CAP Talk

At our Wing meeting yesterday here is the word from National on the BDU.  According to the USAF, CAP will never conduct operations in the desert therefore there is no need for a change from the Woodland BDU.  The Woodland BDU is inline with CAPs mission and there are extensive supplies available of Woodland Camo BDu available.  Furthermore, if the BDU does run low there is always the blue BDU which CAP members can wear as an alternative uniform.  Therefore there will be no changes to the utility uniform - case closed, thread closed, end of story.  But wait.

Interestingly for me, I don't care BDU, ABU, Multicam, etc.  The BDU is nostalgic for me as a prior service Army CWO2 and I think the BDU is superior to all newer patterns and materials in many ways (and I can starch it so it looks great).  With that said, I think the switch to whatever uniform our mother service was wearing was of interest from simply a camaraderie standpoint.  AF JROTC or ROTC cadets will never see combat in the desert yet wear the current uniform of the Air Force.  State Defense Forces will never see combat in the desert however they wear the current uniform of the US Army.  Army Explorers, Young Marines, and Sea Cadets, wear the current uniform of their mother services, yet will never see combat of any sought. 

A combat uniform serves two purposes.  1st its utilitarian and serves it purpose to keep its wearer safe under combat and other conditions.  2nd, its a badge of pride for the wearer as a member of a community that values respect, honor, and service for its branch of service.  I joined CAP because I wish to continue to serve my country, and my community.  I also selfishly enjoy the camaraderie especially that of those who are prior service which gives me something that I could never get in the civilian world.  I find it interesting that of all the civilian services CAP is arguably the most active in saving lives with a need to be operationally ready with an expanding role in augmenting DEA, ICE, DHS, FEMA, and USAF roles.  For all that we seem to be looked on with the most disdain of all the non-military services mentioned.  Why?  Because some idiot poser trolled for salutes on a military base?

I've been a CAP member for almost 3 years and dedicate literally hundreds of hours per year including giving up my vacation for the last 3 years to teach at NESA.  There are tens of thousands more like me that do the same and much more.  Sure, there have been posers and trollers that have brought shame on us, I get it.  However, there are hundreds, if not thousands that are dishonorably discharged from all the branches of services per year but they are not indicative of the great honor of the service at large. 

So, this is not a uniform thread per se...that train has left the station and it will be BDUs and Blue Utility Uniforms from now on.  I get that.  My question is, if the USAF doesn't think that we are worthy of wearing their uniform despite all we do, but a JROTC cadet is, maybe we should just simply develop our own uniform that is totally distinct, drop the begging to be designated the USAF Auxiliary and continue to do our service to our country and our communities as the CIVIL AIR PATROL and our USAF mission would be no different than our mission to the DEA, ICE and DHS with no ties to the USAF at all.    I don't need a pretend rank or wanna be uniform to serve my country and if that's the way we're viewed then maybe we need to rethink who we are as a service.

Okay, just may Sunday rant.  Thanks for listening!

Mike.

CAP is not getting the ABU because CAP withdrew their request to the Air Force to wear it.
The Air Force will probably be getting out of the ABU soon because Congress has required the armed services to all go back to wearing the same uniform like we did for over 20 years with the BDU. So it makes no sense for CAP to request to wear the ABU if it is going away in the near future.
The ABU is not a desert camoflage, so I don't know where the desert camo thing came from.

Well stated.

For what it's worth, as a now-retired (after 23 years service at all eschelons including NHQ), I don't believe the USAF wants any sort of camaraderie with CAP. At best, they will tolerate us ... until IMHO, they can find a way to dispose of us.

They've already divorced us from being their full-time auxiliary. It's no wonder they'll allow JROTC students to wear the ABU but not CAP ... it's not even subtle.

As a current USCG Auxiliarist, I see what it really looks like to be an appreciated civilian auxiliary member of an armed service. The USCG appreciates its auxiliary and depends upon them; the USAF -IMHO- doesn't.

Quote from: PHall on May 18, 2014, 05:55:14 PM
CAP is not getting the ABU because CAP withdrew their request to the Air Force to wear it.
The Air Force will probably be getting out of the ABU soon because Congress has required the armed services to all go back to wearing the same uniform like we did for over 20 years with the BDU. So it makes no sense for CAP to request to wear the ABU if it is going away in the near future.
The ABU is not a desert camoflage, so I don't know where the desert camo thing came from.

