Change to Title 10 For CAP

[Hotel 179]

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,

[lordmonar]

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 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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

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.

[ZigZag911]

  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]

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]

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]

...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]

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.

[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. 

[sandman]

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?

[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!

[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

[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.

[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).

[JohnKachenmeister]

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.

[A.Member]

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). 

[RiverAux]

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.

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.