Wing Re-Org Test

[Weezer]

Interesting things going on at MHAB...

[Champ Kind]

Correct me if I’m wrong but is not generally how the Army organizes at the battalion and above level?

[Weezer]

5 minutes ago, Champ Kind said:

Correct me if I’m wrong but is not generally how the Army organizes at the battalion and above level?

Yup...looks a lot like a BCT, although with a lot more "battalion equivalents" under the O-6/7.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.  BCTs are organized to fight as BCTs.  Every CS/CSS battalion under a BCT supports combat and maneuver.  Home station Air Force Wings don't deploy as wings and are, in practice, Organize/Train/Equip organizations.  I think the span of control issue for the Wg/CC will need to be addressed.  The volume and variety of directly subordinate organizations will be a challenge.

Also, what will we do with all the redundant O-6s?

Edited February 15, 2018 by Weezer
Additional info

[Champ Kind]

Even in a large AF wing I’ve see the ability for a WG/CC to reach into a squadron, so this is really just removing the middle-man group CC. Not saying it is good or bad, but from my perspective it’s formalizing the relationship in practice since I’ve been in.

Now, can senior leaders start talking about what NAFs actually do between the wing and MAJCOM?

[BFM this]

6 minutes ago, Champ Kind said:

Now, can senior leaders start talking about what NAFs actually do between the wing and MAJCOM?

This.  Wing structure wasn't near as broke as the oddity that is a NAF.

[bronxbomber252]

Curious how this model would be applied to wings like the 55th and 23d which both have multiple ops groups including GSU ops groups.

[Breckey]

Or bases with groups/wings as tenant units and bases with multiple wings with a supporting ABW.

[LookieRookie]

Isn't this similar to how wings were equipped before the current construct? Maybe 80s time frame.

[Breckey]

I know that some multi-wing bases actually had an "Air Division" that was the overall headquarters and support organization for the base.

[ThreeHoler]

Isn't this similar to how wings were equipped before the current construct? Maybe 80s time frame.

Yup. Just another Mx/ Ops reorg. #7 by my math.

[Stitch]

2 hours ago, LookieRookie said:

Isn't this similar to how wings were equipped before the current construct? Maybe 80s time frame.

Early 90s through 2002ish. That was the set up everywhere  back then, MX troops under the OPS squadrons they work with/for & deploy with; with a few bases as exceptions.  Give it time, someone 10-12 years down the road will decide to put all the MX folks under an O-6 to "make things better/more efficient".  

Edited February 15, 2018 by Stitch
Spelling is hard...

[dream big]

12 hours ago, Champ Kind said:

Even in a large AF wing I’ve see the ability for a WG/CC to reach into a squadron, so this is really just removing the middle-man group CC. Not saying it is good or bad, but from my perspective it’s formalizing the relationship in practice since I’ve been in.

Now, can senior leaders start talking about what NAFs actually do between the wing and MAJCOM?

From what I understood, NAFs deal strictly with command and control of Wing Kings while the MAJCOM focuses on the strategic issues and programs related to the MAJCOM?  Much the same way there is a group commander between the squadron and wing? 

[08Dawg]

"AMU realigned under FS and MOF under OSS"... that sounds suspiciously like Mx is under Ops again...isn't that the seventh sign of the Apocalypse??

[Learjetter]

And everything old...is new again.

[skibum]

Round & round we go! My crusty old dad was a career F-4 pilot. When I became OG/CC, he asked me, "What the hell is an OG/CC?" When I explained he told me that was a new one on him and said that used to be the wing DO.

[pawnman]

On 2/15/2018 at 9:49 AM, Champ Kind said:

Even in a large AF wing I’ve see the ability for a WG/CC to reach into a squadron, so this is really just removing the middle-man group CC. Not saying it is good or bad, but from my perspective it’s formalizing the relationship in practice since I’ve been in.

Now, can senior leaders start talking about what NAFs actually do between the wing and MAJCOM?

Is this how they're planning to solve the O-6 shortage?

[Champ Kind]

Is this how they're planning to solve the O-6 shortage?

As far as I was aware, there were more O-6s than there were command opportunities. And if they start running short, they can always promote more early.

[Chuck17]

3 hours ago, pawnman said:

Is this how they're planning to solve the O-6 shortage?

Shortage? There isn't one. The AF will always have enough O-6's. QUALITY is the short. Take a look at some of the oxygen thieves wearing eagles these days... Innumerable.

But we won't ever be short O-6's.

Chuck

[pawnman]

4 hours ago, Chuck17 said:

Shortage? There isn't one. The AF will always have enough O-6's. QUALITY is the short. Take a look at some of the oxygen thieves wearing eagles these days... Innumerable.

But we won't ever be short O-6's.

Chuck

There's a reason they asked O-6s at thirty years to stay on for three additional years.

[Chuck17]

33 minutes ago, pawnman said:

There's a reason they asked O-6s at thirty years to stay on for three additional years.

Concur. But “We’re desperately short O-6s” ain’t it.

Chuck

[Weezer]

On 2/15/2018 at 10:57 PM, dream big said:

From what I understood, NAFs deal strictly with command and control of Wing Kings while the MAJCOM focuses on the strategic issues and programs related to the MAJCOM?  Much the same way there is a group commander between the squadron and wing? 

NAFs are supposed to be operational...like when 9 AF was the Air Component of CENTCOM.  MAJCOMs are “organize, train, equip” orgs, but with adcon over NAFs...changed a lot recently, though.

[17D_guy]

That's how we roll in the "Cyber NAF."  SAF/CIO and AFSPC come down with edicts on what they direct us to do on Net and Wedge has a polite (or not so polite) "Stay in your lane conversation."  He's had to do it a lot since the Win10 migration stuff and people are looking to foist blame somewhere for issues.  It's amazing to see someone who understands the actual purpose of a NAF and "operational-ization" of Cyber punch way above his weight on these issues.  Doubly so because he's right, knows what he's talking about and has pushed us to fix so much.

Wedge is fantastic.

[Disco_Nav963]

5 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

That's how we roll in the "Cyber NAF."  SAF/CIO and AFSPC come down with edicts on what they direct us to do on Net and Wedge has a polite (or not so polite) "Stay in your lane conversation."  He's had to do it a lot since the Win10 migration stuff and people are looking to foist blame somewhere for issues.  It's amazing to see someone who understands the actual purpose of a NAF and "operational-ization" of Cyber punch way above his weight on these issues.  Doubly so because he's right, knows what he's talking about and has pushed us to fix so much.

Wedge is fantastic.

He was my OG when I was in Nav skool. Even then, on an AETC base replete with HQ queep, it was obvious he had his priorities straight. 

[Plus15]

On February 18, 2018 at 7:09 AM, Chuck17 said:

Concur. But “We’re desperately short O-6s” ain’t it.

Chuck

They are short in AFRC.  Can't speak for 10th, but 22d/4th can't find enough 0-6's willing to move and fill billets.  RUMINT has NAF/CC's considering promote/fills in house (may already be happening)

[ImNotARobot]

They are short in AFRC.  Can't speak for 10th, but 22d/4th can't find enough 0-6's willing to move and fill billets.  RUMINT has NAF/CC's considering promote/fills in house (may already be happening)

And “willing to move” will continue to be a no go. Finally turning into a buyers market in that respect...either go full time at the airline, or you let me lead / promote at my home station.

I realize the ART world is a bit different, but the rules are trending that way too, at least for OG/CCs in the near term.

Good stuff!