Air Force Hullabaloo

[salwon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/washington/06military.html?hp...it would be funny if it weren't so horrifying.

For the lazy:

The inquiry involving the Air Force was an effort to determine how four high-tech electrical nose cone fuses for Minuteman nuclear warheads were sent to Taiwan in place of helicopter batteries. The mistake was discovered in March — a year and a half after the mistaken shipment.

Mr. Gates made clear that most troubling was that the inquiry showed how little the Air Force had done to improve the security of the nuclear weapons infrastructure even after it was disclosed last year that a B-52 bomber had flown across the United States without anyone’s realizing that it was carrying six armed nuclear cruise missiles.



"Hey Taiwan, did you get those batteries?"
"Uhhh, batteries, yeah, yeah, our helicopters fly great now!"

[Aleck]

"Hey Taiwan, did you get those batteries?"
"Uhhh, batteries, yeah, yeah, our helicopters fly great now!"

Actually, if I recall correctly, the way we found out about it is that the Taiwanese asked for the helicopter batteries again, and told us we'd shipped them something else by mistake. If I recall correctly, analysts at the time pointed out that the fuses, had they been reverse-engineered, would have been significantly more valuable than helicopter batteries (or even helicopters).

Pretty scary stuff when you get right down to it.

[krise madsen]

I remember when the first accident (flying around with nuclear tipped cruise missiles that nobody knew about) happened, there were a lot of "this is preparations for nuking Iran!" predictions flying around. I was pretty sure it was an accident, but I did wonder how the US military, traditionally very anal about nuclear security, could screw up so badly.

The problem should be fixable though: The US military has 50 years experience in borderline paranoid nuclear security measures (as it should be). Surely, reintroducing these measures should be fairly straightforward (albeit expensive).

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Fooey]

The reasons for the firings being put forth are these ridiculous management screw ups, but I've read and heard in a few places that the deeper problem was that the Air Force leadership was spending most of its time planning for some possible future war in 30 years against Russia or China instead of focusing their efforts on Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Moore]

Well, the Al Quaeda and Iraqi Insurgent Air forces do not require much thought to go after do they?

[Rollory]

the US military, traditionally very anal about nuclear security,

Is it safe to assume you have no actual knowledge of this subject whatsoever?

The US military has 50 years experience in borderline paranoid nuclear security measures

What's your evidence for that statement? TV shows?

I've spoken to a few military and ex-military who had some pretty interesting stories to tell about attitudes around nukes (in the context of guard duty, transport, that sort of thing). Paranoia and anal-ness was not part of the equation. They were big things to make jokes about, if that. Just big bombs. They kill you as dead as a smaller one does if you're right next to it. The security lapses under investigation here are not surprising at all in that context.

[Fooey]

Well, the Al Quaeda and Iraqi Insurgent Air forces do not require much thought to go after do they?

Targeted attacks against Taliban leaders in Pakistan seem to be pretty crucial to the war in Afghanistan.

[Ezdaar]

Seems like a nice way to give Taiwan some tech that we're not supposed to give them.

[salwon]

I've spoken to a few military and ex-military who had some pretty interesting stories to tell about attitudes around nukes (in the context of guard duty, transport, that sort of thing). Paranoia and anal-ness was not part of the equation.

This makes perfect sense to me, there's no real reason to treat nukes any differently from any other big bomb...personally, I'd like to think our cluster bombs are pretty tightly secured too. I just don't understand how this happens in the first place - was the box of helicopter batteries sitting next to the box of nuclear fuses and someone grabbed the wrong one?

And how many of these things were shipped to countries that don't mind a little reverse-engineering?

[Doctor Hillbilly]

Over at Wired's Danger Room, which has been pretty up to date on this, they imply that the real reason for the dismissals relates more to difficulties in force adaptation than the nuke issues. Under that scenario, Gates is just using nukes as the lever. (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/breaking-air-fo.html)

No idea which is true, but the combo seems more than sufficient cause to make some changes.

On a side note, I really like the job Gates is doing. He's the kind of pragmatic realist I wish we'd had more of from this (disastrous-for-lack thereof) administration. I wonder if he'd stay on in a hypothetical Obama presidency?

[salwon]

Yeah it seems like just the straw that broke the camel's back. And by "straw" I mean our nuclear arsenal, and by "camel" I mean top ranking military officials.

Sometimes idioms don't really work that well.

But yeah, I think it's just cutting out some incompetent leaders, nothing wrong with that. Where was Gates in 2001, why couldn't he have been SoD this whole time?

[jeffd]

The real issue is that the Air Force just doesn't have a mission in the modern world. Probably they should just be folded into the Army, there's no reason for them to exist as a separate entity. Plus they're a huge budget sink right now.

