Main Menu

Change to Title 10 For CAP

Started by JohnKachenmeister, December 29, 2006, 05:38:43 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

JohnKachenmeister

I have just recently learned a fact.  Right now, USAF pilots are being INVOLUNTARILY assigned to fly UAV's.  The Air Force (nobody's dummy) is assigning mostly mid-career pilots to this duty.

Meaning:  They're in a position that they can't quit.  The lieutenants will get out and fly for the airlines.  Mid-careerists have too many years invested toward a pension.  End-of-career pilots will all retire early if faced with such an assignment.

Now, this plan makes sense to me:

Instead of assigning a USAF pilot, young, experienced, in good physical shape, who COULD be leading younger officers in combat, to sit at a desk in South Carolina and fly a video game of an aircraft over Afghanistan, (But one played for real in Afghanistan); why not train and use an old, sick, bifocal-wearing, somewhat out-of-shape CAP pilot to fly that UAV?

The short answer is, its illegal.  CAP can only perform NON-COMBAT missions of the Air Force.  Predators can shoot.

I would propose modifying Title 10 to read that CAP "Can perform at the direction of the Secretary of the Air Force any mission or program of the Air Force, provided that the mission is carried out in the United States, its territories and possessions."

The current fix under consideration is to train non-pilot AF officers up through private pilot in C-172's then put them at the Predator Console, to free up the rated pilots.

That still ties up an officer who should be doing his own job, plus we have pilots with WAY more experience than they plan to give them flying C-172's.

How hard can it be to fly a Predator, anyway?  You take off, you fly straight and level, you navigate with GPS, and you land.  I've done that just to get a $100 hamburger.  It is a single-engine aircraft, it just lacks certain creature comforts of the C-172R, like leather seats, and a cockpit to put them in.  Once you show me how to fire the Hellfire, I'm good to go!

Helz Bellz, we could even have cadets doing that, what with the video game experience that most of them have!

Another former CAP officer

Chris Jacobs

Why not just have enlisted Air Force personnel fly them.  They could have one officer oversee several enlisted pilots flying these remote control aircraft from one place.  I don't see the difference in an airman driving a robot that stays on the ground compared to a robot in the air.  Now when it comes to firing maybe that is a different question.  But for the sole recon predator missions couldn't an enlisted person do that.
C/1st Lt Chris Jacobs
Columbia Comp. Squadron

lordmonar

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 05:38:43 AMI have just recently learned a fact.  Right now, USAF pilots are being INVOLUNTARILY assigned to fly UAV's.  The Air Force (nobody's dummy) is assigning mostly mid-career pilots to this duty.

Meaning:  They're in a position that they can't quit.  The lieutenants will get out and fly for the airlines.  Mid-careerists have too many years invested toward a pension.  End-of-career pilots will all retire early if faced with such an assignment.

Now, this plan makes sense to me:

Instead of assigning a USAF pilot, young, experienced, in good physical shape, who COULD be leading younger officers in combat, to sit at a desk in South Carolina
Nevada actually...but go on

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 05:38:43 AMand fly a video game of an aircraft over Afghanistan, (But one played for real in Afghanistan); why not train and use an old, sick, bifocal-wearing, somewhat out-of-shape CAP pilot to fly that UAV?

The short answer is, its illegal.  CAP can only perform NON-COMBAT missions of the Air Force.  Predators can shoot.

Even it they could not shoot...it would still be combat operations.  ISR platforms are all classified as combat missions.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 05:38:43 AMI would propose modifying Title 10 to read that CAP "Can perform at the direction of the Secretary of the Air Force any mission or program of the Air Force, provided that the mission is carried out in the United States, its territories and possessions."

I am following what you are saying....and that could be done....but (there is always a but)...currently the training pipe line for UAV pilots is very full.  There are not that many UAV's actually in the states.  The USAF cannot afford to give up training slots for non-combat pilots at this time.  Nor can they shake loose the assets to do any good if they could train those pilots.

I the UAV thread is still there I we had a very detail discussion about this subject.  I believe that the UAV is the single biggest threat to CAP and it's SAR mission.  In 10-20 years the USAF will not need us to fly SAR because they will have enough UAVs sitting around able to do the job quicker and cheaper.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Johnny Yuma

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2006, 06:11:05 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 05:38:43 AMI have just recently learned a fact.  Right now, USAF pilots are being INVOLUNTARILY assigned to fly UAV's.  The Air Force (nobody's dummy) is assigning mostly mid-career pilots to this duty.

Meaning:  They're in a position that they can't quit.  The lieutenants will get out and fly for the airlines.  Mid-careerists have too many years invested toward a pension.  End-of-career pilots will all retire early if faced with such an assignment.

Now, this plan makes sense to me:

Instead of assigning a USAF pilot, young, experienced, in good physical shape, who COULD be leading younger officers in combat, to sit at a desk in South Carolina
Nevada actually...but go on

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 05:38:43 AMand fly a video game of an aircraft over Afghanistan, (But one played for real in Afghanistan); why not train and use an old, sick, bifocal-wearing, somewhat out-of-shape CAP pilot to fly that UAV?

The short answer is, its illegal.  CAP can only perform NON-COMBAT missions of the Air Force.  Predators can shoot.

Even it they could not shoot...it would still be combat operations.  ISR platforms are all classified as combat missions.

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 05:38:43 AMI would propose modifying Title 10 to read that CAP "Can perform at the direction of the Secretary of the Air Force any mission or program of the Air Force, provided that the mission is carried out in the United States, its territories and possessions."

I am following what you are saying....and that could be done....but (there is always a but)...currently the training pipe line for UAV pilots is very full.  There are not that many UAV's actually in the states.  The USAF cannot afford to give up training slots for non-combat pilots at this time.  Nor can they shake loose the assets to do any good if they could train those pilots.

I the UAV thread is still there I we had a very detail discussion about this subject.  I believe that the UAV is the single biggest threat to CAP and it's SAR mission.  In 10-20 years the USAF will not need us to fly SAR because they will have enough UAVs sitting around able to do the job quicker and cheaper.


The USAF turning over their newest global reach, fire a missilie and blow up things kind of a offensive and intelligence gathering technology to an organization of civilian flyboys? Neva happen GI.

The USAF graduates entire squadrons of Nintendo and Playstation trained airmen every month who could fly these things at the fraction of the cost to use a commissioned officer AND far better oversight than using a CAP member.
"And Saint Attila raised the Holy Hand Grenade up on high saying, "Oh Lord, Bless us this Holy Hand Grenade, and with it smash our enemies to tiny bits. And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and stoats, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and lima bean-"

" Skip a bit, brother."

"And then the Lord spake, saying: "First, shalt thou take out the holy pin. Then shalt thou count to three. No more, no less. "Three" shall be the number of the counting, and the number of the counting shall be three. "Four" shalt thou not count, and neither count thou two, execpting that thou then goest on to three. Five is RIGHT OUT. Once the number three, being the third number be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade to-wards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuffit. Amen."

Armaments Chapter One, verses nine through twenty-seven:

lordmonar

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on December 29, 2006, 06:52:31 AM
The USAF turning over their newest global reach, fire a missile and blow up things kind of a offensive and intelligence gathering technology to an organization of civilian flyboys? Neva happen GI.

Never said they would turn it over to us....they would lust load a DF unit into the bad boy and do the job themselves.   I.E. we would be out of a job.

Quote from: Johnny Yuma on December 29, 2006, 06:52:31 AM
The USAF graduates entire squadrons of Nintendo and Playstation trained airmen every month who could fly these things at the fraction of the cost to use a commissioned officer AND far better oversight than using a CAP member.

"entire squadrons"?!?!? 

I don't know if you know where I work in my day job...but I know for a fact the FTD at Creech is NOT graduating 100+ trained UAV pilots a month!  I'm not going into readiness levels and force strength with you...but your scale of production is way off.

They would never give us any MQ-1's because every single one of them is needed for full time combat mission.  But in 10 years or so when they have maybe 8-10 more UAV squadrons and not such a high ops tempo...you will see the USAF start to look at the SAR, HLS and DR applications of the UAV and then, my friends CAP will be out of business!
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

DNall

Quote from: Chris Jacobs on December 29, 2006, 06:04:16 AM
Why not just have enlisted Air Force personnel fly them.  They could have one officer oversee several enlisted pilots flying these remote control aircraft from one place.  I don't see the difference in an airman driving a robot that stays on the ground compared to a robot in the air.  Now when it comes to firing maybe that is a different question.  But for the sole recon predator missions couldn't an enlisted person do that.
That was th einitial plan, and highly opposed in pilot ranks as it was seen as a slippery slope to NCO aviators, which the O-types see as a threat, for starters cause they're cheaper.

Just to be clear, and if I'm not mistaken, the initial contract on a pilot slot is 10 years AFTER finishing flight training - so 12, can be as much as 14.5 in the Navy based on dealys in openings for assigned personnel - got a former cadet at Navy right now grew up dreaming of an F18 that's turning down a slot this year & trying to fighure out how to switch services, at least to marine after the cut for that route (apparently they have open slots). There ain't no short time pilots free to do anything but what they're told. An active IP talked about this with me & few others a week ago... said is was mid-range being cycled out of flying slots, and the fear (besides avoiding it yourself) was what happens if these guys try to get back in the cockpit (maybe by going guard/reserve) after a couple years sticking a UAV.

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2006, 06:11:05 AM
 I believe that the UAV is the single biggest threat to CAP and it's SAR mission.  In 10-20 years the USAF will not need us to fly SAR because they will have enough UAVs sitting around able to do the job quicker and cheaper.
I know where you're coming from, but it's not really cheaper, not when you detail it out. Things aren't always what they appear, & truth isn't always the line used when selling things. Like for instance, is it better to use one F15 or 4 GA8s on a disaster assesment run? Do you look at cost per hour or cost to cover a specified area, and what value do you place on the quality & speed at which you get the data to customer? It's true that MQ1s are cheap on the gas & have some legs, but there's a lot of other pro/con issues to be considered, not least of which is paid crew. Of course tho when their mission falls off they'll be looking for new things to do & taking from us is certainly going to be on the table - already discussed. Which is one reason you'll see me talking about gear upgrades on our fleet to make them the rough equiv of a UAV (day/night FLIR, NRBC detection, low tech streaming over comercial satcomm - meaning the same Cessna fielded by Border Patrol, actually they do it on a 206, but not because of weight issues). When the time comes, I want that to be close enough to a toss up that the UAVs go to the dessert & CAP keeps working on the 10 years worth of mission record we've built.

To teh point though. I know where you're coming from & CAP members on AFAM are by international law combatants, which is why Title X has to specify non-combat missions are to be assigned, which is still open to interpretation on combat support, which might include flying the UAV while an Amn pulls the trigger, but that's a big ole stretch. Still, a retired military aviator, medical or not, wearing a CAP uniform, seems a lot more palatable than a private contractor. It just ain't gonna happen though.

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: Chris Jacobs on December 29, 2006, 06:04:16 AM
Why not just have enlisted Air Force personnel fly them.  They could have one officer oversee several enlisted pilots flying these remote control aircraft from one place.  I don't see the difference in an airman driving a robot that stays on the ground compared to a robot in the air.  Now when it comes to firing maybe that is a different question.  But for the sole recon predator missions couldn't an enlisted person do that.

Chris, I don't know the answer to your question, except that the Air Force sems to have an institutional mindset that only commissioned officers can launch ordnance larger than 7.62mm in diameter.

Until a few days ago, I thought that UAV operator WAS an enlisted speciaity.  At least to the extent that I thought about it al all.
Another former CAP officer

JohnKachenmeister

Lord Monar:

You are correct that the UAV is a threat to the traditional missions of CAP, and I'm tempted to say, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em," but,

There are significant problems to flying UAV's over the US, since most general aviation pilots feel, as I do, that anything in the sky with me should have a pilot with as much to lose as I do if we collide.

Planes without pilots... Work of the Devil, I say!  She's a witch!  Burn her!!!
Another former CAP officer

RiverAux

I recently saw a newspaper article talking about a new NG UAV unit I think somewhere in the southwest.  Thats the big threat, not USAF operated UAVs.

JohnKachenmeister

RA:

Yes, and we discussed that over at Midway Six's place.  Right now, though, in order to fly the UAV, they have to declare a TFR in the area that they intend to operate it.  That's so GA pilots like us don't fly through there and get hit with a multi-million dollar crash dummy.

Which means the smugglers also know when and where a UAV is operating.

And the AOPA is strongly opposed to UAV's in domestic airspace.  There might end up being some laws passed that restrict such operations.
Another former CAP officer

Pylon

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 12:42:33 PM
Chris, I don't know the answer to your question, except that the Air Force sems to have an institutional mindset that only commissioned officers can launch ordnance larger than 7.62mm in diameter.

I think that would be the main issue with CAP operating anything such as an armed UAV.  Our members are not members of the military, our officers are not commissioned, and have little to no official authority -- why would we even want to tangle ourselves up in dropping bombs (even if remotely) on people and structures in a foreign country! 

I don't see it as a viable solution.  USAF has plenty of personnel to draw from for this -- If Capt Snuffy doesn't like his or her assignment, he or she shouldn't have signed the paperwork to work for Uncle Sam.   The Air Force would not want CAP pilots flying these multi-million dollar aircraft anyways... we bend enough of our own, cheaper airframes flying routine and training missions.   ;)
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

JohnKachenmeister

DNall:

You are right, this probably isn't going to happen, but there's no sense in not giving them a solid "Put me in, Coach" shout out.

