U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Considerations for Congress




U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF):
Background and Considerations for Congress

Updated February 9, 2024
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RS21048




U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Considerations for Congress

Summary
Special Operations Forces (SOF) play a significant role in U.S. military operations. In 1986,
Congress, concerned about the status of SOF within overall U.S. defense planning, passed
legislation (P.L. 99-661) to strengthen special operations’ position within the defense community
and to improve interoperability among the branches of U.S. SOF. These actions included the
establishment of USSOCOM as a new unified command.
As of 2023, USSOCOM consisted of approximately 70,000 Active Duty, Reserve, National
Guard, and civilian personnel assigned to its headquarters, its four components, and sub-unified
commands. USSOCOM’s components are the U.S. Army Special Operations Command
(USASOC), the Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC), the Air Force Special Operations
Command (AFSOC), and the Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC).
The Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) is a USSOCOM sub-unified command.
USSOCOM also comprises seven Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOCs). TSOCs are
sub-unified commands under their respective Geographic Combatant Commanders (GCCs).
TSOCs are special operational headquarters elements designed to support a GCC’s special
operations logistics, planning, and operational command and control requirements
Considerations for Congress include Army Special Forces recruiting and possible force structure
reductions and Air Force Special Operations Power Projection Wings and future unit relocations.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 7 link to page 8 link to page 9 link to page 9 link to page 10 link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 12 U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Considerations for Congress

Contents
Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Command Structures and Components ..................................................................................... 1
Title X USSOCOM Authorities ................................................................................................ 2
Additional USSOCOM Responsibilities ............................................................................. 2
Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOCs) .............................................................. 3
Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) ............................................................................. 4
Army Special Operations Command......................................................................................... 4
Air Force Special Operations Command .................................................................................. 5
Naval Special Warfare Command ............................................................................................. 6
U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC) .................................... 6

Considerations for Congress............................................................................................................ 7
Army Special Forces Recruiting and Possible Force Structure Reductions .............................. 7
Air Force Special Operations Power Projection Wings and Planned Future Unit
Relocations ............................................................................................................................. 8

Contacts
Author Information .......................................................................................................................... 9

Congressional Research Service

U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Considerations for Congress

Overview
Special operations are military operations requiring unique modes of employment, tactical
techniques, equipment, and training. These operations are often conducted in hostile, denied, or
politically sensitive environments and are characterized by one or more of the following
elements: time sensitive, clandestine, low visibility, conducted with and/or through indigenous
forces, requiring regional expertise, and/or a high degree of risk. Special Operations Forces (SOF)
are those Active and Reserve Component forces of the services designated by the Secretary of
Defense and specifically organized, trained, and equipped to conduct and support special
operations. The U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), headquartered at MacDill Air
Force Base in Tampa, FL, is a functional combatant command responsible for training, doctrine,
and equipping for U.S. SOF units.
Command Structures and Components
In 1986, Congress, concerned about the status of SOF within overall U.S. defense planning,
passed legislation (P.L. 99-661) to strengthen special operations’ position within the defense
community and to improve interoperability among the branches of U.S. SOF. These actions
included the establishment of USSOCOM as a new unified command. As stipulated by U.S. Code
(U.S.C.) Title X, Section 167, the commander of USSOCOM is a four-star officer who may be
from any military service. U.S. Army General P. Bryan Fenton is the current USSOCOM
Commander. The USSOCOM Commander reports directly to the Secretary of Defense. The
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low-Intensity Conflict (ASD (SOLIC)) is
the principal civilian advisor to the Secretary of Defense on special operations and low-intensity
conflict matters. The current ASD (SOLIC) is the Honorable Christopher Maier.1
In this role, the ASD (SOLIC)
• exercises authority, direction, and control of all special operations-peculiar issues
relating to the organization, training, and equipping of SOF;
• is the Principal Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict Official within the
senior management of the Department of Defense (DOD);
• sits in the chain-of-command above USSOCOM for special operations-peculiar
administrative matters and provides civilian oversight of the SOF enterprise; and
• advises, assists, and supports the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (USD- P)
on special operations and irregular warfare policy matters.2
As of 2023, USSOCOM consisted of approximately 70,000 Active Duty, Reserve, National
Guard, and civilian personnel assigned to its headquarters, its four components, and sub-unified
commands.3 USSOCOM’s components are the U.S. Army Special Operations Command
(USASOC); the Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC); the Air Force Special Operations
Command (AFSOC); and the Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command (MARSOC).
The Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) is a USSOCOM sub-unified command.

