CSAF endorses more nuke consolidation

CSAF endorses more nuke consolidation

Here’s an update for your org chart: The Air Force is moving the units responsible for handling its nuclear weapons under the aegis of its newish Global Strike Command, the service announced Monday.

Although B-2s, B-52s, ICBMs and their support crews have been part of Global Strike for two years, the “munitions support squadrons” that handle the actual weapons have been organized under Air Force Materiel Command. When the Air Force suffered all those high-profile embarrassments over its nuclear mission, it wanted to rebuild its nuke-handling ability from the ground up, even as it stood up Global Strike Command. Today the munitions support units are ready to be part of the larger team, Schwartz said.

Per the Air Force’s announcement:


“The munitions squadrons were placed under Air Force Materiel Command at the outset of our effort to reinvigorate the nuclear enterprise,” Schwartz said. “AFMC and its leaders have done an outstanding job restoring excellence in munitions operations, and they, along with the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center, will remain a key part of the nuclear munitions sustainment and integration process.”

The realignment will allow for enhanced unity of command under a single major command responsible for most of the nuclear operational mission, he said. This will continue focused oversight and standardization of nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, and re-entry vehicles/systems maintenance, storage, accountability, handling and control.

“Most important, by doing this we are continuing to strengthen the nuclear enterprise while seeking constant improvement and doing things the best way possible for safe, secure and effective operations,” Schwartz said.

Which units does this affect? Here they are, again per the Air Force:

The 798th Munitions Maintenance Group at Minot Air Force Base, N.D.; 498th Munitions Maintenance Group at Whiteman AFB, Mo.; 15th Munitions Squadron at F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo.; 16th Munitions Squadron at Malmstrom AFB, Mont.; 17th Munitions Squadron at Minot AFB; 19th Munitions Squadron at Whiteman AFB; 498th Nuclear Systems Wing at Kirtland AFB, N.M.; and 798th Munitions Maintenance Group, Detachment 1, at Vandenberg AFB, Calif.

The next shoes to drop could be “manpower and unit realignments,” the Air Force says, suggesting that Global Strike might want to combine these units coming in with existing groups it already uses in support of handling nukes. Whatever happens, Schwartz clearly believes that letting Global Strike boss Lt. Gen. Jim Kowalski have command of everyone involved is a big vote of confidence in him and the unit.

Join the Conversation

Funding and responsibility for the current Minuteman III ICBM (and its replacement) should be transitioned from the Air Force to the Navy.

With responsibility for both systems, the Navy would be well motivated to develop significant commonality in replacement missile programs, a new SLBM and new ICBM sharing guidance and fire control systems at a minimum.

The Navy will be procuring newly developed systems for the Ohio replacement submarine, SSBN(x). It would be useful if additional requirements for land based systems (a Minuteman III replacement) were included early in that development so that the resulting system could accomodate either application without complicating the logistical support with unecessary system variation.

that makes about as much sense as transferring funding and responsibility for SLBM’s to the Air Force.

The big difference is that the current Ohio class SSBNs, their upcoming replacement, and the SLBM strategic weapon system have highest priority in the strategic triad. And UK shares its strategic weapon system, the only strategic weapon system for UK. Development of the Ohio replacements will be funded and some will be built, how many remains an open question.

Panetta has clearly said that Minuteman III has lowest priority and is at highest risk of being dropped if there will be significant cuts to strategic defense funding. It is also the leg of the triad most in need of replacement or major tech upgrade.

SLBMs have a future, but ICBMs may not have a future if they do not move toward sharing SLBM’s guidance, fire control, missile interfaces, tube intrrfaces, spares, maintanace, training systems, etc. A system that accomodates both uses has different requirements than systems designed only for one use, either land based or submarine based. Minuteman III and its replacemnt should be transferred to the Navy, because if the Navy is responsible for both SLBMs and ICBMs, the Navy will be sure that one replacement system is designed to accomodate both, with a lot less infighting.

The big difference is that Ohio class SSBNs, the Ohio replacement, and the SLBM strategic weapon system have highest priority in the strategic triad. UK shares that strategic weapon system, the only strategic weapon system for UK. Ohio will be funded, replacements will be funded, and some will be built, but how many remains an open question.