Our Title 10, in my humble and non-lawyer opinion, has no meaning under International Law.  We are still a part of the Armed Forces of the US, and an internal decision to employ CAP in non-combat roles is just that... an internal decision.  We would not fall under any of the "Non-combatant" classifications of the Geneva Convention, unless we were strictly limited to SAR operations, and marked our aircraft with Red Cross flags.

Once we take a decision-maker or a camera aloft to survey damage, we become a "Command, Control, and Communications" asset.

It just looks to me that a tremendous and very expensive asset, trained military pilots, is being squandered and wasted flying UAV's.  That is something OUR guys could do just as well, even if only until a sufficient force of trained non-rated officers come on line.
Another former CAP officer

RiverAux

I'm not opposed to the idea of changing Title 10 for this purpose in general, but given the absolute lack of interest the AF has shown in using CAP to augment in non-combat, boring roles I very much doubt they're going to be supportive of this change for this purpose.  If they don't think they particularly need CAP people to work in offices I see no way they would want CAP in such a high-profile mission. 

I hate to say it, but I suspect the reason the AF doesn't really call on CAP for augmentation purposes is the budget.  I think the AF is worried that if Congress gets the idea that the AF can use volunteers for some missions then they may look at cutting AF funding. 

The CG on the other hand, almost has no choice but to use the CG Aux to augment its forces just because of the way it is structured into many small, more or less independent units with few personnel on hand. 

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: Pylon on December 29, 2006, 02:12:05 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 12:42:33 PM
Chris, I don't know the answer to your question, except that the Air Force sems to have an institutional mindset that only commissioned officers can launch ordnance larger than 7.62mm in diameter.

I think that would be the main issue with CAP operating anything such as an armed UAV.  Our members are not members of the military, our officers are not commissioned, and have little to no official authority -- why would we even want to tangle ourselves up in dropping bombs (even if remotely) on people and structures in a foreign country! 

I don't see it as a viable solution.  USAF has plenty of personnel to draw from for this -- If Capt Snuffy doesn't like his or her assignment, he or she shouldn't have signed the paperwork to work for Uncle Sam.   The Air Force would not want CAP pilots flying these multi-million dollar aircraft anyways... we bend enough of our own, cheaper airframes flying routine and training missions.   ;)

Vell, I vish I had known zat you CAP peeples vere not supposed to shoot und drop bombs upon us poor, picked on German U-Boats!  how vas ve to know zat you doing zo vas not goot, since you vere not commissioned offizers?  Ach, du Lieber!  I vould not haf dived mein U-Boat if I had known you vere only kidding!

You rascals und your little airplanes!

--Kapitan Johann von Kachenmeister
  U-Boat Skipper
Another former CAP officer

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: RiverAux on December 29, 2006, 02:19:17 PM
I'm not opposed to the idea of changing Title 10 for this purpose in general, but given the absolute lack of interest the AF has shown in using CAP to augment in non-combat, boring roles I very much doubt they're going to be supportive of this change for this purpose.  If they don't think they particularly need CAP people to work in offices I see no way they would want CAP in such a high-profile mission. 

I hate to say it, but I suspect the reason the AF doesn't really call on CAP for augmentation purposes is the budget.  I think the AF is worried that if Congress gets the idea that the AF can use volunteers for some missions then they may look at cutting AF funding. 

The CG on the other hand, almost has no choice but to use the CG Aux to augment its forces just because of the way it is structured into many small, more or less independent units with few personnel on hand. 

Bingo, RA.  You got it.

But the USAF may soon be in the same boat (pun intended) with the Coast Guard.  The AF is getting its personnel allocation cut to ribbons in favor of the Army and the Marines, because the gravel-grinding services have had to bear the brunt of the fighting in Iraq.

This means the AF will need to protect and keep the people it has, and rely a lot MORE on UAV's in the future.  I heard that about 1/3 of our flying strength will be UAV's, eventually.
Another former CAP officer

Pylon

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 02:21:26 PM
Quote from: Pylon on December 29, 2006, 02:12:05 PM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 12:42:33 PM
Chris, I don't know the answer to your question, except that the Air Force sems to have an institutional mindset that only commissioned officers can launch ordnance larger than 7.62mm in diameter.

I think that would be the main issue with CAP operating anything such as an armed UAV.  Our members are not members of the military, our officers are not commissioned, and have little to no official authority -- why would we even want to tangle ourselves up in dropping bombs (even if remotely) on people and structures in a foreign country! 

I don't see it as a viable solution.  USAF has plenty of personnel to draw from for this -- If Capt Snuffy doesn't like his or her assignment, he or she shouldn't have signed the paperwork to work for Uncle Sam.   The Air Force would not want CAP pilots flying these multi-million dollar aircraft anyways... we bend enough of our own, cheaper airframes flying routine and training missions.   ;)

Vell, I vish I had known zat you CAP peeples vere not supposed to shoot und drop bombs upon us poor, picked on German U-Boats!  how vas ve to know zat you doing zo vas not goot, since you vere not commissioned offizers?  Ach, du Lieber!  I vould not haf dived mein U-Boat if I had known you vere only kidding!

You rascals und your little airplanes!

--Kapitan Johann von Kachenmeister
  U-Boat Skipper

Slightly different times, my friend, and much different context.  America is no longer in a total war with every man, woman, and child in the country either in the war effort or working to further the war effort because we needed every last one of them.   Back then, it was a great mission given the context of the times and the need at hand.

Today, the U.S. Air Force does not need CAP volunteers to drop bombs and fly combat missions for the war against terror.  They're cutting back on personnel ("force shaping") and have the personnel they need to get the mission done.  I would say the Air Force has about three or four other options to get "pilots" for the UAVs before an idea like CAP members driving the bus would ever come into serious consideration.  In fact, I don't even see where it's an issue right now with the USAF commissioned officers flying them...  maybe there's some complaining (?), but that doesn't mean it won't get done.  The AF would probably consider Officers, then Enlisted, then DOD Civilians, and then Sub-contractors before CAP members.

There are already so many other missions out there that we should be focusing on getting for ourselves, missions that don't require a Congressional change of law, that perhaps we could redirect our efforts there instead.  ;)
Michael F. Kieloch, Maj, CAP

JohnKachenmeister

Mike:

The fact that the Air Force does have other options, ncluding use of enlisted technicians rather than officers for UAV pilots does not change two facts:

1.  The USAF is currently using qualified pilots to fly UAV's.  That is wasteful.  That's like putting a physician in an E.R. doing nothing but checking blood pressure and vital signs. 

2.  Whatever option the AF decides on will require training.  The AF is considering using non-pilot officers, and train them up for UAV's be putting them in Cessna 172's to learn to fly light singles, then transitioning them to the UAV.  This will take time, and even if that decision were firm, I could see CAP providing an interim force of qualified light-plane pilots for the transition period.

WE already have pilots who can fly the 172, and if given the opportunity could master te UAV as well or better than an AF lieutenant with 100 hours stick time in Skyhawks.

We are the only American military auxiliary with a battle history.  Frankly, an opportunity to use the skills we possess to kill enemies of our country should be welcomed, just as it was when the Coastal Patrol flew against the Germans.

   
Another former CAP officer

A.Member

#17
Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2006, 09:30:40 AM
the UAV thread is still there I we had a very detail discussion about this subject.  I believe that the UAV is the single biggest threat to CAP and it's SAR mission.  In 10-20 years the USAF will not need us to fly SAR because they will have enough UAVs sitting around able to do the job quicker and cheaper...

...They would never give us any MQ-1's because every single one of them is needed for full time combat mission.  But in 10 years or so when they have maybe 8-10 more UAV squadrons and not such a high ops tempo...you will see the USAF start to look at the SAR, HLS and DR applications of the UAV and then, my friends CAP will be out of business!
Do you know how much one UAV costs (purchase price plus maintenance, training, etc.)?  UAVs are not and will not be more cost effective that a 172/182 with a volunteer pilot.   For non-combant reconnaissance missions and SAR, we provide a more cost effective option.  That is our selling point.  The key for us is to maintain effective training/proficiency.

A more immediate impact to our SAR missions is likely to be the result of the 406 MHz ELTs and EPIRBs.

That said, UAVs will increasingly become a part of the USAF's future.  Manned aircraft can already have the capability to exceed human tolerances.  Humans can only tolerate ~9g's before taking a nap.  At the same time, air defense systems have become more advanced as well.  There is a formula that says if a pilot can turn 1/3rd the g's of a missile tracking him, he/she can out turn it (ex. say a missile pulls 24g's, if a pilot can turn 8g's he could potentially escape it).  However, new missiles can turn 50+g's and will only improve. 

For more info see: 
http://www.afa.org/magazine/dec2003/1203uav.asp
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-060322-009.pdf
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=122
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=175

As for CAP pilots flying UAVs for USAF, well, no way...for many of the reasons already mentioned. 
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

Chris Jacobs

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 02:52:06 PM

2.  Whatever option the AF decides on will require training.  The AF is considering using non-pilot officers, and train them up for UAV's be putting them in Cessna 172's to learn to fly light singles, then transitioning them to the UAV.  This will take time, and even if that decision were firm, I could see CAP providing an interim force of qualified light-plane pilots for the transition period.

WE already have pilots who can fly the 172, and if given the opportunity could master te UAV as well or better than an AF lieutenant with 100 hours stick time in Skyhawks.


   

We already have 172's and a whole bunch of pilots.  What if we use our airplanes and our instructors to train their people.  Obviously that is pushing it, but it is an idea.
C/1st Lt Chris Jacobs
Columbia Comp. Squadron

mikeylikey

They cut LT's this year, will they have enough Junior Officers to train.  Seems to me that the AF is moving away from technical Officers to non-technical Officers. 
What's up monkeys?

Hotel 179

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 02:04:21 PM
RA:

Yes, and we discussed that over at Midway Six's place.  Right now, though, in order to fly the UAV, they have to declare a TFR in the area that they intend to operate it.  That's so GA pilots like us don't fly through there and get hit with a multi-million dollar crash dummy.

Good Morning, John and All...

One of the every day mission flown down here is a fire patrol around Eglin AFB.  The UAVs are out all the time in the SUA but there's not a TFR.  Many times you hear, "CPFXXX, do not change altitude or heading until further advised."  That's code for YOU ARE NOW A TARGET.

My young son is sitting in front of the big screen playing a game called Ace Combat and I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that he can fly a UAV.

Happy New Year's Eve approaching...The Stagecoach Restuarant will be an Iron-butt destination if you guys happen to be out on  the scooter.  I'm shooting for 3 years running being the oldest bike ridden there.

Semper vi,
Stephen Pearce, Capt/CAP
FL 424
Pensacola, Florida

lordmonar

Quote from: DNall on December 29, 2006, 11:19:46 AMI know where you're coming from, but it's not really cheaper, not when you detail it out. Things aren't always what they appear, & truth isn't always the line used when selling things. Like for instance, is it better to use one F15 or 4 GA8s on a disaster assessment run? Do you look at cost per hour or cost to cover a specified area, and what value do you place on the quality & speed at which you get the data to customer? It's true that MQ1s are cheap on the gas & have some legs, but there's a lot of other pro/con issues to be considered, not least of which is paid crew.

My assessment is base on the fact that we will have a lot of MQ-1/MQ-9 squadrons in the US with a lot of time on their hands for training an other missions.  So the "savings" will be that they will just cut off our funding, not comparing a GA8 with an and F15 or a MQ-1.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

lordmonar

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 12:46:40 PM
Lord Monar:

You are correct that the UAV is a threat to the traditional missions of CAP, and I'm tempted to say, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em," but,

There are significant problems to flying UAV's over the US, since most general aviation pilots feel, as I do, that anything in the sky with me should have a pilot with as much to lose as I do if we collide.

Planes without pilots... Work of the Devil, I say!  She's a witch!  Burn her!!!

John....I know what you mean...but the FAA has already been beaten up by the DOD over this issue...and it is just a matter of time before UAV's will be able to fly anywhere they want to just like Commercial and GA aircraft.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

lordmonar

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 02:25:15 PMBut the USAF may soon be in the same boat (pun intended) with the Coast Guard.  The AF is getting its personnel allocation cut to ribbons in favor of the Army and the Marines, because the gravel-grinding services have had to bear the brunt of the fighting in Iraq.

This means the AF will need to protect and keep the people it has, and rely a lot MORE on UAV's in the future.  I heard that about 1/3 of our flying strength will be UAV's, eventually.

I would say that eventual more like 80% of the flying strength will be UAV's.  I work with these things everyday.  I got to tell you they are neat.  Yes there are still some bugs to work out.  But they will be the platform of choice one day. 

Think about the type of places they can go.  No need to worry about how "hot" the target is because you are safe and sound 6,000 miles away. Don't have to a worry about blacking out so you can turn faster and tighter than any manned aircraft.  You can be small because you don't need all the life support equipment, that makes you faster and harder to see and shoot!

The technology that allows this is really reliable, and has been around for a surprising long time.  It can easily be retrofitted to existing aircraft.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

ZigZag911

Quote from: lordmonar on December 29, 2006, 06:11:05 AM
  I believe that the UAV is the single biggest threat to CAP and it's SAR mission.  In 10-20 years the USAF will not need us to fly SAR because they will have enough UAVs sitting around able to do the job quicker and cheaper.

You may be correct....I for one will not miss ELT chasing in the middle of the night, generally through neighborhoods where some alert, insomniac citizen is alarmed by the "militia group/terrorists" (pick one!) swarming through the neighborhood with futuristic looking "weapons" (trackers & JetStreams!)

We do try to keep local law enforcement apprised of our presence!

Seriously, as the 406 freq ELT comes on line, and other factors come into play, it has been pretty obvious for awhile that ELT locating would cease to be our main role

Of course, back in the 80s there were those who predicted that the SARSATs would make us obsolete, too....if anything, they've increased our workload, even while assisting in carrying out missions.

The other factor is this -- wil UAVs become so numerous that there will be sufficient vehicles to spare for Inland SAR?

If so, that may curtail counterdrug missions as well.

I've long felt our ES future is in disaster relief & mitigation....which probably, on the air side, means more transport than assessment missions.

ZigZag911

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 02:21:26 PM

Vell, I vish I had known zat you CAP peeples vere not supposed to shoot und drop bombs upon us poor, picked on German U-Boats!  how vas ve to know zat you doing zo vas not goot, since you vere not commissioned offizers?  Ach, du Lieber!  I vould not haf dived mein U-Boat if I had known you vere only kidding!

You rascals und your little airplanes!

--Kapitan Johann von Kachenmeister
   U-Boat Skipper

Point well taken...however, if ever there was a mission that could be described as "homeland security", WWII sub-chasing by CAP was definitely it....and I believe that is the eseential difference....it was certainly a combatant role, but DEFENSIVE in its application of armed force -- that is to say, if you  sail you're U-Boat immediately along our coast, we can and will try our best to sink you (or at least scare the heck out of you with 'near misses'!)

It was a different time.....I don't see a compelling need, or any great  advantage, to arming CAP aircraft or personnel.....or to having CAP personnel operate armed USAF UAVs

If the USAF needs qualified civilian pilots to operate UAVs, let them commission them in the Guard or Reserves.....give age or medical waivers as necessary.....the Navy has Limited Duty Officers (a very different situation & category, I know!), why can the Air Force?

ZigZag911

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 02:25:15 PM

But the USAF may soon be in the same boat (pun intended) with the Coast Guard.  The AF is getting its personnel allocation cut to ribbons in favor of the Army and the Marines, because the gravel-grinding services have had to bear the brunt of the fighting in Iraq.


The USAF response to this, according to my information is that they are seeking to RIF (Reduction in Force) about 55000 junior grade NCOs (E5 & E6, Staff Sgt & tech Sgt).

At the same time, USAF is seeking to recruit about 35000 airmen (not sure over what span of time.....probably 5-10 years?)

End result: replace "expensive" (and experienced!) NCOs with less costly A1C & SrAs!

And people say CAP over-emphasizes "corporate world" values! Sounds like the USAF is doing a "hostile takeover" of itself!

Seriously, this may be the sort of short term strategy needed to meet budget constraints....but these things have a way of turning around and biting us in the final analysis.

For instance -- I thought NCOs are supposed to be the "backbone of the Services"?!?

What is the long term effect of scaling back so radically on junior NCOs, other than to ensure that the Air Force will be sorely lacking experienced enlisted leadership in ten years or so?

ZigZag911

Quote from: Pylon on December 29, 2006, 02:39:08 PM
...and then Sub-contractors before CAP members.


I don't want to see CAP doing this mission.

However, the combat use of private companies has bothered me throughout this conflict......I find it disturbing that we are hiring what amounts to mercenaries (or privateers, if we'd like to go 18th century nautical on the discussion).....I am not criticizing the companies or indviduals accepting this work.....my objection is to our government setting a policy that "jobs out" aspects of national defencse

lordmonar

Quote from: ZigZag911 on December 29, 2006, 06:31:27 PM
What is the long term effect of scaling back so radically on junior NCOs, other than to ensure that the Air Force will be sorely lacking experienced enlisted leadership in ten years or so?

Well it will be going back to the way it used before the last draw-down.

The Airman to NCO ratio was dropped when they raised the number of SSgt and TSgt slots.  This created a situation where you had more SSgts than airman in most workcenters.

What the initial impact will be...is that the younger NCO's who have not had to lead will be thrown into the deep end.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

JohnKachenmeister

I'd have to non-concur with a couple of you, even though I do not see this as a likely mission.

The law in 1948 that envisioned a non-combat role for CAP did not forsee the technology that makes it possible for a pilot in the US, sitting in an air-conditioned room within walking distance to the Officers' Club, could be controlling a combat aircraft over Afghanistan or Iraq, or war zones To Be Announced, and actually participate in the battle.

That would have been some kind of Buck Rogers fantasy, and in 1948 the automatic transmission on a car was a radical new idea.  All them distinguished gentlemen in the Yew-nited States Congress do not base laws on Buck Rogers fantasies.

But now that is possible, as are many other technological wonders, and as an organization we have a choice of two courses of action:

Remaining anchored to our past, and use of heritage as a guide for the future, or

Become mired in our past, and unable to see ways to change and evolve.

I suggest that NOTHING should be off the table when it comes to supporting your country in war.  That being said, we also have to guard against the enemy (or the New York Times) characterizing our efforts as an indication that America is so desperate that we are throwing in the "Old men and the Hitler Youth."

And I would rather hang around with the guys who say "Put me in, Coach!" than the guys who say "It won't work, so let's not even try."  I have been told that my attitude is the result of having spent too much time in close proximity to United States Marines, and I am dumb enough to take that as a compliment!

Note to cadets and cherry-cheeked officers:  Buck Rogers was, to both my generation and my parents' generation, the functional equivalent of Captain Kirk.  Buck was a spaceman who flew around the galaxy in a spaceship that looked a lot like a pimped-out V-2 called "The Silver Dart."  He spent his time chasing down other spacemen who were always trying to invade Earth, and he would blow them to smithereens with cool pulsating weapons.  You could always tell who the bad spacemen were, since they considered wearing aluminum foil to be a fashion statement.

Buck's adventures were in comic books and were serialized in short stories shown at movie theaters on Saturday matinees. 
Another former CAP officer

sandman

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 10:11:05 PM
You could always tell who the bad spacemen were, since they considered wearing aluminum foil to be a fashion statement.

So you mean to say if we need to wear our foil hats...we're not "half bad", or are we just not good enough? ;)
MAJ, US Army (Ret)
Major, Civil Air Patrol
Major, 163rd ATKW Support, Joint Medical Command

JohnKachenmeister

Foil hats are OK, since they block the TP Mind-Control rays from Maxwell, and keeps the Black CAP Van from reading any impure thoughts you may have.

Just don't dress up entirely head-to-toe in foil. 

Unless you're on a date with a very strange girl, in which case you do what you gotta do.  Buck would understand!
Another former CAP officer

ELTHunter

Along those same lines, see "AFSPC civilian volunteers to deploy; set to depart after holidays"  seems like something CAP could also do.  Especially with a little job protection legislation or something.

http://www.afspc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123036301
Maj. Tim Waddell, CAP
SER-TN-170
Deputy Commander of Cadets
Emergency Services Officer

RiverAux

There are tons of civilians employeed by DoD on duty around the world.  Personally, I see no difference between a paid civilian worker and a volunteer from CAP in terms of whether or not they should be in a combat zone.  If both meet the criteria to do the job, then they should both be able to be used. 

It will be interesting to see how the views on the military towadrs us change as a result of the outsourcing of a lot of former "military" jobs to civilians.  Will the upcoming generation of AF officers be more open-minded about using CAP to augment their units back in the US?  After all, if they're used to seeing civilians running a McDonalds in the green zone, maybe they won't mind a CAP person helping out in their office. 

lordmonar

The difference between civilian outsourcing jobs and CAP volunteers...is the fact that the civilians do their jobs full time.  It is one thing to say...we are going to convert all our personnel jobs to civilians or all our cooks to civilians and then hire a bunch of them and send them down range to sit in offices state side.  What will CAP do?  "I'm free after 5 P.M. and most week ends...."  How effective would that be for the USAF?  It would be a scheduling nightmare!  We (CAP) would have to be ready to stand up to the plate and take over the job.  We could not quit after six month, and we would have to meet all the requirements of the job.  So...name one job on base that can be filled on a sometimes basis that does not require a lot of lead time or experience to be in the loop?

As far as us getting tasked down range....sure we can do that....just grab a copy of Air Force Times and see the ads for jobs down range.

That is all I am saying...I have seen this proposal every now and then....CAP can augment active duty personnel doing their everyday work. 

Okay...I challenge you....pick a job, develop the training need to insure a part timer is ready and able to go to work...then determine how many people it would take you to man a single slot for a typical work week for at least 1 year.

How much work can your typical CAP member take off to volunteer?

Now...comes the fun part....now you have got to go find all these people, who joined CAP to fly, do ES work, work with cadets or AE?  Now you want them to go work in the MPF or the dining facility or what ever.

If people wanted to do that, they would have joined the guard!

It is a nice idea...I'm sure there are a lot of people who would like to lend a hand, but we are talking about taking on a new "full time" part time job.

And lets look at it from the USAF's perspective.  Every week or so, you get a new guy who is "trained" but does not really know the layout of the office or the exact procedures and policies of this office.  It will take him a few days getting up to speed and feeling his way about the new place...and then he is gone.

It would be like getting a new trainee every week!  Gods it give me the chills just thinking about how office productivity would fall off with such a plan.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

afgeo4

I agree with Capt Harris on his assessment of UAVs being able to put our current flyers out of business. However, I hope CAP will have enough wisdom to move into the 21st century with the Air Force and gain UAVs of their own.  Cheaper, smaller UAVs that their pilots and cadets may operate to perform missions for America. I know it's sort of a far-fetched concept, but I know of at least one CAP unit in New York that is working on this and is so far quite successful. Why would the Air Force want to do this? Well, no matter how many UAVs you have, you still need operators for them and those operators will be overtasked with other (combat and non-combat) missions to search for a missing hiker/aircraft/elt signal. CAP would be able to do it locally, cheaply and safely with our own fleet of UAVs. These vehicles can also be used for Aerospace Education with equal efficiency. Don't forget, it's also a good training and accession platform for the future cyberpilots of the USAF (CAP Cadets).
GEORGE LURYE

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: lordmonar on December 30, 2006, 07:38:10 AM
The difference between civilian outsourcing jobs and CAP volunteers...is the fact that the civilians do their jobs full time.  It is one thing to say...we are going to convert all our personnel jobs to civilians or all our cooks to civilians and then hire a bunch of them and send them down range to sit in offices state side.  What will CAP do?  "I'm free after 5 P.M. and most week ends...."  How effective would that be for the USAF?  It would be a scheduling nightmare!  We (CAP) would have to be ready to stand up to the plate and take over the job.  We could not quit after six month, and we would have to meet all the requirements of the job.  So...name one job on base that can be filled on a sometimes basis that does not require a lot of lead time or experience to be in the loop?

As far as us getting tasked down range....sure we can do that....just grab a copy of Air Force Times and see the ads for jobs down range.

That is all I am saying...I have seen this proposal every now and then....CAP can augment active duty personnel doing their everyday work. 

Okay...I challenge you....pick a job, develop the training need to insure a part timer is ready and able to go to work...then determine how many people it would take you to man a single slot for a typical work week for at least 1 year.

How much work can your typical CAP member take off to volunteer?

Now...comes the fun part....now you have got to go find all these people, who joined CAP to fly, do ES work, work with cadets or AE?  Now you want them to go work in the MPF or the dining facility or what ever.

If people wanted to do that, they would have joined the guard!

It is a nice idea...I'm sure there are a lot of people who would like to lend a hand, but we are talking about taking on a new "full time" part time job.

And lets look at it from the USAF's perspective.  Every week or so, you get a new guy who is "trained" but does not really know the layout of the office or the exact procedures and policies of this office.  It will take him a few days getting up to speed and feeling his way about the new place...and then he is gone.

It would be like getting a new trainee every week!  Gods it give me the chills just thinking about how office productivity would fall off with such a plan.

Pat:

Your observations are correct.  A program such as this would be difficult to administer properly.

But to respond to your challenge, we recently had a thread on the other site discussing exactly such opportunities.  And here in FL we are providing media escorts and tour guides to the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, in support of the Air Force's 45th Space Wing.  This releives their PA office of having to provide such folks, which they are pretty much unable to do.  A schedule is being developed, and members are expected, if they volunteer, to work at least 1 day per month.  You can work more if you want.  Right now I'm planning for 1 day per week, but I'm unusual, I'm retired.  At the present time, we're waiting for the AF to schedule some training time, so we can answer questions intelligently. 

Not everybody is in CAP to fly, and although most join with intent to either fly, work with cadets, or be a BDU-clad ground-team hero, once in and aware of other opportunities, many members change their plans.  I'm sure you have seen that, as have I.

Now, I think that IF we had been given a shot at this mission, IF there had been a change to the law, that we, as an organization, would have stepped up and carried it out.  It would have continued a distinguished battle history for our happy little band of warriors, and 50 years from now, hey would be wheeling the few remaining survivors out to honor the "CAP UAV Pilots of World War III."

And a new generation of journalists will still get the story wrong.
Another former CAP officer

A.Member

#37
Quote from: afgeo4 on December 30, 2006, 08:35:05 AM
I agree with Capt Harris on his assessment of UAVs being able to put our current flyers out of business. However, I hope CAP will have enough wisdom to move into the 21st century with the Air Force and gain UAVs of their own.  Cheaper, smaller UAVs that their pilots and cadets may operate to perform missions for America. I know it's sort of a far-fetched concept, but I know of at least one CAP unit in New York that is working on this and is so far quite successful. Why would the Air Force want to do this? Well, no matter how many UAVs you have, you still need operators for them and those operators will be overtasked with other (combat and non-combat) missions to search for a missing hiker/aircraft/elt signal. CAP would be able to do it locally, cheaply and safely with our own fleet of UAVs. These vehicles can also be used for Aerospace Education with equal efficiency. Don't forget, it's also a good training and accession platform for the future cyberpilots of the USAF (CAP Cadets).
Do not confuse the concept of USAF UAVs for combat missions with their use in non-combat missions.   UAVs are appealling to USAF because of the limitations of manned combat aircraft and as a manner of risk management. 

Non-combat, particularly as it relates to our mission, is quite different.  UAVs, while less expensive than say an F-22 or even an F-16, are not less expensive than a Cessna 172/182 equipped with volunteers.  Just obtaining the comparable imaging technology that would be required in such a UAV for effective SAR or reconnaissance would eclipse our costs several fold (take a look at ARCHER's costs for just a small indication). 
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."

RiverAux

QuoteOkay...I challenge you....pick a job, develop the training need to insure a part timer is ready and able to go to work...then determine how many people it would take you to man a single slot for a typical work week for at least 1 year.

There are many different ways that an augmentation program could be developed but I very much doubt there will be much need for full-time volunteers for any particular position.  Part-time or occassional use is much more likely.  I don't think the goal is for CAP to take over any particular position rather than it would be to fill-in as needed to make up for shortfalls in AF staffing. 

Now, if you can provide me with a listing of all the job positions and their duties at any particular AF base I'd be happy to take on your challenge and figure out which of them might be able to be performed by CAP members.  Since that sort of information isn't freely available it is sort of hard to do from the outside. 

However, it seems likely that the most likely role for CAP augmentation is in more professional roles in which a particular civilian job closely relates to a specific job position in the AF.  For example, the CAP chaplains who have been augmenting AF and NG units in Florida.  Doctors, lawyers, etc.  Beyond that augmentation would probably be most likely for non-technical jobs. 

Oh, and for another example of augmentation in action, one CAP unit (I think in Illinois) fairly regularly helps check identification at the base entrance during rush periods.....

DrJbdm

 I think RiverAux, may be right on this, There ARE ways that we can augment the USAF in some staffing areas. Our Chaplains, Doctors, Attorneys and Paramedics as well as our Police Officers could all fill some sort of a roll on a as needed basis for the USAF. Yes it would require some extra training, education and some dedication but it's still a workable endeavor. However I fear the AF would never really take it seriously nor would they really want our people being in any sort of "real" AF job...with the possible exception of our Doctors and Chaplains. The reasons for this is simply our image. I really feel that the AF doesn't take us seriously. If we could fix our image, maintain higher standards, reformat our organization to be more in line with the AF then some of these things may be possible. We have a lot to offer, but first we need to get our act together before we can start selling ourselves to others.

   We need to take a hard look at all the AF jobs, then take a hard look at ourselves as an organization and decide where are we today and where are we going to need to need to get to in order to fill some of these roles. I really think it's going to take some changes in legislation to get us better prepared to offer ourselves up to handle some of the roles currently done by the AF. Things like job protections, mandatory leave, a per diem for  deployments of more then a day or two. Possibly a change in language in Title 10. But we are going to need to make major changes to take on the new and changing roles we are capable of.

RiverAux

QuoteI really think it's going to take some changes in legislation to get us better prepared to offer ourselves up to handle some of the roles currently done by the AF. Things like job protections, mandatory leave, a per diem for  deployments of more then a day or two. Possibly a change in language in Title 10. But we are going to need to make major changes to take on the new and changing roles we are capable of.

Nope, no changes in legislation necessary. The CG Aux has been augmenting the CG in all sorts of "real" jobs for years and they have basically the same laws autorizing their use in noncombat roles. 

The stuff you're talking about would be nice, but isn't a pre-condition.  If we wait for all that stuff to come through it will never happen as no one is going to want to make all those changes for an idea that hasn't been proven to work in practice in the AF yet. 

What would need to be changed are some AF and CAP regulations that would make it easier for CAP members to be used in this manner.  Right now the hoops that an AF commander would have to jump through, according to AF regs, to have one CAP guy come in and answer phones for the afternoon make it not worth their while.  On the CAP side there would need to be some sort of regulation written covering this activity as it doesn't fall into any of our normal categories.   For example, would this be an AFAM?  I would hope so, but it isn't a "mission" like our other missions and couldn't be handled the same way. 

aveighter

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 29, 2006, 10:11:05 PM
I suggest that NOTHING should be off the table when it comes to supporting your country in war.  That being said, we also have to guard against the enemy (or the New York Times) characterizing our efforts as an indication that America is so desperate that we are throwing in the "Old men and the Hitler Youth."

And I would rather hang around with the guys who say "Put me in, Coach!" than the guys who say "It won't work, so let's not even try."  I have been told that my attitude is the result of having spent too much time in close proximity to United States Marines, and I am dumb enough to take that as a compliment!

John, it is encourgaging to read your words of strength and honor at a time when we seem to be inundated with weakness and timidity.  I am sure that when Arnold said "arm the little planes" there were those who lept to their feet with cries of "we are too old, too inexperienced as aviators, aren't real military, don't have the right equipment, the situation isn't the same...." .  Pick your favorite excuse. 

Fortunately they did not prevail and as Reagan would say, they have been swept into the dustbin of history and today, nobody knows their names. 

afgeo4

Quote from: A.Member on December 30, 2006, 02:25:05 PM
Quote from: afgeo4 on December 30, 2006, 08:35:05 AM
I agree with Capt Harris on his assessment of UAVs being able to put our current flyers out of business. However, I hope CAP will have enough wisdom to move into the 21st century with the Air Force and gain UAVs of their own.  Cheaper, smaller UAVs that their pilots and cadets may operate to perform missions for America. I know it's sort of a far-fetched concept, but I know of at least one CAP unit in New York that is working on this and is so far quite successful. Why would the Air Force want to do this? Well, no matter how many UAVs you have, you still need operators for them and those operators will be overtasked with other (combat and non-combat) missions to search for a missing hiker/aircraft/elt signal. CAP would be able to do it locally, cheaply and safely with our own fleet of UAVs. These vehicles can also be used for Aerospace Education with equal efficiency. Don't forget, it's also a good training and accession platform for the future cyberpilots of the USAF (CAP Cadets).
Do not confuse the concept of USAF UAVs for combat missions with their use in non-combat missions.   UAVs are appealling to USAF because of the limitations of manned combat aircraft and as a manner of risk management. 

Non-combat, particularly as it relates to our mission, is quite different.  UAVs, while less expensive than say an F-22 or even an F-16, are not less expensive than a Cessna 172/182 equipped with volunteers.  Just obtaining the comparable imaging technology that would be required in such a UAV for effective SAR or reconnaissance would eclipse our costs several fold (take a look at ARCHER's costs for just a small indication). 

I'm not confusing missions.  I think you're confusing a/c platforms. I'm not talking about CAP using existing military UAVs which cost tremendous amounts of money to operate. I'm talking about development of our own UAVs.  Basically radio controlled aircraft with a say... 3 foot wingspan with a couple of cameras on it. One forward looking (for operation), one down looking (for observation). Controls could be hooked into two PC stations using a joystick and simple software. The images would be separated between controller/pilot station and observation/scanner station. Such aircraft could cost just a few thousands of dollars and cost probably around $20 an hour to operate with no danger to aircrew (less insurance). Such aircraft could also be launched in remote areas while operated from field command stations like CAP vans or even by ground teams. Small sized, inexpensive to operate UAVs such as are being fielded by the military squad sized units as we speak and much simplified versions of them would be quite useful to us. The only obstacle is the one being tackled currently in the military now... control and deconfliction of airspace while operating UAVs.
GEORGE LURYE

afgeo4

Quote from: RiverAux on December 30, 2006, 05:13:10 PM
QuoteI really think it's going to take some changes in legislation to get us better prepared to offer ourselves up to handle some of the roles currently done by the AF. Things like job protections, mandatory leave, a per diem for  deployments of more then a day or two. Possibly a change in language in Title 10. But we are going to need to make major changes to take on the new and changing roles we are capable of.

Nope, no changes in legislation necessary. The CG Aux has been augmenting the CG in all sorts of "real" jobs for years and they have basically the same laws autorizing their use in noncombat roles. 

The stuff you're talking about would be nice, but isn't a pre-condition.  If we wait for all that stuff to come through it will never happen as no one is going to want to make all those changes for an idea that hasn't been proven to work in practice in the AF yet. 

What would need to be changed are some AF and CAP regulations that would make it easier for CAP members to be used in this manner.  Right now the hoops that an AF commander would have to jump through, according to AF regs, to have one CAP guy come in and answer phones for the afternoon make it not worth their while.  On the CAP side there would need to be some sort of regulation written covering this activity as it doesn't fall into any of our normal categories.   For example, would this be an AFAM?  I would hope so, but it isn't a "mission" like our other missions and couldn't be handled the same way. 

One MAJOR problem...

The Coast Guard Auxiliary is a direct reporting unit of the US Coast Guard, which is under the Department of Homeland Security which I believe isn't restricted by Title 10.

The Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit corporation chartered by the US Senate and isn't under any department of the US Government. Yes, we're partnered up with the US Air Force, which is under the Department of Defense (restricted by Title 10), but we're a corporation. The CG Aux is NOT.
GEORGE LURYE

afgeo4

Quote from: RiverAux on December 30, 2006, 01:56:12 AM
There are tons of civilians employeed by DoD on duty around the world.  Personally, I see no difference between a paid civilian worker and a volunteer from CAP in terms of whether or not they should be in a combat zone.  If both meet the criteria to do the job, then they should both be able to be used. 

It will be interesting to see how the views on the military towadrs us change as a result of the outsourcing of a lot of former "military" jobs to civilians.  Will the upcoming generation of AF officers be more open-minded about using CAP to augment their units back in the US?  After all, if they're used to seeing civilians running a McDonalds in the green zone, maybe they won't mind a CAP person helping out in their office. 


Umm ok, DoD Civillians are fully employed, insured and trained members of the department. CAP volunteers are neither employed nor insured and we're rarely trained for the job. Combat? Just forget the word combat. We are expressly denied that duty. In terms of being used by the Air Force...  I think there are some jobs that we could do, but... since we aren't paid, we don't have to show up. We're volunteers, remember?  We cannot guarantee manning for anything.  As much as we'd like to, we cannot in good faith do that because we may one day face the fact that our members aren't trained, aren't interested, or just plain don't want to do it anymore and any military branch cannot deal with that.  They need assurances. The Air Force doesn't stop because some volunteers decided they wanna stay home and drink hot chocolate one day.

Having said that, individual units have had limited success augmenting (not replacing) ANG slots.  I know that units in Central NY have augmented the men and women of the 174th Fighter Wing, NYANG on numerous occasions. Positions augmented have been in the Security Forces (traffic and pedestrian flow control, not gate guard duty), Services (food preparation, service, and clean-up), and I believe Public Affairs fields. These have been short term specific requests from the ANG Wing CC directly to the CAP Group CC and both parties ended up happy, so there's something to the idea.
GEORGE LURYE

JohnKachenmeister

Yes, under the current title 10, we are expressly limited to "Non-combat" missions and programs of the USAF.  The purpose of the thread was to discuss the pros and cons of changing title 10 to free up USAF pilots by replacing them at the controls of UAV's with CAP pilots.

During World War II CAP volunteers filled the gap by patrolling the coast and attacking enemy submarines, and by patrolling the Pacific Northwest against Japanese "Balloon bombs."  They didn't decide to stay home and drink hot chocolate, and neither will we.  To suggest that the current CAP members will let the Air Force down on a mission like this is to say that we are not worthy of our battle heritage.
Another former CAP officer

RiverAux

QuoteThe Civil Air Patrol is a non-profit corporation chartered by the US Senate and isn't under any department of the US Government. Yes, we're partnered up with the US Air Force, which is under the Department of Defense (restricted by Title 10), but we're a corporation. The CG Aux is NOT.

You're missing the point...federal law ALREADY allows the use of CAP for any non-combat missions of the AF just like federal law says the same thing about CG Aux.  So, if the AF wanted to use CAP in pretty much any manner here in the US they have the legal authority to do so.  Yes, some changes in AF and CAP regs would be necessary to make it work well, but nothing more needs to go to Congress.

QuoteCAP volunteers are neither employed nor insured

When on AFAMs we are more or less employed by the AF and insured as well.  The only difference is that we don't get paid.  My comparison was aimed more at distinctions between what is a "military" vs what is a "civilian" job. 

Dragoon

The issue of "sustained ops" is an important one.  As a few have pointed out, if I've got a guy working for me doing important work, I want the SAME guy every time, not a new volunteer every day.

Now, if it's not really critical work, I don't care if it's a rotating cast of thousands. 

So how many of our volunteers are available fill this kind of request should USAF ask (hint - it's about the same as our number of retired members minus those with disability issues :))

I used to wonder how the heck CAP ran 24/7 sub patrols in WWII.  Then a former sub chaser spoke at our Wing conference.  The answer suprised me...


........flying sub patrol was a full time, paid job!

