Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member 1446441 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Comm Squadron Next aims to change the Comm Squadron from a service provider to a mission assurer/enclave defender. With that change, who do you think will take on the service provider role? Some say JIE and others say it will be contracted out. What exactly do you think that means? <br /><br />Do you think AFIMSC detachment at the base level can be the answer? The AFIMSC has taken virtually all of the base support programs from the MAJCOMs (FOIA, Privacy act, COMSEC, transmission, long Haul, C&amp;I maintenance, and PWCS, etc). Wouldn't it make sense for the AFIMSC to take that on at the local level? <br /><br />Like to know everyone's thoughts 2016-04-11T19:57:09-04:00 Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member 1446441

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Comm Squadron Next aims to change the Comm Squadron from a service provider to a mission assurer/enclave defender. With that change, who do you think will take on the service provider role? Some say JIE and others say it will be contracted out. What exactly do you think that means? <br /><br />Do you think AFIMSC detachment at the base level can be the answer? The AFIMSC has taken virtually all of the base support programs from the MAJCOMs (FOIA, Privacy act, COMSEC, transmission, long Haul, C&amp;I maintenance, and PWCS, etc). Wouldn't it make sense for the AFIMSC to take that on at the local level? <br /><br />Like to know everyone's thoughts

2016-04-11T19:57:09-04:00 2016-04-11T19:57:09-04:00 Maj William W. 'Bill' Price 1446719

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Seems to me that the AFIMSC is the logical interface to JIE...although I can see a different arrangement for administrative vs mission (i.e. wartime) provisioning of services. Administrative services could be contracted out. I don't think we could do that under a combat scenario. My $0.02.

2016-04-11T22:16:08-04:00 2016-04-11T22:16:08-04:00 CPT Private RallyPoint Member 1446849

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Awful idea. The army has pretty much done this already and it doesn't work. We still have SM that require knowledge and hands on skills to perform their job in theater. This effectively creates a group of folks that don't know their job, because they're not allowed to do it. <br /><br />Another example is mail.mil. our unit has to pay for emails distros and org mail boxes. While I understand there are operating costs, that's is ridiculous.

2016-04-12T00:02:18-04:00 2016-04-12T00:02:18-04:00 Col Joseph Lenertz 1447321

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Under the Multi-Domain Operating Concept (MDOC), the idea is to transition blue-suiters to warfighting functions as CSTs, some supporting the JFC under CYBERCOM, while the AF retains some for direct support to the COMAFFOR. The concept includes contracted base comms support, although no PE or funds have been identified (the long-haul comms PE won't support). SAF/CIO HAF/A6 is lead.

2016-04-12T08:24:46-04:00 2016-04-12T08:24:46-04:00 Maj Kevin "Mac" McLaughlin 1447322

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>First, you've likely seen my opinion in Cyber Squadron of the future being an overkill. I personally think there are going to be some very bored units out there. That said, in order to move us into operation squadrons, the base communications support stink must be removed from those units. I spent too many years leading operational capabilities while still being considered the comm support guy.

2016-04-12T08:25:02-04:00 2016-04-12T08:25:02-04:00 CW2 Christopher Esparza 1448264

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Straight Talk

2016-04-12T12:18:24-04:00 2016-04-12T12:18:24-04:00 2016-04-11T19:57:09-04:00