Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 20, 2018, 02:32:26 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: ARTICLE: "Is the Air Force Considering Abolishing Groups?"
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: ARTICLE: "Is the Air Force Considering Abolishing Groups?"  (Read 1857 times)
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,471

« on: May 23, 2018, 10:17:40 AM »

Air Force Magazine:
Mountain Home to Test New Air Combat Command Wing Structure


Quote
​The 366th Fighter Wing at Mountain Home AFB, Idaho, this month will start testing a new organizational structure, removing commanders, cutting a group, and realigning maintenance units to make the wing more deployable.

The structure, which stemmed from Air Combat Command boss Gen. Mike Holmes, will remove four colonels from their roles as group commanders and a colonel vice commander, and instead have squadron commanders report directly to the wing commander. Two wing deputy commanders will help evaluate squadron operations and deconflict decisions, according to an Air Combat Command release. This move delegates group commander authorities down to the squadron level as a step to "build strong leaders and create a direct supervisory line from the squadron commander to the wing commander," ACC said in a statement to Air Force Magazine.

The reorganization eliminates the 366th Maintenance Group and the 366th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, and instead each aircraft maintenance unit for each fighter squadron will align with the fighter squadrons themselves. This will provide a "unity of effort through a director of maintenance having oversight of sortie generation and support for that squadron's operations," according to ACC. Maintenance officers in the Equipment and Component Maintenance Squadron now report to the wing instead of the maintenance group. This also goes for the mission support squadron.

The commander of the medical group will now be the Wing Surgeon General, keeping readiness and family advocacy functions and command authorities for medical squadrons. These can be pushed down to the squadrons over time.

The wing will also provide an "A-staff" under a chief of staff to coordinate between higher headquarters for training and equipping.

This test is "manning neutral," meaning there will not be "appreciable gains or losses" in manning at Mountain Home, ACC said in the statement. The wing is working with the union office, the Civilian Personnel Office, and the Air Force Personnel Center to plan personnel actions, such as performance reports, awards, and duties among others. The test will not impact enlisted airmen below the level of chief master sergeant, ACC said.

The Mountain Home experiment is "about our desire to improve lethality and create an environment where leaders are empowered to lead and squadron personnel can focus on their core missions," Holmes said in the release

Mountain Home was selected for the test because it is a "one base/one wing" arrangement—there is not an integrated reserve element or an Air Base Wing tasked with running the base.

"This made the 366 FW a relatively clean test case that would help us learn lessons about whether and how to apply structural changes to more complicated organizations," ACC spokesman Capt. Luke Nimmo said in a statement.

The move is the latest in a series of steps by the Air Force to revitalize the squadrons in the service, one of Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein's top three focus areas. It is an attempt by Holmes to "find a better way" to breathe new life into squadrons through the command structure, according to ACC.

http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2018/May%202018/Mountain-Home-to-Test-New-Air-Combat-Command-Wing-Structure.aspx
Logged
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,571
Unit: Classified

« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2018, 11:12:10 AM »

Repeating history I see. And of course someone got a com medal for being a good idea fairy.
Logged
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,874

« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2018, 12:09:24 PM »

Repeating history I see. And of course someone got a com medal for being a good idea fairy.

Thought I was reading an old article...
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,091

« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2018, 12:33:37 PM »

This is what a lot of organizations, military and otherwise, do when they can't properly
staff the span of control they actually need.

Then they lose their elasticity when growth occurs.  In business that costs money,
in wartime that could cost lives.

It usually ends with "seemed like a good idea at the time"
« Last Edit: May 23, 2018, 02:09:17 PM by Eclipse » Logged


abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,571
Unit: Classified

« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2018, 01:36:37 PM »

When I came in 19 years ago, MX was part of the flying sq.  Somewhere in the early 2000s they decided to separate them from that construct.  While this may work for ACC @ Mountain Home it may not work for the rest of the MAJCOMs or the AF as a whole.  One thing I have always been an advocate for was removing Security Forces out of the support group all together and pattern it a little bit after the Army. 
Logged
kwe1009
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 915

« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2018, 01:52:53 PM »

When I came in 19 years ago, MX was part of the flying sq.  Somewhere in the early 2000s they decided to separate them from that construct.  While this may work for ACC @ Mountain Home it may not work for the rest of the MAJCOMs or the AF as a whole.  One thing I have always been an advocate for was removing Security Forces out of the support group all together and pattern it a little bit after the Army.