[Sarkus]

The real issue is that the Air Force just doesn't have a mission in the modern world. Probably they should just be folded into the Army, there's no reason for them to exist as a separate entity. Plus they're a huge budget sink right now.

That's an odd statement to make. If we had a purely defensive military, the Air Force and Navy make the most sense to maintain at a high level, with the Army kept at a minimal level. Plus, there are things like space activities, strategic missiles and bombers, etc., that you need to managed seperately from the grunts.

An air force as part of the army makes sense as long as the primary job of the air force is to support army operations. Once it gets beyond that narrow role, it needs to be seperate.

[jeffd]

So what's the job of the Air Force then?

[Sarkus]

So what's the job of the Air Force then?

Defense of air space, strategic nuclear weapons (bombers and missiles), and support of army operations. However, the army has it's own air assets (helicopters) so this latter role is shared, plus the navy also provides help in that regard.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Mostly they bomb stuff.

Seriously, think about all the American "show of force" military actions that involve aerial bombing. It's colorful and distinctive and too expensive for the victims to retaliate in kind. American diplomacy has explosions on speed-dial.

[jeffd]

The need for strategic bombing stuff is IMO mostly gone. It made sense in the Cold War, less sense now.

For defending airspace - who exactly are we defending against? Canada?

That leaves us with supporting army operations... which the army could do just fine on its own.

In a post Cold-War world there doesn't, IMO, exist a need for the Air Force. There definitely isn't a justification for the level of funding it receives today.

[Sarkus]

If you're going to make that argument, we might as well get rid of the navy as well. Who are we defending our shores against, right?

[Woolen Horde]

The need for strategic bombing stuff is IMO mostly gone. It made sense in the Cold War, less sense now.


Strategic bombing may be mostly gone; after all, we have heavy bombers providing CAS now. But the Air Force is--like the Navy--useful for rapid power projection. The AF can hit a target anywhere on planet in less than 12 hours if given the order right now. It's arguable that no other country can claim the same.

With that said, Gates has been pissed that the Air Force brass is busy buying and trying to justfiy buying more whiz-bang next-generation fighter planes that won't be used for the wars of the moment.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Yeah, I'm not talking about strategic bombing so much as political bombing. You know, for propaganda.

[triggercut]

For the record, I thought Elvis was great in "Air Force Hullabaloo". Much better film than "Clambake".

[salwon]

For defending airspace - who exactly are we defending against? Canada?

Hey, you never know who's going to need a nice Police Action next...

[jeffd]

If you're going to make that argument, we might as well get rid of the navy as well. Who are we defending our shores against, right?

You mean the Coast Guard, right? The Navy's job has for a long time been focused more around power projection than anything else.

[jeffd]

Strategic bombing may be mostly gone; after all, we have heavy bombers providing CAS now. But the Air Force is--like the Navy--useful for rapid power projection. The AF can hit a target anywhere on planet in less than 12 hours if given the order right now. It's arguable that no other country can claim the same.

With that said, Gates has been pissed that the Air Force brass is busy buying and trying to justfiy buying more whiz-bang next-generation fighter planes that won't be used for the wars of the moment.

I guess there's some justification for being able to bomb some cave in the middle of nowhere on a half day's notice. That's about it though. Like I said, I'm willing to entertain the idea that maybe we need a seperate Air Force for some limited roles. But we certainly don't need the Air Force as it currently exists.

[Sarkus]

You mean the Coast Guard, right? The Navy's job has for a long time been focused more around power projection than anything else.

The Coast Guard has minimal weapons on its ships. It's really more of a seach and rescue service with very limited defensive abilities.

[jeffd]

I know that - I was trying to make a joke. Should have appended a smiley.

The point remains though - the Navy's fundamental task isn't defending our shores, it's power protection. There's a reason that the backbone of our navy is the carrier battle group. :D

[krise madsen]

Is it safe to assume you have no actual knowledge of this subject whatsoever?

What's your evidence for that statement? TV shows?

I've spoken to a few military and ex-military who had some pretty interesting stories to tell about attitudes around nukes (in the context of guard duty, transport, that sort of thing). Paranoia and anal-ness was not part of the equation. They were big things to make jokes about, if that. Just big bombs. They kill you as dead as a smaller one does if you're right next to it. The security lapses under investigation here are not surprising at all in that context.

No, you're just reading too much into my (admittedly poor) attempt at humour. What I meant to say was that there has (for obvious reasons) been quite fastidious security (which includes keeping track of every weapon) around US nuclear weapons, compared to, say, artillery shells. Therefore I was somewhat surprised to learn of the first incident.

