USASOC unveils newest unit, Army Special Operations Aviation Command

Ravage

running up that hill
Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
3,865
Location
in Wonderland, with my Alice
http://www.soc.mil/UNS/Releases/2011/March/110321-02.html

FORT BRAGG, N.C. (USASOC News Service, March 21, 2011) — U.S. Army Special Operations Command will officially activate its newest unit, Army Special Operations Aviation Command (Provisional), or ARSOAC, March 25 at 1 p.m. at Meadows Field adjacent to the USASOC headquarters building.
Lt. Gen. John Mulholland Jr., USASOC Commanding General, will preside over the ceremony activating the unit commanded by Brig. Gen. Kevin W. Mangum.
ARSOAC's creation stems from the recognition by U.S. Army Special Operations Command aviation experts of the need to separate the combat role of Army Special Operations Aviation from the resourcing responsibilities.
ARSOAC will organize, man, train, resource and equip Army Special Operations Command aviation units to provide responsive, special operations aviation support to Special Operations Forces.
ARSOAC is comprised of the Headquarters and four subordinate units: 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne), headquartered at Fort Campbell, Ky.; U.S. Army Special Operations Command Flight Detachment, Fort Bragg; Systems Integration Management Office, Fort Campbell; and Special Operations Aviation Training Battalion, Fort Campbell.
A brief question and answer session with the ARSOAC commander and senior warrant officer will precede the ceremony.

FOR THE MEDIA: Media wishing to cover the ceremony must contact the U.S. Army Special Operations Command Public Affairs Office at 910-432-6005 or pao@soc.mil by Thursday, March 24 at 11:45. Media should provide after-hours contact information, to include e-mail addresses, so we may keep you appraised of any changes to the program schedule.
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
11,191
Location
CONUS
Interesting. Some familiar names in that article.

So what capability will this bring that wasn't inherent in the previous structure?
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
9,686
Location
San Antonio Texas
I wonder how it will interact with the JSOAC

JSOAC is a deployed command, they will provide forces, and in theory, the organization with the most assets gets command.
Army just created a bunch of Staff slots for officer's and Senior NCO's. Wonder if the Zero's will now stay in SOF a-la the Warrents and NCO's.
Could be good, or we could have just fucked the 160th pretty hard; it'll be interesting.
 

dknob

Ranger
Verified SOF
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
1,492
Location
Denver, CO
umm.. did we REALLY need this??

I say no

We just created a command that is comprised literally of 160th units.
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
9,686
Location
San Antonio Texas
Not in the least.

Now if you had said USSOCOM you would have been onto something.

Curious; how is SF Command increasing combat efficiency?
I was there when we went from OETV-D, to OETV-d, to OETV, to OEV. Interesting times, I also saw a command whose majority function was to approve requests (after proper staffing) and send it to USASOC for action.
We lost a lot of slots, and ended up telling the Groups to CC us, with the requests getting sent directly to USASOC.
I don't have an issue with an ARSOF Aviation General, or Officers who can spend most of their time in SOF, but don't know if a dedicated General Officer command is the way to go.
 

surgicalcric

Special Forces
Verified SOF
Joined
Nov 3, 2006
Messages
1,411
Location
Here and there
Curious; how is SF Command increasing combat efficiency...

The comment you responded to was about the need for adding another level of bureaucracy in the system, one which is too top heavy as it is. As for USASFC it has its issues as well, but we arent adding another command on top of that one to manage the same system we currently have....
What need is this new command supposed to fill that isnt currently being filled? Why cant all of whatever it is they are supposed to oversee be rolled into the 160th?

Personally, I believe we have entirely too many Generals in the military now...
 

Scotth

Verified Military
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
1,496
Location
Minneapolis, MN
I can kind of see the need. The commander of the 160th was doing a lot more then just a Regiment command. Not having personal experience but just imagining all the moving parts the 160th has to have to support all the customers they have all around the world. Just commanding the Regiments activities is quite a plate full and they don't need all the hassles of managing the development and training side of the house.
The only down side I see, other then creating another command, is under the old system the 160th was able to drive there own development direction. Putting a higher command in place of development will the end-users still be driving future changes?
 

Marauder06

Intel Enabler
Verified SOF
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
11,191
Location
CONUS
.......
What need is this new command supposed to fill that isnt currently being filled? Why cant all of whatever it is they are supposed to oversee be rolled into the 160th?

...

I see this as a way for theater SOF to get adequate rotary-wing air support. That has been an issue for Mulholland for many years. It seemed that national SOF was getting the vast majority of air support from the 160th and other organizations, this may be a way of mitigating that.
 

