Railrunner130 Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 What is everyone's take on whether the rescue C-130s should be ACC or SOC? Personally, I thought they needed to be SOC. I think SOC understands the mission better and supports them better as well. But I'm an outsider and am not all that familiar with all the ins and outs. Thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave in WV Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 It's probably like putting the C-130's in ACC for a while then putting them back in AMC. After the promotions were made in ACC, the birds were moved back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Wilson Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I could agree with moving the entire force to AFSOC, things would work smoother, I mean the rescue birds do quite a bit of the same stuff the Shados do, they would find better funding there as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinwhistle Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I hate to ask this question, but the fact is, I do not know what all the acronyms mean that you guys are throwing around. AFSOC, ACC, AMC, SOC ????? Some time ago AMC stood for American Motors Corp. and was the home of the Studebaker automobile, but something tells me that is not the case here...... tinwhistle PS glad you are feelong better Dan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbsoto Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 AFSOC = Air Force Special Operations Command, ACC - Air Combat Command formerly Tactical Air Command (TAC), AMC = Air Mobility Command formerly Military Airlift Command (MAC) & SOC = Special Operations Command. I think these are right, if not someone please correct me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave in WV Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 ACC is TAC & SAC together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talonlm Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Not anymore. "Global Strike Command" has taken the nuclear mission from ACC after several bouts of buffoonary. Only problem with putting the rescue assets within AFSOC is that AFSOC will use them--and not necessarily the way ACC wants them to. The Rescue mission can easily be seen as a special operation, and I don't want to take anything from it, but AFSOC does a lot more with their tanker and vertical lift assets than CSAR and you can bet that won't change just because of where a given asset came from. If you want a dedicated CSAR unit, it needs to be under a command that's not going to do use those assets for anything other than CSAR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave in WV Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Not anymore. "Global Strike Command" has taken the nuclear mission from ACC after several bouts of buffoonary. It seemed there was a good bit of buffoonary after the realignments. I didn't know about Global Strike Command. Thanks for the update. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metalbasher Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 It seemed there was a good bit of buffoonary after the realignments. I didn't know about Global Strike Command. Thanks for the update. Global Strike Command came about after all the screw ups with one incident of actually nukes and no one knowing about it and then there was the event that happened with the fuzes/detonators being shipped around. One command in the big scheme of things that is divided in half...one half handling aircraft based weapons and the other handling ground based weapons. I seem to recall it might be broken down even further...nukes vs. non nuke assets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEFEGeorge Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 Search and rescue needs it own command like before, the 23rd. That is if they still do have the numbered AF. AFSOC may do SAR missions, but aren't they more in tune with combat ops and not standard SAR missions? Would hate to think that the SAR squadron here would be under AFSOC and then be sent away by AFSOC and then hinder the SAR missions around Alaska. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talonlm Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 The SAR AFSOC has done has be mostly opportune efforts--they were there and ready, so they took the mission. We rarely sit as dedicated CSAR (though it does happen) primarily because our main mission is supporting the bubbas downrange. We can't do that if we're tethered to a strip alert somewhere. That's not to knock the CSAR folks in any way; we depend on them as much as anyone else. They couldn't do their mission if they were out on a supporting a TIC when the call came in. Better to have them seperated from AFSOC so as to ensure they're not retasked at the wrong time. Just my two cents, mind you, but that's the way I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry myers Posted November 8, 2012 Share Posted November 8, 2012 I wouldn't normally comment on this thread as I've been out of the loop too long and don't have a clue as to what the situation is today. However, several weeks ago was at Langley and recieved a briefing from the AAC CSAR honcho. During his briefing the Col. was questioned about whether CSAR was a better fit in AFSOC. The Col., as a rescue chopper pilot, had served in AFSOC when CSAR was part of that command. His postion was that AFSOC didn't have a good feel as how to employ CSAR assets. And that the command was continunly attempting to blend the CSAR mission into the Spec. Ops. mission. He went on to say at that CSAR is right where it should be....AAC. To Dan Wilson's point the Col. spoke favorably about the ready availability of funding. I'm guessing it hasn't changed in the past 25 or so years but as I recall, money was hardly ever an issue in AFSOC. A surprise to me was the old, wornout, obsolete equipment the CSAR forces are flying. We are pretty good at killing bad guys but lousy at buying replacement airplanes. Case in point, the 135 replacement, the truncated F-22 buy, the CSAR H-60 replacement and on and on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herky 504 Posted November 18, 2012 Share Posted November 18, 2012 I am old school TAC, thanks for the update. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Herk Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 As a recently retired, long-time AFSOC Airman, present during the CSAR years, and also doing my penance at Kirtland, I do not believe they are a good fit. While the skillsets required for the two missions are similar in many ways, the missions and attitudes are not compatible. One man's opinion only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry myers Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 As a recently retired, long-time AFSOC Airman, present during the CSAR years, and also doing my penance at Kirtland, I do not believe they are a good fit. While the skillsets required for the two missions are similar in many ways, the missions and attitudes are not compatible. One man's opinion only. Well, your not alone, the guy running CSAR for AAC feels pretty much the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.