The speaker said that the money was actually pretty good. 

In other words, sure they "volunteered" to serve, but they weren't volunteers in the modern CAP sense - they were working for the Army full time.  And getting paid to do it!

I would love to see us do more USAF support.  But we have to find some way to supply them with trained people, willing to work many days a week, and possible deploy for weeks or months at a time, WITHOUT PAY.

Because if pay is involved, they can just use the Guard, USAF civlians, or contractors.


JohnKachenmeister

CAP members on submarine patrol were paid a per diem allowance to cover living expenses.  On the base, they would pool their money and buy food, and creature comforts.  They had some left over, but I've never heard it described as "Pretty good money" before. 

First we get the law changed.  Then we convince the USAF that we CAN do it.  After that, we discuss the bill.
Another former CAP officer

Dragoon

Not being QUITE old enough to have flown sub patrols myself, I have to go on what he said.  He was very happy with the pay, and did the job for almost the entire period that CAP was in the sub business.  Not a part time, take a few days off from work endeavor.

Do you think it's likely that we could get the law changed without first convincing someone in DoD that it was both feasible and economically viable?  After all, why waste time fighting Capitol Hill on an potentially unworkable deal?

Of course, if someone has a powerful Democratic Senator as a brother in law, we can probably get anything we want!   ;D

afgeo4

I think in the gov't it works like this: First we show them that they can afford it if we can do it. Second we prove to them that we can do it if they change the law. Third we ask them to change the law if they can afford it.
GEORGE LURYE

DNall

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 03, 2007, 06:14:49 PM
CAP members on submarine patrol were paid a per diem allowance to cover living expenses.  On the base, they would pool their money and buy food, and creature comforts.  They had some left over, but I've never heard it described as "Pretty good money" before. 

First we get the law changed.  Then we convince the USAF that we CAN do it.  After that, we discuss the bill.
I certainly WANT some changes to Title 10 & 36, but I don't NEED any. I don't see the law as the thing keeping us down. I think it's our personnel... so let me reverse your statement. I think we need to convince the AF we CAN do it, then ask them to change the law to reflect the level of confidence we've EARNED. '

The way I think it should be done is to present 3 things to AF. One is an ultimate vision of where we can be with all the required changes in place. Two is the goal point we need to get to in order to get the changes made; and, three is the plan to get from where we are to that goal point. Beside that lay down another document. This one can contain everything from uniform items to legislative changes (which might include employment protections & deployed/sustainement per diem). That's a list of things we want but don't deserve. Ask them  to give us those items as they think we've earned them. Then get moving.

It's true the AF doesn't know what to do with CAP. There are people thinking about cutting it all the way up to the kinds of conversations we're having about strategic employment & heavey duty noble eagle/war on terror missions. So why wait for them? We have the latitude of corporate missions, and even some training money. There are a lot of missions we can demonstrate w/ current gear & personnel. Run a test demonstration, turn in staff study after staff study pushing AF's limits on how to use us. They don't have ideas? Why aren't we flooding them in a pool to pick from? There ain't no money for specialized gear in a cut AF budget? Well there sure as hell is in DHS for 1AF-AMs.

My point is I don't think there's anything hardly at all that we're talking about that can't be done under the currently leagal structure. It's clunky, but workable. I'd LIKE some changes also, but I think we can step up first & show AF the terms they need to be thinking in about us.

JohnKachenmeister

There's one other important point.

We NEED to improve our officer personnel.

Making some cadet's mom a second lieutenant after taking an on-line reading assignment and test does NOT cut it.  Iowa has a good idea, a 6-month OTS.  I'm trying to get a 3-month OTS through here in FL, but I'm meeting with either resistance or lethargy, I'm not sure which.

No matter which reorganization/legal change/whatever we do, it wioll not work without officers who understand what is represented by their rank, and accept the traditions and values of military service.

Most of us had to go through a unique and life-changing experience to earn the rank of Second Lieutenant. 
Another former CAP officer

RiverAux

QuoteThe issue of "sustained ops" is an important one.  As a few have pointed out, if I've got a guy working for me doing important work, I want the SAME guy every time, not a new volunteer every day.

Shouldn't be a problem.  The CG Aux has had people working at some CG Stations so long that they have trained most of the staff (primarily in radio watchstanding).  
I don't see why it would be any different for CAP.  Sure, not every CAP member is going to be willing to make that committment, but some will.

By the way, whenever augmentation is brought up people start saying CAP members will just be cleaning toilets or mowing the lawns.  Well take a look at the augmentation that the CA State Military Reserve does for their National Guard (this is the 40th Aviation Brigade Support Battalion):
QuoteTo augment unit administrative capabilities in the areas of personnel and administrative services, operations and training, logistics, civil affairs, communications, medical, chaplain and legal support services. Support is also provided to the 1106th Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot.

Over with the Air NG, the CA SMR augments the 146th Airlift Wing.  One of the members serves as the Air Ops Officer for the NGs Joint Operations Center.  Another person is the Quality Assurance Technician.  They are recruiting folks for admin, personnel, medical, transportation, aircraft and vehicle maintenance, airlift operations, weather, security, engineer, and chaplains augmentation positions.

By the way, the CA SMR also has a unit that augments the Air NG's 129th Rescue Wing, but I don't have any info on specific duties.  

The people in the CA SMR are not very different from CAP members (well, they don't have the older folks (can only enlist from 18-63).  The people that join are not sent off to any special Army schools to learn the augmentation tasks they're doing.  Its all OJT. There may be an occasional vet doing the same job they did while in the NG or AD.  They drill 8 hours a month and have a 200 hour a year minimum committment (including drills).  

If they can find people willing to volunteer to do these sorts of duties for the NG, CAP could do the same for the AF.

afgeo4

The augmentation done by the NY Guard (NY State Military) to the Army and Air National Guard isn't anywhere the same.  These men and women are enlisted as members of the military with state funding for their training, logistical support, uniforms, and pay when on active duty. They are trained by the Nat Guard folk to perform these duties and are obliged to perform them by law as enlisted and commissioned members of the state military. 

CAP volunteers are still members of a benevolent, non-profit corporation, not the US military.  Could our members do the job?  Sure they could!  With their eyes closed!  Should they?  NO!  That's what the State Guard is for.  We have a different job to do and I think we ought to talk about that job more often than we talk about what we could do if we were the military or in the military or with the military.  Once we get that down packed, maybe we can talk about moving on to bigger, better things.

I'm sorry if that offends some of you folks, but my background is of enlisted USAF Res and seeing how most CAP units operate at present time... I'm not comfortable with tasking this organization with things the military has to depend on. It's a cold, cold truth and I wish it wasn't so.  Perhaps soon it won't be so, but I feel today it is. So let's all start talking about how we can do our current jobs better and stop talking about what jobs we could do so it'd be easier for us to look more proffessional.  We don't choose our duty, our duty chooses us!
GEORGE LURYE

Dragoon

Quote from: RiverAux on January 04, 2007, 01:39:35 AM
Shouldn't be a problem.  The CG Aux has had people working at some CG Stations so long that they have trained most of the staff (primarily in radio watchstanding).  
I don't see why it would be any different for CAP.  Sure, not every CAP member is going to be willing to make that committment, but some will.

I think stateside watch station (or EOC or whatever you want to call it) duty is something CAP members could certainly do well.  The duty schedule is known way in advance, the training required is low, the total number of personel needed is small.  We can handle that.  And since every USAF post has a 24/7 command center that needs mannting, the only problem I see with us doing it is having the appropriate clearances)

But other kinds of surges are tougher.   Ever seen how hard it is to get aircrew or Ground Teams on the third week of a protracted search?  That kind of duty (schedule = unknown, training required = high, number of personnel = large) is a much tougher nut to crack.

I'd liken flying UAVs in support of combat ops to be a lot more like that than like watch station duty.

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 04, 2007, 07:09:20 AM
The augmentation done by the NY Guard (NY State Military) to the Army and Air National Guard isn't anywhere the same.  These men and women are enlisted as members of the military with state funding for their training, logistical support, uniforms, and pay when on active duty. They are trained by the Nat Guard folk to perform these duties and are obliged to perform them by law as enlisted and commissioned members of the state military. 

CAP volunteers are still members of a benevolent, non-profit corporation, not the US military.  Could our members do the job?  Sure they could!  With their eyes closed!  Should they?  NO!  That's what the State Guard is for.  We have a different job to do and I think we ought to talk about that job more often than we talk about what we could do if we were the military or in the military or with the military.  Once we get that down packed, maybe we can talk about moving on to bigger, better things.

I'm sorry if that offends some of you folks, but my background is of enlisted USAF Res and seeing how most CAP units operate at present time... I'm not comfortable with tasking this organization with things the military has to depend on. It's a cold, cold truth and I wish it wasn't so.  Perhaps soon it won't be so, but I feel today it is. So let's all start talking about how we can do our current jobs better and stop talking about what jobs we could do so it'd be easier for us to look more proffessional.  We don't choose our duty, our duty chooses us!

Actually, George, that is NOT the State Guard's job.  The SDF's exist to provide the Governor a military force that he can use in riots and disasters when the National Guard has been called into federal service.  Anything that SDF's do when the NG is still within the state is "Training and readiness."  Their only mission is to respond to emergencies in the absence of the NG.

Personally, I see the mission of providing UAV pilots (Remote as it might be) as the natural extension of our historical development.  We began service filling in for pilot and aircraft shortages in World War II, and freed up AAF pilots to fly the fast airplanes by flying not only coastal, forest, and border patrols, but the "Ash and trash" missions.  Replacing qualified pilots at the controls of a UAV, so that the AF pilot can do what he is trained to do, is keeping as close to our historical roots as one can get, considering the changes in technology in the past 65 years.
Another former CAP officer

DNall

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 04, 2007, 07:09:20 AM
CAP volunteers are still members of a benevolent, non-profit corporation, not the US military.  Could our members do the job?  Sure they could!  With their eyes closed!  Should they?  NO!  That's what the State Guard is for.  We have a different job to do and I think we ought to talk about that job more often than we talk about what we could do if we were the military or in the military or with the military.  Once we get that down packed, maybe we can talk about moving on to bigger, better things.

I'm sorry if that offends some of you folks, but my background is of enlisted USAF Res and seeing how most CAP units operate at present time... I'm not comfortable with tasking this organization with things the military has to depend on. It's a cold, cold truth and I wish it wasn't so.  Perhaps soon it won't be so, but I feel today it is. So let's all start talking about how we can do our current jobs better and stop talking about what jobs we could do so it'd be easier for us to look more proffessional.  We don't choose our duty, our duty chooses us!
I feel your pain, and it doesn't offend me. I tell ya I don't want to lut my life up on a foundation formed from the quality of CAP personnel judged by real military standards or the organizational & mgmt strength of CAP, or the strength of our senior leaders & the pool from which they're drawn. I want to though, lets build this team from teh inside out & make that happen. I mean truth is I do put my life on the line trusting other CAP members not to get me killed, and it's more dangerous than it should be cause of the above factors. I'm not talking about managing maint records on a Cessna though, I'm talking about wanting the AF's trust in us to be the front line nuke/red/chem/bio detection & deterrance capability... would you trust CAP to defend the country to that extent? I wouldn't either right now, which is why the money for the gear is avail from DHS & we can't have it - by the way looks like more money for detection on today's announcement... that and lack of strong oversight mechanisms & authority. Right? So, let's fix it.

And we are at very least "with" the military. We are by international law on AFAM considered combatants. The line in title 10 is instructions to the AF not to use us in combat, but that doesn't mean bad guys w/ rule books can't or won't shoot back. In WWII we were bound by UCMJ... It's a complex subject, and yeah I think we'd all like to clean it up, but I got better things to do than sell my soul to get in Congress right now.

RiverAux

QuoteCAP volunteers are still members of a benevolent, non-profit corporation, not the US military.  Could our members do the job?  Sure they could!  With their eyes closed!  Should they?  NO!  That's what the State Guard is for. 

We're talking about CAP augmenting the Air Force (or maybe Air Force Reserve) and not the National Guard, though I wouldn't be adverse to CAP people doing this for Air National Guards in states lacking SDFs (only half have them only a tiny handful of those do anything with the Air NG).  My point was that if the NG can train SDF members to do these jobs using not much more than on-the-job training, then the AF could certainly train CAP members to help them out (for some positions). 

QuoteActually, George, that is NOT the State Guard's job.  The SDF's exist to provide the Governor a military force that he can use in riots and disasters when the National Guard has been called into federal service.  Anything that SDF's do when the NG is still within the state is "Training and readiness."  Their only mission is to respond to emergencies in the absence of the NG.

No, you're thinking of what SDFs were doing in the past, just hanging around waiting for the NG to leave.  Governors and TAGs have the authority to use SDFs in any way they want and several have started using them to augment their NG units.  In fact, in California that is really the only mission of the SDF and they have pretty much dropped worrying about replacing the NG, since the need for that service is very unlikely. 

sandman

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 04, 2007, 11:21:00 PM
Actually, George, that is NOT the State Guard's job.  The SDF's exist to provide the Governor a military force that he can use in riots and disasters when the National Guard has been called into federal service.  Anything that SDF's do when the NG is still within the state is "Training and readiness."  Their only mission is to respond to emergencies in the absence of the NG.

