How come, as some claim, the CO at Nellis has no idea of the base closing but
guys on this NG are "in the loop" and know stuff the base CO doesn't. How
come?

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" > wrote
>
> How come, as some claim, the CO at Nellis has no idea of the base closing but
> guys on this NG are "in the loop" and know stuff the base CO doesn't. How
> come?

Just the opposite. The CO knows about as much as anyone in this group about
what bases will be closed on the next go. My only point was that the range is
not what it used to be 20 years ago, and the runways to the south are disasters
just waiting to happen with the population in-rush.

Who in this group is in the loop? You don't actually believe these guys!
BTW, nobody says "CO" anymore. The base commander is the wing commander,
WG/CC.
Curt

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> How come, as some claim, the CO at Nellis has no idea of the base closing
but
> guys on this NG are "in the loop" and know stuff the base CO doesn't. How
> come?
>
> Arthur Kramer
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

>Subject: Re: Nellis? Hpw come....?
>From: "C Knowles"
>Date: 7/20/03 3:46 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Who in this group is in the loop? You don't actually believe these guys!

I never actually came right out and said I didn't beleive them directly in so
many words. Did I? (grin)

>BTW, nobody says "CO" anymore. The base commander is the wing commander,

I started saying CO in 1943 and never stopped. It is the Army Air Corp way.
That was when men were men and woman were double breasted. ((:->))


>Curt
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> How come, as some claim, the CO at Nellis has no idea of the base closing
>but
>> guys on this NG are "in the loop" and know stuff the base CO doesn't. How
>> come?
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

I seriously doubt Nellis would ever be shut down, it's as likely as Edwards
being shut down.

"suckthis.com" wrote
> I seriously doubt Nellis would ever be shut down, it's as likely as Edwards
> being shut down.

They said the same thing about dickie-goober

> The base commander is the wing commander,

Unless they have seriously changed things since I got out I don't think so.
Normally the base commander is a colonel who reports to the wing commander.
The base commander is in charge of the base itself. Security Police/Law
Enforcement, Civil engineering, Housing, Personnel, Communications,
Supply/POL

>Subject: Re: Nellis? Hpw come....?
>From: "Leadfoot"
>Date: 7/20/03 7:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <jQHSa.14041$u51.822@fed1read05>
>
>> The base commander is the wing commander,
>
>Unless they have seriously changed things since I got out I don't think so.
>Normally the base commander is a colonel who reports to the wing commander.
>The base commander is in charge of the base itself. Security Police/Law
>Enforcement, Civil engineering, Housing, Personnel, Communications,
>Supply/POL
>
>

Yup. That's the way I remember it.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Leadfoot wrote:
>>The base commander is the wing commander,
>
>
> Unless they have seriously changed things since I got out I don't think so.
> Normally the base commander is a colonel who reports to the wing commander.
> The base commander is in charge of the base itself. Security Police/Law
> Enforcement, Civil engineering, Housing, Personnel, Communications,
> Supply/POL
>
>

They have. The Wing Commander owns (nominally, often there are tenant
units that fall under different organizations) all of the groups which
make up the base organization. This includes the support functions that
you listed. There is no base commander anymore for Air Force Bases.

Mike Williamson

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> How come, as some claim, the CO at Nellis has no idea of the base closing
but
> guys on this NG are "in the loop" and know stuff the base CO doesn't. How
> come?

Because there is no "list". My own Base CO at Goodfellow has told us
several in rumor control sessions that the only "list" that exists is in the
fevered imagination of some web weirdo.

>Subject: Re: Nellis? Hpw come....?
>From: "Ragnar"
>Date: 7/20/03 8:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: k.net>
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> How come, as some claim, the CO at Nellis has no idea of the base closing
>but
>> guys on this NG are "in the loop" and know stuff the base CO doesn't. How
>> come?
>
>Because there is no "list". My own Base CO at Goodfellow has told us
>several in rumor control sessions that the only "list" that exists is in the
>fevered imagination of some web weirdo.
>
>

I never said that. You did. (grin)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"> We're not "In the Loop" and we know it. He's not "In the Loop" but he
> doesn't know it:-). I think its been the experience of the people in
> the group that they have seen many people at bases about to be "BRACed"
> talking about how they KNEW they would not be closed. Boom, the list
> comes out and they're on it. The DOD is famous for building nice new
> facilities on bases that get BRACed the next year.

I don't think there are many people "in the loop" period ... certainly no
one who regularly visits this newsgroup. OTOH, some of us have BRAC
experience (in my case 91, 93, and 95) so we're intimately familiar with the
process and how the players were arranged on the field in the past.

The logic that placed various facilities on BRAC lists in the past was not
always very logical (one of my favorites is relocating the Navy's mine
warfare assets at Ingleside, TX where they're nowhere near the forces
they're supposed to support). The logic for 2005 will be centered at
SecDef, not the service secretaries ... that'll alter the game.

Some rules have changed. Perhaps most significant is that closed bases do
no have to be turned over to their local communities for reuse. They can
just turn off the lights, padlock the gate and mothball the site. A nice
death penalty for the community.

R / John

Thanks for the update. When I was in (75-81) the base commander worked for
the Wing King who wrote his OER. Generally the Wing commnader however gave
the base commander a free hand in how he ran things


"C Knowles" > wrote in message
. ..
> They have seriously changed things, about ten years ago in the "big reorg"
> under McPeak. We seem to have followed the Navy's idea of putting everyone
> on a base under one person (CAG vs. the captain). Instead of having two
> colonels (one base commander, one wing commander) with different
priorities
> the base commander billet was eliminated. The wing commander is in charge
of
> all functions on the base. A wing is divided into groups- operations,
> mission support, logistics, maintenance, medical, etc. These have been
fine
> tuned recently as maintenance was not a group before but fell under
> logistics. It works well in that there is less confusion about who works
> for who. The down side is that the WG/CC has less to do with operations
and
> maintenance, leaving most of that up to the group commanders.
> Tenant units that do not fall under the host wing generally take care of
> their own mission but, when it comes to base issues, still follow
direction
> from the wing commander.
>
> Curt
>
>
> "Leadfoot" > wrote in message
> news:jQHSa.14041$u51.822@fed1read05...
> > > The base commander is the wing commander,
> >
> > Unless they have seriously changed things since I got out I don't think
> so.
> > Normally the base commander is a colonel who reports to the wing
> commander.
> > The base commander is in charge of the base itself. Security Police/Law
> > Enforcement, Civil engineering, Housing, Personnel, Communications,
> > Supply/POL
> >
> >
>
>

>Tenant units that do not fall under the host wing generally take care of
>their own mission but, when it comes to base issues, still follow direction
>from the wing commander.

Which includes units such as numbered Air Forces. Kind of strange an O-6 can
tell an O-9, who's directly above him in the chain of command, where and how
his HQ will be supported. Now I'm sure theres a little "give and take", but
ultimately the WG/CC controls how, when and where the HQ for a numbered Air
Force is supported.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

My previous assignment was at Travis, in the 60AMW and then at HQ 15AF.

I certainly wasn't in THAT loop but it didn't seem to be that big of a deal;
the NAF really doesn't require that much support. The biggest tussle seemed
to be over personnel moves. NAF would demand a certain person for a job, the
wing didn't want to give them up... Usually solved over a beer at the
generic, I mean, all-ranks club (wait till Art reads this). Protocol being
what it is, and since the NAF would be down to administer an ASEV to the
wing sooner or later, I'm sure the WG/CC was always happy to keep the NAF/CC
happy.

Curt

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >Tenant units that do not fall under the host wing generally take care of
> >their own mission but, when it comes to base issues, still follow
direction
> >from the wing commander.
>
> Which includes units such as numbered Air Forces. Kind of strange an O-6
can
> tell an O-9, who's directly above him in the chain of command, where and
how
> his HQ will be supported. Now I'm sure theres a little "give and take",
but
> ultimately the WG/CC controls how, when and where the HQ for a numbered
Air
> Force is supported.
>
>
> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it
harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

"Walt BJ" > wrote in message
om...
> Anybody with military experience and a lick of sense can come up with
> plenty of bases for BRAC to take a cold hard look at. And Goodfellow
> is certainly one of them.

Sure it is. But its a moot point since there isn't any list yet.

Oh my, how things have changed.

No more base CC, "One Wing, One Boss" is the mantra of the modern Air Force.

Les

> wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:46:20 GMT, "C Knowles" >
> wrote:
>
> >The base commander is the wing commander,
> >WG/CC
>
> Unless USAF has seriously changed the structure of a wing since I
> retired in '84, there is both a Base Commander and his boss, the Wing
> King.
>
> Phil Brandt
> TAC puke (Ret.)
>
>
> .
>

>Subject: Re: Nellis? Hpw come....?
>From: "Les Matheson"
>Date: 7/30/03 8:05 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <x8RVa.10973$5b7.4671@lakeread01>
>
>Pretty much one wing one base.
>
>There are some smaller units that may be at other locations, and assigned to
>a wing somewhere else and some bases, such as Eglin have more than one Wing,
>but it is pretty much one for one. Groups have gone to the smallish size as
>in Combat Support Group, Ops Group, etc. Part of the wing base structure.
>
>Les
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> >Subject: Re: Nellis? Hpw come....?
>> >From: "Les Matheson"
>> >Date: 7/29/03 9:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>> >Message-id: <OZHVa.10952$5b7.4172@lakeread01>
>> >
>> >Oh my, how things have changed.
>> >
>> >No more base CC, "One Wing, One Boss" is the mantra of the modern Air
>Force.
>> >
>> >Les
>> >
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 22:46:20 GMT, "C Knowles" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The base commander is the wing commander,
>> >> >WG/CC
>> >>
>> >> Unless USAF has seriously changed the structure of a wing since I
>> >> retired in '84, there is both a Base Commander and his boss, the Wing
>> >> King.
>> >>
>> >> Phil Brandt
>> >> TAC puke (Ret.)
>>
>>


Thanks for the clarification.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer