Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 23, 2018, 04:08:41 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]

 91 
 on: June 19, 2018, 02:09:16 PM 
Started by OldGuy - Last post by LGM30GMCC
Some folks here seem to be under the impression you need people in space in order to have a space force. Air Force Space Command might politely object.

Already the AF handles most (but not all) space lift, space surveillance, space warning (think ground-based radars that are primarily pointed into space and space-based IR), space control (deconfliction/control of satellites). Take the current busses (meaning frames that house the non-mission components...i.e. power, heaters/coolers, etc) that aren't controlled by the USAF and consolidate those under the new space force and you have a pretty good mission set.  You can also add on whatever Army space does (I really have little idea, Space 100 was over 10 years ago for me now). I would be curious what happens with ICBMs...AFGSC was supposed to be a nuclear command but that's already been diluted a bit with the introduction of the B-1s. Who knows if the USAF just cuts ICBMs loose. It wouldn't really shock me, and the new Space Force might want them so they have some 'shooters'. (Not that AFSPC took particularly good care of the ICBMs when they had that mission set.)

As for funding/establishment yeah that'd be up to Congress to officially set-up and finalize. The areas that will likely cause fights are the loss of some GOFO billets across the services. They may also choose to save money (go figure) by having the Space Force be to the USAF what the USMC is to the USN.

We'll see what happens. Who knows...maybe I won't finish my career in the USAF like I planned.   ::)

 92 
 on: June 19, 2018, 02:05:47 PM 
Started by huey - Last post by etodd

I will still write up a SUI AoC if the member has not progressed to Technician or Senior in a reasonable amount of time (2 years or more). 


Nearly three years now and I'm not working on a track. I'm a Mission Pilot, Airborne Photographer, Mission Observer, Mission Scanner. I fly several hours a month on Army Missions, O'Rides, Transport, and more as needed. I've brought in new Cadets to the squadron and help in that area when I can. I stay so busy being active, that I don't have enough hours to work on tracks to get a certificate. I'm a worker bee. Maybe at our last SUI someone "wrote us up" because of me. I don't know. But ask any squadron members and they'll tell you they are very happy with my contributions. That means more to me that any ribbon, certificate, or rank.

You may want to consider being in the ES track.

I was assigned to it when I joined, but as I said, time is an issue. As well as so many things on the list of things to do, that don't exist in our squadron. I forget now, is been a couple years, but things like a library and certain file keeping, or some things like that that don't exist and can't be pulled together for some reason. I'll try and go back soon and look. We have ES officers in our squadron, so they must have skipped over the things I mention.  Kind of like when I started AP a couple years ago and so much of the Mission Task Guide was out of date and we just had to skip some items on the SQTR sheet. Some times you just have to "make do".  LOL


 93 
 on: June 19, 2018, 02:05:16 PM 
Started by huey - Last post by Eclipse

I will still write up a SUI AoC if the member has not progressed to Technician or Senior in a reasonable amount of time (2 years or more). 


Nearly three years now and I'm not working on a track. I'm a Mission Pilot, Airborne Photographer, Mission Observer, Mission Scanner. I fly several hours a month on Army Missions, O'Rides, Transport, and more as needed. I've brought in new Cadets to the squadron and help in that area when I can. I stay so busy being active, that I don't have enough hours to work on tracks to get a certificate. I'm a worker bee. Maybe at our last SUI someone "wrote us up" because of me. I don't know. But ask any squadron members and they'll tell you they are very happy with my contributions. That means more to me that any ribbon, certificate, or rank.

Do you have an actual, appointed staff role within the unit?

 94 
 on: June 19, 2018, 02:05:06 PM 
Started by Eclipse - Last post by GroundHawg
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-does-officers-eat-last-really-mean-jason-west/

https://www.amazon.com/Leadership-Development-Blueprint-Building-Foundation/dp/153020609X

https://theleadertransformation.com/p/10-steps-to-becoming-a-confident-leader-for-first-time-managers

Shameless plug for a good friend of mine. He does seminars on this exact subject and knows this concept better than most. The book has some amazing advice, is well written, and has at least one CAP member who contributed  ;)

 95 
 on: June 19, 2018, 02:01:49 PM 
Started by Eclipse - Last post by Eclipse
On the whole in my experience, the baseline of leaders in the military seems to be higher than those on the outside (and yeah, you have outliers, just like anything else).

Yes, leaders.  Not everyone in the military, even those with advanced grade, are "leaders" of anything, yet there is this
mistaken perception that anyone who's ever carried a CAC is somehow a "leader", per se.

I've met plenty of prior and current service officers who are technical specialists, or have a "professional" skill
like medical or legal, and couldn't lead a dog on a leash, or who try to use grade-based authority with CAP volunteers (very common),
and I've met more than a few CAP Leaders who understand and live the military leadership ethos more then those around them
with a chest full of unrelated decorations.

As far as non-prior service commanders not "getting" it, it's almost like we should have a core group of experienced prior and current military folks who are skilled and experienced in lower-level leadership, who have it as part of their reason for existence to help commanders out with this sort of thing...

Or how about a core group of CAP Members with current and relevent experience and a track record of success,
oh, I dunno like maybe a Command Specialty track intended to serve as mentors?

That and actual qualification minimums might be a good place to start.

 96 
 on: June 19, 2018, 01:55:33 PM 
Started by darkmatter - Last post by waukwiz
Advanced search in WMIRS can also filter results to show missions with Department of Homeland Security as the customer agency, this shows a couple different types of missions in support of HLS.

 97 
 on: June 19, 2018, 01:54:54 PM 
Started by Jester - Last post by Eclipse
Would an NCSA or even a region-level "encampment instructor course" or something like that help?  I see pluses and minuses to it but haven't given it severe thought.

I think it would, however if it was not "required", like actually required, then the effect would probably be
like most other "required" training, mixed at best.

And if it was "required" like actually required, the pool of available people which is already far too low,
would shrink even further, and much like the rest of CAP, there is no way to guarantee continuity.

Even when CAP-USAF had oversight, things were still inconsistent wing-to-wing and even year to year, but
now that they are largely out of the picture, CAP has lost that check valve.

 98 
 on: June 19, 2018, 01:39:05 PM 
Started by Jester - Last post by Jester
Would an NCSA or even a region-level "encampment instructor course" or something like that help?  I see pluses and minuses to it but haven't given it severe thought.

 99 
 on: June 19, 2018, 01:35:42 PM 
Started by Jester - Last post by Ned
I have worked very, very hard over the years to create our intensity doctrine and help communicate the appropriate "look and feel" of encampment; primarily to help standardize the experience between the wings.  Which used to vary even more than it does now.  Clearly I have some more work to do.  Reasonable minds can certainly differ about some aspects of encampment intensity, but I think we should at least be able to come to a consensus as to whether the occasional raised voice is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing.  And it appears that we are not quite there yet.  People I respect come down on both sides of the issue.

But some sort of consistent military experience at encampment is important to our colleagues in the AF, who generously allow advanced grade for enlistees who have been through our encampment (and go on to achieve the Mitchell).  It was at their request that we began to reform and standardize the encampment experience several years ago.  We also describe the problem of standardization in the introduction on the first page of Cadet Encampment Guide

Encampment is designed to be "regimented," using a military training model based CAP and AF traditions.  (CAPP 60-70, para 1.1c).  In a positive, age-appropriate manner, of course.  It deliberately operates at a higher intensity level than most cadets will experience in their cadet careers.  We deliberately employ strictness, rigor, and a sense of urgency to reinforce military bearing and to encourage teamwork.

I suspect we are all in substantial agreement on the vision described in our doctrine, but we do not yet agree whether the occasional raised voice used to impart rigor and urgency can be part of the model.

And yet the military training model is remarkable -- indeed universally -- consistent over time, culture, and geography.  And invariably includes significant amounts of raised voices and externally-imposed discipline for the trainees.  And this has been so since the first legionnaire met the first centurion in Rome.   



Yelling or the tap dance "raised voice" is a dated tool and needs to be placed on the shelf unless there is a safety issue.

Every single military force in the world disagrees with that statement.  Every single one.  Including our colleagues in the AF.  Not one of them thinks of it as "dated."  None have placed it on the shelf.

Quote
Please do not try and compare military basic training with encampment.  They have different goals and are dealing with adults.  Encampment is not a tool to separate quality people from everyone else like basic training is.  Encampment is an event to teach young teens to be a CAP cadet.  It also has to deal with a huge rang of maturity levels and must fit all levels. 

Non-concur on several levels.  First, while encampment and IET are indeed different animals, encampment and military basic training are comparable in many important ways relevant to the discussion here.  Things like living in a barracks with a group of peers for the first time in their lives, having to wear uniforms waking hours, extremely regimented schedules, exacting and difficult group and individual performance standards, military oriented classes, inspections, dining halls, making a bed in a standardized way, drill and ceremonies instruction, early morning PT, etc., etc., etc..  Even the "fun" things are comparable -- the possibility of an orientation flight, time in the firearm simulator, a trip to MCSS.  All are very comparable, and indeed consume the great majority of the experience both for our cadets and basic trainees.

But perhaps most importantly, ALL of the above is closely supervised by NCOs and officers who offer immediate guidance, feedback, and assistance.  Sometimes in a raised voice.

Further, the purpose of basic training is NOT to sort the wheat from the chaff (although it also has that effect), it is to provide training and discipline to new recruits to allow them to contribute to their service.  Seriously, even if there were some other way to magically identify recruits who are unsuitable for the service, the others would still underdo basic training to become a cohesive, disciplined, airman.

We have had many discussions on this and related intensity topics here on CT for well over a decade.  And I am convinced that if we were all standing around together at an encampment watching training, we would almost always agree on when a given intensity level / voice intonation was appropriate or not.  But here on the internet, we lose the essential look and feel of the interaction and the words "yelling" and even "intensity" are poor words when it comes to relaying what actually happened.

Still trying to solve that part of the problem.

Ned Lee
Encampment Enthusiast


 100 
 on: June 19, 2018, 01:30:30 PM 
Started by OldGuy - Last post by Luis R. Ramos
For the life of me, I thought I was not going to see any more camos.

So, what will the rank insignia look like? I propose:

1 rocket, Space Lieutenant
2 rockets, Planetary Lieutenant
3 rockets, Captain
1 solar system, Major
2 solar systems, Space Colonel
3 solar systems, Planetary Colonel
1 constellation, General


Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.044 seconds with 15 queries.
click here to email me