Bring Back:

[Bergman]

..and that the USAF would finally be run by fighter guys for a while.

We can all agree that it has been a resounding success since that's happened.

[Guest]

We can all agree that it has been a resounding success since that's happened.

You mean having the most powerful and respected military force in history? Or are you thinking the USAF sucks and anyone out there could kick our ass if they wanted to?

There were a lot of question marks about the USAF relative to our competition prior to DS. There are none now.

Do you remember what it was like when SAC was in charge?

[brickhistory]

Here's a wild idea:

Both TAC and SAC sucked.

SAC because it was a "read a step, do a step, get a banana" mentality designed specifically for going toe to toe with Ivan and not really able to do anything else well. Until B-52s were converted to the iron bomb mission for Southeast Asia for the tactical guys. I'd submit that the BUFFS did the trucking bombs mission really well (save for their same way, same day tactics courtesy SAC) but that the tactical guys didn't run the war all that well and they were the ones in charge.

TAC, for much of its existance, didn't really have a pot to piss in and took the scraps of budget left over from SAC. It also had it's own nuclear mission that consumed much of its time and attention to the detriment of air-to-air and air-to-ground with little bombs. The results were paid in blood in Vietnam until those lessons were learned again.

ACC (TAC ate SAC) was a good compromise unless you were a SAC crewdog (bomber, tanker, or missiles) in which case you were auto-hosed just because you were on the losing team. Not cool.

DESERT STORM was a great showcase for the USAF showing it had it's sh1t together. Fighters and bombers played well together doing the jobs best suited for each. I don't think this is nearly the same USAF as then. It's a lot smaller, it's a lot more worn out, but a lot more combat experienced (in COIN and CAS, not so much against a contemporary, capable foe).

How about a command where if you can make things go "boom," you're in regardless of the size of the explosion? If you directly support things that go "boom," you are in. If you haul sh1t, you are in. If you put stuff together, you are in. If you cook chow or patrol the flight line, you are in. If you do a good job at your job, you move up. If you don't, you are shown the door.

Separate MAJCOMS, for the most part, are jobs for the generals. Use the NAFs, maybe, if a intermediate command between the COCOMS and Air Staff is required. A lot more bang could be had with the same bucks used.

Crazy, I know. But gosh darn it, it just might work. C'mon kids, let's dance...

[Guest]

TAC, for much of its existance, didn't really have a pot to piss in and took the scraps of budget left over from SAC. It also had it's own nuclear mission that consumed much of its time and attention to the detriment of air-to-air and air-to-ground with little bombs. The results were paid in blood in Vietnam until those lessons were learned again.

I could not agree more. The types of aircraft and ordnance TAC acquired were heavily influenced by the SAC mentality of Cold War nuclear combat. It was bullshit and we saw that very clearly in Vietnam.

The Post Vietnam TAC moved the ball forward further than any MAJCOM in terms of building capability. The FWS and the rest of what happened at Nellis was driven by the guys that were visionary and motivated Lts and young Captains flying the line in Vietnam. What they built ended up as the baseline for tactical training and testing that got us where we are today and now everyone follows the weapons school model.

DESERT STORM was a great showcase for the USAF showing it had it's sh1t together. Fighters and bombers played well together doing the jobs best suited for each. I don't think this is nearly the same USAF as then. It's a lot smaller, it's a lot more worn out, but a lot more combat experienced (in COIN and CAS, not so much against a contemporary, capable foe).

It is smaller (and tired) but far more capable and connected. Think about it for a second.

I'm not sure what "contemporary, capable foe" you think the USAF is worse off against today vs 1991. My answer is...none. In fact, I think we are light years ahead of where we were back then in terms of overall capability.

[contraildash]

Got to my SQ and the bar was litterally the kids playpen. New SQ/CC and the bar is being rebuilt from the ground up.

[BQZip01]

Here's a wild idea:

Both TAC and SAC sucked.

SAC because it was a "read a step, do a step, get a banana" mentality designed specifically for going toe to toe with Ivan and not really able to do anything else well. Until B-52s were converted to the iron bomb mission for Southeast Asia for the tactical guys. I'd submit that the BUFFS did the trucking bombs mission really well (save for their same way, same day tactics courtesy SAC) but that the tactical guys didn't run the war all that well and they were the ones in charge.

TAC, for much of its existance, didn't really have a pot to piss in and took the scraps of budget left over from SAC. It also had it's own nuclear mission that consumed much of its time and attention to the detriment of air-to-air and air-to-ground with little bombs. The results were paid in blood in Vietnam until those lessons were learned again.

ACC (TAC ate SAC) was a good compromise unless you were a SAC crewdog (bomber, tanker, or missiles) in which case you were auto-hosed just because you were on the losing team. Not cool.

DESERT STORM was a great showcase for the USAF showing it had it's sh1t together. Fighters and bombers played well together doing the jobs best suited for each. I don't think this is nearly the same USAF as then. It's a lot smaller, it's a lot more worn out, but a lot more combat experienced (in COIN and CAS, not so much against a contemporary, capable foe).

How about a command where if you can make things go "boom," you're in regardless of the size of the explosion? If you directly support things that go "boom," you are in. If you haul sh1t, you are in. If you put stuff together, you are in. If you cook chow or patrol the flight line, you are in. If you do a good job at your job, you move up. If you don't, you are shown the door.

Separate MAJCOMS, for the most part, are jobs for the generals. Use the NAFs, maybe, if a intermediate command between the COCOMS and Air Staff is required. A lot more bang could be had with the same bucks used.

Crazy, I know. But gosh darn it, it just might work. C'mon kids, let's dance...

2 for the most part, but I think saying "SAC sucked" is an overgeneralization. It was EXCEPTIONAL in the nuke world and served as a credible deterrent for 40 years. That excellence came at a cost and I think we all have different (but valid) perspectives on whether that cost was too much.

Overall though, excellent historical analysis/perspective. I think having nukes in a separate command is a good idea to make sure they are not again neglected, for now. I can see them being appropriately re-integrated in the future or being absorbed into STRATCOM. AFSOC under SOCOM is an absolute necessity.

I think when ACC replaced SAC as the dominant arm of the Air Force, they didn't learn from their lessons as the little guy and made the exact same neglecting mistakes as their predecessor.

Edited September 21, 2010 by BQZip01

[BQZip01]

I could not agree more. The types of aircraft and ordnance TAC acquired were heavily influenced by the SAC mentality of Cold War nuclear combat. It was bullshit and we saw that very clearly in Vietnam.

Hold on a minute. It WAS influenced by the Cold War, but that was considered the dominant threat at the time. Did they make appropriate choices for air-to-air fighters? No, but they weren't looking at that option. They were looking at interceptors to take down waves of incoming Ruskie bombers. I agree they were not designed for combat in a conventional-type conflict, but those programs (i.e. the A-12/SR-71, B-70, etc) led to victory in the Cold War. The bombers constantly being on alert sure as shit contributed heavily to the victory in the Cold War, but it wasn't the only party on the block.

It is smaller (and tired) but far more capable and connected. Think about it for a second.

I'm not sure what "contemporary, capable foe" you think the USAF is worse off against today vs 1991. My answer is...none. In fact, I think we are light years ahead of where we were back then in terms of overall capability.

The Air Force of today simply doesn't have the reach and sheer numbers it did in 1991. I would argue that any foe that has significantly upgraded/improved their numbers and basic technology since then would pose a greater threat than in 1991.

[brickhistory]

SAC as a nuclear weapon babysitter was great. SAC as a combat force willing to face its operational weaknesses, not so much.

A high alert rate was God. Whatever it took to keep the board green at 97% or better was all. Didn't matter if numbers had to be fudged. Personal observation from 4+ years pulling alert. YMMV.

TAC actually went for its own set of mini-nuke bombers - F-100, F-105, B-66, etc, etc. US Navy as well - A-3, A-4, etc. Air Defense Command did the interceptors (F-101, F-102, F-106) with, of course, SAC having its own long-range escort fighters in the inventory for a while.

The fact that those faux nuke fighters performed so valiantly in Vietnam is a tribute to the aircrews and support folks determined to get the job done. Those in command, however, screwed the pooch in the main.

I wouldn't bring back SAC or TAC. I would have nuclear wings in the same combat command as iron droppers and hold them to the proper standards for nuke surety. I wouldn't have those assets in a swing role. I would hold a wing commander responsible for executing his/her mission. If in peacetime, pass a realistic ORI or retire. In combat, get the job done or retire.

We've got some great hardware. Some being the key word. We don't have nearly enough. A lot of it is really, really old. A full on fight with, say, China, will go through our ranks and leave us exhausted with them saying "I've got plenty more."

Perhaps this discussion should be moved to a separate thread vice derailing this one? It's related, but also not.

[moosepileit]

The Pasta bar at Ramstein and other commissaries in Europe. I hear they just all got closed.

[bucky60k]

The Pasta bar at Ramstein and other commissaries in Europe. I hear they just all got closed.

WTFO That was the only good crew meal you could get at ETAR. I sincerely hope thats not true

[JarheadBoom]

WTFO That was the only good crew meal you could get at ETAR. I sincerely hope thats not true

2

Wouldn't surprise me if AAFES bullied DeCA into that, though, to better justify that fucking monstrosity they built at ETAR.