Panetta says Minuteman III has lowest priority and is at risk of being dropped if there will be significant cuts to strategic defense funding. It is in need of replacement.

SLBMs have a future, but ICBMs may not have a future if they do not move toward sharing SLBM’s guidance, fire control, missile interfaces, tube interfaces, spares, maintanace, training systems, etc.

Minuteman III and its replacemnt should be transferred to the Navy, because if the Navy is responsible for both SLBMs and ICBMs, one replacement system will be designed to accomodate both with a lot of shared commonality.

the system tells me my post is too long. I reword it to shorten it. and now both show up. ???

hey JRT, your reasoning makes a lot of sense especially so since the Navy already operates the TACAMO fleet. The ICBM leg is by far the least important of the three and perhaps by transferring them to the Navy they could improve the moral of the group, which I hear is real dismal.

Opinions are like assholes… Everybodys got one, and most of em stink!!!

Transferring responsibility for ICBMs to the Navy makes as much sense as Marines involved in combat in a land-locked country; oh, wait; the Marines ARE involved in combat in a land-locked country.
Seriously, the Navy already has a full plate: starting construction on the DDG-1000s, building more targets (oops, Littoral Combat Ship), fielding the F35, designing the next submarine, etc.
If the ICBM force is transferred to the Navy what happens to the silo crews? Do they and their security forces also transfer to the Navy? Admittedly, the Air Force is top-heavy with officers but this is not the way to reduce their numbers.
Frankly, the Navy IS NOT knowledgeable about land based missiles, a joint project with the Air Force makes more sense.

Sounds to me like we should have stuck with the old system…SAC, MAC and TAC…Another waste of tax payer dollars…hum, will things ever change?

AMEN, and AMEN Preacher ! USAFarce keeps trying to re-invent the wheel. Just like every CofS has had to put his stamp on the uniform. I’ve been retired for as long as I served(28yr) and I weep for my service. If it worked, why change just for change of to add more useless GOs. USAF needs to cut GO by 50% minimum.
GO out before E5, that will take care of the budget cuts. Hear that SecDef ?

What was wrong with SAC?

Not a darned thing. The problem is that the egomaniacs at the Pentagon don’t want to admit they made a MASSIVE mistake by merging SAC and TAC into ACC. By bringing back SAC, the Air FARCE would admit they thoroughly screwed up.

RD, you are so right. I got very scared in 1980 when Lew Allen, Jr was CofS and he decied that officers were no longer leaders, but managers and NCOs were called supervisors. Now we get to the “business mentality”. Along came the egomaniac extraordinaire Tony McPeak with his crummy uniforms and his simple minded mentaliy… then merging SAC and TAC… what a dumb move. I’m glad I got out 30 years ago. The officers are dumber than ever and the generals have the ethics of a Biloxi Brothel.

Now, now… those GOs are just practicing what they learned as Captains at SOS, i.e. how to “manage” .…which in itself would not have been so bad if the “manage” applied to their jobs and not their careers! We actually used to have a chuckle or two about the salient differences between “professional” officers and “career” officers back in the 70s and early 80s. Strange how few of those that aligned with the “professional” viewpoint got their stars.

As for the rest, how many times did your wing get a new O-6, and in his rush to make his mark, he changed perfectly good procedures or policies? I suspect that if we look hard enough we would find some of those “welcome wagon” changes feeding into the recent spate problems at ACC (particularly the nuke weapon handling problems). In the old SAC, they could diddle with the commissary or BX policies but even the saddest excuse for a colonel knew “DONT MESS WITH THE ORDNANCE! ”

Didn’t we just go thru this dance 2 years ago? Now all we need to do is move the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center to make AFGSC the be all end all OTE nuke MAJCOM. If AFSPC can have SMC to help justify its existence then this is a no brainer.

It all went down hill with the demise of SAC!

ICBM’s are a key feature of the Triad. Without them we are left with about 20 aim points for Russia’s 1550 warheads. Heaven help us if SSBNs ever became vulnerable.

Having 420 ICBM’s would make the Russians have to use around 1080 warheads to achieve a 95% to 100% Pk. It is very doubtful they would use that many to take out 420 of our warheads.

Russia and the US aren’t going to nuke each other. That is your mistake.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement