CAP-USAF Completes realignment from Holm Center to 1AF

[Eclipse]

Bob, there is a world of difference between the mindset of AETC and the mindset of ACC.
AETC is a training organization, ACC is an organization that actually accomplishes the mission.

What, exactly is "the mission", and which part isn't being accomplished that would be
with additional RAPs or other at-cost personnel.

I know of lots of things not getting done, or which are little more than cursory attention, few, if any,
that could be accomplished properly with non-volunteer personnel.

[Nick]

Why, the mission to fly, fight, and win in air, space, and cyberspace, of course. It's right there in the brochure.

Go poll the national membership and see how their relationship is with local Air Force (and other branches) installations. Chances are it's very spotty across the board. Why is that? Because we have one ADO for like every 3 states. Who is supposed to facilitate that type of effort? The CAP-USAF IMAs. All this talk about base and facility access being complained about on here is an example of what they do--a blue suiter going to talk with big blue about the needs of the organization at the field level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

Why, the mission to fly, fight, and win in air, space, and cyberspace, of course. It's right there in the brochure.

Sorry, I missed that reading the CAP brochures.  Those missions above aren't in there.

Go poll the national membership and see how their relationship is with local Air Force (and other branches) installations. Chances are it's very spotty across the board. Why is that? Because we have one ADO for like every 3 states. Who is supposed to facilitate that type of effort? The CAP-USAF IMAs. All this talk about base and facility access being complained about on here is an example of what they do--a blue suiter going to talk with big blue about the needs of the organization at the field level.

Base and facility access are "nice to haves" that don't really mean much to the core mission, especially if you don't have a base in your proximity, and despite whining
here, it's not really that big a deal for most members, but fair enough.   No one is going to approve additional budget or head count so CAP members can get on base.

Anything related to CAP's mission?

[Nick]

Sorry, I missed that reading the CAP brochures.  Those missions above aren't in there.

Base and facility access are "nice to haves" that don't really mean much to the core mission, especially if you don't have a base in your proximity, and despite whining
here, it's not really that big a deal for most members, but fair enough.   No one is going to approve additional budget or head count so CAP members can get on base.

Anything related to CAP's mission?

Sorry, you asked about "the mission" in regards to the CAP-USAF program. From the Air Force perspective, that is their mission. CAP is an enabler of that mission.

And you're right, in and of itself base access is a nice to have. Until you are a unit seeking to have a meeting location, or a national activity seeking a place to conduct that activity (speaking from personal experience), then it rapidly promotes from a nice to have to necessity.

I think you're missing the big picture of these implications though. We're talking about sustaining the CAP relationship with the Air Force, and how important it is to have manpower to go out and press the flesh with local leaders to gain their support of CAP activities and programs. This isn't something a volunteer can do; it says so in both our regs and AF regs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eclipse]

Sorry, you asked about "the mission" in regards to the CAP-USAF program. From the Air Force perspective, that is their mission. CAP is an enabler of that mission.

No, I actually asked about how ACC could justify additional head count and budget when the primary role of CAP-USAF and the RAPS has been marginalized
over the past decade due to apathy by CAP and budget issues within the USAF.

CAP-USAF's mission is not to support the USAF, its primary role is oversight of the Congressional Appropriation in CAP executing its unique, non-combatant role.
The mission(s) for CAP-USAF, still located on the Holm's Center page, indicate it is centered on oversight of CAP.  You can argue that will change with ACC,
however 10-2701, including the sections added in July of this year, all discuss oversight, inspections, and suspensions of missions.

Sure, on some level most of CAP A & B Missions are in support of the USAF, but again, only on the macro level of the USAF passing down
a mission (some SAR) to CAP via AFRCC.  That's more of a "we don't do domestic / non-defense" situation then CAP or CAP-USAF "supporting" ACC's role.

Heck, 1/3rd to 1/2 of the mission, depending on how you slice it, doesn't even fall under 1AF or ACC (other then in the most macro perspective).  CAP
has caused its own problems in that regard by selectively stressing the "corporate" universe any time the military part becomes too hard to sustain or makes people sad.

And you're right, in and of itself base access is a nice to have. Until you are a unit seeking to have a meeting location, or a national activity seeking a place to conduct that activity (speaking from personal experience), then it rapidly promotes from a nice to have to necessity.

Sounds good on a white paper, fails when compared to reality.

There's only ~59 USAF bases left in this country, with another ~54 Air Guard and USAF Reserve centers, many of the latter are part-time only
facilities that are quiet many days of the month.  Due to cutbacks, BRAC, and other initiatives and challenges, the bases
left are either packed to the gills or being considered for downsizing.

Many of those left don't have the facilities to host encampments or activities of any notable scale. My wing, for example,
has a major command USAF base which is very generous to CAP, but is actually small in the grande scheme and does
not have the kind of resources needed for large-scale CAP activities.

It is also located, as many are, away from population centers and therefore generally a poor, expensive choice for exercises.

Should we be getting more support from USAF installations, certainly? But saying that doesn't materialize the resources or manpower to
make that happen, nor grow facilities in areas they are most useful.  Not to mention that CAP units located on military facilities
sound like a great idea at the time, but many turn out to be far more trouble then they are worth when you consider recruiting,
access, and the general "if the world gets exciting, we may be in Jim's basement..." issues.

This situation evolved over a 20+ year period, and isn't likely to be fixed with a few RAPs or IMAs making phone calls.
The motor pools, aircraft, and people simply don't exist anymore to provide CAP with the resources people think
they remember getting access to on a regular basis (even though it was really just that "one time").

A big chunk of the military has been outsourced, and those people don't work for free - mess halls are run by PSCI, Source One, Good Will,
and other similar companies, transportation is done with private bus companies and commercial airlines, and the phones
in a lot of offices just go to voice mail during the week on a lot of bases.

Between 2008 and 2013, the GAO reported that the DOD demolished or decommissioned over 62 million Square feet of
unused facilities, plus another $1B in facilities not measured in square footage.   Look on Google Earth and you'll see a
lof of empty squares or condos where Airmen and soldiers used to train and live, not to mention CAP units met.  Those aren't coming back.

I think you're missing the big picture of these implications though. We're talking about sustaining the CAP relationship with the Air Force, and how important it is to have manpower to go out and press the flesh with local leaders to gain their support of CAP activities and programs. This isn't something a volunteer can do; it says so in both our regs and AF regs.

Local military leaders?  Fair enough.

Local "everything else leaders"?  No, that's the volunteer's lane, the fact that it's not being done notwithstanding.

[Mitchell 1969]

OK, so USAF is smaller. Facilities are fewer and more spread out. Meanwhile, in Canada, RCAC is everywhere, with even less local military support. What are they doing that CAP is not?

[Eclipse]

OK, so USAF is smaller. Facilities are fewer and more spread out. Meanwhile, in Canada, RCAC is everywhere, with even less local military support. What are they doing that CAP is not?

RCAC is smaller by ~2/3rds in the number of locations, they have no operational component or adult program, and they have about 100 planes total between gliders and powered. They have about 23k members, so after breaking out the adults, less cadets then CAP, though I would hazard their
"empty shirt contingent" is significantly lower.

A worthy program, but not one which compares easily to CAP except in the most general terms.

CAP's lack of clear mission and "divided loyalty" between the adult operational program and the cadet program are
two of its biggest liabilities.

Many of our most effective members joined first for operations and moved into supporting cadets, but that doesn't change the fact that
their time and attention is divided at best and there are only so many hours in a month and weekends in a year.

That week at NESA is a week not at an encampment or family vacation. "I only get one kitchen pass a year."
Boy Scout and RCAC leaders don't have to make that choice.

Externally similar organizations like the BSA don't have the pressure of operational readiness, nor the nightmarish
administrivia that comes with it.  Most members "come, do, and leave", without concern for SUIs, inventories, or staff meetings,
because the "staff" are non-members of the committees that do that work for them.

All part of the puzzle.

All solved with people and planning.

[Spaceman3750]

That week at NESA is a week not at an encampment or family vacation.

I like to think that NESA (GSAR at least) serves both the emergency services mission, and the cadet programs mission in a very unique way.

But you're right. The solution is more people, and following that the elimination of double hatting as a norm.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I like to think that NESA (GSAR at least) serves both the emergency services mission, and the cadet programs mission in a very unique way.

But is still a week away from family or "other" CAP activities.

[Spaceman3750]

I like to think that NESA (GSAR at least) serves both the emergency services mission, and the cadet programs mission in a very unique way.

But is still a week away from family or "other" CAP activities.

Yes it is. Which is why the next line was "but you're right."