No more group commanders? Air Force tests new wing design that gives squadron commanders more leeway

[17D_guy]

Hate to say it, but in cyber the NAF made sense.  Probably because of the diffuse, overarching requirements of cyber.  Subordinate to AFSPC (or ACC when it happens) for ADCON, but reporting to CYBERCOM for ops stuff and TACON for our ops units.

It took me moving to the ops side for it to become clear...some heavily obfuscated lines that don't become recognizable until you realize the 3 hats Wedge was wearing.

We do a shit job training our Lt's to understand the point of the CC structure, and even worse joint.  No HPO who bounces in and out is going to ever get it.

[pawnman]

3 hours ago, HU&W said:

T-2 is MAJCOM.

Yep, that's my point.

T-0 - Outside the Air Force

T-1 - HAF

T-2 - MAJCOM

T-3 - WG/CC

There's no tier for NAF.

[war007afa]

4 hours ago, HU&W said:

T-2 is MAJCOM.

This I know (authored the verbiage for SAF/AA, including the expansion of the T-3 option down to SQs). The T-2 is delegable to NAF/CCs, if the MAJCOM/CC desires to do so. AFRC did this with nearly all of their T-2 requirements. 

Edited May 26, 2018 by war007afa
Autocorrect

[ThreeHoler]

Yep, that's my point.
T-0 - Outside the Air Force
T-1 - HAF
T-2 - MAJCOM
T-3 - WG/CC
There's no tier for NAF.

T-1 is MAJCOM with HAF concurrence.

[Runr6730]

13 hours ago, ThreeHoler said:

 

T-1 is MAJCOM with HAF concurrence.

 

So...still HAF then?

[HarleyQuinn]

5 hours ago, joe1234 said:

Skeptical about any of this. There's basically two Air Forces, the operation itself, and the bureacracy that exists to perpetuate itself first (and support the operation second).

I can't imagine the bureacracy willingly giving up even a tiny slice of power in favor of improving the operation. I mean, the operation is literally in danger of failing due to a labor shortage because the bureaucracy is that powerful and unwilling to change. No way this plan sticks.

We can't train enough pilots, maintainers, SARMs, CSS, and the list goes on. Love to give you more admin help in the squadron, but giving you a brand new Amn is going to mean he/she will be limited in a CSS. There are certain programs they cannot run. I have a friend who is a SARM that hasn't been PCS'd in 6 years. They are at 40% manning. 

Army Air Corps version 2.0 here we come.

[pawnman]

14 hours ago, HarleyQuinn said:

We can't train enough pilots, maintainers, SARMs, CSS, and the list goes on. Love to give you more admin help in the squadron, but giving you a brand new Amn is going to mean he/she will be limited in a CSS. There are certain programs they cannot run. I have a friend who is a SARM that hasn't been PCS'd in 6 years. They are at 40% manning. 

Army Air Corps version 2.0 here we come.

Could be worse. Our airfield management is hovering around 40% manning, but AFGSC had turned down our last three reclamas and PCSed the OIC, and now they are trying to deploy the last officer in the shop.

[17D_guy]

2 hours ago, pawnman said:

Could be worse. Our airfield management is hovering around 40% manning, but AFGSC had turned down our last three reclamas and PCSed the OIC, and now they are trying to deploy the last officer in the shop.

Did that in my workcenter as well on Staff.

[BuffBro]

I wonder how this new construct would actually work if implemented Air Force wide. Since we have groups who report directly to NAFs & GSU Groups. 

[tac airlifter]

35 minutes ago, BuffBro said:

I wonder how this new construct would actually work if implemented Air Force wide. Since we have groups who report directly to NAFs & GSU Groups. 

I bet if we deleted the NAF and the Group, everything would work just fine.

[Clark Griswold]

On 5/27/2018 at 2:04 PM, joe1234 said:

... I mean, the operation is literally in danger of failing due to a labor shortage because the bureaucracy is that powerful and unwilling to change...

The fat is hardest to get rid of and muscle the hardest to build, true on the personal level and institutional.

 

[FLEA]

Bumping/Resurrecting this thread since the topic came up in the Eval Downgrade thread and a lot of people haven't heard of it before. 

[dream big]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

Bumping/Resurrecting this thread since the topic came up in the Eval Downgrade thread and a lot of people haven't heard of it before. 

Well we still have groups and NAFs, I don’t ever see it going away, less grooming billets for 0-6s and GOs 

[FLEA]

58 minutes ago, dream big said:

Well we still have groups and NAFs, I don’t ever see it going away, less grooming billets for 0-6s and GOs 

I mentioned it in the other thread but I do think C-NAFs are necessary and we need to keep those around. Not so much sure about traditional NAFs but a C-NAF fills a very specific niche in maintaining a regional expertise for a theater.  However, there is gaining traction on removing the A3 position from the C-NAF and dual hatting the AOC/CC as the A3. This actually makes a lot of sense to me.

Edited April 3, 2022 by FLEA

[NUKE]

Latest hotness from the CAF is that garrison Wings will have Group commanders and an separate A-Staff while in garrison, starting this year during a phase in period.  AEWs will dispense with Group/CCs this summer and will only have A-Staffs, thus will be much like MH circa 2019. 

[HuggyU2]

Beale got rid of the traditional Group CC two years ago, and went to the A-staff.  

Not positive, but I think they may be going back to the Group CC thing this year.  

[08Dawg]

On 4/3/2022 at 7:15 PM, NUKE said:

Latest hotness from the CAF is that garrison Wings will have Group commanders and an separate A-Staff while in garrison, starting this year during a phase in period.  AEWs will dispense with Group/CCs this summer and will only have A-Staffs, thus will be much like MH circa 2019. 

And the garrison wings are going to staff these A-staffs with what bodies?

[McJay Pilot]

1 hour ago, 08Dawg said:

And the garrison wings are going to staff these A-staffs with what bodies?

But seriously, yeah, same thought.

Heres the ACC produced infomercial that was used to explain it to us.

 

[NUKE]

23 hours ago, 08Dawg said:

And the garrison wings are going to staff these A-staffs with what bodies?

Yeah, that’s the issue. That hasn’t been figured out yet

[HuggyU2]

23 hours ago, 08Dawg said:

And the garrison wings are going to staff these A-staffs with what bodies?

The FTU. 

Duh!

[FLEA]

9 minutes ago, HuggyU2 said:

The FTU. 

Duh!

Might be easier actually. At a NAF some of the directors are O-5s. Usually the 2 and 6 will be O-6 but that's really the only certain. And a staff director isn't seen as high as a commander under the same command echelon. For example, the NAF A3 is not considered a peer to the Wing CCs that also report to the NAF CC. 

What did they do at bases that tried this because I could totally see them cropping O-4s/5s who are soon or about ready for command to do this. 

[HuggyU2]

22 hours ago, FLEA said:

Might be easier actually.

I've found "easier" means that the folks in the squadron are left dealing with the shortfalls of that course of action.  

[FLEA]

10 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

I've found "easier" means that the folks in the squadron are left dealing with the shortfalls of that course of action.  

That's a fair statement. I suppose what I meant was from a pure bodies to billets perspective, farm more O-4/5s than O-6s.  

I think the idea has merit but some significant problems would need addressed to not short fall flying squadrons. 

[Skitzo]

Seems like a good idea for most wings with 2-4 ops squadrons and an OSS under the OG.

I wonder how the AFSOC model will work given the size of the current OGs at HRT and CVS. Seems like a span of control problem.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk