This made me chuckle. . . [Archive]

View Full Version : This made me chuckle. . .

Scott Ferrin

April 11th 04, 11:15 PM

From this week's AW&ST

"Air Force May Form Strategic Command"

Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
associated acronym of SAC?

Chad Irby

April 12th 04, 01:26 AM

In article >,
Scott Ferrin > wrote:

> From this week's AW&ST
>
> "Air Force May Form Strategic Command"
>
> Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
> associated acronym of SAC?

Gee, what a great idea!

They could, you know, put bombers and such in it.

And then, later, they could have another one with fighters, and use it
for smaller-scale um, what's the word... *tactical* operations.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Ragnar

April 12th 04, 04:02 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>
> > From this week's AW&ST
> >
> > "Air Force May Form Strategic Command"
> >
> > Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
> > associated acronym of SAC?
>
> Gee, what a great idea!
>
> They could, you know, put bombers and such in it.
>
> And then, later, they could have another one with fighters, and use it
> for smaller-scale um, what's the word... *tactical* operations.

Well, it is just about time for the next re-org. The Chief of Staff needs
an OPR bullet.

Ed Rasimus

April 12th 04, 03:21 PM

On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:15:51 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:

>
>
>From this week's AW&ST
>
>"Air Force May Form Strategic Command"
>
>
>Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
>associated acronym of SAC?

Actually, it is a review of the "unified" command structure,
considering combining of the recently established Northern Command
with the long existing Southern Command to form a sort of N/S America
continental command. Other unified commands include Eucom, Pacom and
Centcom for examples.

Strategic Air Command was a "specified" command which gave it a
separate status from the operational control of the unified commands.
The other specified command was MAC.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

Kevin Brooks

April 12th 04, 03:39 PM

Dweezil Dwarftosser

April 13th 04, 08:51 AM

Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:15:51 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >From this week's AW&ST
> > >
> > >"Air Force May Form Strategic Command"
> > >
> > >
> > >Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
> > >associated acronym of SAC?
> >
> > Actually, it is a review of the "unified" command structure,
> > considering combining of the recently established Northern Command
> > with the long existing Southern Command to form a sort of N/S America
> > continental command. Other unified commands include Eucom, Pacom and
> > Centcom for examples.
> >
> > Strategic Air Command was a "specified" command which gave it a
> > separate status from the operational control of the unified commands.
> > The other specified command was MAC.
>
> Specified commands still exist as well; FORSCOM in the Army, and I believe
> ACC would qualify in the USAF.

It's been a long time for me, but I'd put Space command in
the "specified" category. ACC is just shaky old TAC with
bigger bombers.

Jim Baker

April 13th 04, 02:05 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:15:51 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >From this week's AW&ST
> > >
> > >"Air Force May Form Strategic Command"
> > >
> > >
> > >Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
> > >associated acronym of SAC?
> >
> > Actually, it is a review of the "unified" command structure,
> > considering combining of the recently established Northern Command
> > with the long existing Southern Command to form a sort of N/S America
> > continental command. Other unified commands include Eucom, Pacom and
> > Centcom for examples.
> >
> > Strategic Air Command was a "specified" command which gave it a
> > separate status from the operational control of the unified commands.
> > The other specified command was MAC.
>
> Specified commands still exist as well; FORSCOM in the Army, and I believe
> ACC would qualify in the USAF.
>
> Brooks

Partially true Brooks. Specified Commands still exist in theory, they are
part of the Unified Command Plan, but there are none of them "stood up".
Look at the link below for an explanation of the current structure.

http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/unifiedcommand/

Cheers,

Jim

Jim Baker

April 13th 04, 02:14 PM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:15:51 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >From this week's AW&ST
> >
> >"Air Force May Form Strategic Command"
> >
> >
> >Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
> >associated acronym of SAC?
>
> Actually, it is a review of the "unified" command structure,
> considering combining of the recently established Northern Command
> with the long existing Southern Command to form a sort of N/S America
> continental command. Other unified commands include Eucom, Pacom and
> Centcom for examples.
>
> Strategic Air Command was a "specified" command which gave it a
> separate status from the operational control of the unified commands.
> The other specified command was MAC.
>
>
> Ed Rasimus

According to Aviation Week (April 12 2004 issue, page 23), it's not a Joint
Staff initiative but rather an AF plan. The USAF is considering reshuffling
it's commands to better provide forces for US STRATCOM. Currently, 8th AF
provides much of the manpower and equipment for use by STRATCOM and for
reasons unstated in the article, they think creating a new command,
"AFStrat", (Air Force Strategic Command) would do a better job than 8th AF.
This has nothing to do with the Unified Command Plan in a structural sense,
it's all about the AF performing it's role in manning/training/equipping the
units that serve the combatant (Unified/Specified)commands. Just a guess,
but maybe the bombers that are still nuclear capable would move from 8th to
AFStrat under this plan.

