+Dave 2,322 Posted February 23, 2009 http://globalstrikecommand.com/ For you old heads check out what the command is made of. Gee looks like...... SAC! All that is old is new again. I knew it would be back. Now if they used the old SAC shield, the circle would be now be complete. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Viper6 3 Posted February 23, 2009 Chrome Dome Lives!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted February 23, 2009 I wonder how long before we start calling TACAMO, Looking Glass. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted February 23, 2009 I wonder how long before we start calling TACAMO, Looking Glass. I'm pretty sure the airborne battle staff still retains that callsign. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted February 23, 2009 I'm pretty sure the airborne battle staff still retains that callsign. Didn't know that. We has another call sign for them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jeremiah Weed 0 Posted February 23, 2009 I'm gong to call this what it is though. This is just a move to create more slots for command, and allow for more of the good 'ol boys to be promoted to General Officer. Missions won't change. Things won't get more efficient. Training won't change. The only thing that is going to change is what patch people wear and who they call their boss in the Chain of Command. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted February 23, 2009 I'm gong to call this what it is though. This is just a move to create more slots for command, and allow for more of the good 'ol boys to be promoted to General Officer. Missions won't change. Things won't get more efficient. Training won't change. The only thing that is going to change is what patch people wear and who they call their boss in the Chain of Command. Well their current commander is BGen James Kowalski. He was my wing CC at Tinker before BGen Robinson took over from him. BGen Kowalski is a old SAC B-52 pilot. He used to get the COMSEC gear from my dad back when they were at Wurtsmith AFB together. Hell of a good commander. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+X RAY 83 Posted February 23, 2009 Peace is THEIR OWN profession! :yes: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted February 23, 2009 Peace is THEIR OWN profession! :yes: is that because war is merely their hobby? its a JOKE guys!!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted February 23, 2009 Didn't know that. We has another call sign for them. on which net? at one time they still used that callsign after going to the E-6B. I don't know what they are doing now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted February 23, 2009 I'm gong to call this what it is though. This is just a move to create more slots for command, and allow for more of the good 'ol boys to be promoted to General Officer. Missions won't change. Things won't get more efficient. Training won't change. The only thing that is going to change is what patch people wear and who they call their boss in the Chain of Command. oh no. There is a huge difference in the training and mission focus that is driving this. actually - promotion opportunity for strategic guys in the bomber and missile wings has never been better. The reason for that, of course, is the longevity in the position only lasting to the next "assist" visit.......... This is huge and long, long overdue. For those of us who have ever been involved in the nuclear business - the recent failures in security, procedures, accountability, etc., were beyond shocking. this has been very badly needed. of course - the Navy came up clean and green on its inspections.............. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ghost029 1 Posted February 24, 2009 (edited) Not really, we had a boat rated not operational last year after failing a readiness exam. Lots of problems on the nuc side with logs being radio'd and changed. Seems the Eng knew about it. CO lost his command if I remember right. It was a pacific boat. And yes, having been a nuc and on a boomer, I was very saddened and worried about the problems in both services. The only place I have not heard of problems is the land base leg. Don't even know if it is still operational. Edited February 24, 2009 by Ghost029 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ST0RM 145 Posted February 24, 2009 Don't expect any tankers to make the move over to the new command. Despite our mission to support the bombers, AMC will not pony up any aircraft. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted February 24, 2009 Don't expect any tankers to make the move over to the new command. Despite our mission to support the bombers, AMC will not pony up any aircraft.Oh I know that, HOWEVER that they are still strategic assets and can become NORAD's and STRATCOMs bitch in a single EA message. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ST0RM 145 Posted February 24, 2009 We're all split as to where we want to be. There are some of the old heads still around who say that being combined with the bombers would be good, but then again, we'd be stuck with that as our ONLY mission. So it's a double edged sword. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted February 24, 2009 Oh I know that, HOWEVER that they are still strategic assets and can become NORAD's and STRATCOMs bitch in a single EA message. aint that the truth!! :yes: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,322 Posted February 25, 2009 We're all split as to where we want to be. There are some of the old heads still around who say that being combined with the bombers would be good, but then again, we'd be stuck with that as our ONLY mission. So it's a double edged sword. I tihnk they should leave the tanker out and just use them as needed. That way it not a jump trough hoops process to split the tanker force into who goes here and there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Jug 99 Posted February 25, 2009 Don't expect any tankers to make the move over to the new command. Despite our mission to support the bombers, AMC will not pony up any aircraft. My guess is that the nuclear strike force will get whatever assets it needs. If it needs tankers, off you boys will go. This nation's conventional forces, formidible as they are, are nothing compared to the "big stick" of the nuclear strike arm. Always has been and always will be. We can nudge a foreign power and, on occasion, slap them around a little with the conventional arms, but when time for kidding around is over, the big boys will be called in and the bleak future for said foreign power is the stone age and nothing less. Makes favorable negotiations seem like a real good thing in comparison. Imagine a map with a smoking hole between Iraq and Afganistan where Iran used to be and you'll get my drift. I am pleased to note that we have decided that we cannot play fighter pilot rules with nuclear weapons. You are looking for a lot higher level of professionalism and, evidently, we're not getting it today. Good on my Air Force for righting the ship before something stupid and very serious occured. Our Marines say it best, "We can be your best friend, or your worst enemy....your choice". I kinda like that better than "Peace is Our Profession". I always thought the words were ludicrous surrounding a mailed fist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lexx_Luthor 57 Posted February 25, 2009 Jug:: I kinda like that better than "Peace is Our Profession". I always thought the words were ludicrous surrounding a mailed fist. Think of it as a Xen thing. Its the same as the intention behind the 2nd Ammendment. An armed citizenry is a peaceful citizenry free from the violent tyranny of street thugs and government thugs. Peace is staying home and protecting your own families with a mailed fist, not running around the world playing "house to house" ensuring profits for bankers and corrupt politicians. When the B-52 and KC-135s became available, SAC came home. Every target in the world could be reached out to and Touched from USA (and Greenland). Here is a fascinating article on this: how SAC eagerly abandoned its overseas bases when advances in aviation finally allowed it. Strategic Frontier: American Bomber Bases Overseas, 1950-1960 [301 Pages] PDF FILE by Kurt Schake~> http://www.theblackvault.com/documents/ADA353633.pdf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted February 25, 2009 The idea of grouping the tankers with the bombers argues against the whole "tankers should double as cargo lifters" idea they've been trying to sell. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted February 25, 2009 Need to put the tankers on a force generation requirement at the various levels of readiness - which I will not further explain...... So when you need them - what you need is there. When the stuff hits the fan is not the time to be putting in Request For Forces memos. that still leaves the bulk of the tanker force under AMC for the standard missions being done today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+ST0RM 145 Posted February 26, 2009 The idea of grouping the tankers with the bombers argues against the whole "tankers should double as cargo lifters" idea they've been trying to sell.Any extra cargo gets moved by the KC-10, and we come along and "Force Extend" them. They take-off with min gas to maximize their lift, we top them off and away they go. Hence why they do all of the fighter moves. But age is catching up to them and they are seeing some significant dips in their mission capability numbers. You could always contract out your lift. I know of a certain freight company that's always happy to carry stuff. Hell, our aircraft are even compatible with your KC-10 loaders... Of course, we'd have to buy a few MD-17s to carry the outsized stuff... FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