I'm thinking he's referring to the DCU or the theater-specific uniforms we would never, ever need.

Quote from: Chaplaindon on May 18, 2014, 06:01:40 PM

It's no wonder they'll allow JROTC students to wear the ABU but not CAP ... it's not even subtle.

They allow it because they are more officially tied in with the Air Force and ROTC than us. Although some of our mandate comes from Air University, as well as theirs, they have a different mission than us.

People care far too much about this.

Quote from: zooompilot on May 18, 2014, 05:07:07 PM
AF JROTC or ROTC cadets will never see combat in the desert yet wear the current uniform of the Air Force. 

This has been brought up many times...by me, and others on CT.  ROTC I can see but JROTC is basically a school programme overseen/funded by the Air Force.

Quote from: zooompilot on May 18, 2014, 05:07:07 PM
State Defense Forces will never see combat in the desert however they wear the current uniform of the US Army.  Army Explorers, Young Marines, and Sea Cadets, wear the current uniform of their mother services, yet will never see combat of any sought. 

Partially right.  I have only ever seen Young Marines in BDU's...and they wear their ribbons on the BDU's.  I don't think their adult leaders, except those who are Marines, wear any sort of uniform. 

Sea Cadets, check.  A couple of years ago I ran into a USNSCC Ensign in BDU's...we chatted for about 10 minutes.  He wore subdued metal rank insignia and subdued tapes.  He told me he couldn't figure out why CAP were made to look so "different."

SDF's mostly wear the Army uniform, though a handful of units with Air (Texas) and Navy (Ohio, New York) look more like the armed forces than we ever have or will, and all they usually have to distinguish them is collar brass with their State identifier and/or a slightly different nameplate.

Now some on CT have said "that's because the AF has no control over SDF's wearing their uniform," which I drop the BS flag on.  At the very least, their State Adjutant Generals can tell them what to wear and what not to wear, and if the Air Force doesn't like an SDF wearing their uniform, they can certainly let a SAG know through ANG channels.

Quote from: zooompilot on May 18, 2014, 05:07:07 PM
I find it interesting that of all the civilian services CAP is arguably the most active in saving lives with a need to be operationally ready with an expanding role in augmenting DEA, ICE, DHS, FEMA, and USAF roles.  For all that we seem to be looked on with the most disdain of all the non-military services mentioned.  Why?  Because some idiot poser trolled for salutes on a military base?

I don't find it "interesting," at all.  I find it mildly annoying (at best) and infuriating (at worst).  The "trolling for salutes" issue is, in the main, apocryphal stories.  There are a few that have happened, but not to the extent that it causes us to be kept on the short uniform leash we are kept on by the AF.

Quote from: zooompilot on May 18, 2014, 05:07:07 PM
So, this is not a uniform thread per se...that train has left the station and it will be BDUs and Blue Utility Uniforms from now on.  I get that. 

But yet the BDU's have not, and probably will not be, declared "CAP distinctive," meaning that those wearing them are still subject to AF height/weight/grooming strictures. ::)

Quote from: zooompilot on May 18, 2014, 05:07:07 PM
My question is, if the USAF doesn't think that we are worthy of wearing their uniform despite all we do, but a JROTC cadet is, maybe we should just simply develop our own uniform that is totally distinct, drop the begging to be designated the USAF Auxiliary and continue to do our service to our country and our communities as the CIVIL AIR PATROL and our USAF mission would be no different than our mission to the DEA, ICE and DHS with no ties to the USAF at all.    I don't need a pretend rank or wanna be uniform to serve my country and if that's the way we're viewed then maybe we need to rethink who we are as a service.

Though there are those in upper echelons who would dispute what you say (like those who work with AFRCC), I very much agree with you.  CAP has been the AF's "red-haired stepchild" (at best) for about 25 years now.  Most serving airmen do not even know who we are.

I think if the AF could just let us go, they would, but it would take an act of Congress, literally.  I think their attitude toward us is one of benign neglect...as long as we don't try to wear metal rank or blue shoulder marks like we used to. ::)

Unfortunately, severing ties to the USAF would dry up a HUGE chunk of our funding and I don't think CAP would survive, or if so, in a MUCH smaller form.

Our own uniform?  Plenty on here would say that we have our own uniform...the odiously ugly (IMNSHO) grey/white/blazer setup.

There is no way that CAP will ever let us have anything but that, as their actions in killing the CSU proved.  Uniforms are the "third rail" that CAP will not touch, especially if it involves ANY shade of blue.

(And for those who asked about my prepared uniform proposal...I posted the bloody thing but only a fraction even commented on it, and very few were those who had asked about it! >:()

So, obviously, I agree with you in many ways...and I am a former CGAuxie myself.  The only reason I have stayed in CAP and not gone back to the CGAux is because I am a lot more interested in aviation than in boats.

Our status with the AF will never change, period, not until/unless we are finally disbanded.

Quote from: The14th on May 18, 2014, 07:29:25 PM
People care far too much about this.

+1  If we gave mission and purpose as much thought and time as uniform, we'd be in a lot better shape.

That is not to say the uniform is not broken, it is, really bad, but that is a separate issue.

I just love all the disinformation that gets out there on this subject.

"we are not getting ABU's because we will never fight in the desert"..........strange that the USAF does not wear ABU's in the desert....so that argument is kind of not a lame excuse.

I think PHall got the right line on this.  CAP has not gotten ABU's because CAP has never asked for them.   We almost did....but we withdrew that request.....on the belief that the USAF is going to change.

None of this has anything to do with the urban legend that the USAF would like to get rid of us.....which in MHO is complete and utter BS.

YMMV.

Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2014, 10:53:42 PM
I just love all the disinformation that gets out there on this subject.

"we are not getting ABU's because we will never fight in the desert"..........strange that the USAF does not wear ABU's in the desert....so that argument is kind of not a lame excuse.

I think PHall got the right line on this.  CAP has not gotten ABU's because CAP has never asked for them.   We almost did....but we withdrew that request.....on the belief that the USAF is going to change.

None of this has anything to do with the urban legend that the USAF would like to get rid of us.....which in MHO is complete and utter BS.

YMMV.

Yeah, I gotta raise an eyebrown on the "never conduct operations in the desert" bit.  Last I checked, a good portion of the southwestern United States was desert, a fact I'm pretty sure the AF is aware.

Interestingly, a bit mentioned at our Wing Conference earlier this morning is that Ma Blue, in light of the reduction of AF and Reserve forces, is now realizing the value of CAP and desires closer integration of CAP with the First Air Force and the "Total Force".  A side effect of this integration will be a re-design of the promotion requirements, as CAP officers will now be held to a higher standard  closer to their AF and Reserve counterparts, but that's a topic for another thread.

Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2014, 10:53:42 PM
I just love all the disinformation that gets out there on this subject.

"we are not getting ABU's because we will never fight in the desert"..........strange that the USAF does not wear ABU's in the desert....so that argument is kind of not a lame excuse.

I think PHall got the right line on this.  CAP has not gotten ABU's because CAP has never asked for them.   We almost did....but we withdrew that request.....on the belief that the USAF is going to change.

None of this has anything to do with the urban legend that the USAF would like to get rid of us.....which in MHO is complete and utter BS.

YMMV.

+This, too.

Why the leadership would even utter those words, assuming they did, is beyond me.

We aren't getting them because we aren't getting them.  Beyond that, who cares?

Cadets care because they want to look tak-ti-kewl.

Most Seniors see it as more of a headache.

Quote from: Panache on May 18, 2014, 11:02:36 PM
Interestingly, a bit mentioned at our Wing Conference earlier this morning is that Ma Blue, in light of the reduction of AF and Reserve forces, is now realizing the value of CAP and desires closer integration of CAP with the First Air Force and the "Total Force".  A side effect of this integration will be a re-design of the promotion requirements, as CAP officers will now be held to a higher standard  closer to their AF and Reserve counterparts, but that's a topic for another thread.

That tracks 150% with what I've gotten as well.

Quote from: NIN on May 19, 2014, 12:50:47 AM

Quote from: Panache on May 18, 2014, 11:02:36 PM
Interestingly, a bit mentioned at our Wing Conference earlier this morning is that Ma Blue, in light of the reduction of AF and Reserve forces, is now realizing the value of CAP and desires closer integration of CAP with the First Air Force and the "Total Force".  A side effect of this integration will be a re-design of the promotion requirements, as CAP officers will now be held to a higher standard  closer to their AF and Reserve counterparts, but that's a topic for another thread.

That tracks 150% with what I've gotten as well.

And First Air Force is an almost 100% Air National Guard manned unit. Interesting....

Quote from: PHall on May 19, 2014, 12:53:51 AM

Quote from: NIN on May 19, 2014, 12:50:47 AM

Quote from: Panache on May 18, 2014, 11:02:36 PM
Interestingly, a bit mentioned at our Wing Conference earlier this morning is that Ma Blue, in light of the reduction of AF and Reserve forces, is now realizing the value of CAP and desires closer integration of CAP with the First Air Force and the "Total Force".  A side effect of this integration will be a re-design of the promotion requirements, as CAP officers will now be held to a higher standard  closer to their AF and Reserve counterparts, but that's a topic for another thread.

That tracks 150% with what I've gotten as well.

And First Air Force is an almost 100% Air National Guard manned unit. Interesting....

Quite. I had a thought that we would operate better as an instrument of the Air Guard as opposed to the regular Air Force. Our civilian missions are similar.

Quote from: NIN on May 19, 2014, 12:50:47 AM

Quote from: Panache on May 18, 2014, 11:02:36 PM
Interestingly, a bit mentioned at our Wing Conference earlier this morning is that Ma Blue, in light of the reduction of AF and Reserve forces, is now realizing the value of CAP and desires closer integration of CAP with the First Air Force and the "Total Force".  A side effect of this integration will be a re-design of the promotion requirements, as CAP officers will now be held to a higher standard  closer to their AF and Reserve counterparts, but that's a topic for another thread.

That tracks 150% with what I've gotten as well.

I'll believe it when I start getting strategic plans and direction that are in any way connected to 1AF plans
in anything but a last-minute "OMG!" way.

We've been hearing about CAP being part of "Total Force" for 10+ years.

It would be just like the USAF to finally start expecting CAP to cash those chits now that it is at it's smallest level of readiness
and size in a decade.

Quote from: Garibaldi on May 18, 2014, 11:29:46 PM
Cadets care because they want to look tak-ti-kewl.

Most Seniors see it as more of a headache.

Let's be honest....I want them because I want to be immediately identifiable as part of the AF team.

And don't disparage the "cool" factor from cadets........we want to use every tool we can to get cadets to join....so we can mold them into the people we want them to be.

Mission, purpose, and interesting activities and experiences will bring us far more
useful and retained members then any uniform.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2014, 03:35:47 AM
Mission, purpose, and interesting activities and experiences will bring us far more
useful and retained members then any uniform.

Not on the CP side.   Which I was addressing.

Quote from: lordmonar on May 19, 2014, 02:47:10 AMLet's be honest....I want them because I want to be immediately identifiable as part of the AF team.

Let's be brutally honest. If we were on the "AF team" we wouldn't have to beg for them.

Quote from: lordmonar on May 19, 2014, 03:56:45 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2014, 03:35:47 AM
Mission, purpose, and interesting activities and experiences will bring us far more
useful and retained members then any uniform.

Not on the CP side.   Which I was addressing.

Retained is key here. Getting them in the door is great. But if all they do is drill all meeting...what's the point?

Quote from: Chaplaindon on May 18, 2014, 06:01:40 PM
For what it's worth, as a now-retired (after 23 years service at all eschelons including NHQ), I don't believe the USAF wants any sort of camaraderie with CAP. At best, they will tolerate us ... until IMHO, they can find a way to dispose of us.

I agree, but as I said, it would take a literal Act of Congress to divorce us from the Air Force.  Senator John McCain has tried it a few times.  For some reason we are a bee in his bonnet.

Quote from: Panache on May 18, 2014, 11:02:36 PM
Interestingly, a bit mentioned at our Wing Conference earlier this morning is that Ma Blue, in light of the reduction of AF and Reserve forces, is now realizing the value of CAP and desires closer integration of CAP with the First Air Force and the "Total Force".  A side effect of this integration will be a re-design of the promotion requirements, as CAP officers will now be held to a higher standard  closer to their AF and Reserve counterparts, but that's a topic for another thread.

