|
Post by oldpop2000 on Mar 19, 2015 7:40:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on May 3, 2015 9:40:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 3, 2015 13:32:54 GMT -6
Funny, and a bit colorful. I remember "duck and cover". Try getting under your desk at school, like it was really going to help. Every Monday we had sirens go off for their weekly tests. The only real problem time was when I was stationed on a mountain top north of San Francisco. My family was in San Diego, a major target and not even the birds knew where we were. Interesting time to live through.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on May 3, 2015 16:56:14 GMT -6
Funny, and a bit colorful. I remember "duck and cover". Try getting under your desk at school, like it was really going to help. Every Monday we had sirens go off for their weekly tests. The only real problem time was when I was stationed on a mountain top north of San Francisco. My family was in San Diego, a major target and not even the birds knew where we were. Interesting time to live through. While I came in at the tail end of the Cold War (I was six when the Berlin Wall came down), it does elicit a derisive snort when I hear commentators say that the current geopolitical situation matches where we were "at the height of the Cold War." Some were using that level of hyperbole to describe the post-9/11 days, which prompted a very appropriate retort from Lewis Black - "Every two weeks when I was nine, my elementary school would have an air raid drill - I guess to remind me, 'I COULD DIE AT ANY MINUTE!'" That said, it's more than a bit unnerving to see the state the Minuteman launch facilities are in - I mean seriously, floppy disks? Propping the bunker door open with a crowbar? Large numbers of personnel flunking or cheating on their proficiency exams? That's maybe a hint we need to either put in large-scale modernization and retraining effort, or those toys need to be taken out of service. From what I've heard, a large part of the problem seems to be that within the USAF the missile wings are considered something of a dead-end career path in a service that bestows promotions, leadership positions, and funding on fighter and bomber pilots.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 4, 2015 8:29:35 GMT -6
Funny, and a bit colorful. I remember "duck and cover". Try getting under your desk at school, like it was really going to help. Every Monday we had sirens go off for their weekly tests. The only real problem time was when I was stationed on a mountain top north of San Francisco. My family was in San Diego, a major target and not even the birds knew where we were. Interesting time to live through. While I came in at the tail end of the Cold War (I was six when the Berlin Wall came down), it does elicit a derisive snort when I hear commentators say that the current geopolitical situation matches where we were "at the height of the Cold War." Some were using that level of hyperbole to describe the post-9/11 days, which prompted a very appropriate retort from Lewis Black - "Every two weeks when I was nine, my elementary school would have an air raid drill - I guess to remind me, 'I COULD DIE AT ANY MINUTE!'" That said, it's more than a bit unnerving to see the state the Minuteman launch facilities are in - I mean seriously, floppy disks? Propping the bunker door open with a crowbar? Large numbers of personnel flunking or cheating on their proficiency exams? That's maybe a hint we need to either put in large-scale modernization and retraining effort, or those toys need to be taken out of service. From what I've heard, a large part of the problem seems to be that within the USAF the missile wings are considered something of a dead-end career path in a service that bestows promotions, leadership positions, and funding on fighter and bomber pilots. I was born a year after WWII ended, I grew up in the Cold War and frankly, except for periodic school alerts and Monday sirens, everything was normal. Until the advent of ICBM's in the early 1960's the threat was Russian bombers which were easily detectable and defended against by our NIKE batteries. LAADCP and SFAADCP both were missile batteries around LA and SF. Here is a fun site about that era, you might enjoy it.
www.conelrad.com/about/faces.php?faces=01
As far as the state of our land based missile system, probably time to automate it or eliminate it. Just use the missile boats and such.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 4, 2015 8:29:58 GMT -6
Funny, and a bit colorful. I remember "duck and cover". Try getting under your desk at school, like it was really going to help. Every Monday we had sirens go off for their weekly tests. The only real problem time was when I was stationed on a mountain top north of San Francisco. My family was in San Diego, a major target and not even the birds knew where we were. Interesting time to live through. While I came in at the tail end of the Cold War (I was six when the Berlin Wall came down), it does elicit a derisive snort when I hear commentators say that the current geopolitical situation matches where we were "at the height of the Cold War." Some were using that level of hyperbole to describe the post-9/11 days, which prompted a very appropriate retort from Lewis Black - "Every two weeks when I was nine, my elementary school would have an air raid drill - I guess to remind me, 'I COULD DIE AT ANY MINUTE!'" That said, it's more than a bit unnerving to see the state the Minuteman launch facilities are in - I mean seriously, floppy disks? Propping the bunker door open with a crowbar? Large numbers of personnel flunking or cheating on their proficiency exams? That's maybe a hint we need to either put in large-scale modernization and retraining effort, or those toys need to be taken out of service. From what I've heard, a large part of the problem seems to be that within the USAF the missile wings are considered something of a dead-end career path in a service that bestows promotions, leadership positions, and funding on fighter and bomber pilots. I was born a year after WWII ended, I grew up in the Cold War and frankly, except for periodic school alerts and Monday sirens, everything was normal. Until the advent of ICBM's in the early 1960's the threat was Russian bombers which were easily detectable and defended against by our NIKE batteries. LAADCP and SFAADCP both were missile batteries around LA and SF. Here is a fun site about that era, you might enjoy it.
www.conelrad.com/about/faces.php?faces=01
As far as the state of our land based missile system, probably time to automate it or eliminate it. Just use the missile boats and such.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on May 9, 2015 19:08:33 GMT -6
As it stands with current arms-limitation treaties, the Navy is planning to deactivate 4 of the 24 missile tubes on each SSBN in the next few years. Given that those are more capable and survivable platforms, it might be better to ditch 56 Minuteman ICBMs instead. Even before that the boomers were limited to about a half-load of MIRVs under START (for similar reasons, the Minuteman loads were reduced from three RVs to one each). Might be worth just putting the land-based ICBM force out to pasture entirely and spreading the warhead cap across the boomer fleet, or alternately retaining more gravity bombs and cruise missiles. The USAF is currently planning to get rid of their B83 gravity bombs, which are the newest design in the arsenal.
