This made me chuckle. . .

"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_stud...pub_1_2000.pdf

Best Regards,

JB

"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" 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

"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" 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

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" 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