TIL...

Cap'n Jack

Cap'n Jack

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Messages
8,924
Location
Nebraska
Display Name
Display name:
Cap'n Jack
Today, I learned that "failsafe" meant a bomber would return to base if it didn't receive a valid order to continue the mission at a certain pre-designated point en-route.

A bit different than the movies might suggest.

Ref: L. douglas Keeney. 15 Minutes, p.183
 
I think that’s exactly what the movie suggests as well. If they never got the order, they would’ve returned to base. Thanks a lot Dom DeLuise. :(
 
Velocity173 said:
I think that’s exactly what the movie suggests as well. If they never got the order, they would’ve returned to base. Thanks a lot Dom DeLuise. :(
Click to expand...
If you mean the movie "Fail Safe", I think it suggests the opposite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail_Safe_(1964_film). I understood that, because of the soviet jamming, the crew continued their mission since they didn't get a cancellation. With the definition of fail safe as I understand it, the crew would turn back if they couldn't get an order to continue. Maybe I read it wrong.
 
Maybe they were following Wing Attack Plan R for Romeo.


I was under the impression that I was the only one in authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.

That's right, sir, you are the only person authorized to do so. And although I, uh, hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like, uh, General Ripper exceeded his authority.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
If you mean the movie "Fail Safe", I think it suggests the opposite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fail_Safe_(1964_film). I understood that, because of the soviet jamming, the crew continued their mission since they didn't get a cancellation. With the definition of fail safe as I understand it, the crew would turn back if they couldn't get an order to continue. Maybe I read it wrong.
Click to expand...

You’re saying that in reality they would have to have a second continuation order after the Fail Safe point or they’re required to RTB?
 
I'm used to this definition:
In engineering, a fail-safe is a design feature or practice that in the event of a specific type of failure, inherently responds in a way that will cause no or minimal harm to other equipment, the environment or to people. Unlike inherent safety to a particular hazard, a system being "fail-safe" does not mean that failure is impossible or improbable, but rather that the system's design prevents or mitigates unsafe consequences of the system's failure. That is, if and when a "fail-safe" system fails, it remains at least as safe as it was before the failure.[1][2] Since many types of failure are possible, failure mode and effects analysis is used to examine failure situations and recommend safety design and procedures.
 
Velocity173 said:
You’re saying that in reality they would have to have a second continuation order after the Fail Safe point or they’re required to RTB?
Click to expand...
No, My understanding is that they need some sort of confirmation order to continue past the fail safe point on their mission. It's possible that, assuming we are talking about the same movie, they got the orders to proceed past the fail safe point and I don't remember it.

Ravioli said:
I'm used to this definition:
In engineering, a fail-safe is a design feature or practice that in the event of a specific type of failure, inherently responds in a way that will cause no or minimal harm to other equipment, the environment or to people. Unlike inherent safety to a particular hazard, a system being "fail-safe" does not mean that failure is impossible or improbable, but rather that the system's design prevents or mitigates unsafe consequences of the system's failure. That is, if and when a "fail-safe" system fails, it remains at least as safe as it was before the failure.[1][2] Since many types of failure are possible, failure mode and effects analysis is used to examine failure situations and recommend safety design and procedures.
Click to expand...
In the context you work in, that is a good definition. I think SAC set a procedure where the planes flew under a threat situation so they are dispersed, yet there was a chance to recall them by an order; in case of COMM failure, the plane would automatically end it's mission at the fail safe point. But I'm not military, and I'm sure there are people here who can provide accurate information.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
No, My understanding is that they need some sort of confirmation order to continue past the fail safe point on their mission. It's possible that, assuming we are talking about the same movie, they got the orders to proceed past the fail safe point and I don't remember it.


In the context you work in, that is a good definition. I think SAC set a procedure where the planes flew under a threat situation so they are dispersed, yet there was a chance to recall them by an order; in case of COMM failure, the plane would automatically end it's mission at the fail safe point. But I'm not military, and I'm sure there are people here who can provide accurate information.
Click to expand...

Yes they did receive orders to attack Moscow while holding at the Fail Safe point. The movie seems to indicate that during the Fail Safe box change out, they were being jammed by the Soviets and that send the false order. Either that or Sgt DeLuise man handling the new box when he slammed into the console.
 
I may be mistaken, but I recall the term "fail-safe" was not officially used but rather it was called "postive control " or something similar. Starting with Eisenhower, through the mid-1960s the US policy was if there was a loss of Command & Control individual aircraft commanders and sub captains could continue and complete their nuclear missions. When Johnson came into power he was supposedly shocked to learn of this secret procedure and afterwards implemented various safe guards to prevent rogue nuke ops. Today I believe there are similar controls but with different technology.

There is an interesting Air Force documentry that was produced in the early 60s that shows how the process actually worked. It's interesting to note the documentry was made partly due to the release of the movies Fail-Safe and Dr. Strangelove to show the premise of a rogue launch could not actually happen. Search for "SAC Command Post."
 
Try wiki SIOP, (no longer in use) the history section covers what @Bell206 mentions. The wiki however does not cover what the commanders were or were not authorized to do if 24/7 communications were lost.
 
Bell206 said:
I may be mistaken, but I recall the term "fail-safe" was not officially used but rather it was called "postive control " or something similar. Starting with Eisenhower, through the mid-1960s the US policy was if there was a loss of Command & Control individual aircraft commanders and sub captains could continue and complete their nuclear missions. When Johnson came into power he was supposedly shocked to learn of this secret procedure and afterwards implemented various safe guards to prevent rogue nuke ops. Today I believe there are similar controls but with different technology.

There is an interesting Air Force documentry that was produced in the early 60s that shows how the process actually worked. It's interesting to note the documentry was made partly due to the release of the movies Fail-Safe and Dr. Strangelove to show the premise of a rogue launch could not actually happen. Search for "SAC Command Post."
Click to expand...
Very interesting- thanks for the search hint.
 
Won’t matter once we replace all those boys in the silos with computer relays. Then the WHOPPER can launch the misiles.
 
ChemGuy said:
Won’t matter once we replace all those boys in the silos with computer relays. Then the WHOPPER can launch the misiles.
Click to expand...

The new Impossible Whopper or the other WOPR?
 
According to the novel "Red Alert" (which was used as the basis for "Dr. Strangelove"), the bombers would leave their fail-safe points only on the receipt of properly-coded messages to execute their missions. The author was an RAF officer, though, and not likely to be that familiar with SAC practices.

Ron Wanttaja
 
SAC. I'm puking for the speaking of the name. Thank God the fighter mafia put paid to that house of hacks, that theater of buffoonery, that waster of lives, airframes, dollars, and careers.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong. . .
 
Sundancer said:
SAC. I'm puking for the speaking of the name. Thank God the fighter mafia put paid to that house of hacks, that theater of buffoonery, that waster of lives, airframes, dollars, and careers.
Click to expand...
I was an on-duty engineer in Aerospace Defense Command, assessing infrared data from satellites in real time to determine whether a given blob of data was a missile attack on the US or solar reflections from mountains bouncing around the inside of the satellite telescope or Betelgeuse refracting around the Earth's limb.

SAC was the majority user of our data, of course, and we were told that SAC was in charge of everything but our OERs. Late in my hitch, though, we were actually absorbed into SAC.

SAC was REAL big into checklists.

The problem was, what me and my fellow engineers did wasn't really "checklistable." We took a lot of factors into account, then would make our decisions as to what the source of the data was. It had to do with time of day, temperature of the telescope, which satellite it was, the location of the Earth, the time of year, etc....nothing that could be quantifiable into a yes/no response on a checklist.

Eventually, our checklist consisted of three items:

1. Access area on display.
2. Perform engineering assessment.
3. Notify Senior Director.

SAC never actually LOOKED at the content of course...was just happy that we used Checklist # XXXX in these situations.

Ron Wanttaja
 
By Dawn’s Early Light. Another classic SAC nuclear movie.
 
Bell206 said:
I may be mistaken, but I recall the term "fail-safe" was not officially used but rather it was called "postive control " or something similar.
Click to expand...

It's called PAL, Permissive Action Link. At some point during the 1960s, the device was installed on almost all nuclear weapons in the inventory.

Right now I'm reading a book called The U. S. Nuclear Arsenal. It catalogues every device and delivery system used since Hiroshima. The number of warheads built was insane.

B36 hydrogen bomb, yield 19 MT, 900 produced
B41 hydrogen bomb, yield 25 MT, 500 produced

These two devices alone represented the equivalent of 29.6 billion tons of TNT.

It goes on. Some of the smaller fission warheads with yields between 50 and 200 KT were built in quantities exceeding 3,000 each. The US built almost 25,000 nuclear weapons between 1961 and 1962. Huge numbers of them were being built all the way into the 80s.

The spectre of total annihilation was very real during the Cold War.
 
Last edited:
PAL is a device on the bomb/missile itself. That's distinct from the launch protocols/bomber deployment things.

You need two things to follow the EAM: Two people have the manually verify the order and you have to have the PAL code independently.
This keeps the pair from going rogue. The PAL code is not on site, but transmitted with the EAM.

. The numbers of warheads built was insane.
Click to expand...
Especially, when you get into weird stuff like the nuclear artillery.
 
flyingron said:
Maybe they were following Wing Attack Plan R for Romeo.

I was under the impression that I was the only one in authority to order the use of nuclear weapons.

That's right, sir, you are the only person authorized to do so. And although I, uh, hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like, uh, General Ripper exceeded his authority.
Click to expand...

I'm going to watch Dr Strangelove tonight because of your post. I haven't seen it in several years, and it's one of my favorite movies.

Peter Sellers is fantastic, performing as Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake, President Merkin Muffley, and Dr. Strangelove. Other cast members are George C. Scott, Sterling Hayden, James Earl Jones, Slim Pickens, and Keenan Wynn.

It's excellent biting satire, and brilliantly funny. Sellers's character President Merkin Muffley:

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!"

Slim Pickens as Major T. J. "King" Kong plays his part perfectly. His inventory of the B-52 crew survival kit is classic:

.


.

When Pickens said "Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff!", he actually said "... have a pretty good weekend in Dallas with all that stuff."

His line was redubbed in post-production because of sensitivity about the Kennedy assassination that had just occurred in Dallas.

If you watch his lips, you can see him mouth the word "Dallas".
 
Sterling Hayden was a way cool dude, with an interesting life outside acting. Give him a Google sometime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top