What kind of disaster would get the Space force culturally converted from Air Force to Navy?

S

Scott Kenny

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Joined
15 May 2023
Messages
6,146
Reaction score
5,005
Pretty sure this is the right place on the forum to post this kind of topic. If not, please move and let me know where I should have posted it, please!

"The reason that Space Force became naval culture, and not Air Force."

I have an idea for a short story, it involves at least a total crew loss, if not a total craft loss. This would end up being something spoken about like the Forestall Fire or the Bonefish Fire, a lesson learned at great cost in life and equipment. But I cannot come up with a good idea as to what it would be in terms of a mechanical failure.

I'm assuming that the US Space Force would stay on Air Force culture for quite a while as they get small manned spacecraft. I am mentally picturing roughly a dozen crew onboard for 6 months or so. Basically all maintenance gets deferred till end of mission. A fire isn't hugely likely in space. Still possible, but unlikely to be craft-destroying. A micrometeor holing a low temperature radiator that then causes a catastrophic heat spike was an early idea, but modern computer chips have temperature sensors so would be very unlikely to get catastrophically hot without giving the crew lots of warning.

So I'd like to ask the forumites here for ideas. Thanks!
 
What you have to remember is that NASA's incompetence has gotten two complete shuttle crews killed - one on launch, the other on re-entry - and they were STILL allowed to operate Shuttles after that. No single lethal incident on a ship of that size is going to cause responsibility for the Space Force to be shifted to a different service. Hell, we don't break up airlines and give their planes to the opposition when crashes kill hundreds.

Frankly, the only reasonable driver I could think of for Space Force to be USN culture rather than USAF is if the ships get BIGGER, and you're cruising around the solar system in what is essentially a submarine in space.
 
The Airforce doesn't suffer from cultural issues , mold on the other hand ....
 
GK Dundas said:
The Airforce doesn't suffer from cultural issues , mold on the other hand ....
Click to expand...
No, no, no, no, no. The Marine Corps has got "mold in the barracks" on lock down. Seriously, black mold all over the place.

To OP: The only way the Space Cadets become more of a Naval culture than an airedale culture is if we develop Star Wars/Star Trek style manned space ships which essentially replace water borne navies in the force structure.
 
Scott Kenny said:
"The reason that Space Force became naval culture, and not Air Force."
I cannot come up with a good idea as to what it would be ...
Click to expand...
Even though my father and grandfather were Navy I don't see that change happening.
On account of a generally subconscious thing which I'll state as, "Space is air not water."
 
And now in to active memory comes a conversation years ago elsewhere in reality where the opposition said something like,
"Of course spaceships will end up being under the Navy, pilots never call airplanes 'ships' "
Oh?
Really?
Hahahahahaha!
:rolleyes:

4 Ship formation​


A U.S. Air Force MC-130H Combat Talon II from the 1st Special Operations Squadron flies over Kadena Air Base, Japan, shortly after takeoff May 14, 2015. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Stephen G. Eigel)
Click to expand...

lead (FLUG2), which qualifies him to lead a two-ship element or to pilot the third aircraft in a four-ship flight.
Click to expand...

Element lead—The pilot responsible for the conduct of a two-ship element. In a two-ship formation, the element lead is the flight lead (see ...
Click to expand...
 
pathology_doc said:
What you have to remember is that NASA's incompetence has gotten two complete shuttle crews killed - one on launch, the other on re-entry - and they were STILL allowed to operate Shuttles after that. No single lethal incident on a ship of that size is going to cause responsibility for the Space Force to be shifted to a different service. Hell, we don't break up airlines and give their planes to the opposition when crashes kill hundreds.

Frankly, the only reasonable driver I could think of for Space Force to be USN culture rather than USAF is if the ships get BIGGER, and you're cruising around the solar system in what is essentially a submarine in space.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am assuming spaceships large enough to require a crew of at least a dozen even after being automated all to hell.
 
publiusr said:
I might go for something more psychological.

Submariner holds together while a fighter jock spaz’s out from boredom
Click to expand...
That was on the mental list, but harder to write about because it's something I just don't suffer from at all.
 