DA SWO

SOWT
Verified SOF
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
9,686
Location
San Antonio Texas
The comment you responded to was about the need for adding another level of bureaucracy in the system, one which is too top heavy as it is. As for USASFC it has its issues as well, but we arent adding another command on top of that one to manage the same system we currently have....
What need is this new command supposed to fill that isnt currently being filled? Why cant all of whatever it is they are supposed to oversee be rolled into the 160th?

Personally, I believe we have entirely too many Generals in the military now...

I agree, when I was there they had a command for the Support Bn, Sig Bn, 160th and Rangers, CAPOC took care of CA/POG and they created a seperate command for the support folks as I was leaving.

Guess in my fantasy world there would be a USASOC; the various Directorates would have Divisions supporting each functional area. We'd eliminate one layer, but still have the staff jobs necessary for O and NCO' to progression.

Don't know how it is now, but I think/hope the Groups/Regiments/Operators can/should go straight to the tasking theater/SOC for support issues. We used to delay progress by insisting USASOC/USASFC do the theater coordination.
 

dknob

Ranger
Verified SOF
Joined
May 8, 2009
Messages
1,492
Location
Denver, CO
i dont get this either...

So if they created a USARC (United States Army Ranger Command) which would entail 1st, 2nd, 3rd, RSTB, and HQ.. how in the hellfuck would that help anything? What is the different between SF Command and this new hooplah to my fictional Ranger Command????
 

surgicalcric

Special Forces
Verified SOF
Joined
Nov 3, 2006
Messages
1,411
Location
Here and there
For the sake of time I am gonna address several posts in this one...

Scotth said:
...The commander of the 160th was doing a lot more then just a Regiment command. Not having personal experience but just imagining all the moving parts the 160th has to have to support all the customers they have all around the world. Just commanding the Regiments activities is quite a plate full and they don't need all the hassles of managing the development and training side of the house.

Fair enough...but yet another complete staff.

Again, we are too top heavy. Pretty soon we will have as many commanders as we do soldiers -supposedly- being commanded.

M06 said:
I see this as a way for theater SOF to get adequate rotary-wing air support... It seemed that national SOF was getting the vast majority of air support from the 160th and other organizations, this may be a way of mitigating that.

I remember hearing -from the older guys- this is how they convinced the individual Group commanders to give up their dedicated RW asset to SOAR when it was stood up.

That didnt work out well for them and I honestly dont see that changing.

Maybe instead of it being an ARMY unit it should just be a USSOCOM unit...since the sister services ride their airframes as much as we do, even though those services supposedly have SO capable airframes/crew.

So if they created a USARC (United States Army Ranger Command) which would entail 1st, 2nd, 3rd, RSTB, and HQ.. how in the hellfuck would that help anything? What is the different between SF Command and this new hooplah to my fictional Ranger Command????

Your hooplah command exists; its 75th Regiment HQ albeit a smaller scale than USASFC.

Regimental HHC has 3 line BNs, RSTB to manage whereas USASFC has 19 AD line BNs and 6 NG plus training Group.

----------------

It isnt that I am against having support, God knows those on the pointy end of the stick need it. I am however against, as I have said in many threads prior to this one, adding to the political BS that accompanies GO level positions (SGMs included) and the extra hoops and levels needed to pass traffic thru to get something done.

For those talking about SF command, there was talk about changing the Group commanders positions from O6 to O7s at one time (and maybe still.) I am not a fan of that idea either. We (SF) need more officers and Sr NCOs (who believe the ODAs support the command) standing in the path of progress like we need a hole in our collective heads.

When are we going to realize, as military that adding more at the top detracts from our effectiveness where the rubber meats (intentional) the road.

Crip
 

Ravage

running up that hill
Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2007
Messages
3,865
Location
in Wonderland, with my Alice
I remember hearing -from the older guys- this is how they convinced the individual Group commanders to give up their dedicated RW asset to SOAR when it was stood up.

That didnt work out well for them and I honestly dont see that changing.

Maybe instead of it being an ARMY unit it should just be a USSOCOM unit...since the sister services ride their airframes as much as we do, even though those services supposedly have SO capable airframes/crew.

I remember reading about SF commanders wanting their own dedicated SOA back (just like they did in Vietnam), don't know if its connected to this.

About more and more commanders, its been adressed in my military also. Interesting is that right now, it's a lot more easy to get a staff job (wheter it's an O or an NCO) than to get into a line unit, or even a unit that has even an ice cube chance in hell it will deploy. Why you ask? Because MON (our DoD) is creating commands.....commands that command....commands.
Hopefully my time in the regular mil will be short and sweet, thank Odin there are alternatives.
 
Top