|
Post by Mark O on Mar 18, 2013 23:39:56 GMT 9
Looks like we're going to need a bigger boat! The command structure of ADC was just one puzzle inside a bigger puzzle called the USAF! I've been doing some reading, and according to this document did you know the 27th FIS -- while flying F-106s -- was at one time assigned to the 36th, and 35th Air Divisions? How about the 48th belonging to the 33rd Air Division for a period? Oh yea, there is a lot more! www.usafpatches.com/pubs/handbookofadcorg.pdfIt's a HUGE file -- 12+ MB, and 189 pages -- but will open in a window. The "F-I" squadrons, as they are listed in this document, start on page 113. Interestingly, it seems that if an FIS was assigned to a Fighter Group, or a Fighter Wing, it was not listed as part of an Air Division, but under an Air Defense Sector, and if under a sector, probably not under an Air Divsion. Honestly, it can all be very confusing. For example, the 87th FIS was activated on 30 Sep 1968 at Duluth replacing the 11th FIS. Some sources say they belonged to the 34th Air Division on that day, but this document says they were assigned to the 343rd Fighter Group on that day. When you go to the 11th FIS entry it only lists it as belonging to the 343rd Fighter Group. How did the groups fall under the Air Divisions is my question? Now I understand this is just a reference publication, but it was put out by the ADC hisory office in 1980, so that's important. Fascinating stuff!
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Mar 19, 2013 1:42:26 GMT 9
Individual A/C belonged to a flight, flights belonged to Squadrons, Squadrons could be part of Wings, Wings could be part of Groups, Groups could be part of Sectors, Sectors could be part of Divisions and Divisions could be part of major Divisions/Commands. ADC was a Command. Depending on who was Sec'y AF/CINC the AF Structure changed, evolved. As changes were made, sometimes they had phase in periods and others all changes same day. Again, depended on Sec'y AF/CINC
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Mar 19, 2013 2:05:50 GMT 9
An old AF Org Structure (High Level) from my Airmen's Guide 1967 version. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 19, 2013 2:11:41 GMT 9
Individual A/C belonged to a flight, flights belonged to Squadrons, Squadrons could be part of Wings, Wings could be part of Groups, Groups could be part of Sectors, Sectors could be part of Divisions and Divisions could be part of major Divisions/Commands. ADC was a Command. Depending on who was Sec'y AF/CINC the AF Structure changed, evolved. As changes were made, sometimes they had phase in periods and others all changes same day. Again, depended on Sec'y AF/CINC Wings were comprised of Groups- a typical fighter wing would be - ftr group comprised typically of 3 ftr sqdns, M and S Group-maintenace and supply sqdrons, Air Base group was Civil Engineering sqdn, medical / hospital sqdron, Security police sqdron..... Never knew that any group was comprised of wings...... As far as I know, the 27th FIS, along with the 71st and 94th squadrons were always part of the 1st Ftr- whatever wing since WW1.... While at Griffiss, the 27th was part of (I believe) 26th Air Division with hdqtrs at Griffiss... While at Loring, the 27th was part of the Bangor Air Defense Sector, headquartered at Topsham AFS on Brunswick Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine.. Later the 36th AD was there, but this was after the 27th was sucked up into TAC and moved to Langley...
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Mar 19, 2013 2:33:44 GMT 9
Absolutely correct Jim, thanks for the correction.
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Mar 19, 2013 5:10:13 GMT 9
One really has to read each entry to get the entire picture. To get the complete level of command you have to look up each level. Squadron/Group/Wing/Air Defense Sector/Air Division/etc. Some units never were assigned to a "Wing" proper, or even a group. Most had more than one Air Defense Sector or Division assignment. For example, the 343rd Fighter Group I mentioned earlier. They were assigned to 6 Air Divisions over the course of their time as a unit! Some FIS's were assigned to more than one group like the 498th FIS. 84th Fighter Group (Geiger) and 57th Fighter Group (Paine), and most folks know it was also part of the 325th Fighter Wing (Air Defense) at McChord for a short time!!
And just for another example Jim, you mentioned the 71st FIS? It was at one point part of the 328th Fighter Wing during it's time at Richards-Gebaur AFB flying the Six.
I think alot of the later organization boiled down to the fact that the remaining FISs were pretty much geographically seperated by so much, there really wasn't a need to have all those layers of command. I mean, was it really necessary for a single squadron to belong to a group, or even a seperate wing when all of the administrative activities could easily be handled by the host unit? No different than my old airlift squadron at Dyess. Sure, we had two flying squadrons, an aircraft maintenance squadron (the line guys), a maintenance squadron (backshop and phase), a maintenance operations squadron, and an operational support squadron, so we were assigned to a single group. The 317th Airlift Group. The next level was the 18th Air Force, then Air Mobility Command for us, but administrative stuff was taken care of by the 7th Bomb Wing. They had the support group, the medical group, and all the squadrons associated with running a base. As a seperate group, we didn't need that.
In a full wing my flying squadron would have been in the Operations Group, and the maintenance squadrons in the Maintenance Group like every other wing I was assigned to. Most wings have a good 6-8 Colonels including the commander, and we had one for the group!
One of these nights -- most likely over the course of several nights -- I'm going to sit down, and create an organization chart for each FIS based on this document!
I don't really know why, but this stuff really interests me.
|
|
|
Post by pat perry on Mar 19, 2013 5:40:54 GMT 9
|
|
|
Post by Diamondback on Mar 19, 2013 5:41:37 GMT 9
Am I the only one seeing a typo in the Guide scan? (No 1st AF, and 2nd is listed under both SAC and ADC.) Mark, you're right, it is kind of interesting, helps see the piece each of us (or, in some case, our loved ones) are/were in the bigger scheme of things.
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Mar 19, 2013 8:07:14 GMT 9
Thanks Pat P. I'm pretty up to date on the current stuff having gone through all the courses, but the OLD organization is what really interests me. Besides, as you probably know, the USAF organization charts change with the weather! Clearly they always have. They did when I was on active duty, and they will again. (I'd hate to be the course writer for that course, although it would be steady work!)
The charts are like a photograph of one moment in time. That moment may be a couple years, or sometimes even a single day. Seriously.
Are there typos in a document that was clearly "typed" 33 years ago? Probably. Do things not line up? Of course they don't. Did they get it wrong? Probably not. At least not during the snapshot you may be looking at. That's what makes it an interesting puzzle.
I'll tell y'all one thing. I trust that document from the ADC History Office more than any book I had to buy (from someone out to make a buck) proclaming all there is to know about anything! The thing one has to do is analyze all the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Mar 19, 2013 9:15:12 GMT 9
Here is a good example of a really, bad error I hinted at in my last post. This is from the book " Convair Deltas - From SeaDart to Hustler" by Bill Yenne published in 2009. It shows a very common photograph of 57-2541 in ADWC colors in front of the "welcome" sign. I think everyone has seen this photo. Now, just read the caption under the photo. (What the...?) This aircraft was never assigned to the 101st FIS, and certainly not in 1969!! The 101st didn't get their first Sixes until April 1972 for one thing, and second, this aircraft spent it's entire career with either the 73rd Air Division, or the ADWC. Now, in his defense I suppose one can kind of see how the ADWC markings favored the 101st FIS markings especially in black & white, but, really? Just a really good example of what I meant by research. Or lack of research I suppose. (BTW, "From SeaDart to Hustler" is not the subtitle I would have chosen for this book. It covers everything from the XF-92 to the B-58. Sorry - just nitpicking now. It really is a good book overall.)
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Mar 19, 2013 22:12:37 GMT 9
MArk, Whatever you try to do will only be a snapshot in time. ADC changed on a monthly basis. It almost was like a goat-rope. As SAGE buildings came on line, they almost all became Air Divisions and Sectors. But ADC also changed so much as older A/C were phased out and less Squadrons were available. So if a Group/Wing lost all but one six Sq it was no longer a Wing or Group but simply a Sq. And the same went for Divisions. Back in early 60's when most six Squadrons were activated there were tons of Fighter/Interceptor Sq with many different airframes. F-106, F-102, F-101, F-104, F-89, F-84 etc.They also had a ton of support A/C assigned to the Wings C-119, C-123, C-124, T-33, T-38, B-57 etc. But most went away by early 70's so Command Structure was reduced.
|
|
Deleted
Currently: Offline
Posts: 0
Location:
Joined: January 1970
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2013 2:52:53 GMT 9
Lorin, that was a great observation, and a combination of GOOD RESEARCH, and personal experience. Too many people who try to conduct research fail to understand the significance of both resources.
|
|
RpR
F-106 Qualified
Currently: Offline
Posts: 16
Location:
Joined: January 2013
|
Post by RpR on Mar 20, 2013 5:59:19 GMT 9
Now this may seem like a silly question but, the six pictured above, would it have been towed away before being fired up?
As it seems if they fired it up sitting there, at least one of the trees would have turned into a torch.
|
|
|
Post by Mark O on Mar 20, 2013 7:08:36 GMT 9
Now this may seem like a silly question but, the six pictured above, would it have been towed away before being fired up? As it seems if they fired it up sitting there, at least one of the trees would have turned into a torch. Not silly at all. The aircraft was pushed into position specifically for a photo op. We used to do it all the time on KC-135s, and C-130s. Someone just towed it back when the photogs were happy!
|
|
|
Post by LBer1568 on Mar 20, 2013 8:24:08 GMT 9
Why would it have caught fire? The six didn't light burner to taxi away. If the eyelids (idle thrusters) were open it wouldn't even blow needles off tree. It's not like the six at idle was a blowtorch.
|
|