Benefits of CAP Moving from Air University to Air National Guard

[Guardrail]

I know it has been discussed here that CAP's command affiliation move from Air University to the Air National Guard.  What would the benefits of this be?

[mikeylikey]

I really never saw any benefits.  However, if you were to recommend a move from AU to say another Command of the Active Duty AF I would be all ears.

[afgeo4]

Please remember that CAP wouldn't be placed under any specific National Guard, just under the Bureau. That bureau doesn't have anything standardized. It's just a way for all the commanders of air components of each state to meet and resolve major issues that affect them all and the ANG's integration into the total force concept, aka Air Force.

I think it would make more sense to place us under the AFRES Command. At least they deal with things on a federal level. To tell you the truth, I see no problem with AETC. I just wish we reported directly to the Commander of AETC and not to Air Univ. 

Speaking of... why not advocate being a direct reporting unit to HQ/USAF?  The USAFA is. Why not CAP?  Title 10 states we're under discretion of the SECAF, not the joint chiefs of staff or the chief of staff of the air force... We should answer directly to the SECAF.

[JohnKachenmeister]

A couple of advantages come to mind:

The ANG and CAP both have dual identities.  The ANG can be called out in its federal role under Title 10, and so can we.  The ANG can be (but seldom is) called out by the governor in its Title 32 role, and is paid out of state funds.  We can be activated under Title 36, by states, local comunities, and NGO's, provided there is a pre-existing agreement.  For this reason, placing our Title 36 primarily under control of the state seems a good fit.

Disaster relief is a state function, unless it is of a scale to be delared a federal disaster.  The TAG of the state is responsible for military forces deployed to attenuate the disaster.  Placing CAP under the AG is consistent with the principle of Unity of Command.

If CAP is acting on behalf of the state in its Title 36 role, the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to us.

We may qualify for certain employment protections under state laws.  In some states, we already do.

Nothing prevents the federal govt. from calling CAP out in its Title 10 role, as they do now for AFAM's.

Access to armories for meetings and ANG bases for positioning of aircraft would be enhanced.

Some wings would benefit more than others.  Texas, Florida, California, the midwest would frequently call out their light plane assets for disasters, I'm sure.  Rhode Island, however, hasn't had a disaster since the British left.  Colorado already places the CAP wing under the TAG, and worked seamlessly conducting rescue operations in their recent winter disaster.  They were initially called out by the Gov. under Title 36, then funded under Title 10 after the federal disaster declaration.  Then they went back under Title 36 when the mission shifted to feeding livestock rather than rescuing people.

CAP worked by flying the major highways looking for stranded motorists, and calling a central air operations base for a helicopter. Coordination was exquisite, in that it even include direct aircraft-to-aircraft communications.  CAP had the capability to directly contact ground units of the state and local police and sheriffs, but were directed in an OPORD to limit direct communication to emergencies, due to frequency congestion.  CAP also flew over open territory to locate cattle herds, then called for heavy lift support to bring food in to them.  That made the most efficient use of the more costly heavy lift, by accomplishing the recon with Skyhawks and Skylanes.

We done good there.  That's the advantage of a command affiliation with the NG.

[Dragoon]

What he said.

NG is a quasi federal military entity that doesn much of their work locally.  Just like us.  And they do a lot of the same work that we are interested in doing.  We can help them out a lot.

Big USAF drops bombs on foreign countries for a living.  We will always be a minor sideline player to them.

[Major_Chuck]

I guess the real benefit is in the similarity at times of the mission.  Both CAP and Guard serve their local communities and commonwealths where AF is a instrument of the Federal government.

I've seen more local support at Guard Armories and Air Guard Bases for CAP then out of the active duty component.  (Not saying that Active Duty does not support CAP...they do.  I just see more out of the hometown guys.)

[Major_Chuck]

And another thought....The Guard Folks have actually taken an interest in what we can bring to the table in any type of mission they are tasked with.  They're looking at how to do more with less as well.  CAP for them is a multiplier where for the Active component they really don't know what to do with us.

[Hawk200]

And another thought....The Guard Folks have actually taken an interest in what we can bring to the table in any type of mission they are tasked with.  They're looking at how to do more with less as well.  CAP for them is a multiplier where for the Active component they really don't know what to do with us.

Iowa Wing seems to be the proving ground for this too. If the Guard across the country gets the idea that we're golden, they may show more interest.

[Dragoon]

As mentioned, Colorado is tightly tied to the Guard.  Maryland seems to be going that way.

[RiverAux]

I've yet to see any evidence that this would work any better than "tying yourself" to the state emergency mgt agency (or whatever they call it).  Don't see why the NG needs to be in the middle.  During certain operations you need to work together but otherwise I just don't see it UNLESS you are able to talk them out of all the free housing on a monthly basis like Iowa did. 

[Dragoon]

The state emergency management agency has no national presence, and is not part of DoD, isn't connected to the USAF military, and has no federal HLS missions.

The National Guard Bureau has all of this.  Plus airforce planes, bases, training facilities....and a great interest in our cadet program because it can get them new recruits.

[RiverAux]

my mistake, I thought we were also assuming one of the other proposals floating around that CAP would get integrated into the NG at the local level. 

At the federal level, there is no question in my mind that we should be under 1st AF as DNALL has proposed since they are actually the ones that run all the AF HLS missions.  Why not work directly for the boss rather than for some underling that may or may not get asked to be involved. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

RA:

The advantage of affiliation with the NG is the fact that we can work both the federal and state sides of the funding aisle, just like the NG does now.

Federal missions under totle 10 would be tasked from 1AF through TAG.  SAR missions would be tasked directly from AFRCC.  State funded missions under Title 36 would come direct from TAG when authorized by the Governor for local disasters.

[RiverAux]

The advantage of affiliation with the NG is the fact that we can work both the federal and state sides of the funding aisle, just like the NG does now.

An advantage that is currently fully available to all CAP Wings now with our current structure. 

SAR missions would be tasked directly from AFRCC.

Assuming the state wants to give them to CAP. 

State funded missions under Title 36 would come direct from TAG when authorized by the Governor for local disasters.

Why would the state want to pay for them?  One call and they can get an AFAM for any SAR or natural disaster.  The AF is extremely free with paying for CAP to be used for these sorts of ES missions.  Most non-AF missions are probably being conducted in non-emergency fields like wildlife surveys. 

[Dragoon]

Why would the state want to pay for them?  One call and they can get an AFAM for any SAR or natural disaster.  The AF is extremely free with paying for CAP to be used for these sorts of ES missions.  Most non-AF missions are probably being conducted in non-emergency fields like wildlife surveys. 

Because for disasters, Big Daddy Air Force won't pay until the state certifies that they have exhausted all local resources.

That's why we're always involved in Presidential disasters, but don't always get the smaller ones, like snowstorms and local flooding.  There's a hassle factor to go through.

But states have no problem call out the Guard at the drop of a hat.  And if we were part of the Guard...

[afgeo4]

I think the difference between how we are treated by the active duty vs. ANG components of the Air Force is a window not onto CAP, but onto the way the USAF has implemented the total force concept. In reality, the ANG is not an equally lead, financed, and trained organization as the active duty or the reserve.

NY is very tight with ANG as well (the groups that are near ANG bases). There are a few missions we do for them here including flying support for Operations Groups (TACP) during their trainings. Every unit has a different relationship with their bases, it depends on both commanders, but there are strong relationships. I thought it was only natural because we have 0 active duty bases and only 1 reserve station in NY. The only Air Force we have is the Guard. I assumed that relationship existed for CAP units cohabitating with active duty as well. I guess I was wrong.

But... do we really want to fall under a "bastard child" organization within the Air Force that never gets its share of funding to begin with? I think it will only cause us further distancing from the active duty component and HQ component of the USAF which will lead to cut down in mission, training, and every day funding.

I propose us becoming a direct reporting unit to HQ/USAF in Washington and not fall under any other organization.

[RiverAux]

Because for disasters, Big Daddy Air Force won't pay until the state certifies that they have exhausted all local resources.

Not true at all.  We've done at least two DR missions lately that didn't require anything more than the normal AFRCC mission request.  And these were in the realm of fairly minor disasters.  Same as with local missing persons missions. 

You may be correct as to the the theory of how the fed government gets involved, but its certainly not working like that in my area.  If the state calls, the AF has been okaying the mission. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

George:

Your ANG situation in NY may be unique.  It has been my experience that NG/Reserve training is just about identical when considering the federal mission.

How would we get more missions, considering CAP overall, attached to HQ USAF?

Attached to the NG, the state could give us state-funded missions, and the USAF would continue to give us the Title 10 missions we get now.  Colo. Wing is under the NG now, and was called up during their recent series of blizzards under Title 36 by the state.  It became a Title 10 mission when the disaster was a federally-declared disaster, then the Colo Wing went back under Title 36 for the state to spot herds of starving beef cattle for air-drops of feed.  All that time they were under the operational control of the Adjutant General.

Under your plan, we could be farmed out to the state by HQ USAF, but with every change of funding source, our chain of command would change.  That's no way to run an air force.  Officers study the principle of Unity of Command for a reason.  

In World War II the German Hermann Goering Division was a panzer division, but assigned to the Luftwaffe.  During the Anzio landings, the Goering division attacked American troops, inflicting heavy losses.  But since the division was not under Wehrmacht command, it did not operate in concert with other German forces, the Americans were able to overwhelm the division and break out of the Anzio beachhead.

Don't be "Fat Herman."  Unity of Command means that all military forces assigned to accomplish a given mission should remain under a single commander.  

[RiverAux]

Evidently there was a big fight yesterday in the committee studying Guard and Reserve issues, partly over making the head of the NGB a 4-star member of the Joint Chiefs.  The bigger issue, and the one applicable to this discussion, was making the National Guard Bureau entirely separate from the Army and the Air Force.  This didn't seem to have a lot of support, but if it were to happen it would eliminate whatever few advantages there are now to having CAP under the NGB as opposed to some part of the AF. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I didn't hear about the fight, and I do not understand how the NGB would work as a co-equal branch of service.  It doesn't make sense to me.

How about the federal reserve forces?  Do they get their own branch, too?

 

[RiverAux]

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/01/TNSGuardempower070130/

[Gunner C]

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/01/TNSGuardempower070130/

I was reading through this and found it interesting.  First, I believe the NEC has a committee that is exploring closer ties with NGB and the state TAGs.  I don't know what the state of that is nor do I know if the intent is to take us out from under AU.

I also know that there are several TAGs that are actively trying to get closer ties with CAP.  They see us as a logical force mulitiplier, especially when their forces are deployed out of the state.  There is much to gain with closer ties with the Guard.

[SAR-EMT1]

So I was wondering what the exact relationship is between the state Guards and CAP wings. AE: does Colorado or Iowa have a NG Officer Liason or a CAP member on the TAG staff or what?

Second question (sideline) Why dont we wear the AU command patch on our Flightsuits?

[Cecil DP]

Evidently there was a big fight yesterday in the committee studying Guard and Reserve issues, partly over making the head of the NGB a 4-star member of the Joint Chiefs.  The bigger issue, and the one applicable to this discussion, was making the National Guard Bureau entirely separate from the Army and the Air Force.  This didn't seem to have a lot of support, but if it were to happen it would eliminate whatever few advantages there are now to having CAP under the NGB as opposed to some part of the AF. 

My understanding was that the proposal to make the NG Director a 4 star and a seat on the JCS was already set in stone and will take effect with the New Defense Bill goes into effect.

[wingnut]

CAWG has moved on to a Air National Guard Base, they are wonderful people, giving CAWG all the room they need, two buildings. It is a smart move for CAP to become more involved with the Guard. I sincerely believe that CAP as it is now being managed, a State by State run organization. The AFRCC calls on Air Guard Search and Rescue aircraft all the time, so whats the difference, the Guard Bills the AFRCC for what they do, everyone bills each other for what they do, its how they keep track of what is going on.

I guess my point is that John is right, CAP is more a part of the State Guard than active duty Air Force. But !! if you had paid attention to the Navy times article, its all about control. The truth is the DOD has spent so much money on very expensive useless weapon systems, that when they needed "Boots" they sucked up the Guard, yet they treat the Guard poorly. I believe that most of NORAD is Air Guard Units on 24-7 alerts, so whats the difference?  Civil Air Patrol Air Crews on
2-4 hour  availability (At least thats the plan)

[JohnKachenmeister]

So I was wondering what the exact relationship is between the state Guards and CAP wings. AE: does Colorado or Iowa have a NG Officer Liason or a CAP member on the TAG staff or what?

Second question (sideline) Why dont we wear the AU command patch on our Flightsuits?

If you look at the website of the Colorado Adjutant General's Department, you will find that CAP is a co-equal agency under the AG, alongside the Army and Air Guard.  The CO Wing commander reports directly to the AG in operational matters.

[mikeylikey]

CAP needs to move from AU.  We need to be a player sitting under a true operational arm of the AF. 

[wingnut]

anyone hear of the rumors that we are moving towards NorthCom, 1st AF, and NORAD. Less Air University??

[RiverAux]

Operationally we've been working for NorthCom and 1st AF for a few years.

[AlphaSigOU]

Second question (sideline) Why dont we wear the AU command patch on our Flightsuits?

'Cause we already have our own emblem. Even though we fall under the USAF oversight umbrella of AU and AETC, we're still a private, non-profit corporation, sometimes acting as the USAF auxiliary. Remember that our relationship with Ma Blue ain't as tight as the Coasties and their Auxies.

[wingnut]

Actually we are not a "Private" non-Profit, I believe we are a Federally Chartered Corporation like the Federal Reserve, you know, we are just "Different", and on an AFAM we are a "Volunteer Federal Employee", with benefits if injured or killed???

Oh yes we do get the Federal "Per Diem" rate for over nighters. In addition when I use my car for an ELT DF, my car is an official "US Government Asset??? (So my Insurance Company tells me) and because of that when I drive my car on a DF mission I am not covered by the private insurance but hopefully 'Federal Government Coverage" (If the IC entered it into the WIMR correctly.

But I could be confused, I was up till Midnight auditing 108s

[mikeylikey]

Actually we are not a "Private" non-Profit, I believe we are a Federally Chartered Corporation like the Federal Reserve, you know, we are just "Different", and on an AFAM we are a "Volunteer Federal Employee", with benefits if injured or killed???

There were some updates and CHANGES to our Insurance and FED Benefits.  It is located in E-services.  Everyone should take a look. 

WE do get compensated as GS-9 Step 1 (or at least our families do) if we are killed on an AFAM.  In the end though, the FED will pay way under what they say they will becasue of Social Security, and perhaps an individuals insurance.  The Guidance provided is somewhat confusing, as I am sure they intended it to be.  Personally, they should pay at a higher rate than GS-9, 10 or better would be fitting. 

[Dragoon]

If I ran the world, I'd transfer CAP and the CONUS SAR mission to NGB in a heartbeat.

Basically, they're the CONUS - based force.  They do more of the DR work anyway.  Just hand 'em AFRCC (along with the slots) and make each TAG responsible for SAR in their state.

They'd dump it on CAP anyway, just on a Wing by Wing basis.

Result for us - closer ties to the state forces and the state legislature (who really run our daily lives anyway).  Less need for local MOUs (we work for the TAGs and do what they want.  More support from the Guard (who are in a lot more communities accross this country than federal USAF).  More ties to the Guard's HLS missions.  More local disaster work (because even if AFNSEP doesn't fund, it would be a snap to get the Guard to take us along when they're mobilized for local disasters).

And we can still do federal stuff, just like the guard does now.  So we pick up state support without losing the federal support.

Basically, most CAP work is local.  Better to be tied to the more "local" part of USAF, than the part that's focused on bombing Afghanistan.  We'd be more relevant to the guard.

[Capt Rivera]

Could you link me to this... I can't find it...

If you look at the website of the Colorado Adjutant General's Department, you will find that CAP is a co-equal agency under the AG, alongside the Army and Air Guard.  The CO Wing commander reports directly to the AG in operational matters.

[sardak]

It's under the Colorado Department of Military and Veterans Affairs:

http://www.dmva.state.co.us/page/home

Kach is correct. COWG and the previous TAG, who retired this year, had a very good working relationship.

CAP is also specified in the State Emergency Operations Plan in three annexes:

ESF #2 Communications
ESF#5 Emergency Management
ESF #9 Search and Rescue

Mike

[sardak]

Not that it matters now, but there was a similar thread to this back in March that got no response. 
http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=1676.0

The committee link and the full report are available here:
http://www.cngr.gov/resource-center.CNGR-reports.asp

It makes for interesting reading.

Mike

[Capt Rivera]

thanks guys

[CadetProgramGuy]

Snip

Iowa have a NG Officer Liason or a CAP member on the TAG staff or what? 

Iowa - NG Officer Liason:  Yes we do, Although I will get this wrong, I believe it if the Office of Civilian Support (isuhawkeye can fill you in for sure)

And the IAWG Government Liason sits in on the TAG's weekly meeting.

as I said either isuhawkeye or Lt Col Nick Critelli has the details you are looking for.

[NAYBOR]

Totally outside of what CAP missions would be, a question--would CAP officers then hold state commissions, along with NG commissions of some sort (for CAP's Title 10 status)?  How would rank in the CAP work, if CAP would essentially be run by the state TAGs?

Would CAP members be then eligible to wear state ribbons and awards?

How would all of THAT work?

[ddelaney103]

Totally outside of what CAP missions would be, a question--would CAP officers then hold state commissions, along with NG commissions of some sort (for CAP's Title 10 status)?  How would rank in the CAP work, if CAP would essentially be run by the state TAGs?

Would CAP members be then eligible to wear state ribbons and awards?

How would all of THAT work?

I don't see anything, except maybe the ribbons, changing because of this.  We don't need Commissions to do our jobs now.  We often operate under MOU's with the states now and don't require the TAG to command us.

[Dragoon]

Exactly, just because your organization (CAP) has the same boss as another organization (say, State Guard) doesn't mean there has to be any kind of reciprocity of rank or authority between the parts.

As long as ICS is followed for incident management, there's no need to specify the generic authority of a Guardsman over a CAPer, or visa versa.  No need for commissions of any sort.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Totally outside of what CAP missions would be, a question--would CAP officers then hold state commissions, along with NG commissions of some sort (for CAP's Title 10 status)?  How would rank in the CAP work, if CAP would essentially be run by the state TAGs?

Would CAP members be then eligible to wear state ribbons and awards?

How would all of THAT work?

I don't see anything, except maybe the ribbons, changing because of this.  We don't need Commissions to do our jobs now.  We often operate under MOU's with the states now and don't require the TAG to command us.

How I would make this work:

1.  Place NHQ as a subordinate HQ under the Air National Guard.  (This is an Air Force Command, NOT the National Guard Bureau)

2.  Assign all wings, as they are now, under NHQ.

3.  Place each wing under the Operational Control of the Adjutant General, or Asst Adj. Gen for Air, if so desired by the AG.

4.  Eliminate Regions.

5.  NHQ would directly control cadet programs and AE.  TAG's would be relieved of responsibility for the cadet program, which would assure nationwide standardization.  (At least as much as we have now).

6.  The TAG would control the CAP Wing exactly as Air National Guard units are controlled now...  The Governor could call up CAP assets in a disaster, and the Federal taskings would come either through the TAG or in the case of SAR missions, directly to the involved Wing.  Just like the AF can directly activate an ANG fighter unit to intercept a target, and just as the AF can call up a C-130 out of the Guard for a transport mission.

7.  Commissions would be nice.  Access to Guard bases and training facilities would be nice.  Job protection under state laws when on state callups would also be nice.

[Dragoon]

Does every state have an Air Guard presence?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Does every state have an Air Guard presence?

I think so.

But if they don't now, they would under the plan described above!

[RiverAux]

Personally, I would see this as increasing the chances that CAP would be cut out of more missions rather than helping us in any way.  If TAG is getting the calls from AFRCC he is much more likely to activate various National Guard units to respond than CAP.  Just look at the relucactance of many states to use their own State Defense Forces and you'll get a glimpse of CAP under operational control of the National Guard. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Some TAGs will be reluctant to spend State money to give CAP missions.  In the case of a mission generated by AFRCC, it would directly activate the Wing involved, and not come through TAG.  The TAG would not have a choice on Federal missions, since CAP would be funded under Title 10.

Non-Federal missions would be dependent on two things:  1.  Available state funds, or 2.  Available local funds or funds from supported NGO's.  This is the case currently.

The biggest change that I see is that State AG's would control the process to authorize missions, rather than the current convoluted system now.  This would push the approval authority well down the food chain, and closer to home. 

[Dragoon]

I'd love to see USAF pawn the entire CONUS SAR mission on the guard.  Give 'em AFRCC.  After all, it's a Homeland Mission - give it to the homeland guys. 

[Dragoon]

Personally, I would see this as increasing the chances that CAP would be cut out of more missions rather than helping us in any way.  If TAG is getting the calls from AFRCC he is much more likely to activate various National Guard units to respond than CAP.  Just look at the relucactance of many states to use their own State Defense Forces and you'll get a glimpse of CAP under operational control of the National Guard. 

He's not going to activate guardsmen if AFRCC tells him they're only reimbursing him for fuel at less than $100 and hour, and he's got to cover all the salaries and other costs out of his state budget.

Nah, we're cheap.  We'll get the work.  As long as we can actually get it done.

The reason many states don't want to do much with SDFs is that many SDFs have nonexistent or lousy track records at actually getting things done.  As long as CAP performs, it'll get used.  If it can't perform - it doesn't deserve to be used.

[RiverAux]

I'm sorry, but this whole idea has never made any sense to me and I've never seen any advantage in it over the current system for the CAP, the NG, or the AF.  

[ddelaney103]

I'm sorry, but this whole idea has never made any sense to me and I've never seen any advantage in it over the current system for the CAP, the NG, or the AF. 

The main reason to do it is we're a local force and we should be more closely associated with the "local Air Force."

I think the CG and CGAUX mesh well is because the local base commander has work that needs to be done nearby, where the AUX can do it.  When you're the commander of a Minuteman missile wing, "What can CAP do for me?" is a much tougher question.

With the Guard, there are a lot more "local tasks" because you're a part of the Disaster Relief network.  You're also going to hear from the state gov't since their boss is your boss.  Having some unpaid professionals at your beck and call may take some work off your plate while you're dealing with ponying up bodies for the GWOT.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Advantages:

1.  Unity of Command in disasters.  The AG is the commander of all State Military Forces in a disaster.  CAP, not being a "State" force, contracts with EOC's for DR work.  That means that the AG controls the rotary-wing and heavy-lift air assets, but not the light, fixed-wing recon assets.  This results in either duplication or confusion.  ALL requests for air support should come into a single air operations commander, and he then determines which asset is best suited to the need.

2.  Simplicity.  Instead of myriad MOU's, we would work for a single entity with respect to non-federal missions.  All requests for CAP, other than emergency requests from AFRCC, would go through the TAG.  If a city wanted CAP planes for drug interdiction, they would request them from the state.  Either the state or the city would fund the mission.  Title 10 missions would get priority over non-federal missions.

3.  Member benefits.  As CAP would be a NG asset, we would fall under state laws protecting re-employment rights on state-funded missions.

4.  Unit benefits.  Access to armories and ANG bases for meetings would be easier.

5.  On state-funded missions, the Posse Comitatus Act would not be an issue.

[RiverAux]

1.  Unity of Command in disasters.  The AG is the commander of all State Military Forces in a disaster.  CAP, not being a "State" force, contracts with EOC's for DR work.  That means that the AG controls the rotary-wing and heavy-lift air assets, but not the light, fixed-wing recon assets.  This results in either duplication or confusion.  ALL requests for air support should come into a single air operations commander, and he then determines which asset is best suited to the need.

Problem already solved --- ICS system will have Air National Guard, Army National Guard, state police, etc. air assets working under one Air Operations Branch.  No need to have CAP under Air Guard to get the benefits of unity of command. 

2.  Simplicity.  Instead of myriad MOU's, we would work for a single entity with respect to non-federal missions.  All requests for CAP, other than emergency requests from AFRCC, would go through the TAG.  If a city wanted CAP planes for drug interdiction, they would request them from the state.  Either the state or the city would fund the mission.  Title 10 missions would get priority over non-federal missions.

No, as far as the state is concerned we would still be a non-profit corporation unless we are on an AFAM.  Right now there is only 1 MOU with the state -- with the state emergency management agency.  All requests for CAP assistance go through them from city, county, or state officials to the NOC.  Simplicity already achieved. 

3.  Member benefits.  As CAP would be a NG asset, we would fall under state laws protecting re-employment rights on state-funded missions.

Those laws very explicitly are for members of the National Guard.  We will not be considered National Guard members so they will not apply to us.  And as some states have already proven, you don't need to be affilitated with the NG to get some of these same rights.  A state by state campaign to change these laws would be necessary. 

4.  Unit benefits.  Access to armories and ANG bases for meetings would be easier.

Already have potential access to these.  No advantage. 

5.  On state-funded missions, the Posse Comitatus Act would not be an issue.

I already believe that PCA doesn't apply to CAP members under any circumstances whether on AFAM or non-AFAM missions, but that is a minority view.  I believe the majority would say that you would need to change some federal laws to more fully separate us from the AF to make this the case. 

[Dragoon]

2.  Simplicity.  Instead of myriad MOU's, we would work for a single entity with respect to non-federal missions.  All requests for CAP, other than emergency requests from AFRCC, would go through the TAG.  If a city wanted CAP planes for drug interdiction, they would request them from the state.  Either the state or the city would fund the mission.  Title 10 missions would get priority over non-federal missions.

No, as far as the state is concerned we would still be a non-profit corporation unless we are on an AFAM.  Right now there is only 1 MOU with the state -- with the state emergency management agency.  All requests for CAP assistance go through them from city, county, or state officials to the NOC.  Simplicity already achieved. 

Not really.  There's a big difference between having an MOU sitting in a drawer somewhere and actually "belonging" to someone.  Folks simply don't treat MOU'd folks as equals - there are always questions about reimbursement, quality of response, how well will these guys work and play with my guys, etc.  So they exhaust internal resources before even THINKING about activating MOUs.

But if they are  your guys all the time, you become familiar with them.  You inspect them.  You have the authority to tell them what to focus on.

And that's how you begin to trust them.  And once you trust them, you use them.

3.  Member benefits.  As CAP would be a NG asset, we would fall under state laws protecting re-employment rights on state-funded missions.

Those laws very explicitly are for members of the National Guard.  We will not be considered National Guard members so they will not apply to us.  And as some states have already proven, you don't need to be affilitated with the NG to get some of these same rights.  A state by state campaign to change these laws would be necessary. 

Probably an easier sell when the the TAG (politically connected to the State) is stumping for you.  And easier to get him to stump for you if you are "his guys."

4.  Unit benefits.  Access to armories and ANG bases for meetings would be easier.

Already have potential access to these.  No advantage. 

Not true Nation-wide.  Around here some Guard barracks wanted to charge squadrons to hold meetings there, or give priority to the local Jazzercise class.  But if we were PART of the NG....things would get better.  Or we'd have a direct line to the boss, who happens to be their boss as well.

5.  On state-funded missions, the Posse Comitatus Act would not be an issue.

I already believe that PCA doesn't apply to CAP members under any circumstances whether on AFAM or non-AFAM missions, but that is a minority view.  I believe the majority would say that you would need to change some federal laws to more fully separate us from the AF to make this the case. 

The change in the law would be to make us an instrumentality of the Guard, not USAF.  If they did this, then most laws pertaining to the guard would apply.

[RiverAux]

[ But if they are  your guys all the time, you become familiar with them.  You inspect them.  You have the authority to tell them what to focus on.

No, we will still be a non-profit corporation.  In another very long thread on this very same issue people just don't get that unless you change the very nature of CAP, it doesn't matter who CAP reports to operationally or where we are at administratively.  If people want to propose changing a whole bunch of laws at the federal and state level so that this can happen, thats fine.  But just having TAG being the one REQUESTING CAP to respond to a mission rather than the state emergency management agency or AFRCC doesn't change anything. 

[flyguy06]

If CAP went strickly to Emergency Services. I would probably resign my membership

[JohnKachenmeister]

1.  Unity of Command in disasters.  The AG is the commander of all State Military Forces in a disaster.  CAP, not being a "State" force, contracts with EOC's for DR work.  That means that the AG controls the rotary-wing and heavy-lift air assets, but not the light, fixed-wing recon assets.  This results in either duplication or confusion.  ALL requests for air support should come into a single air operations commander, and he then determines which asset is best suited to the need.

Problem already solved --- ICS system will have Air National Guard, Army National Guard, state police, etc. air assets working under one Air Operations Branch.  No need to have CAP under Air Guard to get the benefits of unity of command. 

2.  Simplicity.  Instead of myriad MOU's, we would work for a single entity with respect to non-federal missions.  All requests for CAP, other than emergency requests from AFRCC, would go through the TAG.  If a city wanted CAP planes for drug interdiction, they would request them from the state.  Either the state or the city would fund the mission.  Title 10 missions would get priority over non-federal missions.

No, as far as the state is concerned we would still be a non-profit corporation unless we are on an AFAM.  Right now there is only 1 MOU with the state -- with the state emergency management agency.  All requests for CAP assistance go through them from city, county, or state officials to the NOC.  Simplicity already achieved. 

3.  Member benefits.  As CAP would be a NG asset, we would fall under state laws protecting re-employment rights on state-funded missions.

Those laws very explicitly are for members of the National Guard.  We will not be considered National Guard members so they will not apply to us.  And as some states have already proven, you don't need to be affilitated with the NG to get some of these same rights.  A state by state campaign to change these laws would be necessary. 

4.  Unit benefits.  Access to armories and ANG bases for meetings would be easier.

Already have potential access to these.  No advantage. 

5.  On state-funded missions, the Posse Comitatus Act would not be an issue.

I already believe that PCA doesn't apply to CAP members under any circumstances whether on AFAM or non-AFAM missions, but that is a minority view.  I believe the majority would say that you would need to change some federal laws to more fully separate us from the AF to make this the case. 

Your comment on the ICS is correct, but is not supported by law in most states.  The TAG is in command of all military assets as a matter of law.  The TAG may participate as an asset under ICS at his (or her) option. 

Placing CAP under the Air Guard at the National Level, and OPCON to TAGs at the state level will reduce our dependence on our corporate status.  We have it, and we should continue to use it when it works for us in terms of mission flexibility, but when it becomes an impediment, we should fall back on our quasi-government status, which is established under the same legal authority.  The Guard is accustomed to a dual-mission, state and federal.  Placing us, with state missions covered under a different Title of the US Code, under the National Guard seems like a very good fit.

There is a difference in having access to state armories as a matter of right vs. coming hat-in-hand as one of many community groups seeking support.

In states where they have already exercised this option, CAP members have job protection.

Colorado's response to the blizzards last winter is an interesting study.  The CAP was called up as a state asset nitially, paid by Colorado, and assigned to fly the main highways looking for stranded motorists.  They were under the command of the Guard, and rotary-wing assets were dispatched based on their call.  When the disaster was declared federal, the CAP was paid out of Title 10 funds, but there was no change in their chain-of-command.  TAG, to Wing, To IC, To crews.  After everybody was rescued, the federal funding stopped, and the CAP reverted back to state funding, and was assigned to locate herds of beef cattle so that feed could be brought to them by heavy-lift helicopters. 

Adding a bunch of civilian non-pilots from the state EOC into the mix would have been an unreasonable burden.  There was ONE NG rep to the EOC to coordinate all National Guard requests, to include requests for air support.  Air support requests would be analyzed by the air component commander, a pilot.  He would then assign the appropriate asset to the mission, fixed wing, heavy lift, rotary wing, etc.

[RiverAux]

Your comment on the ICS is correct, but is not supported by law in most states.  The TAG is in command of all military assets as a matter of law.  The TAG may participate as an asset under ICS at his (or her) option. 

Actually, TAG works for the Governor and if the Governor puts somebody else in charge of coordinating the state response TAG and any NG units that are activated will report to them. 

Given that all this is fairly new I wouldn't be surprised if this hasn't really percolated through the system yet, but if not, it soon will.  And depending on the nature of the emergency and the agencies involved anyone who has taken ICS 400 knows that there are a variety of ways of structuring the command system for a particular incident. 

For example, in the CO snowstorm you mentioned I imagine that the NG was the primary responder and it probably made sense to have all air assets working through them.  But, that isn't always going to be the case.  For example, in a major wildfire emergency the NG air assets that would be of use will probably be reporting to the Division of Forestry (whatever they call it in your state) who will be coordinating all air assets over the fire. 

[ZigZag911]

Advantages:

1.  Unity of Command in disasters.  The AG is the commander of all State Military Forces in a disaster.  CAP, not being a "State" force, contracts with Eco's for DR work.  That means that the AG controls the rotary-wing and heavy-lift air assets, but not the light, fixed-wing recon assets.  This results in either duplication or confusion.  ALL requests for air support should come into a single air operations commander, and he then determines which asset is best suited to the need.
the Posse Comitatus Act would not be an issue.

Under ICS, all air assets can be under a single air branch director even though they are from different organizations.

Your other rationales for this change have a lot of merit.

[JohnKachenmeister]

OK, let's take River's fire scenario as an example.

There is a big fire.  The Fire Fighting Guys cannot control it with available assets, including organic air assets.  The Head Fire Fighting Guy calls the governor and requests the National Guard.

The governor calls the TAG, and the TAG structures a military response.  He appoints a Task Force Commander, and that TF commander asks for certain assets.  He gets an infantry battalion to assist the Fire Fighting Guys with that level of firefighting that can be trained up quickly, freing up professional firefighters for more complex tasks.  He gets a military police unit to assist in evacuations and in traffic control, considering that some roads must be closed.  He gets an aviation battalion to sling-load in water.

IF the CAP is a part of the Guard structure, the TF commander will activate the Wing in the same manner that he just activated three battalions, and direct CAP to provide aerial recon for new fires, and to assit the MP's in maintaining road network control.  The Wing King is in on the plan from the start, and probably has already alerted his aircrew personnel.

IF the CAP is acting under the MOU with either the state or the County EMA, someone must make a decision to 1.  Review the MOU.  2.  Determine if activation is necessary.  3.  If it is a standard MOU, the EMA must first contact 1st Air Force and determine if the mission can be funded as a federal mission  4.  Determine if funding is available other than federal if the answer from 1AF is "NO."  5.  Contact the NOC for a mission number.  6.  The Wing Commander/alerting officer then appoints a CAP IC.  7.  The IC contacts the EMA to determine the scope of the mission.  8.  Wait while CAP assets are briefed and spooled up.  9.  Exercise the demobilization plan, because by the time all this has happened, the fire is out.

And you think we would get FEWER missions under the Guard?     

[RiverAux]

The NG helicopters and CAP would be reporting to the Air Ops Director, probably from the Div of Forestry.  CAP will be providing recon to them, not to the Guard. 

Under any conceivable situation, you are going to have to go through the NOC or AFRCC to activate CAP no matter what structure you've got.  The time when you could be activated under an MOU without having to go through one of those offices is long past and I don't see us going back.  CAP is not going to grant the NG the authority to call up CAP resources without their approval any more than they are to the state emergency management agencies now. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

The NG helicopters and CAP would be reporting to the Air Ops Director, probably from the Div of Forestry.  CAP will be providing recon to them, not to the Guard. 

Under any conceivable situation, you are going to have to go through the NOC or AFRCC to activate CAP no matter what structure you've got.  The time when you could be activated under an MOU without having to go through one of those offices is long past and I don't see us going back.  CAP is not going to grant the NG the authority to call up CAP resources without their approval any more than they are to the state emergency management agencies now. 

I do not concur.  With CAP OPCON to the TAG, all that would be required is for the Wing King or his designate to notify NOC.  The mission number and reimbursement would come from the TAG. 

[RiverAux]

Very, very doubtful.  You keep forgetting that lacking a major restructuring of state and federal laws and the CAP Constitution that CAP will still be in control of CAP resources.  CAP and the AF have decided to keep a very tight reign on these resources.  We once had all sorts of MOUs that granted the Wing King authority to launch missions for various state and local agencies at their request.  Those are no more and even missions specifically approved under MOUs have to go through the NOC.   

I do not see that control ever being delegated away again under any circumstances.  In my experience this has actually resulted in missions being approved by the NOC or AFRCC that probably wouldn't have been if the Wing CC had to make the hard call about whether or not it was appropriate for CAP.

[JohnKachenmeister]

The Air National Guard is an Air Force major command.  This plan does not leave CAP completely bereft of AF supervision.

In fact, since all Asst AG's for Air are also Air Force general officers, it could be argued that the Air Force is actually applying closer supervision and scrutiny to CAP operations at the Wing level.

[Dragoon]

[ But if they are  your guys all the time, you become familiar with them.  You inspect them.  You have the authority to tell them what to focus on.

No, we will still be a non-profit corporation.  In another very long thread on this very same issue people just don't get that unless you change the very nature of CAP, it doesn't matter who CAP reports to operationally or where we are at administratively.  If people want to propose changing a whole bunch of laws at the federal and state level so that this can happen, thats fine.  But just having TAG being the one REQUESTING CAP to respond to a mission rather than the state emergency management agency or AFRCC doesn't change anything. 

Actually, USAF at the federal level wields a fair amount authority over CAP through their inspection programs.  I'd assume NG would do the same.  Basically, if we didn't impress them, they wouldn't call on us.  So....we'd work hard at earning that trust.  And they'd return the favor by trusting us.

NG is set up to respond to emergencys.  They get calls we never do. They also have command centers that are pretty good a mobilizing resources.  They'd call us.

The difference is that the EMA calls when they need an asset.  But since the Guard IS an asset, they would also call when they needed augmentation.  That's something EMA doesn't think about too often, from what I've seen.  More calls, more missions, more opportunities to serve.

[mikeylikey]

I am not going to search, but does each state have an Air National Guard?  Does Puerto Rico, DC, Etc? 

Like the second poster said way back, if CAP were to move to another AF Command and NOT the NGB I would be supportive.

Why is CAP-USAF a part of AU anyway?  I can see an Office of CAP-USAF being at AU for training and whatnot, but CAP needs to be moved to a more operational level, and the Commander of CAP-USAF should be at least a 1 star. 

Lets take a play from CAP circa 1950 and move things around.  I personally would welcome an Appointed AF Brigadier General as the CAP National Commander again.

[Capt Rivera]

I am not going to search, but does each state have an Air National Guard?  Does Puerto Rico, DC, Etc? 

Like the second poster said way back, if CAP were to move to another AF Command and NOT the NGB I would be supportive.

Why is CAP-USAF a part of AU anyway?  I can see an Office of CAP-USAF being at AU for training and whatnot, but CAP needs to be moved to a more operational level, and the Commander of CAP-USAF should be at least a 1 star. 

Lets take a play from CAP circa 1950 and move things around.  I personally would welcome an Appointed AF Brigadier General as the CAP National Commander again.

I believe every state does. For sure the areas you listed do.

[Major Carrales]

With CAP under the NGB and in the service of the various States, aren't any of you concerned over how each wing will "alter" CAP to fit its structures.

I mean, imagine what could happen...

I see a CAP National Convention with 52 different uniforms based on "Regional" needs, Khaki Service Coats in the Southwest, Shorts in the more tropical areas, hosts of State Ribbons and other things (maybe even baldrics).  Where the "local/State" control and reaction time closeness many want from such a relationship reduces CAP to a loose assoication of 52 seperate Organizations.

CAP would be untilized in some states, turn solely into a cadet program in others, be more an ARMY Auxiliary in others.

A CAP Confederation would spell the end of CAP.  Once CAP is no longer the sort of Congressionally Chartered Organization and direct instrumentality of the USAF (be it in any of their direct COMMANDS); the local "tastes of CAP" will dilute its importance to the USAF and it will slowly dwindle to oblivion.

My point in this hypebole?  Think about what you want to do and be careful what you wish for.

[mikeylikey]

^ The NG in each state seems to get along OK.  They all follow AF/ Army regs fine.  CAP would be no different. 

I see where you are coming from though.  I would much rather have CAP under another AF command that is more operational than AU.

[Major Carrales]

^ The NG in each state seems to get along OK.  They all follow AF/ Army regs fine.  CAP would be no different. 

I see where you are coming from though.  I would much rather have CAP under another AF command that is more operational than AU.

I took it to ridiculous extremes only to get people thinking about what can happen in the worst case. 

How quickly people seek to jump in the pool before they even examine the liquid therein.

[Tubacap]

I'm not sure how any move would benefit us honestly.  I'm from PAWG and we have a decent working relationship with PEMA through DMVA and this happened through the work of some key people in the Ops Section.  I think Iowa has shown that we can create those relationships under our existing structure, we just need to move at the Wing level and make it happen.  We already are being used by 1st AF quite a bit, maybe moving us there would streamline things, but I don't see the paperwork.

As far as uniforms, I come from the orange hat fiefdom, I don't think it could get much more ununiform, although I'm sure people would use their imagination.

I guess it comes down to where you want to spend your time butting heads.  I'm not sure pleading with Big Blue to change our MAJCOM designation will get us more missions as much as getting the missions and then going back to our parent service and saying, "Hey, we are doing x,y, and z, we would be able to do these more efficiently and with less cost if we were under oversight by this MAJCOM."  The only benefits to this I would see would be insurance.

As far as the liquid in the pool, as long as it is not warm where I jump in and cool everywhere else, I'm ok!

[JohnKachenmeister]

With CAP under the NGB and in the service of the various States, aren't any of you concerned over how each wing will "alter" CAP to fit its structures.

I mean, imagine what could happen...

I see a CAP National Convention with 52 different uniforms based on "Regional" needs, Khaki Service Coats in the Southwest, Shorts in the more tropical areas, hosts of State Ribbons and other things (maybe even baldrics).  Where the "local/State" control and reaction time closeness many want from such a relationship reduces CAP to a loose assoication of 52 seperate Organizations.

CAP would be untilized in some states, turn solely into a cadet program in others, be more an ARMY Auxiliary in others.

A CAP Confederation would spell the end of CAP.  Once CAP is no longer the sort of Congressionally Chartered Organization and direct instrumentality of the USAF (be it in any of their direct COMMANDS); the local "tastes of CAP" will dilute its importance to the USAF and it will slowly dwindle to oblivion.

My point in this hypebole?  Think about what you want to do and be careful what you wish for.

Maj. Carrales:

I do not think that CAP would end up with more uniforms than we already have.  I also don't think that there would be very many administrative differences between wings.

But operationally, yes, you may have a point.

Some states will fly the wings off CAP planes.  Some states MAY dedicate CAP under Army command, since Army NG assets are most frequently used in disasters.   How many searches/disasters/callouts does Rhode Island have?  I don't know, but I'll bet right now that RI Wing's cadet program officer is way busier than their ES officer.  Some small wings may end up with not much more than a cadet program.

I see that as "Flexibility," and not necessarily as a bad thing.

[afgeo4]

Moving CAP under National Guard means the States would be in charge and not the Federal gov't. It means the states would have to find funding for the organization and it means the states would have the right to end the organization.

I say move us to AFSOC cuz lord knows we're "special"

But seriously... I think we'd be a much better fit if we were a direct reporting unit to HQ/USAF. That way, no MAJCOM CC would moan and grind about their funding going to us and not to their men/women. It would also mean that we could finally have generals all the way up to 4 stars which would allow our Wing CCs to be Brig Gen and Region CCs to be MajGen, the National CV to be a LtGen and the National CC to be Gen.

That would allow for Group CCs to be Colonel and Squadron CCs to be Major. No, we wouldn't advance in rank faster. We'd have more experienced commanders.

[SAR-EMT1]

Eh... maybe

On the rank issue though, I doubt CAP would ever be allowed a 4 star /CC

[Capt Rivera]

Eh... maybe

On the rank issue though, I doubt CAP would ever be allowed a 4 star /CC

The guard does not even have 4 star generals yet. to my knowledge we are fighting to have the national guard commander be a 4 star and sit with the joint chiefs of staff....

Thats grabbing at a bit much for CAP right now. unless you were talking about the CAP-USAF commander... I would love for that person to have more rank/experience and flexibility. All of the AF benefits from AU... we should need to be under its command to benefit's from it.... There are better places for us.

AU also has to FIGHT for what it gets, there seems to be that mentality that unless what you do kills someone.... lets leave you the way you are until things get really bad... being under a OPERATIONS related command gives us a "speaker" who can say this is where CAP is, this is where it could be, and this is what it needs to get there. and this is why it should be to that level by whatever date. give CAP X -  cap will give you [insert grand mission capability without sacrificing cadet & AE missions].

[JayT]

But seriously... I think we'd be a much better fit if we were a direct reporting unit to HQ/USAF. That way, no MAJCOM CC would moan and grind about their funding going to us and not to their men/women. It would also mean that we could finally have generals all the way up to 4 stars which would allow our Wing CCs to be Brig Gen and Region CCs to be MajGen, the National CV to be a LtGen and the National CC to be Gen.

That would allow for Group CCs to be Colonel and Squadron CCs to be Major. No, we wouldn't advance in rank faster. We'd have more experienced commanders.

What exactly would be the point of that?

Changing the rank structure wouldn't 'create more experienced commanders'

To quote Palaninuk

'Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.'

[Capt Rivera]

But seriously... I think we'd be a much better fit if we were a direct reporting unit to HQ/USAF. That way, no MAJCOM CC would moan and grind about their funding going to us and not to their men/women. It would also mean that we could finally have generals all the way up to 4 stars which would allow our Wing CCs to be Brig Gen and Region CCs to be MajGen, the National CV to be a LtGen and the National CC to be Gen.

That would allow for Group CCs to be Colonel and Squadron CCs to be Major. No, we wouldn't advance in rank faster. We'd have more experienced commanders.

What exactly would be the point of that?

Changing the rank structure wouldn't 'create more experienced commanders'

To quote Palaninuk

'Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.'

[afgeo4]

But seriously... I think we'd be a much better fit if we were a direct reporting unit to HQ/USAF. That way, no MAJCOM CC would moan and grind about their funding going to us and not to their men/women. It would also mean that we could finally have generals all the way up to 4 stars which would allow our Wing CCs to be Brig Gen and Region CCs to be MajGen, the National CV to be a LtGen and the National CC to be Gen.

That would allow for Group CCs to be Colonel and Squadron CCs to be Major. No, we wouldn't advance in rank faster. We'd have more experienced commanders.

What exactly would be the point of that?

Changing the rank structure wouldn't 'create more experienced commanders'

To quote Palaninuk

'Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.'

Allowing a Chicken to hatch from an egg before calling it a Chicken and holding it responsible for being a proper chicken does.

If we allow only the MOST experienced members to promote then we WILL have the most experienced people up top. Keep all the existing requirements for grades as they are now. Add further requirements to higher grades such as Level 6 and Level 7.

[JayT]

But seriously... I think we'd be a much better fit if we were a direct reporting unit to HQ/USAF. That way, no MAJCOM CC would moan and grind about their funding going to us and not to their men/women. It would also mean that we could finally have generals all the way up to 4 stars which would allow our Wing CCs to be Brig Gen and Region CCs to be MajGen, the National CV to be a LtGen and the National CC to be Gen.

That would allow for Group CCs to be Colonel and Squadron CCs to be Major. No, we wouldn't advance in rank faster. We'd have more experienced commanders.

What exactly would be the point of that?

Changing the rank structure wouldn't 'create more experienced commanders'

To quote Palaninuk

'Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.'

Allowing a Chicken to hatch from an egg before calling it a Chicken and holding it responsible for being a proper chicken does.

If we allow only the MOST experienced members to promote then we WILL have the most experienced people up top. Keep all the existing requirements for grades as they are now. Add further requirements to higher grades such as Level 6 and Level 7.

Then do it.

Adding in two more grades isn't gonna solve that, and having a few dozen more generals isn't gonna help either.

If you think we have problems in how we promote people, then address the problem. Promoting Wing Commanders to BG and Regional Commanders to MG will do nothing but........cause a bunch of wing and region commanders to have to sew stars onto their collar.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Moving CAP under National Guard means the States would be in charge and not the Federal gov't. It means the states would have to find funding for the organization and it means the states would have the right to end the organization.

I say move us to AFSOC cuz lord knows we're "special"

But seriously... I think we'd be a much better fit if we were a direct reporting unit to HQ/USAF. That way, no MAJCOM CC would moan and grind about their funding going to us and not to their men/women. It would also mean that we could finally have generals all the way up to 4 stars which would allow our Wing CCs to be Brig Gen and Region CCs to be MajGen, the National CV to be a LtGen and the National CC to be Gen.

That would allow for Group CCs to be Colonel and Squadron CCs to be Major. No, we wouldn't advance in rank faster. We'd have more experienced commanders.

The federal govt would still control Title 10 funds.  We would have dual command, state and federal, just like Guard  units do.

[afgeo4]

Only when and if activated by the federal government. The Air Force would quickly place the funding burden onto the state's National Guard Bureau to provide funding for every day training rationalizing that most missions would be in-state anyway.

The National Guard doesn't have much money. If you haven't noticed, their soldiers and airmen use the oldest equipment in the military (that's why they're so good at it, they're not spoiled).

[mikeylikey]

The National Guard doesn't have much money. If you haven't noticed, their soldiers and airmen use the oldest equipment in the military (that's why they're so good at it, they're not spoiled).

It may have been that way up to 2001, but no longer.  In fact the most modernization is taking place withing the National Guard. 

[afgeo4]

The National Guard doesn't have much money. If you haven't noticed, their soldiers and airmen use the oldest equipment in the military (that's why they're so good at it, they're not spoiled).

It may have been that way up to 2001, but no longer.  In fact the most modernization is taking place withing the National Guard. 

Definitely not everywhere. ANG took big hits across the country with the last BRAC. There is progress through the total force concept with Air Force/ANG however. I'm seeing new units flying UAVs and Raptors. I like that.

Not the case with ArNG units though. They're leaving all that wonderful new equipment in Iraq and are coming back to their old, sometimes barely useful weapons and supplies such as vehicles and kitchens. There just isn't enough money at the state level to really outfit every Armory properly.