Modernizing the ICBM force might turn out to be a big money pit on top of the F-35 and a new bomber, and the USAF might have to make some tough choices about what it wants to keep. The idea of automating the silos also scares the hell out of me, quite frankly.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 9, 2015 19:22:34 GMT -6
As it stands with current arms-limitation treaties, the Navy is planning to deactivate 4 of the 24 missile tubes on each SSBN in the next few years. Given that those are more capable and survivable platforms, it might be better to ditch 56 Minuteman ICBMs instead. Even before that the boomers were limited to about a half-load of MIRVs under START (for similar reasons, the Minuteman loads were reduced from three RVs to one each). Might be worth just putting the land-based ICBM force out to pasture entirely and spreading the warhead cap across the boomer fleet, or alternately retaining more gravity bombs and cruise missiles. The USAF is currently planning to get rid of their B83 gravity bombs, which are the newest design in the arsenal. Modernizing the ICBM force might turn out to be a big money pit on top of the F-35 and a new bomber, and the USAF might have to make some tough choices about what it wants to keep. The idea of automating the silos also scares the hell out of me, quite frankly. All this is a better idea, it keeps the missiles moving and hard to hit. Problem is, you are asking the USAF to give up its traditional role as the strategic force in the military, something it does not want to do. First SAC and now the missile command. All that's left is the air to air and air to ground, not much without a hot war.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on May 9, 2015 23:10:43 GMT -6
The USAF is always going to have a nuclear role with air-dropped weapons. While the Minuteman and SSBN crews do practice for "limited" nuclear strikes, turning the key on even one ICBM or SLBM is going to let a lot of people know the nukes are flying and potentially lead another nuclear power to ready or actually launch a retaliatory strike - remember both the US and Russia have had some close calls on that front. Generally speaking, those weapons are there for all-out nuclear war. If you want to take a limited number of targets out and have to use nukes, or if you're in a situation where you want the option to call the weapons back to base, manned delivery aircraft are the only game in town. Nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and bombs are cheap in comparison to maintaining ICBMs and the infrastructure necessary for them (imagine how much of a pain in the rear it is to maintain security over the missile fields), and unlike the ICBMs the delivery systems and personnel will get use in conventional conflicts.
Given how moribund the force has become and how relatively little attention has been paid to it by the USAF brass, I don't think it would be that difficult to get them to put the missile force on the chopping block if they get to keep an equal role in US Strategic Command and the money saved gets diverted to aircraft programs. If you asked the USAF leadership whether they would prefer 400 ICBMs or enough new bombers to replace the B-52 and B-1B fleets, they'd probably vote for the bombers. The real trick would be convincing the congressional representatives in Montana and Wyoming (North Dakota would be an easier job, considering Minot also hosts bombers) to let the Pentagon close those facilities.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 10, 2015 7:19:54 GMT -6
The USAF is always going to have a nuclear role with air-dropped weapons. While the Minuteman and SSBN crews do practice for "limited" nuclear strikes, turning the key on even one ICBM or SLBM is going to let a lot of people know the nukes are flying and potentially lead another nuclear power to ready or actually launch a retaliatory strike - remember both the US and Russia have had some close calls on that front. Generally speaking, those weapons are there for all-out nuclear war. If you want to take a limited number of targets out and have to use nukes, or if you're in a situation where you want the option to call the weapons back to base, manned delivery aircraft are the only game in town. Nuclear-tipped cruise missiles and bombs are cheap in comparison to maintaining ICBMs and the infrastructure necessary for them (imagine how much of a pain in the rear it is to maintain security over the missile fields), and unlike the ICBMs the delivery systems and personnel will get use in conventional conflicts. Given how moribund the force has become and how relatively little attention has been paid to it by the USAF brass, I don't think it would be that difficult to get them to put the missile force on the chopping block if they get to keep an equal role in US Strategic Command and the money saved gets diverted to aircraft programs. If you asked the USAF leadership whether they would prefer 400 ICBMs or enough new bombers to replace the B-52 and B-1B fleets, they'd probably vote for the bombers. The real trick would be convincing the congressional representatives in Montana and Wyoming (North Dakota would be an easier job, considering Minot also hosts bombers) to let the Pentagon close those facilities. To a lay person like you and I, that makes sense but to the USAF, the silos and missiles of the strategic missile force are the deterrent to anyone who considers nuclear war winnable. Air dropped nukes are nice and a necessary part of the force, but the ICBM force is the core of the USAF mission. They will find the budget money to retrain and improve the operation of the missile silos possibly even shut down some to reduce the force. They will not give them up and the mission to the US Navy.
Nuclear weapons are an anomaly in modern geopolitics, they are a badge of power to any and all who have them. They will not be used, everyone knows that even the radicals. They are used to put up a geopolitical sign saying "leave us alone".
As to whether the USAF would prefer bombers to missiles, here are some articles that give you the lay of land:
www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-air-force-approves-concept-future-icbm-eyes-navy-collaboration/
www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/MG1200/MG1210/RAND_MG1210.pdf
www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/473221/secaf-outlines-top-focus-areas-to-improve-icbm-career-field.aspx
Those missiles and silos are not going anywhere for a long time. I do believe that coordination with the USN is a good idea to reduce cost of updates and new missiles, it would help both. A whole new culture in the USAF needs to be generated about being an ICBM officer and enlisted person.
|
|