, ICBMs (of course), a small force of nuke capable bombers. It would never be nearly the size of ACC and AMC though, so the "good old days" won't make a return. I know lots of guys who used to be in SAC, and most look back on their experience with mixed feelings, that MAJCOM shat on its people the likes of which has never been equaled in AF history. |
.png/601px-Air_Force_Cyber_Command_(Provisional).png){kind=spacer}
that shit pisses me off 
|
At least I won't have to wear that insult to SAC on my uniform when it comes time, as I will have ABUs by then. Unless someone decides that ABUs need MAJCOM patches. . . |
give it 5 yrs till we have patches, ballcaps, and get to iron all over again but the green/tan boots for maint is VERY dumb. within a week, mine are black |
In the old days the idiot would literally have gone to jail(some others above him might as well). After that happens a few times...... edit since I can't spell for crap today |
|
Hell no. If you don't know why, you shouldn't be commenting. Like your orbiting B-1 or B-52 over A-stan 24/7? Yea not happeneing with SAC controlling those birds. If anything, there needs to be a Joint Strategic Forces Command controlling SSBN's, ICBM's and the munitions/SF squadrons controlling nuclear munitions. The actual bombers shouldn't be included since they dual hat tactical and conventional missions as well. |
|
As far as I'm concerned, yes. The force structure of the Cold War was aimed entirely at handling a potential Soviet or other large scale threat, and doesn't fit today's needs well, but in a modified form, hell yes. It makes sense to differentiate your tactical and strategic forces and use them in the manner for which they're best suited. Tactics win the battles, strategy wins the war. Figure out how to get the best effective use out of each asset in both strategic and tactical terms and assign them according to where they do the most good. However, at the upper level, tactical, strategic, airlift, recon, intel, and support activities need to be under a unified command structure that knows HOW to make the best use of all of them as a unified, fully integrated fighting force. No single division should have direct authority over any other. They should be equal under the same unified command. And while they're at it, I'd really like to see the AF ditch the chromed insignia and go back to the natural silver insignia, some black tarnish in the shadowed spots required for proper appearance. CJ |
| I think that a nuclear/space MajCom wouldn't be a bad idea, but with the bombers being cross tasked between nuclear and conventional strike the structuring would be difficult. I also think it would be a good idea to unify the SSBN fleet under the same organizational structure of the ICBM forces. |
I did time in MAC, SAC, and in an ANG fighter unit. SAC was the most serious, have-their-act-together, high-standard, no nonsense operation going. When SAC was merged with TAC into ACC and the Fighter Mafia took over, standards dropped. There is irrefutable evidence that things got sloppy in the new corporate culture. |
|
There need to be (and currently are) people whose job it is to strategize the use of strategic bombing, both nuclear and convention. War hasn't changed that much. The ability to knock your enemies legs out from under them is still relevant. As to if it needs to be a separate command... Hell no. I would like to see the idea taken more seriously again, however. |
|
Also, the idea that "that kind of warfare" is a thing of the past is pretentious. Thinking that all we will face is insurgencies is the other side of the coin from people who thought all we'd fight was conventional wars. We need to be prepared for every eventuality. Not just today's. |
Dave_A: Support your premise... How did SAC "fuck things up" from the 50's to the 70'S? How many nuclear weapons accidently got a free ride across the country when SAC was running the show? How many critical and sensitive nuclear components got "lost" while SAC was in charge? Truth is, the "Fighter Jock" mentality has "fucked up" a lot of things in today's Air Force. We must be prepared for ALL contingencies...not just Low Intesity Conflict, Guerrilla warfare and Terrorism. To do otherwise would be short-sighted and inviting disaster. |
^What he said is very true^ Our enemies are using the non-conventional tactics at the moment because it's our weakness... We're so strong conventionally that they know there would be no point to even trying to contend that way. Reduce our ability to fight a convention (or nuclear) war, however, and that would become our weakness... And the enemy would adapt to take advantage of it. Also, a strong force projection ability is a deterrent to potential foes like Russia and China. Reduce said force projection ability and they will no longer be deterred... You increase the likelihood of a conflict by going down that route. That said, this doesn't mean I think we need SAC back... Just that we do need to take the idea of bombing the shit out of another nations military and industry more serious, and keep our skills sharp and abilities strong. |
I didn't see that you included munitions and SF in there. I can't see any sort of command structure that would fit what you describe. |
+1. We have the "control" of planning etc in a seperate command. It gets fucked up when the command owning the assets (talking aircraft here, not misslies) only funds/cares/works conventional issues and sacrifices policy, standards, and system upgrades that directly effect nuke capability. Additionally, the B-1 is no longer a part of our strategic Nuke forces. |
I saw it on TV, man. That General Ripper launched his bombers!  
|
|
Heck, I reckon you wouldn’t even be human beings if ya didn’t have some pretty strong feelings about nuclear combat. But I want ya to remember one thing, tha folks back home is a countin’ on ya, and by golly, we ain’t about to let ‘em down” -Slim Pickens in Dr Strangelove great film |
It was part of McAirforce. Tony McPeak left a trail of mucked up programs in his wake. In "The Year of Training" he ordered the Field Training Detachments to shut down. He kept changing the uniforms. At one time there were FOUR variations of BDUs that were legal to wear. The best thing that happened to the AF was his retirement. |
From what I've heard, he was like the AF version of the anit-christ, like a Bizarro Curtiss LeMay |
Well STRATCOM is part of AFSPC which is a MAJCOM. Why not up STRATCOM to a MAJCOM or rename AFSPC to Air Force Strategic and Space Command changing their emphasis. I mean AFSPC and its component STRATCOM have the ICBMs, warning radars, missile defense, global strike, space awareness, E-6Bs and E-4Bs, etc... seems like some reorganization and emphasis could address any issue needed? |
 STRATCOM predates AFCYBER, which btw is still only a provisional command. |
|
The SAC mentality was very easy, either: A) You're Right or B) You're Wrong At one point many moons ago, Ellsworth AFB was one of the TOP Nuclear Power in the world. They had Nukes in the ground as well as the air, things stayed safe because everyone knew exactly what there duty was. The AFR told you what was right and what was wrong. It didn't matter who you were, cross the Red Line, got on the ground! If you were found on a missile site, get on the ground. If you broke a convoy on I-90, the US Marshall would tell you to get on the ground. If a troop acted up, NCO's couldn't punish them, but you could teach them to walk the fence for hours and hours in the WSA, the Ramp, or the LCF. SAC had many good qualities, some could use some updating. Bring SAC Back S-34 |
The Russians are not our friends, never have been, and never will be. To believe otherwise is to fall for the maskirova their ruling class has arranged. They, like China, are our competitors for national survival, and need to be treated as such. |
|
Hell yes! There was NEVER any doubt of what the mission was or what your individual role in accomplishing that mission was. Things were black and white. The standards were high. I've been in SAC, TAC, MAC, AFSOC, ACC, AFMC, and soon to be ACC again. I can make an informed opinion...other than AFSOC, the best command I was ever in was SAC. |
Which "current" leaders would those be? The two top leaders who were just replaced? 
|
Heck I kinda liked how the Russians freaked out when we started misplacing B-61s like they were Mk82s... They realized we really the same as them. 
|
Which, IMHO (As an Army guy) is pretty near irrelevant... The issue is one of mentality... Paralell to the 'wonderful' decision to put light-infantry folks in charge of the Army... The 'problem' with SAC is they had the worst case of fucking tunnel vision on the face of the planet... If it wasn't nuclear, they didn't give a shit about it... Kind of like our light-world guys do with the 'rest' of the Army (nah, who needs armor... We got RADIO GEAR...).... Such wonderful decisions as 'air-to-air training is un-needed and too dangerous' and 'we will NEVER fight a conventional war again' for example... The most ironic part being that the folks 'Running' the Air Force back then were the ones LEAST ikely to ever perform their 'intended' mission - coneheads & nuke bomber-drivers.... Being able to run a 'spit and polish' organization is one thing... But if your command will NEVER use it's forces in anger *as planned* (which is a given for the nuke folks).... Then they should not be in line to 'run' the entire service, like SAC did pre-Nam.... P.S. I'm gonna second the 'Joint Strategic Forces Command' concept... All nukes under one joint command, NO fixed-wing assets attached, they 'borrow' tactical birds if they are ever actually needed (Which they won't be).... And no member of that command ever becomes a Chief of Staff or Vice Chief - EVER.... |