Just curious, what would be the benefit of removing SF from the MSG?  Who would they report to? 
Logged
abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,571
Unit: Classified

« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2018, 03:46:56 PM »

When I came in 19 years ago, MX was part of the flying sq.  Somewhere in the early 2000s they decided to separate them from that construct.  While this may work for ACC @ Mountain Home it may not work for the rest of the MAJCOMs or the AF as a whole.  One thing I have always been an advocate for was removing Security Forces out of the support group all together and pattern it a little bit after the Army.

Just curious, what would be the benefit of removing SF from the MSG?  Who would they report to?

They'd follow the Army construct.  Basically the cops report to the DFC Air Provost and he/she reports to the wing cc.  Cuts alot of the red tape and simplifies things.  And eliminates if not reduces that good ol boy of calling the DFC for favors.
Logged
GaryVC
Forum Regular

Posts: 188
Unit: PCR-NV-070

« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2018, 05:24:42 PM »

When I came in 19 years ago, MX was part of the flying sq.  Somewhere in the early 2000s they decided to separate them from that construct. 

They have been going back and forth on this for years. When I got to Hurlburt to train in gunships in late 1972 MX had just been removed from the squadron.
Logged
Live2Learn
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 667

« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2018, 06:37:29 PM »

I guess there's plus and minus in every idea.
Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,259

« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2018, 11:51:08 PM »

The making maintenance part of the flying squadron thing has gone back and forth a couple of times in the past 40 years.
It seems to work for Fighter Squadrons but doesn't seem to work for the heavies like the Airlifters, Tankers and Bombers.
It's Deja Vu all over again!
Logged
kwe1009
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 915

« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2018, 09:32:12 AM »

Yep, the good idea fairy is strong in the USAF.  They got rid of centralized control of comms (Air Force Communications Command) years ago and passed the responsibility to the MAJCOMs.  That has led to many different approaches to comm and a lot of wasted money.  Now they are trying to tie everything under one roof again and it is costing a lot of time and money. 

Learning from past mistakes is not something senior leaders are very good at unfortunately.
Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,259

« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2018, 02:07:29 PM »

Yep, the good idea fairy is strong in the USAF.  They got rid of centralized control of comms (Air Force Communications Command) years ago and passed the responsibility to the MAJCOMs.  That has led to many different approaches to comm and a lot of wasted money.  Now they are trying to tie everything under one roof again and it is costing a lot of time and money. 

Learning from past mistakes is not something senior leaders are very good at unfortunately.

The constant turn over of senior leaders makes for rather limited "corporate memory". But that's the way the military works.
Logged
MSG Mac
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,928
Unit: MER-MD-071

« Reply #12 on: May 25, 2018, 01:56:02 PM »

What impact does this have on CAP?
Logged
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
THRAWN
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,874

« Reply #13 on: May 25, 2018, 02:42:13 PM »

What impact does this have on CAP?

About as much as it does for the Air Force: none.
Logged
Strup
"Belligerent....at times...."
AFRCC SMC 10-97
NSS ISC 05-00
USAF SOS 2000
USAF ACSC 2011
US NWC 2016
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,471

« Reply #14 on: May 25, 2018, 03:15:03 PM »

What impact does this have on CAP?

About as much as it does for the Air Force: none.

I wouldn't say that's accurate necessarily.

CAP has been rewriting its regulations to align itself more toward Air Force practice. For example, the new Cadet Programs regulations and pamphlets are structuring cadet chains of command (e.g., squadron level, Encampment) to a more common Air Force structure (e.g., eliminating "Executive Officers" and developing "Mission Support"). Wings are seeing changes to use the Chief of Staff role rather than Wing XOs.

So I don't know what that would do with the Wing-Group-Squadron structure for CAP, but for individual duty positions, there's an Air Force realignment going on. It's apparently.

Will this affect CAP directly? No. CAP doesn't have mission-specific units (e.g., Medical Squadron, Ground Rescue Squadron, Maintenance Group). But as far as staffing, possibly.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: ARTICLE: "Is the Air Force Considering Abolishing Groups?"
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.085 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me