1 Department of Defense, ASD (SOLIC): https://policy.defense.gov/OUSDP-Offices/ASD-for-Special-Operations-
Low-Intensity-Conflict/, accessed August 15, 2023.
2 Ibid.
3 USSOCOM 2023 Fact Book, p. 6.
Congressional Research Service

1

U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Considerations for Congress

Title X USSOCOM Authorities
10 U.S.C. §167, Unified Combatant Command for Special Operations Forces, states:
Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict, the commander of such command shall be
responsible for, and shall have the authority to conduct, the following functions relating to
special operations activities (whether or not relating to the special operations command).
Current authorities include
• developing special operations strategy, doctrine and tactics;
• preparing and submitting budget proposals for special operations forces;
• exercising authority, direction, and control over special operations expenditures;
• training assigned forces;
• conducting specialized courses of instruction;
• validating requirements;
• establishing requirement priorities;
• ensuring interoperability of equipment and forces;
• formulating and submitting intelligence support requirements;
• monitoring special operations officers’ promotions, assignments, retention,
training, and professional military education;
• ensuring special operations forces’ combat readiness;
• monitoring special operations forces’ preparedness to carry out assigned
missions;
• developing and acquiring special operations-peculiar equipment, materiel,
supplies and services;
• commanding and controlling U.S.-based special operations forces;
• providing special operations forces to Geographic Combatant Commanders; and
• conducting activities specified by the President or Secretary of Defense.4
Additional USSOCOM Responsibilities
In addition to the aforementioned Title X authorities and responsibilities, USSOCOM has been
given additional responsibilities. In the 2004 Unified Command Plan (UCP), USSOCOM was
given the responsibility for synchronizing DOD planning against global terrorist networks and, as
directed, conducting global operations against those networks.5 In this regard, USSOCOM
“receives, reviews, coordinates and prioritizes all DOD plans that support the global campaign
against terror, and then makes recommendations to the Joint Staff regarding force and resource
allocations to meet global requirements.”6 In 2008, USSOCOM was designated the DOD
proponent for Security Force Assistance (SFA).7 In this role, USSOCOM performs a

4 Ibid., p. 8.
5 USSOCOM Public Affairs, Fact Book: United States Special Operations Command, February 2013, p. 10.
6 Ibid.
7 Information in this section is from testimony given by Admiral Eric T. Olson, Commander, USSOCOM, to the House
Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee on the Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense
Authorization Budget Request for the U.S. Special Operations Command, June 4, 2009.
Congressional Research Service

2

U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Considerations for Congress

synchronizing function in global training and assistance planning similar to the previously
described role of planning against terrorist networks. In 2018, USSOCOM was also assigned the
mission to field a Trans Regional Military Information Support Operations (MISO) capability
intended to “address the opportunities and risks of global information space.”8
Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOCs)
Theater-level command and control responsibilities are vested in Theater Special Operations
Commands (TSOCs). TSOCs are sub-unified commands under their respective Geographic
Combatant Commanders (GCCs). TSOCs are special operational headquarters elements designed
to support a GCC’s special operations logistics, planning, and operational command and control
requirements, and are normally commanded by a general officer.
In 2013, based on a request from USSOCOM and with the concurrence of every geographic and
functional combatant commander and the Service Chiefs and Secretaries, the Secretary of
Defense transferred combatant command of the TSOCs from the GCCs to USSOCOM.9 This
means USSOCOM has the responsibility to organize, train, and equip TSOCs, as it previously
had for all assigned SOF units as specified in U.S. Code, Title X, Section 167. This change was
intended to enable USSOCOM to standardize, to the extent possible, TSOC capabilities and
manpower requirements. While USSOCOM is responsible for the organizing, training, and
equipping of TSOCs, the GCCs continue to have operational control over the TSOCs and all
special operations in their respective theaters. TSOC commanders are the senior SOF advisors for
their respective GCCs. Each TSOC is capable of forming the core of a joint task force
headquarters for short-term operations, and can provide command and control for all SOF in
theater on a continuous basis. The services have what the DOD calls “Combatant Command
Service Agency (CCSA)” responsibilities for providing manpower, non-SOF peculiar equipment,
and logistic support to the TSOCs. The current TSOCs, the GCCs they support, and the CCSA
responsibility for those TSOCs are as follows:10
• Special Operations Command South (SOCSOUTH), Homestead Air Force Base,
FL; supports U.S. Southern Command; its CCSA is the Army.
• Special Operations Command Africa (SOCAFRICA), Stuttgart, Germany;
supports U.S. Africa Command; its CCSA is the Army.
• Special Operations Command Europe (SOCEUR), Stuttgart, Germany; supports
U.S. European Command; its CCSA is the Army.
• Special Operations Command Central (SOCCENT), MacDill Air Force Base, FL;
supports U.S. Central Command; its CCSA is the Air Force.
• Special Operations Command Pacific (SOCPAC), Camp Smith, HI; supports
U.S. Pacific Command; its CCSA is the Navy.
• Special Operations Command Korea (SOCKOR), Camp Humphries, Republic of
Korea; supports U.S. Forces Korea; its CCSA is the Army.

8 Statement of General Raymond A. Thomas, III, U.S. Army, Commander, United States Special Operations Command
before the Senate Armed Services Committee, February 14, 2019, p. 12.
9 Information in this section is taken from USSOCOM Information Paper, “Special Operations Forces: 2020: Theater
Special Operations Commands,” April 25, 2013.
10 USSOCOM 2023 Fact Book, pp. 21-29.
Congressional Research Service

3

U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Considerations for Congress

• Special Operations Command U.S. Northern Command (SOCNORTH), Peterson
Air Force Base, CO; supports U.S. Northern Command; its CCSA is the Air
Force.
Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC)11
From USSOCOM’s 2023 Fact Book:
The Joint Special Operations Command, located at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is a sub-
unified command of the U.S. Special Operations Command. JSOC prepares assigned,
attached and augmented forces, and, when directed, conducts special operations against
threats to protect the homeland and U.S. interests aboard.
Army Special Operations Command
U.S. Army SOF (ARSOF) includes approximately 36,000 soldiers from the Active Army,
National Guard, and Army Reserve organized into Special Forces, Ranger, and special operations
aviation units, along with civil affairs units, military information units, and special operations
support units.12 ARSOF Headquarters and other resources, such as the John F. Kennedy Special
Warfare Center and School, are located at Fort Liberty (formerly Fort Bragg), NC.13 Five active
Special Forces (SF) Groups (Airborne),14 consisting of about 1,400 soldiers each, are stationed at
Fort Liberty and at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA; Fort Campbell, KY; Fort Carson, CO; and
Eglin Air Force Base, FL. Special Forces soldiers—also known as the Green Berets—are trained
in various skills, including foreign languages, that allow teams to operate independently
throughout the world. Two Army National Guard Special Forces groups are headquartered in
Utah and Alabama.
An elite airborne light infantry unit specializing in direct action operations,15 the 75th Ranger
Regiment, is headquartered at Fort Moore (formerly Fort Benning), GA,16 and consists of three
battalions of about 800 soldiers each, a regimental special troops battalion, and a regimental
military intelligence battalion. The Army’s special operations aviation unit, the 160th Special
Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) (SOAR), consists of five battalions and is
headquartered at Fort Campbell, KY. The 160th SOAR features pilots trained to fly the most

11 Ibid., p. 12.
12 Information in this section, unless otherwise noted, is taken from USSOCOM 2022 Fact Book, pp. 20-23.
13 The former Fort Bragg was renamed Fort Liberty on June 2, 2023, in accordance with the recommendation of the
Naming Commission. For more on the commission, see CRS Insight IN10756, Confederate Names and Military
Installations
. CRS uses military installation names as listed on the Department of Defense’s Military OneSource
website at https://installations.militaryonesource.mil/view-all (last accessed April 26, 2023).
14 Airborne refers to “personnel, troops especially trained to effect, following transport by air, an assault debarkation,
either by parachuting or touchdown.” Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and
Associated Terms, 12 April 2001 (As Amended Through 31 July 2010).
15 Direct action operations are short-duration strikes and other small-scale offensive actions conducted as a special
operation in hostile, denied, or politically sensitive environments, as well as employing specialized military capabilities
to seize, destroy, capture, exploit, recover, or damage designated targets. Direct action differs from conventional
offensive actions in the level of physical and political risk, operational techniques, and the degree of discriminate and
precise use of force to achieve specific objectives.
16 The former Fort Benning was renamed Fort Moore on May 11, 2023, in accordance with the recommendation of the
Naming Commission. For more on the commission, see CRS Insight IN10756, Confederate Names and Military
Installations
. CRS uses military installation names as listed on the Department of Defense’s Military OneSource
website at https://installations.militaryonesource.mil/view-all (last accessed April 26, 2023).
Congressional Research Service

