Stick to the Basics: Do Not Establish Air Combat Command as a Specified Command

Abstract

The paper examines the controversy surrounding the recent Air Force proposal to establish Air Combat Command as a Specified Command. Using the effects on national warfighting capability as a measure of merit, the analysis concludes that such a designation is not prudent. Three factors support the conclusion. Proponents' arguments are misplaced; they support the ACC concept, but not combatant command status. In citing a precedent in FORSCOM, they point to a valid benefit of independent application of power during crisis response. Second, there is no valid broad continuing mission. Finally, establishment of ACC as a combatant command could decrease our warfighting skills by undermining unity of effort. A solution to the problem is posed in the analysis. Establishment of ACC as a USAF MAJCOM in supporting status, with forces assigned not only to Unified CINCs, but to FORSCOM as well, would preserve the crisis response capability, without undermining the intent of the Goldwater-Nichols DoD Reorganization Act of 1986.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Jun 19, 1992
Accession Number
ADA249832

Entities

People

  • Kevin E. Curry

Organizations

  • Naval War College

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Air Platforms
  • Energy and Power Technologies
  • Weapons Technologies

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Acquisition
  • Agreements
  • Air Force
  • Air Power
  • Combatant Commanders
  • Composite Wings
  • Department Of Defense
  • Military Force Levels
  • Military Organizations
  • Military Strategy
  • National Security
  • Navy
  • Unified Combatant Commands
  • United States Strategic Command
  • United States Transportation Command
  • War Colleges
  • Warfare

Readers

  • Aerospace logistics and air mobility.
  • Joint Military Operations and Doctrine.
  • Strategic Security Studies