PDA

View Full Version : Inspections



takthekak
02-24-2010, 11:59 PM
2 Malmstrom units fail nuke inspections

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Feb 24, 2010 15:15:17 EST

Two more Air Force units have failed nuclear surety inspections. The 341st Missile Wing and 16th Munitions Squadron, both at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont., received “unsatisfactory” grades from inspectors Feb. 9.

Both the wing and the squadron can still handle nuclear weapons, said John Thomas and Ron Fry, spokesmen for Global Strike Command and Air Force Materiel Command, respectively.

Global Strike Command oversees the wing, and AFMC oversees the squadron.

Inspectors from each respective command will return to the units in three months, the spokesmen said.

VFFSSGT
02-25-2010, 12:52 AM
I can't speak to nukes specifically, but I can speak to AF Inspections....

1) Regulations are excessively numerous and beyond unorganized - knowing everything is like trying to find a needle in the haystack.

2) Inspection checklists ask very broad questions; inspectors operate solely off these questions - not knowing the details of the entire regulation or even the entire paragraph the requirement is found in.

3) Inspection checklists themselves are numerous and disorganized.

4) Commanders and SNCO's more worried about doing things their OWN way

We can reorganize the structure of the AF 1,000 times - it will never solve the root problem

Inspection failures are due to inflated performance reports and promoting people too soon. AND because the AF primary mission has become Booster Club, Community Events, Airman's Creed, and PT....rather than KNOWING YOUR JOB.

takthekak
02-25-2010, 01:08 AM
This was the best article I read awhile ago on the subject...
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/12/airforce_nuke_failure_121908/

ChiefB
02-25-2010, 01:46 AM
2 Malmstrom units fail nuke inspections

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Feb 24, 2010 15:15:17 EST

Two more Air Force units have failed nuclear surety inspections. The 341st Missile Wing and 16th Munitions Squadron, both at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Mont., received “unsatisfactory” grades from inspectors Feb. 9.

Both the wing and the squadron can still handle nuclear weapons, said John Thomas and Ron Fry, spokesmen for Global Strike Command and Air Force Materiel Command, respectively.

Global Strike Command oversees the wing, and AFMC oversees the squadron.

Inspectors from each respective command will return to the units in three months, the spokesmen said.

Now, these are two units that the Commands ought to man up and decertify so that they can get their shyt together without the "Man" hovering over their shoulder.

Then they ought to do a HQ staff assistance visit and roll up their sleeves and do whatever they can to standardize and "assist" in correcting the unit's deficiencies.

Then, certify the unit to be ready for inspection and have it reinspected, rated and recertified. That way, the HQ staff can accept some of the burden for their good/bad guidance.

There is a hell of a disconnect here between HQ staff hovering with immunity over units that are suffering from poor leadership and HQ guidance.

We have to start creeping up the chain of command, sooner or later and find the dilettantes that are consistently letting their units twist in the wind.

It is no excuse that "only" the IG is cognizant of weak units and the HQ staff is innocently oblivious. They have responsibilities of oversight and should be aware of the good, the bad, and the ugly before the guns land and shoot the players.

ChiefB

mjt
02-25-2010, 02:28 AM
Here's where the AF should be concentrating their "fit to fight" instead of "fit to test" motto. It p****** me off to no end that we can throw all types of money into a PT program; new uniforms, civilian testers, man hours into developing a program/new OI's, yet here we stand facing one of our biggest missions in the Air Force, Nuclear Surety, and we seem surprised when a unit fails, then simply turn around and tell these units to "work harder" and "fix it."

This is a systemic problem in the Air Force, a combination of broadened responsibility and increased duties outside their primary ones, for our shrinking military population.

I am not saying this problem rests solely w/ those at the top. It is a shared responsibility. Inspections are testing our safety, reliability and readiness, which puts the spotlight on our Junior enlisted/officers, our workhorses.

Bu there must also be someone to prioritize this mission as coming first, and these additional duties second. You simply cannot afford to prepare 60-90 days out for an inspection and be confident in going forward. Sadly, this is what I see from a majority of units. Call it mismanagement, fear of leadership backlash, whatever it is... it is definitely a problem, and rather than simply saying "fix it" and then breathing a collective sigh of relief until preparing 60 days out for the next inspection, the issue needs to be brought to the forefront and dealt with.

Sadly I fear that won't happen because the conclusions would not be considered acceptable.

/soapbox

Bunch
02-25-2010, 02:32 AM
Now lets go and check everyone EPR's in those two units.....lets see how many firewall 5's are there!!! probably everybody

BTW, I did pass my year recruiter inspection today..

BRUWIN
02-25-2010, 02:56 AM
Inspection failures are due to inflated performance reports and promoting people too soon. AND because the AF primary mission has become Booster Club, Community Events, Airman's Creed, and PT....rather than KNOWING YOUR JOB.

Is it just me or is the Creed dying a slow death? I don't think it's near the big deal it was thank god.

VFFSSGT
02-25-2010, 03:00 AM
Is it just me or is the Creed dying a slow death? I don't think it's near the big deal it was thank god.

You haven't been to my base lately then... We, well I should say the Airmen, recite it like we are zombies at almost every function. Of course, the Chief that usually makes us is deployed...so I feel sorry for the guys in the AOR right now. :) But, he has rubbed off on a few others.

I hope it is slowly dying though.

edoc118
02-25-2010, 03:00 AM
Is it just me or is the Creed dying a slow death? I don't think it's near the big deal it was thank god.

I haven't heard any new music from Creed in a while, either. I think they broke up.

Shhhh.... ;)

VFFSSGT
02-25-2010, 03:04 AM
STOP! This is a no go! We supposedly get referral 3 EPR's for FAILING the PT TEST. EVERYONE involved in these inspections should get a referral 3 EPR....

Capt Alfredo
02-25-2010, 03:09 AM
STOP! This is a no go! We supposedly get referral 3 EPR's for FAILING the PT TEST. EVERYONE involved in these inspections should get a referral 3 EPR....

You're right. If the PT test is important enough that you can get a referral report for failing it, then for sure screwing up a nuke test ought to be just as important. Somehow, I'm quite sure that won't happen.

VFFSSGT
02-25-2010, 03:11 AM
You're right. If the PT test is important enough that you can get a referral report for failing it, then for sure screwing up a nuke test ought to be just as important. Somehow, I'm quite sure that won't happen.

