Nuclear trigger

ARTICLE: Top Two Air Force Officials Ousted, By Ann Scott Tyson and Josh White, Washington Post, June 6, 2008; Page A01

I think the nukes is trigger (pun intended), but real deal is next-war-itis charge of foot dragging. Don't know Chief but Wynne always impressed me.

Still, signals are signals and Gates sending plenty in time he's got left.

Comments

[JW]

I think the tanker deal and the radical personnel downsizing to pay for expensive plane develoment also had a major factor.

I believe the mishandling of nuclear materials was a conveniet excuse, and possibly the final straw.

[Gerry Mauer]

Concur with Tom's assessment. Foot dragging and getting onboard, but with a certain amount of whining, with assisting the Army and Marines with their current operations in the short term was not helpful. Gen Schwartz as the proposed Chief of Staff is brilliant. He's non-parochial, a true Joint Officer, and did not grow up in the traditional USAF mainline to the top. Assuming he gets through confirmation, he'll be very good for the Service and the country.

[Louis Heberlein]

Curious contradictions. The Air Force has led the development of new energy and other technologies for well over a decade. They defined requirements and became the first buyer to promote the innovations for our newer economy.

Since the beginning of the Clinton administration their bomber and fighter tactics and technologies evolved to high altitude precision strikes that have been very effective in Afghanistan and Iraq. They expanded UAV mission scope far beyond that of the Navy. Yet they were unable to maintain discipline to properly manage nukes using decades proven methods, or to provide the UAV capability scope Gates wanted. Also, how often do you see daily JTAC activities mentioned by the general media? Something afoot, Watson?

[Anonymous]

let's not go too far on the praise, Louis. iirc, the AF didn't move on UAVs until after the CIA developed them. with their proposed budgets, you could say they still haven't really 'embraced' them. and, of course, they should develop them beyond the Navy! still, the Navy will get UCAS first, even if Northrop Grumman has a black NGB program.

[Michael]

The unanswered questions seem to be: How many heads can Gates get rolling over the AF's screwups? and Will they be enough to get some real change going?

Depending on the answer to the latter question, I'm also wondering if Gates has the power to transfer ground attack and tactical transport duties to the Army--that's one other way to drive home the fact that they aren't doing their jobs properly.

[Louis Heberlein]

SeanMy comments were not meant as praise for the AF, but to show the inconsistency involved in the nuke control and UAV expansion failures topics with AF successes.

The UAV development factor is a relatively minor compared to AF/DOD initiatives in defining requirements and demonstrating their use in a wide technology span from computer based efficient tailored small unit volume design and manufacturing, through communications, superconductivity and nano-technology, to Flash Gordon type space/air war applications in small conflicts.

The CIA is more suited to quick small volume use of available new techniques and technologies for special use. In the UAV case, it was drone tech. If there had been common knowledge of the drone/UAV technology, the bad guys would have been more cautious.

I really don't see that an AF organization that could handle so many new technologies could fail to manage old nuke logistics, or to rapidly expand its demonstrated UAV capacity ... unless.

The Navy is supposed to be limiting its UAV applications to surveillance and specialized uses, and no one in DOD seems concerned. But then, whatever happened to that A-12 tech stuff?