4

U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Considerations for Congress

sophisticated Army rotary-wing aircraft in the harshest environments, day or night, and in adverse
weather and supports all USSOCOM components, not just Army units.
Some of the most frequently deployed SOF assets are Civil Affairs (CA) units, which provide
experts in every area of civil government to help administer civilian affairs in operational
theaters. The 95th Civil Affairs Brigade (Airborne) is the only active CA unit that exclusively
supports USSOCOM. Military Information Support Operations (also known as psychological
operations) units disseminate information to large foreign audiences through mass media. Two
Active-Duty Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) groups—the 4th PSYOPS Group and 8th
PSYOPS Group—are stationed at Fort Liberty, NC, and their subordinate units are aligned with
Geographic Combatant Commands.
Air Force Special Operations Command
The Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) is one of the Air Force’s major
commands, comprising approximately 17,000 Active, Reserve, and civilian personnel.17 AFSOC
units operate out of four major continental United States (CONUS) locations and two overseas
locations. The headquarters for AFSOC is Hurlburt Field, FL.18 AFSOC units are stationed as
follows:
• 1st Special Operations Wing, Hurlburt Field, FL;
• 24th Special Operations Wing, Hurlburt Field, FL;
• 27th Special Operations Wing, Cannon Air Force Base, NM;
• 137th Special Operations Wing (Air National Guard), Oklahoma City, OK;
• 193rd Special Operations Wing (Air National Guard), Harrisburg, PA;
• 352nd Special Operations Wing, Royal Air Force Mildenhall, UK;
• 492nd Special Operations Wing, Hurlburt Field, FL;
• 919th Special Operations Wing (Air Force Reserves), Duke Field, FL; and
• 353rd Special Operations Group, Kadena Air Base, Japan.19
Air Force Special Operations Command specialties generally fall into four groups:
Special Tactics: Special Tactics comprises Special Tactics Officers, Combat
Controllers, Combat Rescue Officers, Pararescuemen, Special Operations
Weather Officers and Airmen, Air Liaison Officers, and Tactical Air Control
Party Operators.
Special Operations Aviators: Aircrew who fly a fleet of specially modified
aircraft in permissive, contested, denied, or politically sensitive environments.
Missions include long-range infiltration and exfiltration; nonstandard aviation;
precision strike; aerial refueling; military information support operations; foreign
internal defense; and command, control, intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance.
Combat Aviation Advisors: Combat aviation advisors work with foreign
aviation forces as part of Foreign Internal Defense, Security Force Assistance,
and Unconventional Warfare operations.

17 USSOCOM 2023 Fact Book, p. 16.
18 Information in this section, unless otherwise noted, is taken from USSOCOM 2022 Fact Book, pp. 28-31.
19 Ibid., p. 29.
Congressional Research Service

5

U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Considerations for Congress

Support Air Commandos: A variety of Air Force specialties who serve in
mission support, maintenance, and medical specialties in support of AFSOC
units.20
Naval Special Warfare Command21
The Naval Special Warfare Command (NSWC) comprises approximately 11,000 personnel,
including Active Duty and Reserve Component Special Warfare Operators, known as SEALs;
Special Warfare Boat Operators, known as Special Warfare Combatant-craft Crewmen (SWCC);
reserve personnel; support personnel, referred to as Enablers; and civilians. NSWC headquarters
is located at Coronado, CA, and is composed of eight Active Duty SEAL Teams, two Reserve
Component SEAL Teams, two SEAL Delivery Vehicle (SDV) Teams, three Special Boat Teams,
and two Special Reconnaissance Teams. Because SEALs are considered experts in special
reconnaissance and direct-action missions—primary counterterrorism skills—NSWC is viewed as
well-postured to fight a globally dispersed enemy ashore or afloat. NSWC forces can operate in
small groups and have the ability to quickly deploy from Navy ships, submarines and aircraft,
overseas bases, and forward-based units. Naval Special Warfare Groups (NSWGs), NSWC’s
major components, are stationed as follows:
• NSWG-1, San Diego, CA;
• NSWG-2, Virginia Beach, VA;
• NSWG-3, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, HI;
• NSWG-4, Virginia Beach, VA;
• NSWG-10; Virginia Beach, VA; and
• NSWG-11, San Diego, CA.22
U.S. Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command
(MARSOC)23
On November 1, 2005, DOD created the Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC) as a
component of USSOCOM. MARSOC comprises approximately 3,500 personnel, including
Critical Skills Operators (enlisted), Special Operations Officers, Special Operations Independent
Duty Corpsmen (medics), Special Operations Capabilities Specialists, Combat Service Support
Specialists, and Marine Corps civilians. MARSOC consists of the Marine Raider Regiment,
which includes 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Marine Raider Battalions; the Marine Raider Support Group; 1st,
2nd, and 3rd Marine Raider Support Battalions; and the Marine Raider Training Center (MRTC).
MARSOC headquarters and forces are stationed at Camp Lejeune, NC. MARSOC units have
been deployed worldwide to conduct a full range of special operations activities. MARSOC
missions include direct action, special reconnaissance, foreign internal defense, counterterrorism,
and information operations.

20 Ibid., pp. 30-31.
21 Information in this section, unless otherwise noted, is taken from USSOCOM 2023 Fact Book, pp. 14-15.
22 https://www.nsw.navy.mil/CONTACT/Components/; accessed March 6, 2020.
23 Information in this section is from USSOCOM 2023 Fact Book, pp. 18-19.
Congressional Research Service

6

U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Considerations for Congress

Considerations for Congress
Oversight questions Congress could consider include the following:
Army Special Forces Recruiting and Possible Force
Structure Reductions
Reportedly, the Army has struggled to meet its goals to recruit Army Special Forces (Green
Berets) soldiers since 2018.24 According to an article:
Between 2018 and 2020, the service recruited an average of 1,011 new Special Forces
soldiers, missing its goal of 1,540 each year. That data is strictly contract signups, not the
total number of soldiers who make it all the way through Green Beret training.25 Those
who don't make it sometimes get second chances or are put into the regular Army infantry.
In 2021, the Army scaled back its recruiting goals, seeking to bring in 1,250 new Green
Berets. It exceeded its goals that year with 1,358 new Special Forces contracts, but dropped
again with 779 recruits in 2022. So far this year [2023], 527 new applicants have signed
on to try for the Green Beret.26
The article further implies “the quality of Green Beret applicants is also on the decline,” noting,
regarding the Special Forces Qualification Course:
That pass rate was between 60% and 80% in the early 2010s, but has plummeted to around
45% and 60% in recent years. It’s unclear what led to that lower pass rate, though failing
land navigation accounts for roughly 70% of all failures.
As a result, it was reported that
Amid a low rate of soldiers making it through the initial selection process and overall
recruiting woes, the Army considered shortening the Special Forces training pipeline by
about half to get new operators in to fill units faster, according to an internal 2018 briefing.
Another article suggests the Army is considering cutting 10% to 20% of its special operations
forces.27 Reportedly, such cuts would be “most acute on SOF enablers like logistics and
intelligence, but that some changes to force structure are also likely for Special Forces, civil
affairs, psychological operations.”28 On February 8, 2024, it was reported that
Service leaders are eyeing cuts to Military Information Support Operations, or MISO—
perhaps better known as Psychological Operations—in order to spare “shooter” special
operators such as Green Berets or Rangers.29
The article further suggests
The Army’s MISO operators, such as the 8th Psychological Operations Group based at
Fort Liberty, N.C., which faces potential cuts, comprise most of the Pentagon’s front-line

24 Information in this section, unless otherwise noted, is taken from Steve Beynon, “Green Berets Have Struggled for
Years with Recruiting, Internal Data Shows,” Military.com, June 8, 2023.
25 It should be noted that many soldiers already serving in the Army also volunteer for special forces testing and
selection and are not new recruits (sign-ups).
26 Ibid.
27 Caitlin M. Kenney, “Army Mulls 10-20% Cut to Special Operations Forces,” Defense One, May 22, 2023.
28 Ibid.
29 Patrick Turner, “US May Cut Info-Warfare Assets as China, Russia Expand Influence Ops,” Defense One, February
8, 2024.
Congressional Research Service

7

U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Considerations for Congress

troops for influence and information warfare.30 They are far outnumbered by the influence-
and-information warfare teams mounted by near-peer adversaries. Russian tactics include
using troll farms to mold discussions on American social media platforms, misattributing
attacks on the battlefield, and making fake news articles to convince local populations to
turn against NATO troops. China also has sophisticated information operations, which it
recently brought to bear against the Taiwanese election.31
It is possible the cuts are considered necessary due to the current recruiting crisis and exacerbated
by fewer soldiers volunteering for and passing Army Special Forces selection, but it was also
noted that “changes to force structure are needed both to address those impacts to the overall end
strength of the Army and to ensure that the Army can compete with China and Russia, and fight
and win America’s wars,” suggesting that Army Special Forces reductions are a part of overall
Army force reductions.32
The nexus of not meeting Army Special Forces recruiting goals, fewer candidates making it
through Special Forces selection, and possible Special Forces force structure cuts could have
national security implications that Congress might examine. Having fewer Special Forces units
and fewer Special Forces soldiers might result in not being able to support Combatant
Commander requirements. Another concern is how possible cuts to Psychological Operations
(PSYOPS) forces could affect U.S. information operations, particularly in light of increasing
hostilities in the Middle East. Furthermore, unless there is a corresponding reduction in
requirements for Army Special Forces support, operational tempo (OPTEMPO) for Army Special
Forces could become unacceptably high, possibly resulting in quality of life, health, family, and
retention issues for its soldiers. If requirements for Army Special Forces remain high or increase
and cannot be met, other Service’s special operations forces might be required to step in, which
could result in similar OPTEMPO concerns for units covering for Army Special Forces shortfalls.
Air Force Special Operations Power Projection Wings and Planned
Future Unit Relocations33
On August 2, 2023, the Air Force announced it had selected Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, AZ,
as the preferred location to host AFSOC’s third power projection wing. Under this plan, the Air
Force plans to “transform the 492nd Special Operations Wing into a power projection wing with
all of AFSOC’s mission capabilities (strike, mobility, ISR, air/ground integration).”34 The Air
Force noted that “standing up the new wing at Davis-Monthan AFB requires several relocations,
planned throughout the next five years. The final decision is planned to be made following
completion of the environmental impact analysis process.”35
Planned transitions include the following:
• The 492nd SOW at Hurlburt Field, FL, is to relocate to Davis-Monthan AFB. The
relocation includes the 492nd SOW’s transition from support wing into a power
projection wing.

30 For additional information on information warfare, see CRS Report R45142, Information Warfare: Issues for
Congress
, by Catherine A. Theohary.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 Information in this section is taken from Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs, “Davis-Monthan AFB Identified
as AFSOC’s Next Power Projection Wing,” August 2, 2023.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

8

U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Considerations for Congress

• The U-28 Draco fleets at Cannon AFB, NM, and Hurlburt Field is to be replaced
by the OA-1K Armed Overwatch aircraft. As part of the 492nd SOW’s transition
to a power projection wing, one OA-1K Armed Overwatch squadron is to
relocate from Hurlburt Field to Davis-Monthan AFB.
• An MC-130J Commando II squadron is to relocate from Cannon AFB to Davis-
Monthan AFB to join the 492nd SOW.
• An additional MC-130J squadron is to activate at Davis-Monthan AFB.
• The 21st Special Tactics Squadron is to relocate from Pope Army Airfield, NC, to
Davis-Monthan AFB.
• The 22nd Special Tactics Squadron is to relocate from Joint Base Lewis-
McChord, WA, to Davis-Monthan AFB.
• The 492nd Theater Air Operations Squadron is to activate at Duke Field and
transfer to Davis- Monthan AFB.
• The 47th Fighter Squadron (24 A-10s), the 354th Fighter Squadron (26 A-10s),
and the 357th Fighter Squadron (28 A-10s) at Davis-Monthan AFB will inactivate
and their respective A-10s are to be retired. The 47th FS and 357th FS are to
continue A-10 formal training until inactivation.
• The 34th Weapons Squadron and the 88th Test and Evaluation Squadron are to
relocate from Nellis AFB, NV, to Davis-Monthan AFB, transferring five
HH-60W Jolly Green IIs.36
This appears to be a major AFSOC reorganization for units based in the United States, which
could have oversight implications for Congress. A fundamental consideration arguably is how this
planned transition and relocation improves AFSOC’s ability to support the National Security
Strategy and Combatant Commanders. Another consideration is the total estimated cost for this
planed five-year transition, including related Military Construction (MILCON) costs. Also,
related to cost, is how this planned transition affects overall Air Force modernization and
readiness efforts. The potential economic, infrastructure, and social impacts on local communities
near bases both gaining and loosing units under this plan might also be of critical interest to
Congress.


Author Information

Andrew Feickert

Specialist in Military Ground Forces


36 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

9

U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Considerations for Congress



Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
RS21048 · VERSION 75 · UPDATED
10