From the reports it would seem that with the diminished emphasis on nuclear readiness (after the end of the cold war), security measures (or rather, I would assume, enforcing them) have also suffered, hence the recent incidents. Though since the latter incident was, I suppose, a case of nuclear-related technology rather than weapons proper, I wouldn't know if that would fall under the same security measures.

All I'm saying is that the US military has half a century of experience in handling, and keeping secure, nuclear weapons. Much of it during the Cold War where nuked had to be secured while at the same time being ready for rapid deployment. If the lessons learned have been forgotten, then the institutional knowledge should surely enable them to be re-learned.

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Linoleum]

Your reading assignment (http://www.amazon.com/Limits-Safety-Scott-Douglas-Sagan/dp/0691021015/) on the topic of nuclear weapons safety.

[ydejin]

I thought this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060900747.html?hpid=topnews) was interesting. The new Air Force Chief of Staff is going to be a logistics guy and former transportation pilot not a fighter pilot.

The choice of [Air Force Chief of Staff Nominee] Schwartz could indicate a major shift for the Air Force, as he does not emerge from the ranks of the Air Force's fighter pilots and has spent recent years serving in joint commands, helping all the services during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. His nomination could indicate a desire to remove fighter jet culture from the top ranks of the Air Force, as Gates has repeatedly said that the services should focus more on modern counter-insurgency warfare and peel away from conventional Cold War mindsets. The F-22 debate, for example, highlights the Air Force's desire to have a faster, more agile fighter to go up against major world powers in the air, while Gates has pointed out that the F-22 has not flown a single mission in Iraq.

"General Schwartz is one of the very few top generals the Air Force has produced in modern times who is not a fighter pilot," said Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute. "He has piloted cargo planes and helicopters, which makes him more knowledgeable about logistics and the support needs of other services. Air Force insiders will view this selection of a chief of staff from outside the 'fighter mafia' as a sign of changing priorities, but the reality may be simpler. General Schwartz is the best the modern Air Force has to offer."

[Linoleum]

The sooner the grip of the fighter mafia is broken, the better.

[Funkula]

News like this makes me feel like there are competent people sprinkled here and there in the top echelons of the government, which is a feeling I don't get often these days. It's good to see that Gates was a decent choice for SecDef, even if it probably happened by mistake.

[id4698]

So what's the job of the Air Force then?

To produce attractive, young, female airmen for Marines and Soldiers to play with.

[Woolen Horde]

Wow, looks like the Army hasn't just gotten the okay to operate fix-winged aircraft, it has secretly had a battalion doing so in Iraq for quite some time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22military.html

I always thought it was a matter of law (Congress) that the Army couldn't operate fixed-wing aircraft, just rotary-winged vehicles.

It says a lot if the Army feels it has to operate its own fixed-wing assets, and that it's getting better results than what the Air Force is doing. Ouch.

[XPav]

Army's been flying recon aircraft for years. I knew an old OV-1D Mohawk pilot when I interned at Jane's.

[Mike O'Malley]

Wasn't the A-10 an Army aircraft?

[Tankero]

Indeed.

http://www.fotos.org/galeria/data/636/medium/A-10-aviones-de-combate.jpg

Such a gloriously ugly and agile fatass pitfighter.

[CommunistWalrus]

Wow, looks like the Army hasn't just gotten the okay to operate fix-winged aircraft, it has secretly had a battalion doing so in Iraq for quite some time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22military.html

I always thought it was a matter of law (Congress) that the Army couldn't operate fixed-wing aircraft, just rotary-winged vehicles.

It says a lot if the Army feels it has to operate its own fixed-wing assets, and that it's getting better results than what the Air Force is doing. Ouch.

Someone already mentioned it, but the Army has a number of very small, dull and uninteresting fixed wing aircraft (C-23 and C-12) for hauling small cargo and observation. Allegedly the Lear Jets that high ranking generals get to fly around in are also piloted by Army officers/warrant officers.

[Guido Jones]

Wasn't the A-10 an Army aircraft?

No - it is run by the Air Force. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-10_Warthog

[Tankero]

Well, I stand corrected.

[Mark Asher]

Interesting stuff. I still the US needs the capability to hit a target fast and hard, so some kind of bombing is required. Is it better and cheaper to just launch missiles, or will planes be better for this?

[JeffL]

Interesting stuff. I still the US needs the capability to hit a target fast and hard, so some kind of bombing is required. Is it better and cheaper to just launch missiles, or will planes be better for this?

There will always be a need to be able to get in and do pinpoint close air support of the troops on the ground that missiles can't currently provide - the kind of situation where the pilot gets to the area of action and then is told as he gets there, due to the dynamic ebb and flow of the action, what needs to be done. Sometimes a pair of eyes and some judgment is required.

But I assume the technology for missiles will continue to progress to a point where many of the assignments for a pilot will be replaced.