How about:

A targetted biological war against AF personnel in general ends up taking out enough of their numbers that the defense-political establishment goes, "Alright, alright, if we Have to fill the gaps with Navy personnel we'll swallow our pride and use them; just make sure they Know they are temporary and they Know they are expendable ..."
 
southwestforests said:
How about:

A targetted biological war against AF personnel in general ends up taking out enough of their numbers that the defense-political establishment goes, "Alright, alright, if we Have to fill the gaps with Navy personnel we'll swallow our pride and use them; just make sure they Know they are temporary and they Know they are expendable ..."
Click to expand...
Less believable than "a highly trained AF pilot goes stir crazy"
 
Scott Kenny said:
Less believable than "a highly trained AF pilot goes stir crazy"
Click to expand...
As is already apparent, my take on that believability issue is a bit different ...
But, hey, here are a couple contemporary references which lead me to have my take on the thing ...

DOD Aims to Shield Warfighters From Novel Biological Agents
Jan. 10, 2023 | By David Vergun , DOD News |
The Department of Defense is modernizing its approach for developing medical countermeasures to protect warfighters from novel biological agents.
Click to expand...
www.defense.gov

DOD Aims to Shield Warfighters From Novel Biological Agents

The Department of Defense is modernizing its approach for developing medical countermeasures to protect warfighters from novel biological agents.
www.defense.gov

George Mason University’s Gregory D. Koblentz says, “Biological warfare favors the attacker.”9 One possible use of synthetic bioweapons would be to neutralize a ship or task force preemptively, before any active conflict, incapacitating a crew instead of killing it. A tailored incubation period or high presymptomatic transmission can be a matter of planning rather than luck. Programmed obsolescence, by which a disease dies after a set number of generations or fails to transmit in nontarget environmental conditions, can protect the attacker. Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Senior Colonel Guo Ji-Wei refers to this effect as “multiple vulneration,” the idea that overlapping biological effects can aid targeting.10

“Binary weapons” are paired infections separated to evade detection that can later combine for desired effect.11 Complementary, harmless viruses released in San Diego and Guam could synthesize, in a host exposed to both, to generate a debilitating illness. Such covert SBW fires could take a whole strike group off the board shortly before China launched an invasion of Taiwan, for example.

One threat that was once the stuff of science fiction may soon become real. Some researchers (including Lieutenant General Zhang Shibo, former president of the PLA National Defense University) foresee the possibility of “specific ethnic genetic attacks” on whole racial or ethnic groups, although there remain political and scientific obstacles at present.12
Click to expand...
Choose Your Weapon
Of those dangers, next-generation bioweapons are the most serious. Unlike traditional bioweapons, which most states have abandoned as unreliable, synthetic bioweapons (SBWs) are weaponized biological threats modified through synthetic biology for novel effects, mechanisms, or processes.8 Unshackled from natural biology, SBWs possess characteristics engineered to target populations or individuals,
Click to expand...
www.usni.org

Synthetic Bioweapons Are Coming

Emerging and Disruptive Technology Essay Contest–First Prize. Naval planners must consider the threat posed by gene-editing advances.
www.usni.org www.usni.org
 
southwestforests said:
As is already apparent, my take on that believability issue is a bit different ...
Click to expand...
Some guys I served with got a ship-wide bout of norovirus (aka cruise ship flu). Completely incapacitating, but not fatal. I think they were down to about a dozen people on watch, total (normally there's about 22 per section).

The other problem is that if someone finds evidence of artificial manufacture in a virus or bacteria, that's a direct violation of treaties and grounds for nuclear strikes in return.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The other problem is that if someone finds evidence of artificial manufacture in a virus or bacteria, that's a direct violation of treaties and grounds for nuclear strikes in return.
Click to expand...
Which allows the writer a chance to display their creativity by engineering rationally plausible mechanisms (and subplots) by which decisions are made that such a strike will not be done.

EDIT:

And that brings to mind my Dad who said something of related interest several times during his life.
And he said it with the same energy one would use in saying, "We need to get milk, there's only a quarter gallon left in the jug."
That thing being that there are people who periodically remind US Presidents of how long their leash is.
Was Dad credible?
Well, he had bachelors in political science; retired as USN Commander; had a couple tours at the Pentagon; got masters in some kind of education specialty; and, commented several times that he was okay with getting passed over for promotion to Captain as he didn't sign up to play politics but to drive ships.