Filed under "I will believe it when it happens."

Quote from: Garibaldi on May 19, 2014, 01:08:28 AM
Quite. I had a thought that we would operate better as an instrument of the Air Guard as opposed to the regular Air Force. Our civilian missions are similar.

Actually, I think Title 10 issues would come into it.  Most of the time, the ANG/ArNG is an instrumentality of their State Governments unless called into Federal service.  CAP is "all Federal, all the time."

I could see us being better managed - and appreciated - by the Army, especially the ArNG.  Instead of sending out expensive Blackhawk helos on SAR missions, they could send CAP light aircraft, to spot a downed aircraft, and then send a Blackhawk.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2014, 01:31:20 AM
I'll believe it when I start getting strategic plans and direction that are in any way connected to 1AF plans
in anything but a last-minute "OMG!" way.

We've been hearing about CAP being part of "Total Force" for 10+ years.

It would be just like the USAF to finally start expecting CAP to cash those chits now that it is at it's smallest level of readiness
and size in a decade.

Agreed 100%, sir.

Quote from: Garibaldi on May 18, 2014, 11:29:46 PM
Most Seniors see it as more of a headache.

I think that is an example of the "polo-shirt-is-the-only-uniform-you-need" mentality that has been growing in CAP, especially in senior squadrons.

In my first (and best) squadron (composite), everybody wore the AF blues/BDU's.  I never saw a polo shirt or the then-current grey/white uniform until I went to my first wing activity.

Quote from: Fubar on May 19, 2014, 04:40:17 AM
Let's be brutally honest. If we were on the "AF team" we wouldn't have to beg for them.

Quite so.

I think MARS is MUCH more a part of the "AF team" than we are...if it were otherwise, they would have no need for MARS, because CAP communicators could be handling the mission.

Quote from: Fubar on May 19, 2014, 04:40:17 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on May 19, 2014, 02:47:10 AMLet's be honest....I want them because I want to be immediately identifiable as part of the AF team.

Let's be brutally honest. If we were on the "AF team" we wouldn't have to beg for them.

We don't.  We need our leaders to actually make the request.

It is a CAP failure....not a USAF failure.

Quote from: lordmonar on May 19, 2014, 06:04:06 AM

Quote from: Fubar on May 19, 2014, 04:40:17 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on May 19, 2014, 02:47:10 AMLet's be honest....I want them because I want to be immediately identifiable as part of the AF team.

Let's be brutally honest. If we were on the "AF team" we wouldn't have to beg for them.

We don't.  We need our leaders to actually make the request.

It is a CAP failure....not a USAF failure.

You are correct in many ways, Master Sergeant.

The AF did not quash the CSU - CAP did, and we will never know why.

As has been pointed out, CAP withdrew the request for the ABU.  The AF did not have a chance to say "yea" or "nay."

CAP only gives those who cannot/will not wear the AF uniform one option for a "dressy" uniform - grey and white/blazer.

It has been over twenty years ago that the transgressions which supposedly led to the imposition of the berry boards, but has CAP even asked the AF about returning to "the way we were?"

Like my mother always said, "you don't know if you don't ask."

Quote from: Fubar on May 19, 2014, 04:40:17 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on May 19, 2014, 02:47:10 AMLet's be honest....I want them because I want to be immediately identifiable as part of the AF team.

Let's be brutally honest. If we were on the "AF team" we wouldn't have to beg for them.

Let's be truly, completely, and absolutely honest.  Do you think that the Air Force would fund 535 aircraft, 1000+ ground vehicles, pay for thousands of flight hours, and all of our maintenance if we weren't part of the "AF team"?  Not even USCGA has that kind of support.  Last I knew, they fly privately-owned aircraft, and I think they need to pick up the tab for the gas too (not 100% sure on the gas point). 

You let me know when we need to buy our own aircraft, buy our own vehicles, and pay for our sorties always out of our own pocket, and I'll start to agree that the AF is trying to get rid of us and we're not part of the family.  Until then, I'm quite content wearing my BBDUs and polo shirts.

Quote from: usafaux2004 on May 19, 2014, 05:30:43 AM

Quote from: lordmonar on May 19, 2014, 03:56:45 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2014, 03:35:47 AM
Mission, purpose, and interesting activities and experiences will bring us far more
useful and retained members then any uniform.

Not on the CP side.   Which I was addressing.

Retained is key here. Getting them in the door is great. But if all they do is drill all meeting...what's the point?

Or worse, simply quit.

A cadet whose sole or primary motivation for joining is wearing a USAF-Style uniform is unlikely to be a successful
cadet, nor retained in any meaningful way. 

No one can argue that the affiliation is an attractor and a motivator,
but that's the case for several other organizations that cadet-age kids join, at about the 3-6 month mark, the ones who
just wanted to have a cool get-up start dropping off when the organization begins to press the expectations of performance.

An organization's uniform is supposed to perform a variety of functions, the most important of which is mission-functionality,
and the least important of which is recruiting.  CAP's multiform gets it backwards and then uses the inverse logic as justification
for not fixing things, as well as ignoring the demographic they are actually trying to attract.

"The uniform is a big recruiting tool, even though more then 50% of the current adult membership isn't allowed to wear it..."

Magical thinking.

Quote from: Panzerbjorn on May 19, 2014, 01:10:14 PM
Let's be truly, completely, and absolutely honest.  Do you think that the Air Force would fund 535 aircraft, 1000+ ground vehicles, pay for thousands of flight hours, and all of our maintenance if we weren't part of the "AF team"? 

Let's be truly, completely, and absolutely factual.

The USAF does not "fund" CAP - they administer the Congressional appropriation, a nuance many people miss when talking about "Total Force".
If CAP were a legitimate USAF "funded" program, we would have likely been gone many moons ago.

I truly and deeply apologize that my semantics caused anyone to miss the point I was making.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2014, 02:14:52 PM

Quote from: Panzerbjorn on May 19, 2014, 01:10:14 PM
Let's be truly, completely, and absolutely honest.  Do you think that the Air Force would fund 535 aircraft, 1000+ ground vehicles, pay for thousands of flight hours, and all of our maintenance if we weren't part of the "AF team"? 

Let's be truly, completely, and absolutely factual.

The USAF does not "fund" CAP - they administer the Congressional appropriation, a nuance many people miss when talking about "Total Force".
If CAP were a legitimate USAF "funded" program, we would have likely been gone many moons ago.

No.....not true.   
a)  We do a mission the USAF would have to do much much much cheaper.
and most importantly:
b) The USAF has always like The Civil Air Patrol.....they may have not liked our National Commander or Senior Leaders at times.....but they like us.

"Liking" CAP is irrelevant in a world where primary mission systems, not to mention plenty of other pet projects the USAF "likes"
are being cut or imperiled left and right.

Being told Congress telling the USAF "you will do this, and here's a check..." is not the same as the USAF asking Congress "we'd like to do this, may we have a check...".

The fundamental reality is that CAP has been a financially expedient way to execute a mission the USAF is stuck with, and everything else
is an ancillary benefit or "nice to have", which may or may not duplicate other programs, and may or may not work "better" than similar
programs or other resources.

It may not have started that way, but it has certainly evolved that way, for a variety of reasons, many out of CAP's control, and
many akin to the realities of both modern technology and modern society.

The cadet program is >not< a recruiting arm of the USAF.  It's not intended for that, and it doesn't perform that mission.
The fact that recruiters may visit a unit occasionally, and that the CP can give a cadet a small taste of military life as an orientation
doesn't change the primary intention and goal of the CP.

CAP's relevance, capabilities, and readiness in ES, despite the potential, have been eroding gradually over the past 20 years,
and more geometrically over the last ten, as technology starts to run ahead of CAP's capabilities and NHQ takes an increasing
level of credit for missions performed more because of "sunk cost" (i.e. the fleet) then any advanced capabilities.

The reality is that a sub $1000 quadcopter with an HD camera like the Phantom, with an operator in a moving vehicle can
perform the majority of the aerial photo survey missions that our esteemed AP's do today, with no special licensing, and
significantly lower cost.  Despite the minefield of FAA rules, these are being used today for that very purpose, and
as soon as things are loosened up, it's "game on!".

The venerable "Mark I Eyeball" simply cannot compete with this technology, especially if you set the acquisition bar
at "something less then the $350K an outfitted C182 costs".

Meanwhile, the ES curriculum is 13(ish) years old, and the program continues to shrink with zero effort, or even rhetoric
to fixing that vector.

Like many things American's have taken for granted for decades, CAP is at significant risk.  I think that it is not beyond fixing,
but we need to start making tough, unpopular choices, accept the reality of the data and the times, and stop taking
credit for things which were put in motion 10 years ago.

A train running downhill, with it's boilers cold, will continue quite a while on its own inertia, before it comes to a full stop,
never to move again.  That's pretty much where CAP is today - running on inertia with its boilers cold.

Quote from: Panache on May 18, 2014, 11:02:36 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2014, 10:53:42 PM
I just love all the disinformation that gets out there on this subject.

"we are not getting ABU's because we will never fight in the desert"..........strange that the USAF does not wear ABU's in the desert....so that argument is kind of not a lame excuse.

I think PHall got the right line on this.  CAP has not gotten ABU's because CAP has never asked for them.   We almost did....but we withdrew that request.....on the belief that the USAF is going to change.

None of this has anything to do with the urban legend that the USAF would like to get rid of us.....which in MHO is complete and utter BS.

YMMV.

Yeah, I gotta raise an eyebrown on the "never conduct operations in the desert" bit.  Last I checked, a good portion of the southwestern United States was desert, a fact I'm pretty sure the AF is aware.

Interestingly, a bit mentioned at our Wing Conference earlier this morning is that Ma Blue, in light of the reduction of AF and Reserve forces, is now realizing the value of CAP and desires closer integration of CAP with the First Air Force and the "Total Force".  A side effect of this integration will be a re-design of the promotion requirements, as CAP officers will now be held to a higher standard  closer to their AF and Reserve counterparts, but that's a topic for another thread.

Do tell. Sounds Interesting.


I do have a question that has been bothering me. Why are we never told what happend to the CSU and other ideas that got Canned? Why is CAP NHQ not telling us? We are volunteers for goodness sake, its not like we can use it against them.

Quote from: Devil Doc on May 19, 2014, 04:59:23 PM

Quote from: Panache on May 18, 2014, 11:02:36 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on May 18, 2014, 10:53:42 PM
I just love all the disinformation that gets out there on this subject.

"we are not getting ABU's because we will never fight in the desert"..........strange that the USAF does not wear ABU's in the desert....so that argument is kind of not a lame excuse.

I think PHall got the right line on this.  CAP has not gotten ABU's because CAP has never asked for them.   We almost did....but we withdrew that request.....on the belief that the USAF is going to change.

None of this has anything to do with the urban legend that the USAF would like to get rid of us.....which in MHO is complete and utter BS.

YMMV.

Yeah, I gotta raise an eyebrown on the "never conduct operations in the desert" bit.  Last I checked, a good portion of the southwestern United States was desert, a fact I'm pretty sure the AF is aware.

Interestingly, a bit mentioned at our Wing Conference earlier this morning is that Ma Blue, in light of the reduction of AF and Reserve forces, is now realizing the value of CAP and desires closer integration of CAP with the First Air Force and the "Total Force".  A side effect of this integration will be a re-design of the promotion requirements, as CAP officers will now be held to a higher standard  closer to their AF and Reserve counterparts, but that's a topic for another thread.

Do tell. Sounds Interesting.


I do have a question that has been bothering me. Why are we never told what happend to the CSU and other ideas that got Canned? Why is CAP NHQ not telling us? We are volunteers for goodness sake, its not like we can use it against them.

I am not sure, but I think it may have to do with HWSNBN/Voldemort and Slytherin House. Erase all the bad that came from that epic adventure. Or there was a quiet revolt of the Colonels, much like the Revolt of the Admirals over the B-36 project.

Quote from: Panache on May 18, 2014, 11:02:36 PMA side effect of this integration will be a re-design of the promotion requirements, as CAP officers will now be held to a higher standard  closer to their AF and Reserve counterparts, but that's a topic for another thread.

100% nonsense - someone trying to sound like they are "in the know".

Unless grade is tied to authority, the effort is wasted.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2014, 05:25:51 PM

Quote from: Panache on May 18, 2014, 11:02:36 PMA side effect of this integration will be a re-design of the promotion requirements, as CAP officers will now be held to a higher standard  closer to their AF and Reserve counterparts, but that's a topic for another thread.

