Talk:Ninth Air Force (2009–2020)

Forces in the Middle East (USAMEAF). USAMEAF is comprised of the Halverson Detachment

OF never follows COMPRISE. Bad grammar. Should change to "COMPOSED OF"

US Air Forces Central

The organization described by this article is no longer "Ninth Air Force". Since 5 August 2009 it is US Air Forces Central Command (ACC), USAFCENT and was given the lineage and history of the original 9AF from World War II to 2009. It is a "Named Air Force". IOW, the history and lineage of the "old" 9AF (everything up to Aug 2009) was bestowed on "US Air Forces Central" to become the new US Air Forces Central Command, which is headquartered in Qatar. There is a new 9AF, also created in 2009, which has no lineage, history, emblem, etc.: 9AF, and is responsible for fighter activities on the east coast of the US as a part of ACC. The new 9AF is completely separate from and not connected to CENTCOM or AFCENT and is now commanded by MG Stephen Hoog. This article needs to be merged with US Air Forces Central (since USAFCENT is now the entity for which all the information in this article applies and the "Air Forces Central" no longer exists under that name) and the appropriate redirections made that include the new 9AF (a new article will be needed for that). I fully realize that the old AFCENT still has a web site up, but note that it includes no command biographies because it no longer officially exists in that name. The most recent audit by the Inspector General started when the organization was "US Air Forces Central" but finished and reviewed by "US Air Forces Central Command" in Qatar!--Reedmalloy (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the AF logic behind this whipsawing of lineages, history and honors.--TGC55 (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Army is far more esoteric about lineage, but your point is valid. I believe the original split when it was announced in Aug 2009 was meant to be temporary (and may still be) but AFHRA has since stepped in and bestowed lineage, which it did not need to do, on USAFCENT, which indicates to me the split is permanent. (For purposes of this article, that's moot, since it is what is.) I assume the bestowal was because USAFCENT is a "warfighting" organization (in the jargon of today) and the new 9AF is not. btw, I only came upon the situation here because of another article I'm working on, hit the wrong link, and saw here what I knew to be obsolete.--Reedmalloy (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, for the purpose of this article my points on the issue are moot. However, the situation as it applies to the 9th Air Force is most unsatisfactory. Sure the USAFCENT gets a sexy and strong historical war fighting lineage, history and honors, but it makes a joke as far as military historical lineage is concerned to this editor. I am familiar with US Army reflaging exercises, but it works for them. Thanks for clarification of this sticky situation which will comeback to haunt the USAF and AFHRA in years to come. --TGC55 (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't blame AFHRA. This was done by Hq AF/A1M. There was no bestowal of history, Ninth AF was redesignated, just like (in numerical order) Sixth Air Force was redesignated Caribbean Air Command, Seventh Air Force was redesignated Pacific Air Command, Eighth Air Force was redesignated United States Air Forces Europe, and Eleventh Air Force was redesignated Alaskan Air Command. Just as Seventh and Eleventh once more became NAFs this Hq may as well. Lineagegeek (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with the old Ninth Air Force lineage/history

So we have two organizations: Ninth Air Force (9 AF), and United States Air Forces Central (USAFCENT).

When the current 9 AF came into existence in 2009, it didn't get the lineage of the old 9 AF. That lineage went to USAFCENT.

What info should the article "Ninth Air Force" contain? Where should the history of the pre-2009 Ninth Air Force be?

1. Put the 9 AF history info in the USAFCENT article and have the 9 AF article be just about the new org. (what we usually do, but wouldn't make sense to the layman)
2. Keep old 9 AF history in Ninth Air Force article, with a note that the old 9 AF lineage currently belongs to USAFCENT. (I prefer this)
3. Create a new article "Ninth Air Force (1942-2009)" that contains the old history.

What do you think? --Pmsyyz (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

AFHRA 9th AF Fact Sheet. I can live with that. Clears up much confusion, Also note the new emblem. Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Pmsyyz, for two reasons, I would prefer 'Ninth Air Force 1942-2009.' Firstly, there is a lot of history in those fifty-odd years, and once we insert mentions of all the historical wings, groups, air divisions, etc, in the appropriate places (ie write a full history) it may even need to be subdivided still more. Secondly, it allows a clearer progression in 2009 - the history of the organization is split. Bwmoll3, what do you think about going with this suggestion ?? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The only problem I have with a separate "Ninth Air Force (1942-2009)" article is that the "Ninth Air Force" article would be super short. But I don't think that really matters. The old 9 AF history should be split out if it grows long enough. --Pmsyyz (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We can have a solid linking couple of paragraphs that cover the issue. So, since you agree, I suggest we make sure of Bwmoll3's views, and then make the split. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears that HO ACC decided to focus the staff of the "Old 9th AF" on the GWOT and create a "New 9th AF" to control its CONUS units. The fact is that there are two separate formal organizations now, rather than one with a dual designation. In my view, the AFCENT article should have the long and distinguished history of history of the "old" Ninth Air Force, because that's it's heritage. The "New" Ninth Air Force is going to be a short article, because it's a new organization. Should include a link, "For the history and lineage of Ninth Air Force prior to 2009, see United States Central Command Air Forces" and vice versa on the AFCENT page. I wouldn't use the dates in the title however. Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand how confusing such a set-up will be for those who have little knowledge of USAF lineage? It's confusing enough for us who know, to work out what happened. Hatnotes are not the easiest thing to work with. In addition, there's a lot more history to write in the 1942-2009 section, as I've said above. We do not need to follow air force conventions, as we in wikipedia are writing for the intelligent non-specialist. The switch of lineages, a very confusing decision, can be more clearly explained if we do one article for 1942-2009, and then say at the end of that article, lineage went one way, and the name 'Ninth Air Force' went the other. Do you see how this more clearly would explain the issue ? Buckshot06 (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Split and move?

I gather this has been discussed already, but I can’t see if there was any conclusion. As a non-specialist (of, I hope, at least average intelligence) I was confused by the arrangement, when following a link for the wartime Ninth Air Force, so I think something needs doing. I’ve created a redirect from Ninth Air Force (World War II) but I don’t think that’s the answer; there are several thousand pages linked to Ninth Air Force and I’m pretty sure most of them don’t mean the current incarnation. The idea of splitting the history section out is a good one; in that case we could .a) move this to "Ninth Air Force (2009- )" and put the history at Ninth Air Force, or .b) (if the history has to be at "Ninth Air Force (1942-2009)) then redirect Ninth Air Force to it. Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Support your split idea Xyl. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't know that split rather than disambiguation is the answer. What is certain is that every link to Ninth Air Force created prior to 2009 now goes to the wrong article. Is there a bot that can correct this? The same problem exists in a different form for other NAFs Lineagegeek (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If the expected destination for most articles is the Ninth Air Force of 1942-2009 ( I suspect most articles are interested in 1942-1945), what makes most sense is to immediately move this 9th to Ninth...(2009- ) and then redirect Ninth Air Force to the 1942-2009 body whereever that is parked. Then figure out what to precisely to do with linking. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I support GraemeLeggett or Xyl's idea. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)