So,

Perhaps the leash holders inform the Commander in Chief that there will be no popping off of any nukes. Period.
What would be their intent and goal which led them to do that?
Are the leash holders split and one faction does and one faction does not want any nukes popped?
Yet both are okay with the Air Force being depleted?
 
Last edited:
southwestforests said:
So,

Perhaps the leash holders inform the Commander in Chief that there will be no popping off of any nukes. Period.
What would be their intent and goal which led them to do that?
Are the leash holders split and one faction does and one faction does not want any nukes popped?
Yet both are okay with the Air Force being depleted?
Click to expand...
That's the problem. The Air Force technically carries 2/3rds of the US Nuclear Triad. More or less wiping them out would be seen as an attempt to cripple the US's ability to project power.

Though admittedly, by the time USSF has a 12+crew spaceship, there will almost definitely be orbital kinetic launchers. Rods from God.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Pretty sure this is the right place on the forum to post this kind of topic. If not, please move and let me know where I should have posted it, please!

"The reason that Space Force became naval culture, and not Air Force."

I have an idea for a short story, it involves at least a total crew loss, if not a total craft loss. This would end up being something spoken about like the Forestall Fire or the Bonefish Fire, a lesson learned at great cost in life and equipment. But I cannot come up with a good idea as to what it would be in terms of a mechanical failure.

I'm assuming that the US Space Force would stay on Air Force culture for quite a while as they get small manned spacecraft. I am mentally picturing roughly a dozen crew onboard for 6 months or so. Basically all maintenance gets deferred till end of mission. A fire isn't hugely likely in space. Still possible, but unlikely to be craft-destroying. A micrometeor holing a low temperature radiator that then causes a catastrophic heat spike was an early idea, but modern computer chips have temperature sensors so would be very unlikely to get catastrophically hot without giving the crew lots of warning.

So I'd like to ask the forumites here for ideas. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Are you really sure this would be such a good idea?

www.forbes.com

As Investigators ID Big Problems, U.S. Navy Blames “Fat Leonard”

While the NTSB and other investigators are identifying the root cause of several naval mishaps, many naval stakeholders have wrongly decided that the seven-year old "Fat Leonard" contracting scandal is at fault.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Are you really sure this would be such a good idea?

www.forbes.com

As Investigators ID Big Problems, U.S. Navy Blames “Fat Leonard”

While the NTSB and other investigators are identifying the root cause of several naval mishaps, many naval stakeholders have wrongly decided that the seven-year old "Fat Leonard" contracting scandal is at fault.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

Click to expand...
Compared to the cultural mess that is the USAF?

Yes.

Witch hunts happen.

Connecticut:
In November, the Navy relieved the ship’s leadership of their duties, including the commanding officer, executive officer, and the chief of the boat. The completed command investigation recommends three other crew members be removed from their positions.
Click to expand...
Without having to look up other sources, those three are the Navigation Officer, the Assistant Navigator (enlisted), and the Navigation Electronics Technician (enlisted) who pulled and prepared the charts.

That's entirely normal for a collision or grounding. That a projects boat was deficient in navigation surprises me, they're usually "you get one mistake" kinds of places. I worked with a lot of former Projects sailors way back in the day.

10 years ago, USAF Space was a zero defects mentality, where making one error was terminal to your career.
 
southwestforests said:
As is already apparent, my take on that believability issue is a bit different ...
But, hey, here are a couple contemporary references which lead me to have my take on the thing ...


www.defense.gov

DOD Aims to Shield Warfighters From Novel Biological Agents

The Department of Defense is modernizing its approach for developing medical countermeasures to protect warfighters from novel biological agents.
www.defense.gov



www.usni.org

Synthetic Bioweapons Are Coming

Emerging and Disruptive Technology Essay Contest–First Prize. Naval planners must consider the threat posed by gene-editing advances.
www.usni.org www.usni.org
Click to expand...
www.usni.org