Nope...because they will all get a '5' for "revamping" the program. :rolleyes:

takthekak
02-25-2010, 03:16 AM
All I can think of is how the heck do you treat root causes, I think it is not
very easy to do. It's kind of like having a cold with no cure...You can
give some over the counter meds, which will mask the illness or cure
some symptoms...If it get's worse, you get antobiotics, which will
help, but it may built an immunity to it...so in the end, you may end up
stuck with the cold, year after year...

n00bstruck
02-25-2010, 03:19 AM
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/nuclear.pdf

"Reinvigorating the Air Force Nuclear Enterprise is our highest priority." -Memorandom signed by both Secretary Donley and General Schwartz and dated 24 Oct 2008.

My question is simple. What has changed since a B-52 loaded with nuclear weapons flew to Barksdale? Sure, we have a new command that is supposed to focus on the "Nuclear Enterprise"; sure, inspections are now "no notice"; sure, wing commanders are being held accountable for the actions of their units.

But what has changed? Do these units now get the manning they require to conduct their operations according to regulations? Do these units recieve funding for the equipment they are required to have/use? Have any oeprational changes been made to how the mission is accomplished at these units?

If our leadership is going to say that reinvigorating the Air Force Nuclear Enterprise is our highest priority, then when are they going to prove it? The current requirements cannot be met with the people, equipment, and operational procedures that are currently being used. Proof of this can be found in every inspeciton failure, every "incident", and any time people don't want to be assigned to these units because of the mission.

VFFSSGT
02-25-2010, 03:24 AM
All I can think of is how the heck do you treat root causes, I think it is not
very easy to do. It's kind of like having a cold with no cure...You can
give some over the counter meds, which will mask the illness or cure
some symptoms...If it get's worse, you get antobiotics, which will
help, but it may built an immunity to it...so in the end, you may end up
stuck with the cold, year after year...

It wouldn't be easy...it would require an AF systematic/culture change
Worker-bee Manning needs to come back up; Stop contracting everything out
Leaders need to get their priorities in order
Regulations need to be streamlined and all in ONE location
Inspection Lists need to be streamlined and standardized as well
Performance Rating System would need overhauled
Shut down most awards programs
Emphasis on specialty & job knowledge emphasized again
Shut down MOST of the "After-School" Programs (Booster, 5/6, etc)
Stop re-forwarding 1,000 emails a day
Stop having a CC after every ARI and/or DUI - waste of manhours

Just a start...

takthekak
02-25-2010, 03:25 AM
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/nuclear.pdf

"Reinvigorating the Air Force Nuclear Enterprise is our highest priority." -Memorandom signed by both Secretary Donley and General Schwartz and dated 24 Oct 2008.

My question is simple. What has changed since a B-52 loaded with nuclear weapons flew to Barksdale? Sure, we have a new command that is supposed to focus on the "Nuclear Enterprise"; sure, inspections are now "no notice"; sure, wing commanders are being held accountable for the actions of their units.

But what has changed? Do these units now get the manning they require to conduct their operations according to regulations? Do these units recieve funding for the equipment they are required to have/use? Have any oeprational changes been made to how the mission is accomplished at these units?

If our leadership is going to say that reinvigorating the Air Force Nuclear Enterprise is our highest priority, then when are they going to prove it? The current requirements cannot be met with the people, equipment, and operational procedures that are currently being used. Proof of this can be found in every inspeciton failure, every "incident", and any time people don't want to be assigned to these units because of the mission.

I think you got it right...This new command just stood up...can 10-20 years be changed in 1-2
years, of course not...Also, going from standard inspections to no notice, is like going from
pre announced tests to pop quizes in school and everyone always does much worse on quizzes.
Lastly, be wary of catch phrases, usually if things are going well, they are not needed or used.

BISSBOSS
02-25-2010, 05:34 AM
It wouldn't be easy...it would require an AF systematic/culture change
Worker-bee Manning needs to come back up; Stop contracting everything out
Leaders need to get their priorities in order
Regulations need to be streamlined and all in ONE location
Inspection Lists need to be streamlined and standardized as well
Performance Rating System would need overhauled
Shut down most awards programs
Emphasis on specialty & job knowledge emphasized again
Shut down MOST of the "After-School" Programs (Booster, 5/6, etc)
Stop re-forwarding 1,000 emails a day
Stop having a CC after every ARI and/or DUI - waste of manhours

Just a start...

I am (mostly) in agreement with you guys!

The AF is doing a poor job of training, equipping and organizing units with a nuclear or nuclear support mission.

I disagree with the take on regulations. Nuke regs are among the easiest and "black and whitest" in the AF. They are easily accessible and spell out requirements in plain English. Not knowing where they are or what they say - and more importantly - what they mean is a training problem! Now that issue has a double edge.

IMHO - the AF does not support the training arena for Nuke troops the way it should. Courses for only a few key positions are mandatory. That training is sot standardized and not tracked very well. More information at the unit and shop level needs to be incorporated into everyday life. Surety is a lifestyle. It is not an additional duty.

The other edge of the sword is in the shops themselves. There is entirely too much jerking around and not enough work. (read that last punctuation mark as "period, dot") NCOICs, Supervisors and Airmen know when they are wasting time that could be spent training. I am NOT talking about the Booster Club or the Top Three or any of those extra curricular activities (I happen to believe that there is plenty of time for those as well).

My point is simply that we need to meet our leaders at the LEAST half way. They MUST fight for money and time for Nuke guys to get the training and knowledge to make them proficient and we MUST use the resources wisely as NCOs... Just like we were hired and charged to do.

-BB-:cool:

THE SHADOW
02-25-2010, 08:30 AM
There's an old term called "mission creep." I wonder how much of the nuclear force suffered from this ever since SAC was dismantled and ACC took over? Then as time went on the force was an after thought because the "cold war" had been won?

StephenH
02-25-2010, 08:37 AM
the AF primary mission has become Booster Club, Community Events, Airman's Creed, and PT....rather than KNOWING YOUR JOB.

+1,000,000

n00bstruck
02-25-2010, 09:37 AM
Nuke regs are among the easiest and "black and whitest" in the AF. They are easily accessible and spell out requirements in plain English.

-BB-:cool:

Just by being the easiest and black and whitest reg doesn't make them good enough. They need to have no room for interpretation. If they people who do the mission are held to "perfect" standards, why aren't they given "perfect" guidance? And if everything is spelled out in such plain English, how are errors possible?

BISSBOSS
02-25-2010, 11:45 AM
Just by being the easiest and black and whitest reg doesn't make them good enough. They need to have no room for interpretation. If they people who do the mission are held to "perfect" standards, why aren't they given "perfect" guidance? And if everything is spelled out in such plain English, how are errors possible?

n00bstruck... You are pulling my leg right!?!

The regs I look at do not leave anything to interpretation. What you are talking about is a training/experience issue. The improper interpretation of regulatory guidance is directly proportional to your training and experience.

As to the perfection statements - "Really"?

Errors are possible (and EXPECTED by the way) because people are people. THAT is why we train. That is why the standard is higher in the Surety world.

Don't mistake a lack of understanding of material, laziness or lack of training and experience for nebulous regulatory guidance.

How are errors possible??? Come on. Do better.

-BB-

n00bstruck
02-25-2010, 12:23 PM
No, Bissboss, not trying to pull your leg. And I don't doubt that more training would help, but without increasing the manning I don't see how they would be able do more training. As for the regs, try doing a word search for may, should, could, suggested, possible. Those are words that don't belong in a black and white regulation.
Isn't "perfection" the standard for nuclear operations? Why can't those performing those operations expect "perfect" guidence? And yes, people do make mistakes, which seems to me, as all the more important that the regulation be "perfect."
I don't doubt that their are lazy, stupid, and even willfully ignorant people who do some of these jobs. But I see that as even more of a reason for "perfect" guidence.

VFFSSGT
02-25-2010, 02:55 PM
I am (mostly) in agreement with you guys!

The AF is doing a poor job of training, equipping and organizing units with a nuclear or nuclear support mission.

I disagree with the take on regulations. Nuke regs are among the easiest and "black and whitest" in the AF. They are easily accessible and spell out requirements in plain English. Not knowing where they are or what they say - and more importantly - what they mean is a training problem! Now that issue has a double edge.

I am not sure if you caught in my first post or not...but my suggested changes were targeted AF wide and in general. I have no experience with nukes, but if there redundant processes and redundant inspections are anything like ours, which I highly believe they are just on knowing how the system has been working for years - I can understand why there is a problem.


+1,000,000

Thank you. I am watching an individual with a wealth of knowledge being forced into retirement right now because of PT. The individual also PT's harder than anyone out there but is at a waist disadvantage and a medical issue preventing high impact. You cannot replace that knowledge, experience, and wisdom with a junior SSgt. There is a huge gap of experience in the work center which this individual is assigned.

If he was not working his rear off at work and PT, I would say boot - but he is doing everything he can and then some. I believe PT CAN be a good thing; but they have lost their minds on it!


The regs I look at do not leave anything to interpretation. What you are talking about is a training/experience issue. The improper interpretation of regulatory guidance is directly proportional to your training and experience.

-BB-

Yeah, I say the same thing... But I see SNCO after SNCO after Lt after Capt, etc play words games with 'AFI's' so they can impose their desires and wills on how to do things. When you quote a regulation the answer is "it doesn't matter" this is "unit policy." Then I say, yeah but the Commander made a decision based on BAD interpretation of a regulation by a SNCO. Doesn't matter...

takthekak
02-25-2010, 11:21 PM
I personally do not think this is a training issue, there is an ungodly amount
of training provided and no lack of exercises and inspections. The inspections
conducted by various entities probably are the hardest of all inspections
AF wide.
When there are conflicts between bases and their HQs, no one wins.
As I said in a previous post, this goes way deeper than a superficial cut,
where bandaids of money or training control the bleeding...

Bissboss, I was hoping you would weigh in on this, but respectfully
it is noticable that your view and solutions seems to be from a high
level or disconnected a bit. I am not meaning it in a bad way, just that
you don't seem to speak from the ground level, but more of a HQ
or inspector level.

BISSBOSS
02-26-2010, 04:29 AM
I personally do not think this is a training issue, there is an ungodly amount
of training provided and no lack of exercises and inspections. The inspections
conducted by various entities probably are the hardest of all inspections
AF wide.
When there are conflicts between bases and their HQs, no one wins.
As I said in a previous post, this goes way deeper than a superficial cut,
where bandaids of money or training control the bleeding...

Bissboss, I was hoping you would weigh in on this, but respectfully
it is noticable that your view and solutions seems to be from a high
level or disconnected a bit. I am not meaning it in a bad way, just that
you don't seem to speak from the ground level, but more of a HQ
or inspector level.

Disconnected?

On the contrary, Although I am a communicator, I think I am in a very unique position. I have worked my entire career save one posting, in the Nuclear Enterprise. As a technician, Assistant NCOIC, Work Center Supervisor, QA Inspector and Branch Chief. I have had numerous opportunities to augment the IG during HHQ Inspections as well as performing SAV functions for the Staff.

I have seen the enterprise from the inside out as well as the outside in. I am also a Senior NCO so this ain't my first rodeo. The concepts I post here are born of experience and training.

As for the theme of this particular thread - Don't get me wrong. I think the AF is doing the basic "Ass in the Grass" Airmen a great dis-service by not supporting us with the manning and money required to do the job.

I hold up as one glaring example the fact that the fiscal year started last year... Bases in the AF are JUST beginning to get initial money loads now... In February! If I ran my household like that they'd run me out of the service on a greased rail.

On that matter - To the Air Force leaders I simply say: Shame on you... Do better.

I have been accused of being a HQ apologist, an IG wannabe and many other things here. Meh.

My comments are aimed at solving the problems I see. Part of the problem is that we as the workforce do not always do everything we can and should to accomplish the mission. Far too often we allow small roadblocks to distract us and hide behind excuse like "I sent them an email and never got a reply" or "That program is under revision" or "Nobody ever told me that".

The AF isn't supporting the Nuclear Enterprise with the manning or the funding it needs. You can't purchase a BMW for the price of the Yugo you currently drive. That being said, the force is not always working to its full potential. We have to take our share of the culpability for the state of the enterprise (and the AF in general) as well.

That's what I'm on about.

-BB-

VFFSSGT
02-26-2010, 04:58 AM
My comments are aimed at solving the problems I see. Part of the problem is that we as the workforce do not always do everything we can and should to accomplish the mission. Far too often we allow small roadblocks to distract us and hide behind excuse like "I sent them an email and never got a reply" or "That program is under revision" or "Nobody ever told me that".


"I sent them an email and never got a reply" - Why should some have to spend extra man hours fighting to get someone to do their job? This is a band-aid just like reorganization....leadership should attack the root of the problem, which is addressing those who fail to do their job - not over-work their people to make others do their job. I am tired of re-emailing and continually calling someone to get them to do their job and the refusal of leadership to address it with their leadership. No one wants to be the "bad guy," when in reality the problem child not doing their job is being the bad guy.

"That program is under revision" - When is a program not under revision in the AF? Everyone seems to want to do things their way and the AF fosters this mentality and sets the example on continually revising programs. The biggest one of these is additional duties; the AF could greatly reduce the problems with these by centralizing and standardizing additional duties through the use of information technology - and this also goes back to streamlining regs.

"Nobody ever told me that" - With exception to the first couple years of my first duty assignment, I have taught and trained myself most of what I know when it comes to equipment and regulations so it is conceivable that someone never told me something. However, I rarely come across others who have the ability to figure things out for themselves. It is like someone never taught them how to read an AFI or TO... I really don't get it. But, it is also annoying that proper training seems to be a rarity.

I will say though - this last excuse is the most abused and it is so because no one kicks it in the but and those in the position to do something about it, don't.

takthekak
02-26-2010, 05:05 AM
Lots of info in these 3 previous stories, shows how complex things are:
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-nuclear-problems-at-minot.html
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/2008/05/more-nuclear-woes-at-minot.html
http://formerspook.blogspot.com/search?q=minot

just thought I would throw this up, because it's amazing what turns up online:
http://defensenewsstand.com/secure/data_extra/pdf10/dplus2010_0275_2.pdf

VFFSSGT
02-26-2010, 05:08 AM
And another we are failing....we, Air Force wide, are too busy goofing off...

Extreme Makeover: Home Edition
http://www.afmc.af.mil/photos/slideshow.asp?id={4B73338F-A10E-4034-9E29-62A842C093D3}

takthekak
02-26-2010, 05:14 AM
And another we are failing....we, Air Force wide, are too busy goofing off...

Extreme Makeover: Home Edition
http://www.afmc.af.mil/photos/slideshow.asp?id={4B73338F-A10E-4034-9E29-62A842C093D3}

Not too sure on that one...winning hearts and minds is sometimes beneficial
http://www.445aw.afrc.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123176412

VFFSSGT
02-26-2010, 05:15 AM
During that incident, Minot crews mistakenly loaded six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles
onto a B-52 bomber from Barksdale AFB, Louisiana. The mistake wasn't discovered for almost 30 hours, well after the aircraft landed at the Louisiana installation. Four senior Air Force officers were fired because of the mishap, and the service has conducted three subsequent probes into the accident.

I wonder if any of the 4 had anything to actually do with this happening to begin with? I also wonder if the ones that actually screwed up still got decent EPR's...


In response to the mishap, the service has announced plans for more than 100 changes in its nuclear handling and security policies, to prevent similar incidents in the future.

The BIGGEST PROBLEM in the AF today...when something goes wrong they [Big AF] think they have to change everything rather than just punish those who SCREWED UP and DISREGARDED procedures in the first place. This is the reason we have endless redundant regulations and have to do everything in triplicate and it takes at least 15 people to get the simplest tasks accomplished.


Not too sure on that one...winning hearts and minds is sometimes beneficial
http://www.445aw.afrc.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?id=123176412

How did either help the AF accomplish it's mission?

I'm not saying community stuff shouldn't be done...but it needs to be reigned in some or more like quite a bit...going back to my whole point made previously about cutting the extra-curricular activities.

In my unit, more man hours are literally spent doing extra-curricular activities than doing anything remotely close to accomplishing any mission. Granted, we don't have a real job, which is why many of us say the unit should be integrated with fixed units...but it doesn't happen because of power plays and people making a whole lot of something out of a whole lot of nothing. It has got to be the AF benchmark for WASTE. Approximately 28,000 man hours a week being wasted on nonsense... And this is just one unit, there are others like it and even more similar type units out there and they all encompass several career fields.

takthekak
02-26-2010, 05:24 AM
Friday, November 14, 2008
The "A" Word

The Air Force's renewed emphasis on accountability was a key factor in the recent firing of a wing commander at Kunsan AB, Korea.

Sources tell Air Force Times that Colonel Bryan Bearden, the former leader of the 8th Fighter Wing at Kunsan, lost his job because superiors lost confidence in his ability to lead. Bearden's dismissal came after recent inspections revealed problems in the wing's maintenance group.

Those problems caused Gen. Howie Chandler, Pacific Air Forces commander, to lose faith in Bearden’s leadership, according to sources with knowledge of the situation.

A PacAF press release said he was fired because “duty performance factors” led Chandler to conclude “new leadership was required to maintain the highest levels of precision and reliability.”

[snip]

Bearden is not being investigated for any wrongdoing, sources said, but he presided over the wing during a series of recent inspections that found problems with the maintenance group’s adherence to technical orders and standards of documentation.

Maintenance is a critical function for any fighter wing, so it's not surprising that General Chandler decided to dismiss Bearden. Discrepancies in the maintenance complex impact the wing's ability to train and generate combat sorties--a situation that is unacceptable in any unit, particularly one that is located less than 200 miles from the Korean DMZ.

As readers of this blog know, the Air Force launched a major accountability movement after last year's nuclear mistakes at Minot AFB, North Dakota and Hill AFB, Utah. The commander of Minot's 5th Bomb Wing was fired last fall after crews mistakenly loaded nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on a B-52, which ferried them to Barksdale AFB, Louisiana.

More recently, a number of senior officers--including several generals--received administrative punishment over the Hill incident, when fuses for an ICBM's nuclear warhead were accidentally shipped to Taiwan.

However, the accountability movement may have its limits. As we noted yesterday, the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom AFB, Montana ran into problems during a nuclear surety inspection (NSI). Unsatisfactory grades in two elements of the evaluation resulted in an overall failing grade, and another visit from the IG team.

But there won't be a leadership change at Malmstrom. After the inspection results were revealed, the wing's parent organization (Air Force Space Command) announced that the leader of the 341st, Colonel Michael Fortney, would keep his job. According to a press release, Space Command has determined that the wing has the "right leadership team" in place to make required changes.

Admittedly, Air Force commanders need some degree of flexibility in handling troubled units. In some cases, the failings are well below the command level and corrective measures can be implemented without removing the wing commander. In other instances, widespread or serious discrepancies may dictate a change in senior leadership.

Unfortunately, "flexibility" is sometimes an excuse for selective accountability. We've seen cases in the past where failing commanders were given a second chance on the strength of their connections. We're not saying that was the case at Malmstrom. But it is rather odd that Fortney kept his job after failing an NSI--in a new era of "strict accountability" among nuclear-capable units.

