This made me chuckle. . .

"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

"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

"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

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