Cheers,

JB

Kevin Brooks

April 13th 04, 05:02 PM

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:15:51 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >From this week's AW&ST
> > > >
> > > >"Air Force May Form Strategic Command"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
> > > >associated acronym of SAC?
> > >
> > > Actually, it is a review of the "unified" command structure,
> > > considering combining of the recently established Northern Command
> > > with the long existing Southern Command to form a sort of N/S America
> > > continental command. Other unified commands include Eucom, Pacom and
> > > Centcom for examples.
> > >
> > > Strategic Air Command was a "specified" command which gave it a
> > > separate status from the operational control of the unified commands.
> > > The other specified command was MAC.
> >
> > Specified commands still exist as well; FORSCOM in the Army, and I
believe
> > ACC would qualify in the USAF.
> >
> > Brooks
>
> Partially true Brooks. Specified Commands still exist in theory, they are
> part of the Unified Command Plan, but there are none of them "stood up".
> Look at the link below for an explanation of the current structure.
>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/unifiedcommand/
>
> Cheers,

Actually, I am a bit familiar with that site, but to my knowledge it says
nothing about specified commands existing only in 'theory". FORSCOM remains
a specified command, and IIRC like some other specified commands (i.e.,
ACC), it also serves as the component command HQ for Unified Commands as
required (i.e., NORTHCOM). Unified commands are nothing new, and AFAIK
nothing has yet written the demise of the specified commands that have
existed alongside them (or more accurately, depending upon the current
situation, under them).

Brooks

>
> Jim
>
>

Kevin Brooks

April 13th 04, 05:04 PM

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >
> > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:15:51 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >From this week's AW&ST
> > > >
> > > >"Air Force May Form Strategic Command"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
> > > >associated acronym of SAC?
> > >
> > > Actually, it is a review of the "unified" command structure,
> > > considering combining of the recently established Northern Command
> > > with the long existing Southern Command to form a sort of N/S America
> > > continental command. Other unified commands include Eucom, Pacom and
> > > Centcom for examples.
> > >
> > > Strategic Air Command was a "specified" command which gave it a
> > > separate status from the operational control of the unified commands.
> > > The other specified command was MAC.
> >
> > Specified commands still exist as well; FORSCOM in the Army, and I
believe
> > ACC would qualify in the USAF.
>
> It's been a long time for me, but I'd put Space command in
> the "specified" category. ACC is just shaky old TAC with
> bigger bombers.

Nope. Space Command merged with Strategic Command a year or two back, coming
under the STRATCOM banner (which is a unified command).

Brooks

Kevin Brooks

April 13th 04, 05:06 PM

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:15:51 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >From this week's AW&ST
> > >
> > >"Air Force May Form Strategic Command"
> > >
> > >
> > >Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
> > >associated acronym of SAC?
> >
> > Actually, it is a review of the "unified" command structure,
> > considering combining of the recently established Northern Command
> > with the long existing Southern Command to form a sort of N/S America
> > continental command. Other unified commands include Eucom, Pacom and
> > Centcom for examples.
> >
> > Strategic Air Command was a "specified" command which gave it a
> > separate status from the operational control of the unified commands.
> > The other specified command was MAC.
> >
> >
> > Ed Rasimus
>
> According to Aviation Week (April 12 2004 issue, page 23), it's not a
Joint
> Staff initiative but rather an AF plan. The USAF is considering
reshuffling
> it's commands to better provide forces for US STRATCOM. Currently, 8th AF
> provides much of the manpower and equipment for use by STRATCOM and for
> reasons unstated in the article, they think creating a new command,
> "AFStrat", (Air Force Strategic Command) would do a better job than 8th
AF.
> This has nothing to do with the Unified Command Plan in a structural
sense,
> it's all about the AF performing it's role in manning/training/equipping
the
> units that serve the combatant (Unified/Specified)commands. Just a guess,
> but maybe the bombers that are still nuclear capable would move from 8th
to
> AFStrat under this plan.

Specified commands as combatant commands? Are you sure of that? The usual
procedure is for the specified commands to provide resources to the unified
commands, which form the combatant HQ--or they can be a subordinate
component command HQ, as would be the case with FORSCOM under NORTHCOM
during the homeland defense mission.

Brooks

>
> Cheers,
>
> JB
>
>

Tex Houston

April 13th 04, 05:39 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> Nope. Space Command merged with Strategic Command a year or two back,
coming
> under the STRATCOM banner (which is a unified command).
>
> Brooks

US Space Command, once based in Colorado Springs along with Air Force Space
Command, did merge with Strategic Command and is now located in Omaha. Air
Force Space Command, however, is alive and well in Colorado Springs at
Peterson AFB (along with Northern Command, NORAD and US Army Space and
Missile Defense Command).

Tex

Mark

April 13th 04, 06:04 PM

If AFStrat comes to fruition, I don't think it will be structure along
nuclear/conventional lines. The "new" USSTRATCOM has moved well beyond the
'traditional' WWIII role/mission and if anything the long range conventional
and IO aspects are now the more dominant aspect of the command. I would
think AFSTRAT would be aligned along those lines???

FWIW

Mark

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:15:51 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >From this week's AW&ST
> > >
> > >"Air Force May Form Strategic Command"
> > >
> > >
> > >Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
> > >associated acronym of SAC?
> >
> > Actually, it is a review of the "unified" command structure,
> > considering combining of the recently established Northern Command
> > with the long existing Southern Command to form a sort of N/S America
> > continental command. Other unified commands include Eucom, Pacom and
> > Centcom for examples.
> >
> > Strategic Air Command was a "specified" command which gave it a
> > separate status from the operational control of the unified commands.
> > The other specified command was MAC.
> >
> >
> > Ed Rasimus
>
> According to Aviation Week (April 12 2004 issue, page 23), it's not a
Joint
> Staff initiative but rather an AF plan. The USAF is considering
reshuffling
> it's commands to better provide forces for US STRATCOM. Currently, 8th AF
> provides much of the manpower and equipment for use by STRATCOM and for
> reasons unstated in the article, they think creating a new command,
> "AFStrat", (Air Force Strategic Command) would do a better job than 8th
AF.
> This has nothing to do with the Unified Command Plan in a structural
sense,
> it's all about the AF performing it's role in manning/training/equipping
the
> units that serve the combatant (Unified/Specified)commands. Just a guess,
> but maybe the bombers that are still nuclear capable would move from 8th
to
> AFStrat under this plan.
>
> Cheers,
>
> JB
>
>

Jim Baker

April 13th 04, 08:19 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:15:51 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >From this week's AW&ST
> > > > >
> > > > >"Air Force May Form Strategic Command"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
> > > > >associated acronym of SAC?
> > > >
> > > > Actually, it is a review of the "unified" command structure,
> > > > considering combining of the recently established Northern Command
> > > > with the long existing Southern Command to form a sort of N/S
America
> > > > continental command. Other unified commands include Eucom, Pacom and
> > > > Centcom for examples.
> > > >
> > > > Strategic Air Command was a "specified" command which gave it a
> > > > separate status from the operational control of the unified
commands.
> > > > The other specified command was MAC.
> > >
> > > Specified commands still exist as well; FORSCOM in the Army, and I
> believe
> > > ACC would qualify in the USAF.
> > >
> > > Brooks
> >
> > Partially true Brooks. Specified Commands still exist in theory, they
are
> > part of the Unified Command Plan, but there are none of them "stood up".
> > Look at the link below for an explanation of the current structure.
> >
> > http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/unifiedcommand/
> >
> > Cheers,
>
> Actually, I am a bit familiar with that site, but to my knowledge it says
> nothing about specified commands existing only in 'theory". FORSCOM
remains
> a specified command, and IIRC like some other specified commands (i.e.,
> ACC), it also serves as the component command HQ for Unified Commands as
> required (i.e., NORTHCOM). Unified commands are nothing new, and AFAIK
> nothing has yet written the demise of the specified commands that have
> existed alongside them (or more accurately, depending upon the current
> situation, under them).
>
> Brooks

Brooks,

There are no specified commands. The only two specified commands, to my
knowledge and I was involved with this on a working basis from 1981 until
1997, were Strategic Air Command and Military Airlift Command. These units
ceased to be specified commands in the late 80's early 90's during a DoD
reorginization bringing the structure in compliance with the
Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 which ammended the National Security Act of
1947. As you know, Strategic Air Command ceased to exist and Military Air
Command exists today as Air Mobility Command, a USAF command and the AF
component of USTRANSCOM, a unified command. Since that time, there have
been no specified commands as defined by the Unified Command Plan.

Unified Commands do not have subordinate "specified commands". Their
subordinate commands are called sub-unified commands. A good example of
this is the relationship between PACOM and and United States Forces Korea.

Air Combat Command is not a specified command and never has been even when
it was Tactical Air Command. FORSCOM is not currently a specified command
but I can't say for certain that it never has been. Currently, and for the
last, at least, dozen years, FORSCOM is the Army component of U.S. Joint
Forces Command, a unified command. The purpose of ACC and FORSCOM is to man,
train, equip, and furnish forces to combatant commanders as established by
the Unified Command Plan. They have other responsibilities as well, but
those are the main ones for this conversation. The commanders of ACC and
FORSCOM are not combatant commanders and do not carry the title of Commander
in Chief (CINC), as do commanders of unified commands. Those commands are
Air Force and Army commands, not United States commands, and as such do not
fight wars. ACC and FORSCOM units are CHOPped (Change of Op Control) to
unified commands for hostile action. The units are CHOPped back to the
service command at the discretion of the unified CINC.

Much of the knowledge I have on this subject came from attending Air Command
and Staff College, attending Joint Forces Staff College, and completing
National War College by correspondence. I also served on the Joint Staff
from 1992-1995 where, for a time, I was the DoD/JS lead on a tempest in a
teapot with STRATCOM over OPCON of the NEACP (now the NAOC). This issue
involved me deeply in the Unified Command Plan and we successfully fought
off the STRATCOM attempt to wrest control of the NEACP from the JS (which
operated the E-4B for the SECDEF). I think now STRATCOM does own the NAOC,
c'est la guerre! (sp) ;-) Due to this experience and training, I was
nominated and selected as a Joint Staff Officer. Not trying to toot any
horns here, just establishing credentials.

More information on the subject is available online from the Joint Forces
Staff College, JFSC Pub 1. In particular, Page 1-29 para (4)(b) which
states in part "...There are currently no specified commands but the option
to create such a command still exists." That's why I said they exist "in
theory" in my previous post. The entire Pub 1 is available at the link
below. You'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader to look at it.

http://www.jfsc.ndu.edu/current_students/documents_policies/documents/jsogpub_1_2000.pdf