Public Health Is a National Security Issue

Threats to the nation’s health are threats to national security.
www.usni.org www.usni.org
 
martinbayer said:
Are you really sure this would be such a good idea?

www.forbes.com

As Investigators ID Big Problems, U.S. Navy Blames “Fat Leonard”

While the NTSB and other investigators are identifying the root cause of several naval mishaps, many naval stakeholders have wrongly decided that the seven-year old "Fat Leonard" contracting scandal is at fault.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

Click to expand...
Maybe a bit of a tangent, but this content in that,
As early as 2006, Captain Stuart Landersman (USN, Ret.), in a scathing professional article, noted how ship handling went from a critical competency, “essential to a career officer’s reputation, professionalism and promotion,”
Click to expand...
Brings mind my Dad who retired in mid 1980s as a USN Commander. He was an expert ship handler and was given awards related to it.
 
publiusr said:
I might go for something more psychological.
Submariner holds together while a fighter jock spaz’s out from boredom
Click to expand...
While a bit different, this from Flickr this morning connects with that thought ...

https://flic.kr/p/2oVh3pQ
View: https://flic.kr/p/2oVh3pQ


“Pilot Failure” by Alice Lent Covert, article in “The Saturday Evening Post,” May 16, 1959.

“With explosion threatening his crippled tanker at any second, the skipper panicked. Donelly hit him a swift brutal blow.

“Major Mac Donnelly, USAF, was a soft-spoken Irishman with shrewd blue eyes and a quiet humor. Lt. Peter Alsop, Jr. was the aircraft commander of the big KC-97 tanker on which the major was a mere co-pilot, a situation not uncommon in SAC tanker squadrons, where promotions were often slow. The fact that Donnelly outranked young Alsop by two grades and twelve years was of no importance.

“Lt. Peter Alsop, Jr. was a tense young hothead with a low boiling point. At 23 he was the brightest star in the wing’s firmament. The son of Ol’ Thunder, Gen. Peter Alsop, Senior, the most feared and cordially disliked general in the military, Junior was following faithfully in his old man’s footsteps . . .”
Click to expand...
 
I cannot imagine the sort of political shenainagns thaty would be needed in order to remove space assets from the purview of the air force.

I cannot see the air force allowing it tbh, far too much bad blood and angst.
 
Bill Maher has a segment called “Things you just know but cannot prove”

My belief is that ABMA’s throat had USAF fingerprints all over it. If you can strike from orbit..carriers and planes seem less valuable.

I will settle for nothing less than Space Force getting USAF’s budget—the latter remanded back into the ARMY where they belong…wearing olive drab.
 
The 1950's are fascinating, in that regard.
Somewhat like a drunken bully in a bar, USAF picked fights with everybody; related to the space program
-vs the Navy: bombers vs carriers, Polaris vs Minuteman...
-vs the Army: SAMs (BOMARC), IRBMs (Thor, Jupiter, Redstone...), ABM later (Army: ground-based, USAF: space-based)
-vs ARPA: the military space program (1959-1960)
-vs NASA: manned spaceflight (1958 to MOL cancellation, 1969)
-vs the CIA (and NRO later): for spy satellites

The Air Force was VERY bellicose, those days...
 
Foo Fighter said:
I cannot imagine the sort of political shenainagns thaty would be needed in order to remove space assets from the purview of the air force.

I cannot see the air force allowing it tbh, far too much bad blood and angst.
Click to expand...
I'm specifically meaning culturally, not so much politically. Though I suspect that an event sufficient to cause the loss of a multi billion dollar national asset and a dozen or more Space Force astronauts might even result in the USAF losing operational control of the spaceships to the Navy.
 