What the Air Force could use is a little more clarity in such matters. In the days of Curt LeMay, any wing commander who failed an NSI--regardless of the reason--could expect a quick dismissal, no exceptions. Maybe that's what the service needs to get its nuclear enterprise back on track.

Measure Man
02-26-2010, 05:42 AM
STOP! This is a no go! We supposedly get referral 3 EPR's for FAILING the PT TEST. EVERYONE involved in these inspections should get a referral 3 EPR....

+1

Let's have a mandatory block on the EPR for "Major Inspections Results...state type inspection and overall score: " score must be for the unit level the member works in i.e. the SNCO gets his flight's score, not the wings.

No kidding....I sat through a MSM presentation for a MSgt the other day....IN the narrative the guy..."helped prepare for the UCI, (did this and that and the other)...."resulting in an Excellent rating for the XX FW"....when the guy's own section got a marginal!!!

Not sure I'd go completely across the board as you suggest...but they should definitely look at "what were this person's responsibilities...and what were the results of those responsibilities" I'm sure there are many people in those wings whose areas did smashingly well...they shouldn't get 3 EPRs. A TSgt in one section can't make the whole wing pass...he can only make his section pass.

VFFSSGT
02-26-2010, 05:48 AM
+1

Let's have a mandatory block on the EPR for "Major Inspections Results...state type inspection and overall score: " score must be for the unit level the member works in i.e. the SNCO gets his flight's score, not the wings.

No kidding....I sat through a MSM presentation for a MSgt the other day....IN the narrative the guy..."helped prepare for the UCI, (did this and that and the other)...."resulting in an Excellent rating for the XX FW"....when the guy's own section got a marginal!!!

Not sure I'd go completely across the board as you suggest...but they should definitely look at "what were this person's responsibilities...and what were the results of those responsibilities" I'm sure there are many people in those wings whose areas did smashingly well...they shouldn't get 3 EPRs. A TSgt in one section can't make the whole wing pass...he can only make his section pass.

I agree...I was trying to make the point short for effect.

Measure Man
02-26-2010, 05:50 AM
I agree...I was trying to make the point short for effect.

Roger that.

The other thing I was gonna say is to....I think in many places, the wings are overtasked and under resourced...and they are FORCED to choose which standards they can NOT meet...

You've got 80 people...and 100 jobs...you gotta choose which 20 don't get done...sometimes. The policymakers and inspectors do not feel the pain and do not sympathize with the units or provide any relief.

BISSBOSS
02-26-2010, 06:00 AM
Friday, November 14, 2008
The "A" Word

The Air Force's renewed emphasis on accountability was a key factor in the recent firing of a wing commander at Kunsan AB, Korea.

Sources tell Air Force Times that Colonel Bryan Bearden, the former leader of the 8th Fighter Wing at Kunsan, lost his job because superiors lost confidence in his ability to lead. Bearden's dismissal came after recent inspections revealed problems in the wing's maintenance group.

Those problems caused Gen. Howie Chandler, Pacific Air Forces commander, to lose faith in Bearden’s leadership, according to sources with knowledge of the situation.

A PacAF press release said he was fired because “duty performance factors” led Chandler to conclude “new leadership was required to maintain the highest levels of precision and reliability.”

[snip]

Bearden is not being investigated for any wrongdoing, sources said, but he presided over the wing during a series of recent inspections that found problems with the maintenance group’s adherence to technical orders and standards of documentation.

Maintenance is a critical function for any fighter wing, so it's not surprising that General Chandler decided to dismiss Bearden. Discrepancies in the maintenance complex impact the wing's ability to train and generate combat sorties--a situation that is unacceptable in any unit, particularly one that is located less than 200 miles from the Korean DMZ.

As readers of this blog know, the Air Force launched a major accountability movement after last year's nuclear mistakes at Minot AFB, North Dakota and Hill AFB, Utah. The commander of Minot's 5th Bomb Wing was fired last fall after crews mistakenly loaded nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on a B-52, which ferried them to Barksdale AFB, Louisiana.

More recently, a number of senior officers--including several generals--received administrative punishment over the Hill incident, when fuses for an ICBM's nuclear warhead were accidentally shipped to Taiwan.

However, the accountability movement may have its limits. As we noted yesterday, the 341st Missile Wing at Malmstrom AFB, Montana ran into problems during a nuclear surety inspection (NSI). Unsatisfactory grades in two elements of the evaluation resulted in an overall failing grade, and another visit from the IG team.

But there won't be a leadership change at Malmstrom. After the inspection results were revealed, the wing's parent organization (Air Force Space Command) announced that the leader of the 341st, Colonel Michael Fortney, would keep his job. According to a press release, Space Command has determined that the wing has the "right leadership team" in place to make required changes.

Admittedly, Air Force commanders need some degree of flexibility in handling troubled units. In some cases, the failings are well below the command level and corrective measures can be implemented without removing the wing commander. In other instances, widespread or serious discrepancies may dictate a change in senior leadership.

Unfortunately, "flexibility" is sometimes an excuse for selective accountability. We've seen cases in the past where failing commanders were given a second chance on the strength of their connections. We're not saying that was the case at Malmstrom. But it is rather odd that Fortney kept his job after failing an NSI--in a new era of "strict accountability" among nuclear-capable units.

What the Air Force could use is a little more clarity in such matters. In the days of Curt LeMay, any wing commander who failed an NSI--regardless of the reason--could expect a quick dismissal, no exceptions. Maybe that's what the service needs to get its nuclear enterprise back on track.


On the Malmstrom issue I can say this: The findings that caused the failures were NOT the fault of the Wing Commander or the Wing Leadership.

I think the AF has to use "Selective Accountability" in cases like these. I see nothing wrong with that management tool.

The new block on the EPR/OPR is an interesting idea... Don't know how it could be validated though. People have a low enough opinion of the IG and Inspection Teams as it is. Some on this forum see no need for the IG... Now give them a say in promotions???

-BB-

Measure Man
02-26-2010, 06:06 AM
The new block on the EPR/OPR is an interesting idea... Don't know how it could be validated though. People have a low enough opinion of the IG and Inspection Teams as it is. Some on this forum see no need for the IG... Now give them a say in promotions???

-BB-

I would agree that the idea is very very raw...lol.

but, then again, so was the PT idea and they put that on there!!

I could see it more come down like...in a "commander's intent"...telling people that "Hey, if your dude failed in his primary duties, he should NOT be getting a firewall 5 EPR and decoration!" If a guy gets a 100 on his PT test, but 60% pass rate on his QA evals...he should be getting a referral EPR before the guy who gets a 60 on his PT and 100 on his QA!

