Posted on Mar 14, 2014
Air Force, how do we fix these failings and apparent cover ups?
6.37K
17
16
0
0
0
It seems like this just keeps coming back, a little worse each time. I don't know enough about the Air Force's systemic processes or climate/culture to have a valid opinion, so I ask those who are in a better position to speak, how does this get fixed?
Are these your black sheep, or is this a symptom of an overall systemic issue?
Failings exposed last spring at a U.S. nuclear missile base, reflecting what one officer called "rot" in the ranks, were worse than originally reported, according to Air Force documents obtained by Th...
Air Force
Morale
Scandal
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
6
6
0
2
2
0
I think I can answer this a little bit better than others since I was in SAC.
This problem lies with the fact when SAC and TAC merged in 1992, the TAC regs became the new Air Combat Command (ACC) Regs. All former SAC basses raised the red flags on this. Not one SAC reg became an ACC reg. Also, the Land Based Nuclear Missiles were also reassigned to US Strategic Command. Now those assets are a part of Global Strike Command which was activated after the B-52 that flew from Minot to Barksdale with Nukes loaded, and the failure at Minot AFB concerning an exercise concerning Nukes. From what I read, some of the land based ICBMS are still assigned to USSTRATCOM. From all this, it was failure to keep the high SAC standards concerning the Nuclear mission.
Watch "A Gathering of Eagles" with Rock Hudson, and you can see what a SAC base has to go thru for an inspection when Nukes are involved. With this instance, it is a lack of leadership, and understanding their roles. It is because of the mentality of "the cold war is over, so why do I have to keep up this high standard?" mentality that has permeated into the force since the deactivation of SAC. And the fact that the SAC regs were not converted to either STRATCOM or ACC regs that allowed this to happen. From what I understand, Global Strike Command had to find the old SAC regs to dust them off.
This problem lies with the fact when SAC and TAC merged in 1992, the TAC regs became the new Air Combat Command (ACC) Regs. All former SAC basses raised the red flags on this. Not one SAC reg became an ACC reg. Also, the Land Based Nuclear Missiles were also reassigned to US Strategic Command. Now those assets are a part of Global Strike Command which was activated after the B-52 that flew from Minot to Barksdale with Nukes loaded, and the failure at Minot AFB concerning an exercise concerning Nukes. From what I read, some of the land based ICBMS are still assigned to USSTRATCOM. From all this, it was failure to keep the high SAC standards concerning the Nuclear mission.
Watch "A Gathering of Eagles" with Rock Hudson, and you can see what a SAC base has to go thru for an inspection when Nukes are involved. With this instance, it is a lack of leadership, and understanding their roles. It is because of the mentality of "the cold war is over, so why do I have to keep up this high standard?" mentality that has permeated into the force since the deactivation of SAC. And the fact that the SAC regs were not converted to either STRATCOM or ACC regs that allowed this to happen. From what I understand, Global Strike Command had to find the old SAC regs to dust them off.
(2)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
I appreciate the feedback. Clearly this is an area I know very little about, so I'm glad to hear from those with first hand knowledge.
(1)
(0)
SMSgt Alan Saunders
TSgt Hurley, it seems unlikely that is the root cause. Surely the defects would have been exposed far sooner than 20+ years later.
(0)
(0)
TSgt Scott Hurley
SMSgt Saunders, You are correct in that assumption. It is because of the fact after the end of the cold war, and the deactivation of SAC that contributed to this. The thing about the regs was when I was stationed at Castle AFB, we saw it first hand how not one SAC reg was incorporated into ACC. That is partly to blame for the incident up at Minot and the fact it also failed a Nuclear exercise almost 20 yrs later. There were Nuclear surety inspections, but how tough they were I do not know. What it boils down to is a lack of leadership and understanding the importance of their roles. That is the final piece of the puzzle. And in the days of SAC. Not only would the crew be replaced, but the Wing Commander would be fired right on the spot. For allowing that to happen.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I am not entirely sure that this has been blown out of proportion. It is also political. My cousin worked with Titan II Missiles. These are attacks on the nuclear arsenal.
(2)
(0)
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SFC Michael Hasbun
I definitely understand the need for them... My concern is why such a high value field can lapse into disrepair.. It just seems like this is an area where you wouldn't want to slip.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
I believe there is a political agenda or and an overzealous media. My cousin Mike Hanson worked was as an NCOIC in missiles. He was nearly killed in an explosion in Arkansas.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google