And exactly why would it be desirable to put a force that for the most part is used to just trundling along the oceans surface at best at around 50 MPH in charge of assets that move at orbital speed? I am still appalled at any inter-force rivalry (because it's taxpayer money waste), but as a taxpayer my strong opinion is that the Space Force needs to be kept completely separate from USA, USAF, USMC, and USN because of different operating environments and objectives. The USN hasn't exactly instilled confidence by losing the Thresher.
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
And exactly why would it be desirable to put a force that for the most part is used to just idly trundling along the oceans surface at best at around 50 MPH in charge of assets that move at orbital speed? I kind of get the inter-force rivalry (although it's taxpayer money waste), but as a taxpayer my strong opinion is that the Space force needs to be kept completely separate from USA, USAF, USMC, and USN because of different operating environmkents.
Click to expand...
The operating environment shared with the navy is a bunch of people stuck inside a tube for an extended period.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The operating environment shared with the navy is a bunch of people stuck inside a tube for an extended period.
Click to expand...
And the pressure environment is completely reversed, let alone micro-gravity conditions. Feels like a USN land grab (pun fully intended) to me. Classical boomers (heh) are not used to make decisions in split seconds. But this whole thread really seems to be based on some sort of wishful romanticizing rather than rational thinking. Bandwidth waste, anyone?
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
And the pressure environment is completely reversed, let alone micro-gravity conditions. Feels like a USN land grab (pun fully intended) to me. Classical boomers (heh) are not used to make decisions in split seconds. But this whole thread really seems to be based on some sort of wishful romanticizing rather than rational thinking. Bandwidth waste, anyone?
Click to expand...
Damage control and loss of control responses need to be that fast on subs. The entire Jam Dive response, from 5 separate people, needs to be done in 8 seconds. And you're still going to exceed test depth in the process.

Pressure loss from a 20mm diameter hole is not catastrophic, you could literally just let a handful of goop balls loose and have whichever one finds the hole plug it.
 
Operating conditions between a spacecraft and a submarine are *fundamentally* different. Assuming all systems are fully operational, a sub can leisurely decelerate to zero speed in the water and decide to surface at any point in time. Orbital assets do not have that choice. Vector speed is hardly a decisive factor in a submarine, but it is an overriding one in space assets, with all the implications that come along with it.
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Operating conditions between a spacecraft and a submarine are *fundamentally* different. Assuming all systems are fully operational, a sub can leisurely decelerate to zero speed in the water and decide to surface at any point in time. Orbital assets do not have that choice. Vector speed is hardly a decisive factor in a submarine, but it is an overriding one in space assets, with all the implications that come along with it.
Click to expand...
Yes, so the piloting is different.

Living and operating onboard is not likely to be different.
 
martinbayer said:
And exactly why would it be desirable to put a force that for the most part is used to just trundling along the oceans surface at best at around 50 MPH in charge of assets that move at orbital speed? I am still appalled at any inter-force rivalry (because it's taxpayer money waste), but as a taxpayer my strong opinion is that the Space Force needs to be kept completely separate from USA, USAF, USMC, and USN because of different operating environments and objectives. The USN hasn't exactly instilled confidence by losing the Thresher.
Click to expand...
Essentially we have a 'space force', tt's called NASA. If anyone is qualified to deal with setting up any kind of military in space, it's those guys.
martinbayer said:
And the pressure environment is completely reversed, let alone micro-gravity conditions. Feels like a USN land grab (pun fully intended) to me. Classical boomers (heh) are not used to make decisions in split seconds. But this whole thread really seems to be based on some sort of wishful romanticizing rather than rational thinking. Bandwidth waste, anyone?
Click to expand...
Agree with the bandwidth waste. Why on earth get caught up with political hyperbole when logic should rule out the terrestrial forces from any kind of involvement outside of contributing candidates?
Scott Kenny said:
Yes, so the piloting is different.

Living and operating onboard is not likely to be different.
Click to expand...
The basics will be very different until artificial gravity is a 'thing' and even then the increased radiation hazard will contribute who nose what to the perils of extra terrestrial living. The lethality of both environments in a sudden catastrpohic manner I agree, not so different.

Put basically, the environment has one organisation that has experience and familiarity so the so called senior service involvement can only ever be to satisfy some already overbloated ego's past their already overdone sell by date.
 
This is one of our weirder thought experiments. The Space Force is a descendant of the Air Force, which is itself a descendant of the Army. The culture will evolve and mature over time, and there will be some divergences from USAF traditions and practices, but I can't see a logical reason why Naval culture or ranks would be superior to Air Force-derived ones. If anything, the USSF is adopting some Army terminology, e.g., some former USAF Space Wings have been reestablished as Garrisons, and E-1s through E-4s are Specialists.

I think some people (including a certain Congressman) have just watched too much Star Trek. Having said that, the headwaiter jackets for general officers have got to go.
 
Last edited:
I have this sneaking suspicion that USAF wasn't alone in stalling Space Force.

The other branches...seeing how much money was lost to them the last time a new branch was calved off (USAF itself)---also made life difficult.

Thus space duties were divvyed up among the branches...space advocates safely under their respective thumbs.

"That's nice dear...but we need a new tank/plane/ship...etc."

They closed ranks.

Space advocates have been far too nice, I think. Instead of "space cadet," I would prefer the term "Nightspawn."

Orbital space assets like Thor named in a fashion Jack Parsons would have loved. Lasers as "Principalities," "Thrones."

Anything but "Silent Barker."

You want to instill fear.

Orbital battery Baalberith moving into position...
 
Last edited:
Foo Fighter said:
Essentially we have a 'space force', tt's called NASA. If anyone is qualified to deal with setting up any kind of military in space, it's those guys.
Click to expand...
No, NASA is explicitly civilian in nature, it should have zero to do with building actual armed spaceships. Some of the tech may get adopted (anything already man-rated early on, for example), and I expect the big 2.4m telescope mirrors to get used on manned spaceships as either optical telescopes or laser emitters.


Foo Fighter said:
The basics will be very different until artificial gravity is a 'thing' and even then the increased radiation hazard will contribute who nose what to the perils of extra terrestrial living. The lethality of both environments in a sudden catastrpohic manner I agree, not so different.
Click to expand...
And guess which service has managed to spend the last 60 years living within 200ft of an operating nuclear reactor?

Hint: not the Air Force.


Foo Fighter said:
Put basically, the environment has one organisation that has experience and familiarity so the so called senior service involvement can only ever be to satisfy some already overbloated ego's past their already overdone sell by date.
Click to expand...
That organization isn't NASA.

It might be USSF, at least for unmanned craft. As per my friend who got sucked into Army Space after writing some of their organizational concepts, right now the Air Tasking Order concept of operations seems to match up with existing spacecraft. Craft is prepped for launch, some college graduate flies it, then any maintenance happens after the craft lands even if that's over a year after launch.

What I am asking about is a pretty good distance in the future, when the typical USSF spacecraft is manned by a crew of a dozen plus, where maintenance is happening during flight. As a side note, making something that can be run for a couple of years without any downtime is a lot more expensive than making stuff that is assumed to shutdown and restart every couple of weeks.
 
publiusr said:
Bill Maher has a segment called “Things you just know but cannot prove”

My belief is that ABMA’s throat had USAF fingerprints all over it. If you can strike from orbit..carriers and planes seem less valuable.

I will settle for nothing less than Space Force getting USAF’s budget—the latter remanded back into the ARMY where they belong…wearing olive drab.
Click to expand...
nonsense.
a. Space Force doesn't need the size of the Air Force budget
b. The Air Force will remain the lead branch (where they belong).
c. ABMA needed to go away regardless
d. You can't strike from orbit, too costly to do.
 
Byeman said:
You can't strike from orbit, too costly to do.
Click to expand...
Kinda expensive in the 1960s, yes.

If SpaceX really does meet their goal of $100/kg, orbital kinetic strikes get a heck of a lot cheaper. Rather slow reactions, though, as the launcher needs to drop about halfway around the planet from the target... Not something you'd use for tactical air support or an artillery replacement.

Would be even cheaper if you have a factory in orbit that is smelting down nickel-iron asteroids and setting aside any tungsten it happens to find for military drops.
 
Scott Kenny said:
What I am asking about is a pretty good distance in the future, when the typical USSF spacecraft is manned by a crew of a dozen plus, where maintenance is happening during flight. As a side note, making something that can be run for a couple of years without any downtime is a lot more expensive than making stuff that is assumed to shutdown and restart every couple of weeks.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the ISS to me. But what do those darn civilians know...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom