This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This template is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It may be a good idea to wait until more solid info on AFCYBER is available before going too far with this. As yet we don't know what, if any, bases will belong to the command, and most of the units have yet to be fully flushed out yet (at least publically).Ndunruh (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
I would agree, to a point, but the unit listings are public on www.afcyber.af.mil/units/ - we at least know which bases AFCYBER units will be operating from - AFCYBER's construct is such that even as a MAJCOM, it may not actually control a base (similiar to the historic Air Force Communications Command), but just be tenants on other MAJCOM bases. TDRSS (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