Personally, I see the mission of providing UAV pilots (Remote as it might be) as the natural extension of our historical development.  We began service filling in for pilot and aircraft shortages in World War II, and freed up AAF pilots to fly the fast airplanes by flying not only coastal, forest, and border patrols, but the "Ash and trash" missions.  Replacing qualified pilots at the controls of a UAV, so that the AF pilot can do what he is trained to do, is keeping as close to our historical roots as one can get, considering the changes in technology in the past 65 years.

I agree with you John, for example take a look at the Alaska SDF. They actually have commissions as State Troopers (MP units) and wear a (stinkin') badge when called up.

The UAV angle is a facinating one and I think in line with what CAP should pursue.
MAJ, US Army (Ret)
Major, Civil Air Patrol
Major, 163rd ATKW Support, Joint Medical Command

DNall

Quote from: sandman on January 04, 2007, 11:55:01 PM
I agree with you John, for example take a look at the Alaska SDF. They actually have commissions as State Troopers (MP units) and wear a (stinkin') badge when called up.

The UAV angle is a facinating one and I think in line with what CAP should pursue.
Really? Wow, that's interesting. They do everything wierd in Alaska.

One of the big tasks for the Texas Air Guard is to have SF qual'd (and I mean really by AF standards by doing the AFIADL correspondence & OJT w/ ARNG/ANG personnel) folks in SDF units stationsed w/ non-SF ANG units for the purpose of protecting them. Got an SDF-SF unit stationed w/ a Comm Sq. They guard the Sq on station of course (saves private security), then in case of a disaster when that ANG Sq would deploy in to restore comms, the SDF-SF's would tag along to protect them.

They do other non-LE stuff as well. Overall though it seems like they use the unit pairing concept to take a combined force into a disaster zone w/ all the right skills.

Milage varies greatly by state though.

afgeo4

When it comes to SDFs, I only know how the NY State Guard operates and their duties are to augment and train to augment the NY ARNG unit they're assigned to, train to respond to disasters and emergencies, and as of a few years ago, be a large part of an NBC (nuclear, biological & chemical)rapid response team for the State of NY.  That team is made up of NY Guard, ARNG, and ANG personnel. CAP units have participated in training for this unit in past and further cooperation and training is in works. Although the soldiers and airmen of the NY Guard are considered to be combatants, they do not currently train with or are assigned weapons. I believe the law does allow them to be armed.  Just think of these SDF's as the reserve for the national guard.  Military to support military. In spirit it's similar to what we do.  We support the military.  However, by our nature we are not the military.  No matter how much we want ourselves to be, we just aren't.  If you think we are, you're probably in the wrong organization.
GEORGE LURYE

JohnKachenmeister

George:

SDF's and us are different animals.  Yes, we co-exist in the same jungle, but we are different species.

SDF's exist under the exclusive authority of the state.  The are to serve as the National Guard when the NG is in federal service.  Yes, some SDF's have been seeking and getting missions to support NG organizations, their basic mission remains the same.  The support they provide to NG/ANG units or local governments is "Training."

I commanded a military police battalion in Ohio's SDF.  Yes, I would volunteer my battalion to support community festivals, directing traffic, interacting with the local police, sheriff, and highway patrol, responding to incidents, etc.  That was good training.  The skills of traffic and crowd control, and the techniques of interacting with various law enforcement organizations are EXACTLY the skills we would need to respond if the town were ravaged by a tornado, and the NG was deployed.

During drill weekends, my battalion supported two Air National Guard bases.  One we provided ALL military police and security services, gate, interior patrol, investigations, etc.  The other we augmented an ANG Security Forces squadron.  The ANG base that we augmented required our MP's to be armed, and they were.  The other ANG base housed a civil engineer unit, and weapons were not required by ANG regulations.  Again, this was training.  My MP's were exercising the individual and collective skills that they would need if mobilized.

Civil Air Patrol is a federal organization.  We are, when so requested by the Air Force, an integral part of the USAF.  We provide any light plane support that the USAF may require.  Historically, we have provided inland SAR, relieving the AF from having to maintain a fleet of small aircraft and a string of US bases to support the inland SAR mission.  Congress, however, has given the authority to the Air Force to use us for ANY mission, other than combat.

Congress also provided a mechanism for CAP to, when not needed by the AF, to provide light plane support to states and local communities.  This is our "Title 36" mission, and is executed my establishing MOU's with states, local governments, and non-governmental organizations.

How you make the leap that "CAP is not military," when we can be and are used as an integral part of the USAF is a contention I do not understand.  Many of the posters realize that this "We ain't mlitary" attitude has been counterproductive to our role with the Air Force, and has seriously degraded our mission readiness.  We have been discussing ways to, within the framework provided by Congress, bring CAP back up to the wartime readiness that we had during the Second World War so that we can meet the challenges of the Homeland Defense battle as professionals, and as a part of the Air Force team.

Do you have a problem with that?

Another former CAP officer

afgeo4

#63
A leap...

CIVIL Air Patrol

I think you're the only one leaping when you say that we ARE the military.

CAP is a benevolent non-profit corporation that is tasked to assist the Air Force, Federal, State, and local agencies (or anyone else who pays for the mission and we make an MOU with). We work with the Salvation Army... does that make us a religious organization? We work with the Sheriff's Office... are we deputies? I suggest that we and our employers are not the same.

The Oxford Dictionary defines military as: noun (the military) the armed forces of a country.
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/military?view=uk)

The Air Force is not allowed to task us with combatant missions anymore. Used to, but not anymore. No other agency we work with is allowed to do it either. Why?  Well that's what BENEVOLENT means. The way I see it is we have a difficult mission before us to begin with. We aren't even 100% ready to respond to things we're tasked with yet. I know a lot of people here wish we were running around with M-16s and flying F-16s, but that's what the Air Force is for. The Civil Air Patrol isn't for those things, so...  what makes me think we aren't the military? Everything we say and do. Take away our military uniforms and the USAF writing on our logos and we are still tasked with the same duties and still do them the same way. Heck, even if our Auxiliary status went away, we wouldn't change a bit. The cadet leadership programs would go on (they don't require military elements), the ES programs would go on, the HS missions would go on, the anti-narcotics missions would too...  So what makes you think we are the military (today, not in 1942)?

Having said all of that, I'd like to say that I am not a supporter of the "corporate" movement. I was prior USAF and am all in favor of moving closer to the branch in our workings, professionalism, and manner, but... we aren't them. I know that and most other people know that. Some wish we were (because they for some reason cannot go into or back into the military) and some wish we were nothing like them (because they are anti-military anything), but I think most of us realize that we're civillians that help out the military and other government and civillian agencies when asked to do so and that THAT is all that we are and are happy being that as long as we get better at it.
GEORGE LURYE

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 08, 2007, 04:38:42 PM
A leap...

CIVIL Air Patrol

I think you're the only one leaping into wishful thinking when you say that we ARE the military.

Look, I am myself a prior serviceman, but I know a duck when I see one and CAP is a benevolent non-profit corporation that is tasked to assist the Air Force, Federal, State, and local agencies (or anyone else who pays for the mission and we make an MOU with). We work with the Salvation Army... does that make us a religious organization? We work with the Sheriff's Office... are we deputies? I suggest that we and our employers are not the same.

The Oxford Dictionary defines military as: noun (the military) the armed forces of a country.
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/military?view=uk)

The Air Force is not allowed to task us with combatant missions anymore. Used to, but not anymore. No other agency we work with is allowed to do it either. Why?  Well that's what BENEVOLENT means. The way I see it is we have a difficult mission before us to begin with. We aren't even 100% ready to respond to things we're tasked with yet. I know a lot of people here wish we were running around with M-16s and flying F-16s, but that's what the Air Force is for. The Civil Air Patrol isn't for those things, so...  what makes me think we aren't the military? Everything we say and do. Take away our military uniforms and the USAF writing on our logos and we are still tasked with the same duties and still do them the same way. Heck, even if our Auxiliary status went away, we wouldn't change a bit. The cadet leadership programs would go on (they don't require military elements), the ES programs would go on, the HS missions would go on, the anti-narcotics missions would too...  So what makes you think we are the military (today, not in 1942)?

Having said all of that, I'd like to say that I am not a supporter of the "corporate" movement. I was prior USAF and am all in favor of moving closer to the branch in our workings, professionalism, and manner, but... we aren't them. I know that and most other people know that. Some wish we were (because they for some reason cannot go into or back into the military) and some wish we were nothing like them (because they are anti-military anything), but I think most of us realize that we're civillians that help out the military and other government and civillian agencies when asked to do so and that THAT is all that we are and are happy being that as long as we get better at it.


Title 10 makes CAP an "Instrumentality of the AF" when performing any federal mission.  The "Corporate" mindset and attitude has been sapping our strength for years, limiting our flexibility, and reducing our utility as a force multiplier to the Air Force.  Our country is at war.  The fact is that the Air Force will be facing personnel cuts as priorities favor the Army and Marines.  Placing CAP in a position to help the AF do more with less is why we exist, and what I mean by being a force multiplier. 

Our corporate identity should only come into play when it benefits us, which is when we contract through MOU's with non-federal entities.  Otherwise, our organization needs to be professional, linear, agile, and fully competent to perform ANY mission that comes along, including combat support missions.  Our corporate nature should NOT be an excuse for failure.

About 90 percent of the personnel in the Air Force never even HEAR a gun.  The "Non-combatant" status of our organization is far less of an issue than you make it out to be.
Another former CAP officer

DNall

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 08, 2007, 04:38:42 PM
A leap...

CIVIL Air Patrol

I think you're the only one leaping when you say that we ARE the military.
Like Civil Defense, from which the word came to our name, it refers to operating in the US rather than overseas & for the protection of the civilian population rather than primarily as a warfighter.

QuoteCAP is a benevolent non-profit corporation that is tasked to assist the Air Force, Federal, State, and local agencies (or anyone else who pays for the mission and we make an MOU with). We work with the Salvation Army... does that make us a religious organization? We work with the Sheriff's Office... are we deputies? I suggest that we and our employers are not the same.
Yet we are bound by the same laws that cover them because they fund our resources. Furthermore, that instermentailty of the AF line may not hold water in a court of law. It merely means they admit responsibility for us on AFAMs, but that does not mean the govt cannot or will not be named in a lawsuit in which a case is made that their funding enables our activities.

Quote
The Oxford Dictionary defines military as: noun (the military) the armed forces of a country.
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/military?view=uk)

The Air Force is not allowed to task us with combatant missions anymore. Used to, but not anymore. No other agency we work with is allowed to do it either. Why?  Well that's what BENEVOLENT means. The way I see it is we have a difficult mission before us to begin with. We aren't even 100% ready to respond to things we're tasked with yet. I know a lot of people here wish we were running around with M-16s and flying F-16s, but that's what the Air Force is for. The Civil Air Patrol isn't for those things, so...  what makes me think we aren't the military? Everything we say and do. Take away our military uniforms and the USAF writing on our logos and we are still tasked with the same duties and still do them the same way. Heck, even if our Auxiliary status went away, we wouldn't change a bit. The cadet leadership programs would go on (they don't require military elements), the ES programs would go on, the HS missions would go on, the anti-narcotics missions would too...  So what makes you think we are the military (today, not in 1942)?
Congress specifically states in the law an order to AF not to task us w/ direct combat missions, but combat support is perfectly fine & happens regularly tasked out of 1AF (mostly as a target to be tracked or transport/observation). Af is instructed to that effect because we are by international law considered combatants & that cannot be changed. Many restrictions are put in place (use of AF Aux on planes, use of weapons, etc) strictly to prevent CAP from getting too far over the line, but that doesn't change our legal status. What we're tasked with right now is for the most part civil support, but that's going to change. Many of those civil support jobs are going away. Good technology & training standardization is being applied to dramatically improve the service rendered, and that's a good thing, it just happens to put us out of that business. There's a few nick nacks laying around in state/local that can be picked up for temporary use, but nothing of a national character that requires this big org & all it's associated costs. The only thing there is, and coincidently the place where our help is desperately needed, is in supplementing the AF in military missions (not assistance to civil authorities).

QuoteHaving said all of that, I'd like to say that I am not a supporter of the "corporate" movement. I was prior USAF and am all in favor of moving closer to the branch in our workings, professionalism, and manner, but... we aren't them. I know that and most other people know that. Some wish we were (because they for some reason cannot go into or back into the military) and some wish we were nothing like them (because they are anti-military anything), but I think most of us realize that we're civillians that help out the military and other government and civillian agencies when asked to do so and that THAT is all that we are and are happy being that as long as we get better at it.
As you know, I am in the Army & of to get some wings soon. I fully understand we're not & will never be THE Air Force. That's not what I'm trying to do. What I'd like in the long term to change CAP to is a federal level version of an SDF.

SDF officer gets state commission that's only good in state & only within certain strictly defined limits, etc; we can get a federal Auxiliary Commission that works the same way, only good when we agree to active TDY contract, limited powers/right/privledges within very stictly defined guidlines. The roles would be much the same. An SDF exists to fulfill the state missions of the national guard when they are called away from the state, and to augment them when they're around as a force multiplier. CAP under this arrangement would be there to fulfill the full range of domestic & on up to combat support roles of the AF, within certain statutory limits, as a force multiplier of the AF & especially when they are short handed or short funded. In that sense I think you can see that as we increasingly prove ourselves capable in those roles the AF & Congress will take that capability into account in future budgets, shifting resources to other needs & leaning more heavily on CAP, as we earn it of course & still within limits. This vision for Auxiliary officers & enlisted personnel doesn't make you the AF, just as being in an SDF doesn't make you the national guard, but it's darn close, and in certain narrow & temporary situations it's just about the same thing.

NOTE: Yes I know creates problems for co-serving AD/Res/NG personnel. We're already talking about a serious change to title 10, I think we can include soemthing to cover those people while we're at it.

afgeo4

Quote from: DNall on January 09, 2007, 01:54:31 AM
Quote from: afgeo4 on January 08, 2007, 04:38:42 PM
A leap...

CIVIL Air Patrol

I think you're the only one leaping when you say that we ARE the military.
Like Civil Defense, from which the word came to our name, it refers to operating in the US rather than overseas & for the protection of the civilian population rather than primarily as a warfighter.

QuoteCAP is a benevolent non-profit corporation that is tasked to assist the Air Force, Federal, State, and local agencies (or anyone else who pays for the mission and we make an MOU with). We work with the Salvation Army... does that make us a religious organization? We work with the Sheriff's Office... are we deputies? I suggest that we and our employers are not the same.
Yet we are bound by the same laws that cover them because they fund our resources. Furthermore, that instermentailty of the AF line may not hold water in a court of law. It merely means they admit responsibility for us on AFAMs, but that does not mean the govt cannot or will not be named in a lawsuit in which a case is made that their funding enables our activities.

Quote
The Oxford Dictionary defines military as: noun (the military) the armed forces of a country.
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/military?view=uk)

The Air Force is not allowed to task us with combatant missions anymore. Used to, but not anymore. No other agency we work with is allowed to do it either. Why?  Well that's what BENEVOLENT means. The way I see it is we have a difficult mission before us to begin with. We aren't even 100% ready to respond to things we're tasked with yet. I know a lot of people here wish we were running around with M-16s and flying F-16s, but that's what the Air Force is for. The Civil Air Patrol isn't for those things, so...  what makes me think we aren't the military? Everything we say and do. Take away our military uniforms and the USAF writing on our logos and we are still tasked with the same duties and still do them the same way. Heck, even if our Auxiliary status went away, we wouldn't change a bit. The cadet leadership programs would go on (they don't require military elements), the ES programs would go on, the HS missions would go on, the anti-narcotics missions would too...  So what makes you think we are the military (today, not in 1942)?
Congress specifically states in the law an order to AF not to task us w/ direct combat missions, but combat support is perfectly fine & happens regularly tasked out of 1AF (mostly as a target to be tracked or transport/observation). Af is instructed to that effect because we are by international law considered combatants & that cannot be changed. Many restrictions are put in place (use of AF Aux on planes, use of weapons, etc) strictly to prevent CAP from getting too far over the line, but that doesn't change our legal status. What we're tasked with right now is for the most part civil support, but that's going to change. Many of those civil support jobs are going away. Good technology & training standardization is being applied to dramatically improve the service rendered, and that's a good thing, it just happens to put us out of that business. There's a few nick nacks laying around in state/local that can be picked up for temporary use, but nothing of a national character that requires this big org & all it's associated costs. The only thing there is, and coincidently the place where our help is desperately needed, is in supplementing the AF in military missions (not assistance to civil authorities).

QuoteHaving said all of that, I'd like to say that I am not a supporter of the "corporate" movement. I was prior USAF and am all in favor of moving closer to the branch in our workings, professionalism, and manner, but... we aren't them. I know that and most other people know that. Some wish we were (because they for some reason cannot go into or back into the military) and some wish we were nothing like them (because they are anti-military anything), but I think most of us realize that we're civillians that help out the military and other government and civillian agencies when asked to do so and that THAT is all that we are and are happy being that as long as we get better at it.
As you know, I am in the Army & of to get some wings soon. I fully understand we're not & will never be THE Air Force. That's not what I'm trying to do. What I'd like in the long term to change CAP to is a federal level version of an SDF.

SDF officer gets state commission that's only good in state & only within certain strictly defined limits, etc; we can get a federal Auxiliary Commission that works the same way, only good when we agree to active TDY contract, limited powers/right/privledges within very stictly defined guidlines. The roles would be much the same. An SDF exists to fulfill the state missions of the national guard when they are called away from the state, and to augment them when they're around as a force multiplier. CAP under this arrangement would be there to fulfill the full range of domestic & on up to combat support roles of the AF, within certain statutory limits, as a force multiplier of the AF & especially when they are short handed or short funded. In that sense I think you can see that as we increasingly prove ourselves capable in those roles the AF & Congress will take that capability into account in future budgets, shifting resources to other needs & leaning more heavily on CAP, as we earn it of course & still within limits. This vision for Auxiliary officers & enlisted personnel doesn't make you the AF, just as being in an SDF doesn't make you the national guard, but it's darn close, and in certain narrow & temporary situations it's just about the same thing.

NOTE: Yes I know creates problems for co-serving AD/Res/NG personnel. We're already talking about a serious change to title 10, I think we can include soemthing to cover those people while we're at it.

DNall...

CIVIL means civillian which means we don't bare arms and don't fight.  That's what Civil Defense was... defense of the nation by means other than combatant.
MILITARY means organization that bares arms.  Which clearly we are not.
SDF - State Military (yes, they're expressly classified as such by the states themselves and the federal government and are allowed to be armed (again, not us)
The federal version of SDF is the Reserve element of each branch. Part timers who train in peace time and fight while activated in war time.
What exactly would change if our officers got a paper that stated they were commissioned? 
SDF officers get paid for their State Active Duty, are you suggesting that our officers should get paid for being Activated too?  If not, how can you expect us to fulfill the same requirements and duties as people who get paid to do it?

DNall... brother... I love your enthusiasm, but if you want the military, stick to the Army.  CAP is CAP. We're a different kind of an animal... like it or leave it.
GEORGE LURYE

JohnKachenmeister

Frankly, George, I don't understand what you are saying.

1.  Civil Air Patrol is limited to non-combatant support of the US Air Force.  We all know that. 

2.  Civil Air Patrol's "Corporate" mindset and organization is dysfunctional, and does not work for us.  We know that too.

Therefore, DNall and I are proposing that CAP return to its roots, and establish a more military organizational structure, a closer relation with the Air Force in this time of war, improve our officer corps, and carry out a greater share of the non combat missions of the Air Force than we currently do.

What purpose is served by lecturing us on the dictionary definitions of words?

I am taking this one step farther, suggesting that there should be changes in the basic statutes that govern CAP, since I see a combat mission that we can perform.  If we were to perform this mission, we would accomplish two significant objectives:  We would put ordnance on target and perform the other missions done by UAV's, and we would simultaneously help alleviate the USAF pilot shortage by freeing up pilots who are currently involuntarily assigned to UAV operations.

I joined CAP to serve my country, as I am sure you did too.  Why do you object to changing the character of the organization in order to serve more efficiently? 
Another former CAP officer

Hawk200

Civil Air Patrol uses a "paramilitary" structure,  however, there is the point that we don't bear arms at present (hence the "para" part of the word). Historically, we have had missions of that type (CAP Guards that served as sentries on airfields, the sub chasers that carried bombs). Personally, I'm not advocating that we return to such things, but we do need to perform our own missions with the same bearing as the seven uniformed services.

The lesser known services still function using the same rank structure as the armed branches, and seem to do it well. We should study those organizations, find what works for them. We should maintain the same standards of a uniformed service, not necessary a military one.

Part of behaving like a uniformed service involves keeping a promise. Joining CAP involves wearing of a uniform, doing the job you volunteered for, and following the direction of those appointed above you. It shouldn't matter that you wear certain clothing (uniforms), train in a certain job (specialty track), and obey directions (so what if they're called "orders"). Shirking your duty because you're "not in the military" is the first step to the system falling apart. And a lot of these attitudes start with people refusing to wear a uniform properly. (I know a few people will vehemently deny this, but I've seen it as a fact more times than I can count.)

The attitude of "stick to the Army" (or Navy or Marines or Air Force) is a damaging one. Even though CAP is a corporation, our roots and actions are deeply entrenched in the military structure. CAP members should honor the obligation they decided to accept. That includes the mlitary structure. We're not a cafeteria, take the whole thing or don't be part of it.

afgeo4

Quote from: Hawk200 on January 09, 2007, 03:46:05 PM
Civil Air Patrol uses a "paramilitary" structure,  however, there is the point that we don't bear arms at present (hence the "para" part of the word). Historically, we have had missions of that type (CAP Guards that served as sentries on airfields, the sub chasers that carried bombs). Personally, I'm not advocating that we return to such things, but we do need to perform our own missions with the same bearing as the seven uniformed services.

The lesser known services still function using the same rank structure as the armed branches, and seem to do it well. We should study those organizations, find what works for them. We should maintain the same standards of a uniformed service, not necessary a military one.

Part of behaving like a uniformed service involves keeping a promise. Joining CAP involves wearing of a uniform, doing the job you volunteered for, and following the direction of those appointed above you. It shouldn't matter that you wear certain clothing (uniforms), train in a certain job (specialty track), and obey directions (so what if they're called "orders"). Shirking your duty because you're "not in the military" is the first step to the system falling apart. And a lot of these attitudes start with people refusing to wear a uniform properly. (I know a few people will vehemently deny this, but I've seen it as a fact more times than I can count.)

The attitude of "stick to the Army" (or Navy or Marines or Air Force) is a damaging one. Even though CAP is a corporation, our roots and actions are deeply entrenched in the military structure. CAP members should honor the obligation they decided to accept. That includes the mlitary structure. We're not a cafeteria, take the whole thing or don't be part of it.

WELL PUT!
GEORGE LURYE

aveighter

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 04, 2007, 11:21:00 PM
Personally, I see the mission of providing UAV pilots (Remote as it might be) as the natural extension of our historical development.  We began service filling in for pilot and aircraft shortages in World War II, and freed up AAF pilots to fly the fast airplanes by flying not only coastal, forest, and border patrols, but the "Ash and trash" missions.  Replacing qualified pilots at the controls of a UAV, so that the AF pilot can do what he is trained to do, is keeping as close to our historical roots as one can get, considering the changes in technology in the past 65 years.

I'm sure you read with interest in the latest AFA magazine what the new UAV pilot corps will consist of.

JohnKachenmeister

I just got the new AFA magazine, and I haven't read it yet.  What will the new UAV Corps be?
Another former CAP officer

flyguy06

You al are forgetting one important thing. CAP is a VOLUNTEER organization. As a combat commander what guarrante do I have the CAP is even going to show up to work to runthe UAV? If I need a UAV RIGHT NOW, I dont have time to beg some guy to come and run it. he needs to be here yesterday. The problem is I cant MAKE this CAP do it. What if he doesnt feel like coming in or what he says he will but then deosnt? That happens with voluneteer all the time. Itsjust the nature of the beast

DNall

Well, it's under the heading of changing Title 10, so you can change some things to make that work. I tell ya what I can see...
1) federal employment protection when you're called to duty, that's a must;
2) members can sign a contract for on-call service. The conditions of this contract can require them to be called to duty & spell out financial penalties for not doing so - like cancelling your cell phone eary ya know.
3) Once you've signed this contract then you can hold an appropriate security clearance & do the training needed for the job. See that makes it a legal contract something given in exchange for something lost.
4) Contract should also spell out per diem for extended duty & reimburable travel/billeting, pretty standard stuff.

flyguy06

Quote from: DNall on January 15, 2007, 05:03:11 AM
Well, it's under the heading of changing Title 10, so you can change some things to make that work. I tell ya what I can see...
1) federal employment protection when you're called to duty, that's a must;
2) members can sign a contract for on-call service. The conditions of this contract can require them to be called to duty & spell out financial penalties for not doing so - like cancelling your cell phone eary ya know.
3) Once you've signed this contract then you can hold an appropriate security clearance & do the training needed for the job. See that makes it a legal contract something given in exchange for something lost.
4) Contract should also spell out per diem for extended duty & reimburable travel/billeting, pretty standard stuff.

I could see that working only if it were voluntary. If you force a member to sign a contract you will loose a lot of CAP members

RiverAux

Somehow the CG trusts that the CG Auxies who've committed to standing radio watch or other jobs regularly held by Coast Guardsmen will show up so I don't think it is a major concern for CAP.  Just hold to a 1-strike policy --- if you don't show up once without being excused ahead of time, you never come back. 

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: flyguy06 on January 15, 2007, 05:12:22 AM
Quote from: DNall on January 15, 2007, 05:03:11 AM
Well, it's under the heading of changing Title 10, so you can change some things to make that work. I tell ya what I can see...
1) federal employment protection when you're called to duty, that's a must;
2) members can sign a contract for on-call service. The conditions of this contract can require them to be called to duty & spell out financial penalties for not doing so - like cancelling your cell phone eary ya know.
3) Once you've signed this contract then you can hold an appropriate security clearance & do the training needed for the job. See that makes it a legal contract something given in exchange for something lost.
4) Contract should also spell out per diem for extended duty & reimburable travel/billeting, pretty standard stuff.

I could see that working only if it were voluntary. If you force a member to sign a contract you will loose a lot of CAP members

Then lose them.  What good are they?

They only want to volunteer when there's nothing to do?

"The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot?"
Another former CAP officer

DNall

You can't be forced to re-enlist or enlist fo the first time or any other contract.

They anticipate shortages in a slot/AFSC at a location during the next 1-2years. They take applications from CAP, offer a contract to a couple people to be on-call backup. If you sign then you get any extra training needed to fill the slot & are on call for that specified period. Conditions obviously to let you take vacation & such w/o getting in trouble if they go on alert.

aveighter

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 15, 2007, 04:27:06 AM
I just got the new AFA magazine, and I haven't read it yet.  What will the new UAV Corps be?

They are taking pilots from units that have lost their aircraft and (drum roll) navigators with a private pilot license to be the new predator and reaper drivers.  There may be a new crop of non-line pilots working these things very soon.

Your original comments on driving UAVs was really quite insightful.

JohnKachenmeister

Aveighter:

I made a point of reading it today.

So, the AF is taking BOTH pilots and navigators out of airplanes.  Then they give the navigator a private pilot ticket, say 50 to 70 hours stick time.

We have private pilots with stick time measured in the hundreds to thousands of hours.

We could not only provide a force to fly the infernal machines (Airplanes without pilots-- its like selling your soul to the Devil) but every pilot we kick in releases a pilot or navigator to go back into the air. 

Can you spell "Force Multiplier," boys and girls?
Another former CAP officer

ZigZag911

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2007, 03:26:44 AM

We could not only provide a force to fly the infernal machines (Airplanes without pilots-- its like selling your soul to the Devil) but every pilot we kick in releases a pilot or navigator to go back into the air. 

Can you spell "Force Multiplier," boys and girls?

Back into the air in WHAT, John?

I understood AF was taking rated officers from arcraft that were being phased out and using those individuals for UAV operations.

JohnKachenmeister

Chicken and egg.

We are eliminating aircraft from the inventory because we lack sufficient aircrew to fly them, and the USAF has prioritized UAV's as higher than the eliminated aircraft.

Another former CAP officer

Dragoon

It may have something to do with budget stuff as well - the Army's gain in this years PRESBUD was the Air Force's loss....

JohnKachenmeister

Exactly.

They have to prioritize officer assignments becuase the Army and Marines are getting a greater share of the personnel slots.

All these are reasons why, if we could do it legally, a plan for CAP private pilots to operate UAV's would have a big effect on the Air Force and our war effort.

Maybe we wouldn't need to get a legislative change.  Maybe we could just re-define "Combat."

The last time I was in "Combat," the North Vietnamese Army was actively trying to kill me, I was in a country other than the United States, I didn't have to pay taxes, and I got a medal just for making it there on the MAC charter (MAC... Dating my combat experience!)  None of these conditions would be present at a CONUS Air Force Base from which the UAV would be operated. 

Maybe flying that bad boy could be re-defined as "Support?"   
Another former CAP officer

Dragoon

Umm...that's not what I was getting at.  They also had to prioritize Operations and Maintenance funds, used to keep planes in the air.

I believe USAF got a bit less than normal.  Meaning regardless of personnel size, the fleet had to shrink (especially if they wanted to pursue big ticket items like the F-22).  Less planes means less need for pilots.  So......makes sense to put 'em in UAVs.  The alternative is to dump them on the street.

afgeo4

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2007, 04:44:21 PM
Chicken and egg.

We are eliminating aircraft from the inventory because we lack sufficient aircrew to fly them, and the USAF has prioritized UAV's as higher than the eliminated aircraft.



We are eliminating aircraft because we are able to achieve mission parameters with fewer aircraft (due to technology) and because we have less funding, not because there are less aircrew to man them. UAV's aren't higher or lower than the legacy aircraft being retired. All USAF aircraft are designed to perform a specific set of missions. Legacy aircraft were designed for all out cold war air supremacy fighing. Today's aircraft need to be designed for other functions. The F-22, F-35, Predator, Global Hawk, V-22, HH-46, Advanced Tanker and other programs are the way the Air Force will distribute mission taskings in the future. These aircraft have shown that they are able to complete the mission with less than half aircraft needed vs. legacy systems such as F-15, F-16, A/O-10, MH-53, HH-60. Add to that the fact that the new aircraft also require less maintenance and maintainers to keep them flying and you have a win/win situation when it comes to fiscal constraints. This is one of the reasons why I think CAP should start thinking about operating UAVs of our own (simple, cheap ones, not Predators) and look into more high-tech small airframes to replace the C-172. The money we can save the Gov't will pay off in the future.
GEORGE LURYE

afgeo4

Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2007, 07:47:53 PM
Exactly.

They have to prioritize officer assignments becuase the Army and Marines are getting a greater share of the personnel slots.

All these are reasons why, if we could do it legally, a plan for CAP private pilots to operate UAV's would have a big effect on the Air Force and our war effort.

Maybe we wouldn't need to get a legislative change.  Maybe we could just re-define "Combat."

The last time I was in "Combat," the North Vietnamese Army was actively trying to kill me, I was in a country other than the United States, I didn't have to pay taxes, and I got a medal just for making it there on the MAC charter (MAC... Dating my combat experience!)  None of these conditions would be present at a CONUS Air Force Base from which the UAV would be operated. 

Maybe flying that bad boy could be re-defined as "Support?"   

Sure! Let's just redefine combat and extend the Geneva Conventions protection to a bunch of civillians. I'm sure that'll have no reprocussions on the world at large what so ever. Even better when you consider that you're just doing it so that a bunch of CAP volunteers can feel better about themselves. Or... maybe we should just let the military folk do the military jobs and we could stick to other things, like search and rescue, disaster relief, cadet programs, homeland security, counterdrug operations, and aerospace education... wow... for a bunch of volunteers we don't do so bad, do we?

Sir, if you are still stuck in Vietnam, which I'm beginning to think you may be, please seek therapy. If not, please understand that CAP isn't the military and it isn't a combat organization and that we don't get paid and that more than half of us are minors and half of who are left over are over 65.
GEORGE LURYE

Major Carrales

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 17, 2007, 06:34:02 AM
Sir, if you are still stuck in Vietnam, which I'm beginning to think you may be, please seek therapy. If not, please understand that CAP isn't the military and it isn't a combat organization and that we don't get paid and that more than half of us are minors and half of who are left over are over 65.

Whoa...let's just calm down a bit here.  I agree with your message to some degree about the status of "CAP in the big picture,"  but this may have been uncalled for.  Major Kachenmeister is a Veteran worthy of a bit more respect and a well respected CAP Officer on-line as well as in his WING and REGION.

Let's not unleash such torrents of vitriol.

"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454

DNall

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 17, 2007, 06:34:02 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2007, 07:47:53 PM
Exactly.

They have to prioritize officer assignments becuase the Army and Marines are getting a greater share of the personnel slots.

All these are reasons why, if we could do it legally, a plan for CAP private pilots to operate UAV's would have a big effect on the Air Force and our war effort.

Maybe we wouldn't need to get a legislative change.  Maybe we could just re-define "Combat."

The last time I was in "Combat," the North Vietnamese Army was actively trying to kill me, I was in a country other than the United States, I didn't have to pay taxes, and I got a medal just for making it there on the MAC charter (MAC... Dating my combat experience!)  None of these conditions would be present at a CONUS Air Force Base from which the UAV would be operated. 

Maybe flying that bad boy could be re-defined as "Support?"   

Sure! Let's just redefine combat and extend the Geneva Conventions protection to a bunch of civillians. I'm sure that'll have no reprocussions on the world at large what so ever. Even better when you consider that you're just doing it so that a bunch of CAP volunteers can feel better about themselves. Or... maybe we should just let the military folk do the military jobs and we could stick to other things, like search and rescue, disaster relief, cadet programs, homeland security, counterdrug operations, and aerospace education... wow... for a bunch of volunteers we don't do so bad, do we?
Actually, contractors have been used to operate the birds to a great extent. When they followed the CIA in putting missiles on they had to scramble to make sure an actual Airman was in the same building to pull the trigger. The more recent move to ensure the operator (not calling them a pilot) is also in the AF is really not about legal issues at all. It'd be prefectly lefit under the current interpretation to use CAP pilots to fly the bird in support of the Amn shooter in the seat next to you. That may be stretching the letter but not the spirit of what congress meant in specifying non-combat missions of the AF, and that's the only item that would even remotely need to be changed.

Just a reminder, CAP personnel are, by the geneva conventions, considered combatants. Any uniformed individual under military orders, regardless of the purpose of those orders, who is able to relay information, by radio or otherwise, is a 100% valid target.

The move to put actual pilots in those seats over contractors is about budget & retaining talent. It costs a lot of money to make pilots & with their operational experience they are good in a varriety of command slots even if they aren't flying. If you have a short-term budget situation that gives you more rated officers than jobs, it makes sense to retain them in other jobs & cut the un-rated. At the same time, it costs more for a contractor (plus the company's cut) to sit in that chair than a spare AF pilot waiting on a new ride. The other issue is, now that this tech has caught on we tend not to operate it from a buildnig in Virginia, but rather a trailer next to the Command Post in Quatar. It's easier to use an Amn in that role with fast low cost deployment & advanced training than a contractor.

Now, the force multiplier augmentation concept I support centers on looking at commands & finding ways to cut contractor, DoD civilian, enlisted, & officer slots. I hate to say aloud that thsi may eliminate AF jobs, but the purpose of CAP is to help the AF do things on teh cheap so money can be used for combat power, and what we bring to the table is cheap labor - the math ain't complicated. Anyway, the concept is to identify positions that can be done by part-time or even on-call personnel. Can you cut two slots from the day-to-day staff in this office if you have five people on-call when things get busy. These people are techincally independent contractors, but by AF giving lip service to CAP and maybe letting them wear uniforms during the activity AF gets those contract services at or below cost. I don't in general favor paying CAP members for most of what we do, but if you're deploying to a disaster zone or called to service in an AF office for more than a few days in a row, it's only reasonable to expect a little something to defer your expenses & lost income. A per diem in that case, as is paid to "volunteers" from the red cross, FEMA, ARES, & others is perfectly appropropriate.

JohnKachenmeister

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 17, 2007, 06:34:02 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on January 16, 2007, 07:47:53 PM
Exactly.

They have to prioritize officer assignments becuase the Army and Marines are getting a greater share of the personnel slots.

All these are reasons why, if we could do it legally, a plan for CAP private pilots to operate UAV's would have a big effect on the Air Force and our war effort.

Maybe we wouldn't need to get a legislative change.  Maybe we could just re-define "Combat."

The last time I was in "Combat," the North Vietnamese Army was actively trying to kill me, I was in a country other than the United States, I didn't have to pay taxes, and I got a medal just for making it there on the MAC charter (MAC... Dating my combat experience!)  None of these conditions would be present at a CONUS Air Force Base from which the UAV would be operated. 

Maybe flying that bad boy could be re-defined as "Support?"   

Sure! Let's just redefine combat and extend the Geneva Conventions protection to a bunch of civillians. I'm sure that'll have no reprocussions on the world at large what so ever. Even better when you consider that you're just doing it so that a bunch of CAP volunteers can feel better about themselves. Or... maybe we should just let the military folk do the military jobs and we could stick to other things, like search and rescue, disaster relief, cadet programs, homeland security, counterdrug operations, and aerospace education... wow... for a bunch of volunteers we don't do so bad, do we?

Sir, if you are still stuck in Vietnam, which I'm beginning to think you may be, please seek therapy. If not, please understand that CAP isn't the military and it isn't a combat organization and that we don't get paid and that more than half of us are minors and half of who are left over are over 65.

George:

I used my own experience in combat merely to illustrate how actual combat differs from operating a UAV half a planet away from hostile fire.  The purpose of my illustration was to suggest that traditional thinking about the combat-combat support-combat service support continuum may need some re-thinking in the light of technological advances.

I do not understand your references to the "Civilian" status of the Civil Air Patrol and the Geneva Convention.  One of my former assignments in the Army was on the general staff of the 300th Military Police Command, which was at the time the Army's doctrinal proponent for all prisoner of war operations.  As such I was required to develop a rather intimate knowledge of the provisions of the Geneva Convention as it pertains to the combatant status of beligerents.

CAP does not fall into any internationally-recognized non-combatant status under the Geneva Convention.  This may be difficult for you to understand, since Congress has specifically restricted CAP to supporting the non-combat missions of the Air Force.  Such a designation, under the Convention, is meaningless.  The only persons in CAP who fall into a non-combatant class of persons are the chaplains and under certain conditions, medical personnel.

CAP, as a uniformed auxiliary of the Air Force, would fall into the category of "Militia and other irregular forces," under the G.C., and as such are considered combatants.

I hate to break the news to you, George, but under the G.C. you are a "Legitimate target."

And if I need therapy at all, it is because of my time as a captain on a general staff.  In Vietnam I was allowed to shoot back.
Another former CAP officer

aveighter

Quote from: afgeo4 on January 17, 2007, 06:34:02 AM

Sure! Let's just redefine combat and extend the Geneva Conventions protection to a bunch of civillians. I'm sure that'll have no reprocussions on the world at large what so ever. Even better when you consider that you're just doing it so that a bunch of CAP volunteers can feel better about themselves. Or... maybe we should just let the military folk do the military jobs and we could stick to other things, like search and rescue, disaster relief, cadet programs, homeland security, counterdrug operations, and aerospace education... wow... for a bunch of volunteers we don't do so bad, do we?

Sir, if you are still stuck in Vietnam, which I'm beginning to think you may be, please seek therapy. If not, please understand that CAP isn't the military and it isn't a combat organization and that we don't get paid and that more than half of us are minors and half of who are left over are over 65.

You have convinced me I have been in error.  I used to read your posts with interest.  But this eruption of disrespectful filth is the defining characteristic of a weak and venal man and a disgrace to the uniform I hope you don't actually wear.