The emphasis is just all out of whack! The supervisor, first sergeant...and everyone in the chain of command gets to see a guy's Health and Fitness information....but how he does on written tests covering his job knowledge and general AF knowledge (PDG, SKT) have to be a "private communication between the Airman and the commmander"....that makes NO SENSE!!

Shrike
02-26-2010, 01:20 PM
The new block on the EPR/OPR is an interesting idea... Don't know how it could be validated though. People have a low enough opinion of the PT Program and idiotic phrases like "fit to Fight" as it is. Some on this forum see no need for the ridiculous overemphasis on PT... Now give them a say in promotions???

-BB-

Rewind two years...

:D

FLAPS
02-26-2010, 02:42 PM
It wouldn't be easy...it would require an AF systematic/culture change
Worker-bee Manning needs to come back up; Stop contracting everything out
Leaders need to get their priorities in order
Regulations need to be streamlined and all in ONE location
Inspection Lists need to be streamlined and standardized as well
Performance Rating System would need overhauled
Shut down most awards programs
Emphasis on specialty & job knowledge emphasized again
Shut down MOST of the "After-School" Programs (Booster, 5/6, etc)
Stop re-forwarding 1,000 emails a day
Stop having a CC after every ARI and/or DUI - waste of manhours

Just a start...

You hit the nail on the head with every point you made

BigBaze
02-26-2010, 10:24 PM
It wouldn't be easy...it would require an AF systematic/culture change
Worker-bee Manning needs to come back up; Stop contracting everything out
Leaders need to get their priorities in order
Regulations need to be streamlined and all in ONE location
Inspection Lists need to be streamlined and standardized as well
Performance Rating System would need overhauled
Shut down most awards programs
Emphasis on specialty & job knowledge emphasized again
Shut down MOST of the "After-School" Programs (Booster, 5/6, etc)
Stop re-forwarding 1,000 emails a day
Stop having a CC after every ARI and/or DUI - waste of manhours

Just a start...


I could not agree more!

BigBaze
02-26-2010, 10:31 PM
You haven't been to my base lately then... We, well I should say the Airmen, recite it like we are zombies at almost every function. Of course, the Chief that usually makes us is deployed...so I feel sorry for the guys in the AOR right now. :) But, he has rubbed off on a few others.

I hope it is slowly dying though.


Out where we are in the AOR, we were lined up waiting on the commander's call, when the word got around that Admiral Mullen had just arrived and was on his way to do the call himself. The Army First Sgt jumped on the stage with a mic and got his soldiers to recite the Army Creed, which they did a decent job of doing. Not to be outdone, there was a rush from about 3 Air Force Shirts for the mic, one got their first and whattaya know wanted to hear the Air Force Creed. Problem being, they had some reenlistees formed up on stage in front of the backdrop with the Creed written on it, so what followed sounded like a bunch of cows mumbling. Just another sign that leadership just doesn't get it...most of us are proud to do our jobs and know why we are out here..without having to recite that damn thing

2430 MHz
02-27-2010, 02:24 AM
What failure number is this for the Air Force? man oh man......

Don't Commanders communicate to each other at all these nuke bases?????????

"Hey, what did you do wrong?"......"Ok then, we'll fix that and make it right for our base"

"Hey, what did you do correctly?"....."Ok then, we'll make sure our base follows the same standard"

.....NOT.....THAT.....DIFFICULT.....

BISSBOSS
03-02-2010, 05:38 AM
What failure number is this for the Air Force? man oh man......

Don't Commanders communicate to each other at all these nuke bases?????????

"Hey, what did you do wrong?"......"Ok then, we'll fix that and make it right for our base"

"Hey, what did you do correctly?"....."Ok then, we'll make sure our base follows the same standard"

.....NOT.....THAT.....DIFFICULT.....

IMHO - The issue here is that culture no longer exists where Commanders, OICs and Senior NCOs communicate from base to base.

This could be because they are unwilling to "air dirty laundry" but I think it is because the "Nuclear Gene Pool" has been so diluted that this simple management action is no longer realized in the field.

-BB-

takthekak
03-02-2010, 05:42 AM
IMHO - The issue here is that culture no longer exists where Commanders, OICs and Senior NCOs communicate from base to base.

This could be because they are unwilling to "air dirty laundry" but I think it is because the "Nuclear Gene Pool" has been so diluted that this simple management action is no longer realized in the field.

-BB-

Let me pose a question to you. What is more important, having the top experts at the Wing or at the HQ?

BISSBOSS
03-09-2010, 06:04 AM
Let me pose a question to you. What is more important, having the top experts at the Wing or at the HQ?


Hmmmmmmm... Good question!

I guess if I were "King for a day" I 'd have to say that having the true experts at the HQ is the way to get the most bang for your buck. The guys with the most experience should be at the A-staff (Train, Equip, Organize) level and on the HQ IG (Validate, Educate and Motivate).

That being said, these guys would need to be "grown" from the Wing Level. THAT would mean that the AF would need to go back on it's concept leave people in place longer than three of four years in one MAJCOM or at one base. I personally see nothing wrong with "Stovepipe guys".

That answer your question???

-BB-

takthekak
03-10-2010, 12:05 AM
[QUOTE=BISSBOSS;345670]Hmmmmmmm... Good question!

I guess if I were "King for a day" I 'd have to say that having the true experts at the HQ is the way to get the most bang for your buck. The guys with the most experience should be at the A-staff (Train, Equip, Organize) level and on the HQ IG (Validate, Educate and Motivate).

That being said, these guys would need to be "grown" from the Wing Level. THAT would mean that the AF would need to go back on it's concept leave people in place longer than three of four years in one MAJCOM or at one base. I personally see nothing wrong with "Stovepipe guys".

That answer your question???

-BB-[/QUOTE.]

Yes it does. It's not a cut and dry solution and I bet responses would vary. I know Wing CC's want the best at their Wing's and letting their best go, does not enhance their Wing's mission. I have heard CC's say they wanted the best and to heck with the HQ. One would hope people were grown, but there is a potential with old guys retiring (HYT) and such, of a gap in experience, as younger guys move up quicker to fill positions.
I know for a fact and I could find it again, that they studied IG and staff personnel in certain commands and found a lack of experience overall (not saying people where not qualified) and that people needed to be left in place longer, as you stated above.
Way down on my level, I am experiencing something similiar. There is a position open above the Sq level and I should put up my best guy, but if hired, it leaves me down 1 and 1 of my best at that. I can see where people would want to keep their bird in hand, vice those two supposedly in the bush.
Is the real mission happening at A-staff, IG or the Wing...I know it's all three, but they all have a different focus.
I am not really going anywhere with this, it just came up somewhere recently and I wanted to get a viewpoint on the topic. In a perfect world I guess there would be experts and #1's of career fields at all levels...

BISSBOSS
03-22-2010, 05:36 AM
[QUOTE=BISSBOSS;345670]Hmmmmmmm... Good question!

I guess if I were "King for a day" I 'd have to say that having the true experts at the HQ is the way to get the most bang for your buck. The guys with the most experience should be at the A-staff (Train, Equip, Organize) level and on the HQ IG (Validate, Educate and Motivate).

That being said, these guys would need to be "grown" from the Wing Level. THAT would mean that the AF would need to go back on it's concept leave people in place longer than three of four years in one MAJCOM or at one base. I personally see nothing wrong with "Stovepipe guys".

That answer your question???

-BB-[/QUOTE.]

Yes it does. It's not a cut and dry solution and I bet responses would vary. I know Wing CC's want the best at their Wing's and letting their best go, does not enhance their Wing's mission. I have heard CC's say they wanted the best and to heck with the HQ. One would hope people were grown, but there is a potential with old guys retiring (HYT) and such, of a gap in experience, as younger guys move up quicker to fill positions.
I know for a fact and I could find it again, that they studied IG and staff personnel in certain commands and found a lack of experience overall (not saying people where not qualified) and that people needed to be left in place longer, as you stated above.
Way down on my level, I am experiencing something similiar. There is a position open above the Sq level and I should put up my best guy, but if hired, it leaves me down 1 and 1 of my best at that. I can see where people would want to keep their bird in hand, vice those two supposedly in the bush.
Is the real mission happening at A-staff, IG or the Wing...I know it's all three, but they all have a different focus.
I am not really going anywhere with this, it just came up somewhere recently and I wanted to get a viewpoint on the topic. In a perfect world I guess there would be experts and #1's of career fields at all levels...



The A-Staff = Organize, Train, Equip.

The Inspector General = Validate, Educate, Motivate.

The Wings = Fly, Fight, Win.

No real mission conflicts as I see it... You really do need your ace guys at the top. They have to largest (global) impact at the policy level. I guess if I HAD to choose; I'd put them on the A-Staff. There is FAR too much of the A-Staff guy not knowing what is going on in the field. Typically, these guys are Senior NCOs selected for their positions based on the criteria of Time on Station and PCS requirements. Nothing to do with Subject Matter Expertise. Way Bad Ju-ju if you ask me!

Until the Big AF gets serious about it, the Functionals won't put the time into selections... And we will continue to see people with little to no experience selected and PCS'd into slots where there is a very steep learning curve and a huge operational impact from lethargy and inaction.
-BB-

Shrike
03-22-2010, 12:42 PM
[QUOTE=takthekak;345922]



The A-Staff = Organize, Train, Equip.

The Inspector General = Validate, Educate, Motivate.

The Wings = Fly, Fight, Win.

No real mission conflicts as I see it... You really do need your ace guys at the top. They have to largest (global) impact at the policy level. I guess if I HAD to choose; I'd put them on the A-Staff. There is FAR too much of the A-Staff guy not knowing what is going on in the field. Typically, these guys are Senior NCOs selected for their positions based on the criteria of Time on Station and PCS requirements. Nothing to do with Subject Matter Expertise. Way Bad Ju-ju if you ask me!

Until the Big AF gets serious about it, the Functionals won't put the time into selections... And we will continue to see people with little to no experience selected and PCS'd into slots where there is a very steep learning curve and a huge operational impact from lethargy and inaction.
-BB-

And the A-Staff is where repercussions are also felt from the fast promotions. We get 10-12 year MSgts on the staff that quite simply don't have the "seasoning" that we saw in previous years. Generally speaking, it used to be that when you called higher HQ and talked to an MSgt, you knew that he absolutely knew what the hell he was talking about. He had the years/experience to be a true SME. We've lost that. I find myself answering questions from staff MSgts that just 10 years ago a TSgt would have been embarassed to ask.

VFFSSGT
03-22-2010, 10:38 PM
Yes it does. It's not a cut and dry solution and I bet responses would vary. I know Wing CC's want the best at their Wing's and letting their best go, does not enhance their Wing's mission. I have heard CC's say they wanted the best and to heck with the HQ. One would hope people were grown, but there is a potential with old guys retiring (HYT) and such, of a gap in experience, as younger guys move up quicker to fill positions.
I know for a fact and I could find it again, that they studied IG and staff personnel in certain commands and found a lack of experience overall (not saying people where not qualified) and that people needed to be left in place longer, as you stated above.

But I thought once SNCO's hit that level they were all "Truly Among the Best."

takthekak
03-23-2010, 12:18 AM
You know the sh*t is hitting the fan when this happens (and shows how serious they are taking it):

Minot AFB cancels air show for 2010

The Associated Press
Posted : Sunday Mar 21, 2010 17:31:31 EDT

MINOT, N.D. — There will not be an air show at Minot Air Force Base this year — in large part because the base is busy.
Base spokeswoman Laurie Arellano says there are several projected deployments for the 5th Bomb Wing units. She says
there also are some scheduling conflicts with major aerial demonstration acts.
The base is still planning an open house on Sept. 11. About 9,000 people attended the open house last year, which included an air show.

BISSBOSS
03-23-2010, 05:39 AM
[QUOTE=BISSBOSS;347584]

And the A-Staff is where repercussions are also felt from the fast promotions. We get 10-12 year MSgts on the staff that quite simply don't have the "seasoning" that we saw in previous years. Generally speaking, it used to be that when you called higher HQ and talked to an MSgt, you knew that he absolutely knew what the hell he was talking about. He had the years/experience to be a true SME. We've lost that. I find myself answering questions from staff MSgts that just 10 years ago a TSgt would have been embarassed to ask.

Yes! Agreed!

The term "Subject Matter Expert" has lost a great deal of its meaning over the years. The standard seems to have lowered - Not in what is required; but rather in what is expected and/or accepted from "experts".

How can we take a Senior NCO (whatever their TIS) from one command to another on a standard tour and expect them to be effective in managing a program at the MAJCOM level instantly??? Pretty tall order if you ask me.

Perversely - give a MSgt three or four jobs like that in succession and you are probably looking at a Senior Master Sergeant Select...

Hmmmmmmmmmm...

-BB-

BISSBOSS
03-23-2010, 05:44 AM
VFFSSGT,

Being among the best and being a SME are two very different things... In some endeavors they are often mutually exclusive!

-BB-

BISSBOSS
03-23-2010, 05:51 AM
[QUOTE=BISSBOSS;347584]

And the A-Staff is where repercussions are also felt from the fast promotions. We get 10-12 year MSgts on the staff that quite simply don't have the "seasoning" that we saw in previous years. Generally speaking, it used to be that when you called higher HQ and talked to an MSgt, you knew that he absolutely knew what the hell he was talking about. He had the years/experience to be a true SME. We've lost that. I find myself answering questions from staff MSgts that just 10 years ago a TSgt would have been embarassed to ask.


And upon further thought - The HYT return will further exacerbate matters by depleting the AF of the "seasoned" Senior NCOs it needs to keep.

I am a Communicator... With our recent transformation - The Comm world is on a greased rail headed for a sharp bend in the tracks! It will not be very long before bases in the Air Force find themselve in the position of having technicians maintaining systems that they are not trained to operate being managed by folks with very limited experience.

Hold onto your hats... This is gonna be a bumpy ride.

-BB-

takthekak
03-24-2010, 03:00 AM
[QUOTE=Shrike;347601]


And upon further thought - The HYT return will further exacerbate matters by depleting the AF of the "seasoned" Senior NCOs it needs to keep.

I am a Communicator... With our recent transformation - The Comm world is on a greased rail headed for a sharp bend in the tracks! It will not be very long before bases in the Air Force find themselve in the position of having technicians maintaining systems that they are not trained to operate being managed by folks with very limited experience.

Hold onto your hats... This is gonna be a bumpy ride.

-BB-

Your a Communicator? What's your AFSC...Comm has been dwindling down over the years.
I think expertise is getting hard to come by on all levels you have mentioned.

VFFSSGT
03-24-2010, 03:18 AM
VFFSSGT,

Being among the best and being a SME are two very different things... In some endeavors they are often mutually exclusive!

-BB-

I was being sarcastic...



And upon further thought - The HYT return will further exacerbate matters by depleting the AF of the "seasoned" Senior NCOs it needs to keep.

I am a Communicator... With our recent transformation - The Comm world is on a greased rail headed for a sharp bend in the tracks! It will not be very long before bases in the Air Force find themselves in the position of having technicians maintaining systems that they are not trained to operate being managed by folks with very limited experience.

Hold onto your hats... This is gonna be a bumpy ride.

-BB-

I do believe that is already occurring and is about to get much worst. In my current work center, I had to train myself because of lack of experience and knowledge among those in shop. The shop was ran by multiple 3-Level Cross-Trainees - I was the most experienced (I had 7 years TIS upon arrival) until a recent PCS inbound came in.

BISSBOSS
03-24-2010, 04:15 AM
[QUOTE=BISSBOSS;347732]

Your a Communicator? What's your AFSC...Comm has been dwindling down over the years.
I think expertise is getting hard to come by on all levels you have mentioned.

I am a knuckle-dragging Comm Maintainer:cool:

My job is REAL simple...

Read a step.

Do a step.

Get a banana!

-BB-:cool:

BISSBOSS
03-24-2010, 04:25 AM
I was being sarcastic...


I do believe that is already occurring and is about to get much worst. In my current work center, I had to train myself because of lack of experience and knowledge among those in shop. The shop was ran by multiple 3-Level Cross-Trainees - I was the most experienced (I had 7 years TIS upon arrival) until a recent PCS inbound came in.

I fear this situation will only worsen over the next three to five years. The 3D transformation is NOT working as advertised... Or (gulp) maybe it is!

-BB-

VFFSSGT
03-24-2010, 12:31 PM
I fear this situation will only worsen over the next three to five years. The 3D transformation is NOT working as advertised... Or (gulp) maybe it is!

-BB-

But we just had a Command Chief come through not too long ago telling us how great this process is and how great it will be...even though there are few answers to many questions... You mean to tell me he is just toting the company line?

Apparently this is another case of react now based on a "good idea"; think later and live with the shortfalls of our bad management. In addition to this AFSC restructure, even though I was a direct conversion; we also dealt with a MAJCOM change along with the addition of some more layers of command and at my level all I see is extra unneeded Brass in the way of getting stuff done and everyone becoming even more super anal about petty nonsense. Having to make a few extra clicks through my default homepage that I cannot change is the most annoying... Maybe the good is yet to come; I don't forsee it though.

Brewhound
03-24-2010, 12:52 PM
You guys in Com are going to experience a hell of a ride let me tell you. Our leaders in the 2T3xx caree field had the same brain child of combining AFSC`s ,because it would beef up a deployment pool and looked like a miricle on a PPT slide. In reality the last 8 years has been hell. I have see mass exodus of allot of a great tech`s and new breed of mechanic that is one tenth of what they should be. We contract out Mx more and more each day because we just dont have the expertise to fix the problems on site. Those of us still around after the dust dies down are stuck filling the gaps and plugging the holes in the Dam that will burst in the near future. All the while hearing that the mission has to get done. What the hell do you expect when you get a bunch of ZIPPER SUITED SUN GODS with nothing but career and political ambition blinding them, calling all of the shots. I feel for you guys. I am glad that I only have about 6 years left. GOOD LUCK your gonna need it folks!!:(

Tak
05-08-2013, 06:58 PM
http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/nuclear.pdf

"Reinvigorating the Air Force Nuclear Enterprise is our highest priority." -Memorandom signed by both Secretary Donley and General Schwartz and dated 24 Oct 2008.

My question is simple. What has changed since a B-52 loaded with nuclear weapons flew to Barksdale? Sure, we have a new command that is supposed to focus on the "Nuclear Enterprise"; sure, inspections are now "no notice"; sure, wing commanders are being held accountable for the actions of their units.

But what has changed? Do these units now get the manning they require to conduct their operations according to regulations? Do these units recieve funding for the equipment they are required to have/use? Have any oeprational changes been made to how the mission is accomplished at these units?

If our leadership is going to say that reinvigorating the Air Force Nuclear Enterprise is our highest priority, then when are they going to prove it? The current requirements cannot be met with the people, equipment, and operational procedures that are currently being used. Proof of this can be found in every inspeciton failure, every "incident", and any time people don't want to be assigned to these units because of the mission.

good link...

RobotChicken
05-09-2013, 05:30 AM
:hat Nothing changes...................