BONE WSO Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123445666&source=GovD 4/20/2015 - WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force have directed the realignment of the Air Force's B-1 bomber fleets and Long Range Strike-Bomber program from Air Combat Command to Air Force Global Strike Command, effective Oct. 1. The move will realign the Air Force's core mission of global strike and all of the service's bombers under a unified command responsible for organizing, training and equipping Airmen to perform this mission. "This realignment places all three Air Forces bombers under one command and brings the LRS-B program with it," said Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James. "Consolidating all of our Air Force assets in this critical mission area under a single command will help provide a unified voice to maintain the high standards necessary in stewardship of our nation's bomber forces." Sixty-three aircraft and approximately 7,000 people will transfer from ACC to AFGSC under the realignment. Since moving from Strategic Air Command in 1992, the B-1 has played an essential role in combating the nation's enemies, either projecting combat power from bases in the United States or from forward operating locations around the globe. Airmen who drive B-1 operations have demonstrated the platform's long range strike capability, delivering its conventional weapons on target from home station, making it a perfect fit for joining the B-2 and B-52 under AFGSC, James said. "With a single command responsible for the Air Force's entire long range strike fleet, the Airmen in AFGSC will benefit from better coordination and increased sharing of expertise across the five bomber wings," said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III. "Consolidating all conventional and nuclear capable bombers within the same command allows the Air Force to streamline the global strike and strategic deterrence missions, and create a lasting positive impact for the Air Force's global strike capabilities." Both the 7th Bomb Wing at Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, and the 28th BW at Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota will continue to serve as the host wings and provide installation support and services to other units on the bases. "We expect the transfer to be imperceptible to the majority of Airmen at Dyess and Ellsworth as they will continue to work for the same supervisors and units," said Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson, Commander, Air Force Global Strike Command who was recently nominated to serve as the vice commander of U.S. Strategic Command at Offutt AFB, Neb. "The impacts of the realignment will become noticeable over time as crosstalk among maintainers and aviators increases across all three platforms, creating opportunities in training, tactics development, doctrine development, aircraft modernization and acquisition," Wilson said. The consolidation of the global strike mission under AFGSC follows the Air Force's plan to elevate the commander of AFGSC from a three-star to a four-star general officer position, which Gen. Robin Rand, currently the commander Air Education and Training Command, will assume. Edited April 20, 2015 by BONE WSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 (edited) Is it too soon to say, so much for the B-1 being a CAS platform? But really, seems like a good idea to bring the bombers into the same house. Anybody, with more insight into that world, object to the consolidation? Edited April 20, 2015 by Tex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvlax40 Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 so we are moving back towards SAC? seriously Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majestik Møøse Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 More like Fighter Command and Bomber Command. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vito Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 TAC, SAC, and MAC. So after 25 years, or so, we're back to the same structure....I'm sure some Generals earned a star or two by coming up with these bright ideas, only to change them back 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 SAC is back.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEVIL Posted April 20, 2015 Share Posted April 20, 2015 Time to defrost him 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goblin Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I'll start getting nervous when the tankers move outta AMC 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthDriver Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 In other words, C Ya Langely staff jobs....hello Barksdale! Poor fellas. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco_Nav963 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 On the other hand, Barksdale is close enough to Dyess maybe they can get a few more flying staff jobs... Just reimburse them for mileage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthDriver Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Disco, I sure would hope so for the Bone folks. Unfortunately, scoring additional flying staff positions seems very grim. AFGSC on my neck of the woods is looking for ways to cut flying staff gigs. My sneaky suspension is bigger AF is looking to fill the impending void of filling Staff positions in GSC. They know it's on its way. Many dudes around here with 2 years commitment remaining have every intent to drop 7 day opt paperwork if they get a GSC Staff gig. At least with this move, Big Blue has more bodies to tap into to fill the GSC staff void. Something tells me that the number of Bone dudes who were at all on the fence for the Bonus just got smaller. But I could be completely wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperWSO Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) "The impacts of the realignment will become noticeable over time as crosstalk among maintainers and aviators increases across all three platforms, creating opportunities in training, tactics development, doctrine development, aircraft modernization and acquisition," Wilson said. False. They don't fly the same profiles, the all use different tactics, they were built in different decades, one has hit targets in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. The others sit alert. This is not a good match. BTW what is the 3-1 brevity term for troll? Edited April 21, 2015 by SuperWSO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimuth Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 The B-2 just sits alert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthDriver Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 (edited) My best guess is that this has everything to do with: 1. Upcomming GSC Manning issues at Staff, etc. 2. Expanding GSC Commander job positions. 3. Money Edited April 21, 2015 by StealthDriver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10percenttruth Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 They don't fly the same profiles, the all use different tactics, they were built in different decades, one has hit targets in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria. The others sit alert. I hope your profiles are more up to date than your 1990s generalizations. Alert is for missileers. But no, you're right. The BUFFs & B-2s have totally never struck targets in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya... Maybe a move to AFGSC will finally get your MX capable rate into the double-digits! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Disco, I sure would hope so for the Bone folks. Unfortunately, scoring additional flying staff positions seems very grim. AFGSC on my neck of the woods is looking for ways to cut flying staff gigs. My sneaky suspension is bigger AF is looking to fill the impending void of filling Staff positions in GSC. They know it's on its way. Many dudes around here with 2 years commitment remaining have every intent to drop 7 day opt paperwork if they get a GSC Staff gig. At least with this move, Big Blue has more bodies to tap into to fill the GSC staff void. Something tells me that the number of Bone dudes who were at all on the fence for the Bonus just got smaller. But I could be completely wrong. Good luck with that. The B-1 community is even more hurt for manning than the B-52 or B-2. We keep getting told the reason 12Bs don't get a bonus like 12Fs is because the BUFFs have an overage of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murdocjxx Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 Enjoy working with the Buff community. I've never heard so many "war" and "there I was" stories and seen so many Mach tucked covers then from those dudes. They're a special kind of breed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dvlax40 Posted April 21, 2015 Share Posted April 21, 2015 I'll start getting nervous when the tankers move outta AMC just wait. tankers wont move out of AMC. they will stay and they will move the 130s out into ACC (TAC2.0) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Napoleon_Tanerite Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 My best guess is that this has everything to do with: 1. Upcomming GSC Manning issues at Staff, etc. 2. Expanding GSC Commander job positions. 3. Money I think this has to do with the political move to make GSC a 4 button command-- they needed the manning to justify taking the star away from AETC. The move doesn't make much sense beyond that. The B-1 is no longer a strategic/nuclear asset. GSC was originally intended (as I understand) to somewhat literally get our nuclear fecal matter collocated under one roof. If the B-1 is under GSC, why isn't the F-15E? There's a LOT of mission overlap there, probably more so these days than the B-1 and the B-2/52. As for the crew dogs of the B-1 community... you poor, poor bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco_Nav963 Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 As for the crew dogs of the B-1 community... you poor, poor bastards. I don't see it. You know what sucks about being in AFGSC? The nuke exercise/inspection schedule. NOREs. NORIs. DNSIs. Something every 6-9 months with preparatory wing-level exercises sprinkled in between. We could really get a lot of good training done if it weren't for all of the inspecting. But none of that will affect the B-1 dudes in the slightest. Other than that, I've been pretty happy with the leadership in AFGSC... People mostly from B-1 backgrounds by the way (Kowalski, Wilson, Vander Hamm, Clark). [Caveat: I've been at Minot for 69%+ of my time in the community and missed the Mike and Andy Show at KBAD.] The B-1 wings are not going to be any less of a priority for AFGSC/A3 than they were for ACC/A3, and I'm guessing they will be a significantly higher priority for AFGSC/A4 than they were for ACC/A4, which could only be a good thing. It's not like switching MAJCOMs is going to put a firewall on their phone lines that keeps them from crosstalking with (say, as in your example) the F-15E dudes about data link standards/TTPs while they're figuring out SB16 integration. And I for one would be thrilled to have more dudes with a conventional focus peopling the staffs at 8 AF and AFGSC/HQ. I guess the proof will be in the pudding. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineline Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Enjoy working with the Buff community. I've never heard so many "war" and "there I was" stories and seen so many Mach tucked covers then from those dudes. They're a special kind of breed. As a still flying, combat capable 55 year old airplane that has participated in every war since the current model's production in 1960 (along with the KC-135), I think the BUFF has earned the privilege of telling a few "war" and "there I was" stories. Also, if you knew your Air Force history, you would remember that the "mach tuck" you speak of was originally called a "bomber crush", which was a crease from the headsets that the WWII bomber crews wore over their flight cap during their combat missions. Other than those two minor critiques, you shacked the rest of your post. -9- 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euro2005 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 As a still flying, combat capable 55 year old airplane that has participated in every war since the current model's production in 1960 (along with the KC-135), I think the BUFF has earned the privilege of telling a few "war" and "there I was" stories. Also, if you knew your Air Force history, you would remember that the "mach tuck" you speak of was originally called a "bomber crush", which was a crease from the headsets that the WWII bomber crews wore over their flight cap during their combat missions. Other than those two minor critiques, you shacked the rest of your post. -9- I didn't know that about the WWII bomber crews. I looked it up further and found that they wore them while flying to keep their heads warm since they didn't have heat in their cockpits. I was told 2 reasons why folks wear their flight caps like that nowadays: The first is if someone broke the sound barrier, the second is because this other person told me he killed people. I've heard of the sound barrier thing on a few different occasions and I guess it's fairly common practice but killing people? I asked him about it because I knew about the sound barrier thing and was wondering because he didn't fly on anything that broke the sound barrier. I think this dude was just crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Napoleon_Tanerite Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I didn't know that about the WWII bomber crews. I looked it up further and found that they wore them while flying to keep their heads warm since they didn't have heat in their cockpits. I was told 2 reasons why folks wear their flight caps like that nowadays: The first is if someone broke the sound barrier, the second is because this other person told me he killed people. I've heard of the sound barrier thing on a few different occasions and I guess it's fairly common practice but killing people? I asked him about it because I knew about the sound barrier thing and was wondering because he didn't fly on anything that broke the sound barrier. I think this dude was just crazy. Continuing the derail-- having flown a combat mission seems to be a common criteria these days. Or just to piss off fighter pilots, that's also equally valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pawnman Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 I don't see it. You know what sucks about being in AFGSC? The nuke exercise/inspection schedule. NOREs. NORIs. DNSIs. Something every 6-9 months with preparatory wing-level exercises sprinkled in between. We could really get a lot of good training done if it weren't for all of the inspecting. But none of that will affect the B-1 dudes in the slightest. Other than that, I've been pretty happy with the leadership in AFGSC... People mostly from B-1 backgrounds by the way (Kowalski, Wilson, Vander Hamm, Clark). [Caveat: I've been at Minot for 69%+ of my time in the community and missed the Mike and Andy Show at KBAD.] The B-1 wings are not going to be any less of a priority for AFGSC/A3 than they were for ACC/A3, and I'm guessing they will be a significantly higher priority for AFGSC/A4 than they were for ACC/A4, which could only be a good thing. It's not like switching MAJCOMs is going to put a firewall on their phone lines that keeps them from crosstalking with (say, as in your example) the F-15E dudes about data link standards/TTPs while they're figuring out SB16 integration. And I for one would be thrilled to have more dudes with a conventional focus peopling the staffs at 8 AF and AFGSC/HQ. I guess the proof will be in the pudding. I guess I'm concerned that AFGSC will bring the same exercise/inspection schedule to the B-1...along with the current deployment tempo. Should be fun. Hell, at least AFGSC will understand the concept of a multi-place aircraft...all the wrangling we had to do to get iPads approved for a trial run seemed to revolve around "how will the pilot fly while he's holding the iPad?"...he won't, the pilot will fly while the copilot holds the iPad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12xu2a3x3 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) Maybe a move to AFGSC will finally get your MX capable rate into the double-digits! i'm sure a change in MAJCOM with give the maintianers the magic powers they've so baddly needed. Edited April 23, 2015 by 12xu2a3x3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now