Best Regards,

JB

Jim Baker

April 13th 04, 08:25 PM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:15:51 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >From this week's AW&ST
> > > >
> > > >"Air Force May Form Strategic Command"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
> > > >associated acronym of SAC?
> > >
> > > Actually, it is a review of the "unified" command structure,
> > > considering combining of the recently established Northern Command
> > > with the long existing Southern Command to form a sort of N/S America
> > > continental command. Other unified commands include Eucom, Pacom and
> > > Centcom for examples.
> > >
> > > Strategic Air Command was a "specified" command which gave it a
> > > separate status from the operational control of the unified commands.
> > > The other specified command was MAC.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ed Rasimus
> >
> > According to Aviation Week (April 12 2004 issue, page 23), it's not a
> Joint
> > Staff initiative but rather an AF plan. The USAF is considering
> reshuffling
> > it's commands to better provide forces for US STRATCOM. Currently, 8th
AF
> > provides much of the manpower and equipment for use by STRATCOM and for
> > reasons unstated in the article, they think creating a new command,
> > "AFStrat", (Air Force Strategic Command) would do a better job than 8th
> AF.
> > This has nothing to do with the Unified Command Plan in a structural
> sense,
> > it's all about the AF performing it's role in manning/training/equipping
> the
> > units that serve the combatant (Unified/Specified)commands. Just a
guess,
> > but maybe the bombers that are still nuclear capable would move from 8th
> to
> > AFStrat under this plan.
>>
>>JB
>
> Specified commands as combatant commands? Are you sure of that? The usual
> procedure is for the specified commands to provide resources to the
unified
> commands, which form the combatant HQ--or they can be a subordinate
> component command HQ, as would be the case with FORSCOM under NORTHCOM
> during the homeland defense mission.
>
> Brooks
>
Yes, I'm sure specified commands were, and would be if stood up, combatant
commands. The usual procedure is for service commands (i.e. FORSCOM or ACC
or AMC or Pacific Fleet) to provide men and equipment to the Unified and
Specified commands for warfighting. Currently, there are no specified
commands. In the US armed forces, "all" (I'm sure there must be an
exception somewhere) commands that aren't unified commands, are service
commands, do not have CINC's as commanders and their chief responsibilities
are manning, training, equipping, and providing of forces to the unified
commands.

JB

Jim Baker

April 13th 04, 08:27 PM

> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:15:51 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >From this week's AW&ST
> > > >
> > > >"Air Force May Form Strategic Command"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
> > > >associated acronym of SAC?
> > >
> > > Actually, it is a review of the "unified" command structure,
> > > considering combining of the recently established Northern Command
> > > with the long existing Southern Command to form a sort of N/S America
> > > continental command. Other unified commands include Eucom, Pacom and
> > > Centcom for examples.
> > >
> > > Strategic Air Command was a "specified" command which gave it a
> > > separate status from the operational control of the unified commands.
> > > The other specified command was MAC.
> > >
> > >
> > > Ed Rasimus
> >
> > According to Aviation Week (April 12 2004 issue, page 23), it's not a
> Joint
> > Staff initiative but rather an AF plan. The USAF is considering
> reshuffling
> > it's commands to better provide forces for US STRATCOM. Currently, 8th
AF
> > provides much of the manpower and equipment for use by STRATCOM and for
> > reasons unstated in the article, they think creating a new command,
> > "AFStrat", (Air Force Strategic Command) would do a better job than 8th
> AF.
> > This has nothing to do with the Unified Command Plan in a structural
> sense,
> > it's all about the AF performing it's role in manning/training/equipping
> the
> > units that serve the combatant (Unified/Specified)commands. Just a
guess,
> > but maybe the bombers that are still nuclear capable would move from 8th
> to
> > AFStrat under this plan.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > JB
> >
>
"Mark" > wrote in message
...
> If AFStrat comes to fruition, I don't think it will be structure along
> nuclear/conventional lines. The "new" USSTRATCOM has moved well beyond
the
> 'traditional' WWIII role/mission and if anything the long range
conventional
> and IO aspects are now the more dominant aspect of the command. I would
> think AFSTRAT would be aligned along those lines???
>
> FWIW
>
> Mark
>
I agree Mark, you're probably correct there.

JB

Kevin Brooks

April 14th 04, 05:08 AM

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:15:51 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >From this week's AW&ST
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"Air Force May Form Strategic Command"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
> > > > > >associated acronym of SAC?
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, it is a review of the "unified" command structure,
> > > > > considering combining of the recently established Northern Command
> > > > > with the long existing Southern Command to form a sort of N/S
> America
> > > > > continental command. Other unified commands include Eucom, Pacom
and
> > > > > Centcom for examples.
> > > > >
> > > > > Strategic Air Command was a "specified" command which gave it a
> > > > > separate status from the operational control of the unified
> commands.
> > > > > The other specified command was MAC.
> > > >
> > > > Specified commands still exist as well; FORSCOM in the Army, and I
> > believe
> > > > ACC would qualify in the USAF.
> > > >
> > > > Brooks
> > >
> > > Partially true Brooks. Specified Commands still exist in theory, they
> are
> > > part of the Unified Command Plan, but there are none of them "stood
up".
> > > Look at the link below for an explanation of the current structure.
> > >
> > > http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/unifiedcommand/
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> >
> > Actually, I am a bit familiar with that site, but to my knowledge it
says
> > nothing about specified commands existing only in 'theory". FORSCOM
> remains
> > a specified command, and IIRC like some other specified commands (i.e.,
> > ACC), it also serves as the component command HQ for Unified Commands as
> > required (i.e., NORTHCOM). Unified commands are nothing new, and AFAIK
> > nothing has yet written the demise of the specified commands that have
> > existed alongside them (or more accurately, depending upon the current
> > situation, under them).
> >
> > Brooks
>
> Brooks,
>
> There are no specified commands. The only two specified commands, to my
> knowledge and I was involved with this on a working basis from 1981 until
> 1997, were Strategic Air Command and Military Airlift Command.

Odd. "On July 1, 1987, as the result of the DOD reorganization directed by
the Goldwater-Nichols Act, FORSCOM became a specified command..."
(www.globalsecurity.org/military/ agency/army/forscom.htm ). In actuality
though, you are partly correct--FORSCOM gave up its specified command status
a few years later, in 1993 (http://www.forscom.army.mil/info/history.htm).
So it appears that at least one other specified command was around during
that period you referred to.

These units
> ceased to be specified commands in the late 80's early 90's during a DoD
> reorginization bringing the structure in compliance with the
> Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 which ammended the National Security Act of
> 1947. As you know, Strategic Air Command ceased to exist and Military Air
> Command exists today as Air Mobility Command, a USAF command and the AF
> component of USTRANSCOM, a unified command. Since that time, there have
> been no specified commands as defined by the Unified Command Plan.

That would be the same Goldwater-Nichols Act that made FORSCOM a specified
command...? FORSCOM's own site notes that the act you cite was what *made*
them a specified command for some six years.

>
> Unified Commands do not have subordinate "specified commands". Their
> subordinate commands are called sub-unified commands. A good example of
> this is the relationship between PACOM and and United States Forces Korea.

> Air Combat Command is not a specified command and never has been even when
> it was Tactical Air Command. FORSCOM is not currently a specified command
> but I can't say for certain that it never has been. Currently, and for
the
> last, at least, dozen years, FORSCOM is the Army component of U.S. Joint
> Forces Command, a unified command. The purpose of ACC and FORSCOM is to
man,
> train, equip, and furnish forces to combatant commanders as established by
> the Unified Command Plan. They have other responsibilities as well, but
> those are the main ones for this conversation. The commanders of ACC and
> FORSCOM are not combatant commanders and do not carry the title of
Commander
> in Chief (CINC), as do commanders of unified commands. Those commands are
> Air Force and Army commands, not United States commands, and as such do
not
> fight wars. ACC and FORSCOM units are CHOPped (Change of Op Control) to
> unified commands for hostile action. The units are CHOPped back to the
> service command at the discretion of the unified CINC.

Not quite completely accurate. Go to the FORSCOM pages I have already
provided you and you will see that FORSCOM is indeed the SCC HQ for both
JFCOM and NORTHCOM. Other than those two unified commands, you are correct
in stating that FORSCOM would merely provide units (as it does with CENTCOM,
FORSCOM's Third Army being the SCC HQ). And don't get too tangled up in the
"only unified commanders can be combatant commanders" bit..."Combatant
commands can be either specified or unified commands, though the nine
currently established are all unified commands."
(www.cadre.maxwell.af.mil/warfarestudies/ wpc/wpc_txt/org_nss/combc.htm )

>
> Much of the knowledge I have on this subject came from attending Air
Command
> and Staff College, attending Joint Forces Staff College, and completing
> National War College by correspondence. I also served on the Joint Staff
> from 1992-1995 where, for a time, I was the DoD/JS lead on a tempest in a
> teapot with STRATCOM over OPCON of the NEACP (now the NAOC). This issue
> involved me deeply in the Unified Command Plan and we successfully fought
> off the STRATCOM attempt to wrest control of the NEACP from the JS (which
> operated the E-4B for the SECDEF). I think now STRATCOM does own the
NAOC,
> c'est la guerre! (sp) ;-) Due to this experience and training, I was
> nominated and selected as a Joint Staff Officer. Not trying to toot any
> horns here, just establishing credentials.

Hey, you would be correct, as far as I can determine, in stating that
FORSCOM is no longer a specified command; my mistake. However, you appear to
be off-base with your notion that FORSCOM does not also serve as the service
component command HQ for a couple of unified commands, or that SAC and MAC
were the *only* specified commands that existed during the period you noted,
so I'd be a bit wary of doing much tooting... :-).

Brooks

>
> More information on the subject is available online from the Joint Forces
> Staff College, JFSC Pub 1. In particular, Page 1-29 para (4)(b) which
> states in part "...There are currently no specified commands but the
option
> to create such a command still exists." That's why I said they exist "in
> theory" in my previous post. The entire Pub 1 is available at the link
> below. You'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader to look at it.
>
>
http://www.jfsc.ndu.edu/current_students/documents_policies/documents/jsogpub_1_2000.pdf
>
> Best Regards,
>
> JB
>
>
>

Kevin Brooks

April 14th 04, 05:10 AM

"Jim Baker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:15:51 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >From this week's AW&ST
> > > > >
> > > > >"Air Force May Form Strategic Command"
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
> > > > >associated acronym of SAC?
> > > >
> > > > Actually, it is a review of the "unified" command structure,
> > > > considering combining of the recently established Northern Command
> > > > with the long existing Southern Command to form a sort of N/S
America
> > > > continental command. Other unified commands include Eucom, Pacom and
> > > > Centcom for examples.
> > > >
> > > > Strategic Air Command was a "specified" command which gave it a
> > > > separate status from the operational control of the unified
commands.
> > > > The other specified command was MAC.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ed Rasimus
> > >
> > > According to Aviation Week (April 12 2004 issue, page 23), it's not a
> > Joint
> > > Staff initiative but rather an AF plan. The USAF is considering
> > reshuffling
> > > it's commands to better provide forces for US STRATCOM. Currently,
8th
> AF
> > > provides much of the manpower and equipment for use by STRATCOM and
for
> > > reasons unstated in the article, they think creating a new command,
> > > "AFStrat", (Air Force Strategic Command) would do a better job than
8th
> > AF.
> > > This has nothing to do with the Unified Command Plan in a structural
> > sense,
> > > it's all about the AF performing it's role in
manning/training/equipping
> > the
> > > units that serve the combatant (Unified/Specified)commands. Just a
> guess,
> > > but maybe the bombers that are still nuclear capable would move from
8th
> > to
> > > AFStrat under this plan.
> >>
> >>JB
> >
> > Specified commands as combatant commands? Are you sure of that? The
usual
> > procedure is for the specified commands to provide resources to the
> unified
> > commands, which form the combatant HQ--or they can be a subordinate
> > component command HQ, as would be the case with FORSCOM under NORTHCOM
> > during the homeland defense mission.
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> Yes, I'm sure specified commands were, and would be if stood up, combatant
> commands. The usual procedure is for service commands (i.e. FORSCOM or
ACC
> or AMC or Pacific Fleet) to provide men and equipment to the Unified and
> Specified commands for warfighting. Currently, there are no specified
> commands. In the US armed forces, "all" (I'm sure there must be an
> exception somewhere) commands that aren't unified commands, are service
> commands, do not have CINC's as commanders and their chief
responsibilities
> are manning, training, equipping, and providing of forces to the unified
> commands.

OK, that jives with what I just read elsewhere--specified commands can
indeed be combatant commands if so designated.

Brooks

>
> JB
>
>

Kevin Brooks

April 14th 04, 05:12 AM

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Nope. Space Command merged with Strategic Command a year or two back,
> coming
> > under the STRATCOM banner (which is a unified command).
> >
> > Brooks
>
> US Space Command, once based in Colorado Springs along with Air Force
Space
> Command, did merge with Strategic Command and is now located in Omaha.
Air
> Force Space Command, however, is alive and well in Colorado Springs at
> Peterson AFB (along with Northern Command, NORAD and US Army Space and
> Missile Defense Command).

But it is not a specified command. No biggie--turns out I was wrong about
FORSCOM still being a specified command, being as it gave up that title back
in 1993. Live and learn.

Brooks

>
> Tex
>
>
>

Jim Baker

April 14th 04, 06:57 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:15:51 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >From this week's AW&ST
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"Air Force May Form Strategic Command"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
> > > > > >associated acronym of SAC?
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, it is a review of the "unified" command structure,
> > > > > considering combining of the recently established Northern Command
> > > > > with the long existing Southern Command to form a sort of N/S
> America
> > > > > continental command. Other unified commands include Eucom, Pacom
and
> > > > > Centcom for examples.
> > > > >
> > > > > Strategic Air Command was a "specified" command which gave it a
> > > > > separate status from the operational control of the unified
> commands.
> > > > > The other specified command was MAC.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed Rasimus
> > > >
> > > > According to Aviation Week (April 12 2004 issue, page 23), it's not
a
> > > Joint
> > > > Staff initiative but rather an AF plan. The USAF is considering
> > > reshuffling
> > > > it's commands to better provide forces for US STRATCOM. Currently,
> 8th
> > AF
> > > > provides much of the manpower and equipment for use by STRATCOM and
> for
> > > > reasons unstated in the article, they think creating a new command,
> > > > "AFStrat", (Air Force Strategic Command) would do a better job than
> 8th
> > > AF.
> > > > This has nothing to do with the Unified Command Plan in a structural
> > > sense,
> > > > it's all about the AF performing it's role in
> manning/training/equipping
> > > the
> > > > units that serve the combatant (Unified/Specified)commands. Just a
> > guess,
> > > > but maybe the bombers that are still nuclear capable would move from
> 8th
> > > to
> > > > AFStrat under this plan.
> > >>
> > >>JB
> > >
> > > Specified commands as combatant commands? Are you sure of that? The
> usual
> > > procedure is for the specified commands to provide resources to the
> > unified
> > > commands, which form the combatant HQ--or they can be a subordinate
> > > component command HQ, as would be the case with FORSCOM under NORTHCOM
> > > during the homeland defense mission.
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > Yes, I'm sure specified commands were, and would be if stood up,
combatant
> > commands. The usual procedure is for service commands (i.e. FORSCOM or
> ACC
> > or AMC or Pacific Fleet) to provide men and equipment to the Unified and
> > Specified commands for warfighting. Currently, there are no specified
> > commands. In the US armed forces, "all" (I'm sure there must be an
> > exception somewhere) commands that aren't unified commands, are service
> > commands, do not have CINC's as commanders and their chief
> responsibilities
> > are manning, training, equipping, and providing of forces to the unified
> > commands.
>
> OK, that jives with what I just read elsewhere--specified commands can
> indeed be combatant commands if so designated.
>
> Brooks
>
> >
Well....perhaps just word games now....specified commands as defined in the
Unified Command Plan, are (not can be) combatant commands.

JB

Jim Baker

April 15th 04, 07:09 AM

<non pertinent stuff snipped>

> > > > > Specified commands still exist as well; FORSCOM in the Army, and I
> > > believe
> > > > > ACC would qualify in the USAF.
> > > > >
> > > > > Brooks

> > > > Partially true Brooks. Specified Commands still exist in theory,
they
> > are
> > > > part of the Unified Command Plan, but there are none of them "stood
> up".
> > > > Look at the link below for an explanation of the current structure.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/unifiedcommand/
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > >Jim

> > > Actually, I am a bit familiar with that site, but to my knowledge it
> says
> > > nothing about specified commands existing only in 'theory". FORSCOM
> > remains
> > > a specified command, and IIRC like some other specified commands
(i.e.,
> > > ACC), it also serves as the component command HQ for Unified Commands
as
> > > required (i.e., NORTHCOM). Unified commands are nothing new, and AFAIK
> > > nothing has yet written the demise of the specified commands that have
> > > existed alongside them (or more accurately, depending upon the current
> > > situation, under them).
> > >
> > > Brooks

> > Brooks,
> >
> > There are no specified commands. The only two specified commands, to my
> > knowledge and I was involved with this on a working basis from 1981
until
> > 1997, were Strategic Air Command and Military Airlift Command.

> Odd. "On July 1, 1987, as the result of the DOD reorganization directed by
> the Goldwater-Nichols Act, FORSCOM became a specified command..."
> (www.globalsecurity.org/military/ agency/army/forscom.htm ). In actuality
> though, you are partly correct--FORSCOM gave up its specified command
status
> a few years later, in 1993 (http://www.forscom.army.mil/info/history.htm).
> So it appears that at least one other specified command was around during
> that period you referred to.
>Brooks

Well that's good to know. I'm an AF guy and didn't know that FORSCOM was a
UCP command. Thanks.
Jim

> These units
> > ceased to be specified commands in the late 80's early 90's during a DoD
> > reorginization bringing the structure in compliance with the
> > Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 which ammended the National Security Act
of
> > 1947. As you know, Strategic Air Command ceased to exist and Military
Air
> > Command exists today as Air Mobility Command, a USAF command and the AF
> > component of USTRANSCOM, a unified command. Since that time, there have
> > been no specified commands as defined by the Unified Command Plan.
>
> That would be the same Goldwater-Nichols Act that made FORSCOM a specified
> command...? FORSCOM's own site notes that the act you cite was what *made*
> them a specified command for some six years.
>
> >
> > Unified Commands do not have subordinate "specified commands". Their
> > subordinate commands are called sub-unified commands. A good example of
> > this is the relationship between PACOM and and United States Forces
Korea.
>
>
> > Air Combat Command is not a specified command and never has been even
when
> > it was Tactical Air Command. FORSCOM is not currently a specified
command
> > but I can't say for certain that it never has been. Currently, and for
> the
> > last, at least, dozen years, FORSCOM is the Army component of U.S. Joint
> > Forces Command, a unified command. The purpose of ACC and FORSCOM is to
> man,
> > train, equip, and furnish forces to combatant commanders as established
by
> > the Unified Command Plan. They have other responsibilities as well, but
> > those are the main ones for this conversation. The commanders of ACC and
> > FORSCOM are not combatant commanders and do not carry the title of
> Commander
> > in Chief (CINC), as do commanders of unified commands. Those commands
are
> > Air Force and Army commands, not United States commands, and as such do
> not
> > fight wars. ACC and FORSCOM units are CHOPped (Change of Op Control) to
> > unified commands for hostile action. The units are CHOPped back to the
> > service command at the discretion of the unified CINC.
>
> Not quite completely accurate. Go to the FORSCOM pages I have already
> provided you and you will see that FORSCOM is indeed the SCC HQ for both
> JFCOM and NORTHCOM. Other than those two unified commands, you are correct
> in stating that FORSCOM would merely provide units (as it does with
CENTCOM,
> FORSCOM's Third Army being the SCC HQ). And don't get too tangled up in
the
> "only unified commanders can be combatant commanders" bit..."Combatant
> commands can be either specified or unified commands, though the nine
> currently established are all unified commands."
> (www.cadre.maxwell.af.mil/warfarestudies/ wpc/wpc_txt/org_nss/combc.htm )
>

This is silly Brooks. I'm not tangled up in anything. I know, and pointed
it out to you, that under the Unified Command Plan, two types of commands
can exist. Those are Unified Commands and Specified Commands. Obviously
the commander of either of those would be a combatant commander. Just read
the AFSC Pub 1 page I researched and provided for you to read. It's all
there so I'm obviously not tangled up in knowing this subject area. And I
did go to the FORSCOM page and I was completely accurate in stating that
FORSCOM provides units to the combatant commands, of which there are only
unified commands presently, when it is included in their Oplans. I stated
that in the paragraph above and, judging from your response above, you must
have missed it. I said "...FORSCOM is the Army component of U.S. Joint
Forces Command..." Naturally, since FORSCOM/CC is the service component
commander for NORTHCOM and JFCOM, he would bring his HQ with him. That
only makes sense if you understand the plan; FORSCOM is the army component
to those unified commands, who else would bring the land component HQ to the
fight other than the land component commander? Nothing too new or revealing
about that. HQ or not though, it's just a unit provided to the CINC of the
supported unified (or specified) command. And It's not "merely" providing
units, that's the life blood of the UCP, the service major commands
providing the muscle for the CINCs to fight wars.

Regards,

JB

> > Much of the knowledge I have on this subject came from attending Air
> Command
> > and Staff College, attending Joint Forces Staff College, and completing
> > National War College by correspondence. I also served on the Joint
Staff
> > from 1992-1995 where, for a time, I was the DoD/JS lead on a tempest in
a
> > teapot with STRATCOM over OPCON of the NEACP (now the NAOC). This issue
> > involved me deeply in the Unified Command Plan and we successfully
fought
> > off the STRATCOM attempt to wrest control of the NEACP from the JS
(which
> > operated the E-4B for the SECDEF). I think now STRATCOM does own the
> NAOC,
> > c'est la guerre! (sp) ;-) Due to this experience and training, I was
> > nominated and selected as a Joint Staff Officer. Not trying to toot any
> > horns here, just establishing credentials.
>
> Hey, you would be correct, as far as I can determine, in stating that
> FORSCOM is no longer a specified command; my mistake. However, you appear
to
> be off-base with your notion that FORSCOM does not also serve as the
service
> component command HQ for a couple of unified commands, or that SAC and MAC
> were the *only* specified commands that existed during the period you
noted,
> so I'd be a bit wary of doing much tooting... :-).
>
> Brooks

I never said FORSCOM was not a unit provider to any unified command. Off
base about what? I said FORSCOM was an army MACOM (Army term I believe)
which, when provided for in a unified (or specified) commands Oplan, would
provide units to that combatant command. What you said in the response
above is just affirming what I said earlier...Army/Navy/AF/Marine Majcoms
(AF term) provide units to combatant commanders for hostile action. Thats
what I said and that wouldn't make me off base in thinking that FORSCOM
would provide units to NORTHCOM or JFCOM. One of those units would,
obviously, be an HQ unit since FORSCOM/CC is the army/land component
commander for both NORTHCOM and JFCOM. Who else would provide the land
service component HQ for a unified commander but the army component? (Come
to think of it, the Marines could)

As I said earlier, I'm not tooting any horns, just stating the facts as they
were taught to me and what I learned in the jobs I held. I missed on a
history point, and I sincerely thank you for pointing that out, but nothing
else. It's not magic, it's all in AFSC Pub 1.

Regards,

Jim

> > More information on the subject is available online from the Joint
Forces
> > Staff College, JFSC Pub 1. In particular, Page 1-29 para (4)(b) which
> > states in part "...There are currently no specified commands but the
> option
> > to create such a command still exists." That's why I said they exist
"in
> > theory" in my previous post. The entire Pub 1 is available at the link
> > below. You'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader to look at it.
> >
> >
>
http://www.jfsc.ndu.edu/current_students/documents_policies/documents/jsogpub_1_2000.pdf
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > JB
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Jim Baker

April 15th 04, 07:12 AM

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Jim Baker" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > On Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:15:51 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >From this week's AW&ST
> > > > > >
> > > > > >"Air Force May Form Strategic Command"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Would that also be known as "Strategic Air Command" with the
> > > > > >associated acronym of SAC?
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, it is a review of the "unified" command structure,
> > > > > considering combining of the recently established Northern Command
> > > > > with the long existing Southern Command to form a sort of N/S
> America
> > > > > continental command. Other unified commands include Eucom, Pacom
and
> > > > > Centcom for examples.
> > > > >
> > > > > Strategic Air Command was a "specified" command which gave it a
> > > > > separate status from the operational control of the unified
> commands.
> > > > > The other specified command was MAC.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Ed Rasimus
> > > >
> > > > According to Aviation Week (April 12 2004 issue, page 23), it's not
a
> > > Joint
> > > > Staff initiative but rather an AF plan. The USAF is considering
> > > reshuffling
> > > > it's commands to better provide forces for US STRATCOM. Currently,
> 8th
> > AF
> > > > provides much of the manpower and equipment for use by STRATCOM and
> for
> > > > reasons unstated in the article, they think creating a new command,
> > > > "AFStrat", (Air Force Strategic Command) would do a better job than
> 8th
> > > AF.
> > > > This has nothing to do with the Unified Command Plan in a structural
> > > sense,
> > > > it's all about the AF performing it's role in
> manning/training/equipping
> > > the
> > > > units that serve the combatant (Unified/Specified)commands. Just a
> > guess,
> > > > but maybe the bombers that are still nuclear capable would move from
> 8th
> > > to
> > > > AFStrat under this plan.
> > >>
> > >>JB
> > >
> > > Specified commands as combatant commands? Are you sure of that? The
> usual
> > > procedure is for the specified commands to provide resources to the
> > unified
> > > commands, which form the combatant HQ--or they can be a subordinate
> > > component command HQ, as would be the case with FORSCOM under NORTHCOM
> > > during the homeland defense mission.
> > >
> > > Brooks
> > >
> > Yes, I'm sure specified commands were, and would be if stood up,
combatant
> > commands. The usual procedure is for service commands (i.e. FORSCOM or
> ACC
> > or AMC or Pacific Fleet) to provide men and equipment to the Unified and
> > Specified commands for warfighting. Currently, there are no specified
> > commands. In the US armed forces, "all" (I'm sure there must be an
> > exception somewhere) commands that aren't unified commands, are service
> > commands, do not have CINC's as commanders and their chief
> responsibilities
> > are manning, training, equipping, and providing of forces to the unified
> > commands.
>
> OK, that jives with what I just read elsewhere--specified commands can
> indeed be combatant commands if so designated.
>
> Brooks
>
Well.....not "if so designated". Specified Commands are combatant
commands...period. The fact that there aren't any now in now way lessens
the fact that under the Unified Command Plan, there are two types of
commands...Unified and Specified. These commands are referred to as
"combatant commands". It's in AFSC Pub 1. As Yogi said, "you could look it
up".

Jim