100% nonsense - someone trying to sound like they are "in the know".

Unless grade is tied to authority, the effort is wasted.

I seem to remember the rumors flying around in the mid 90s regarding our status with the Air Force at the time. One of the more insane theories was that we were going to actually get "commissions" but no pay.

Quote from: Garibaldi on May 18, 2014, 11:29:46 PM
Cadets care because they want to look tak-ti-kewl.

Most Seniors see it as more of a headache.

Maybe we can just add these to the 24h kit?

(http://i1341.photobucket.com/albums/o757/jtomason/a6dd34fee6279c85bb77240c8a257ef3_zps1b486565.jpg)


And yes... Before you ask...  This is a real product.

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 19, 2014, 05:44:00 PM

Quote from: Garibaldi on May 18, 2014, 11:29:46 PM
Cadets care because they want to look tak-ti-kewl.

Most Seniors see it as more of a headache.

Maybe we can just add these to the 24h kit?

(http://i1341.photobucket.com/albums/o757/jtomason/a6dd34fee6279c85bb77240c8a257ef3_zps1b486565.jpg)


And yes... Before you ask...  This is a real product.

But to use them, you need the sooper-sekrit lunch codes.

I'm personnally fine with the BDU and blue BDU in general. What I loathe is the dumb and unprofessional bling that ends up getting slathered onto the uniform. Classic example, the "SAR Dog" ES oval patch. Seriously, WTF?

Even the oval airplane ES patch looks a bit too large and out of place. I think a squadron patch is fine, providing it's not corny looking to begin with.........but as far as any extra patches on the BDU uniforms go, I think that should be it.

If we want to go the route of a CAP distinctive uniform, that's fine. But let's make it look professional. The local SAR agencies are not going to give us any serious respect if we look like adult boy scouts. If we want an alternate CAP distictive uniform that looks professional and is not trying to look like a half-hearted tribute to the USAF, let's develop a neon fluorescent green type coat that makes us look like professional SAR people. Right now, CAP's distictive non USAF uniform looks something akin to the boy scouts.

Done right, the BDU uniform we currently wear has the potential to look professional, even despite the ultramarine name tapes.

Any field uniform worn by CAP (BDU, BBDU, ABU, etc.) will be distinctive enough with all the color patches on the uniform, so I don't understand the reason we can't have one field uniform that every member can wear. I would like to wear ABUs (or whatever the Air Force wears next), but to me that is such a small issue. Having a single field uniform, while also not one of my top priorities, would rank higher than wearing an Air Force one.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 19, 2014, 09:34:18 PM
Any field uniform worn by CAP (BDU, BBDU, ABU, etc.) will be distinctive enough with all the color patches on the uniform, so I don't understand the reason we can't have one field uniform that every member can wear.

This would be a very interesting "Ask The Commander".

The BDU now serves none of the original purposes for which it was intended.

There is no free-flow of uniforms for cadets through DRMO or any other military channel.

It no longer provide USAF affinity or affectation.

It cannot be worn by at least 50% of the adult members and even some cadets.

It >is< a safety issue in regards to visibility.

It will now, for the most part, have to be purchased though retail or surplus channels
for everyone, just as the Blue Field Uniform is.

So why would we keep in in the inventory?

Moving to the Blue Field Uniform is the solution here, for all members, including cadets.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2014, 10:02:23 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on May 19, 2014, 09:34:18 PM
Any field uniform worn by CAP (BDU, BBDU, ABU, etc.) will be distinctive enough with all the color patches on the uniform, so I don't understand the reason we can't have one field uniform that every member can wear.

This would be a very interesting "Ask The Commander".

The BDU now serves none of the original purposes for which it was intended.

There is no free-flow of uniforms for cadets through DRMO or any other military channel.

It no longer provide USAF affinity or affectation.

It cannot be worn by at least 50% of the adult members and even some cadets.

It >is< a safety issue in regards to visibility.

It will now, for the most part, have to be purchased though retail or surplus channels
for everyone, just as the Blue Field Uniform is.

So why would we keep in in the inventory?

Moving to the Blue Field Uniform is the solution here, for all members, including cadets.

I had a rant all prepared for this last sentence, and I got distracted and had a second thought.

If, for some reason, CAP migrated to the BBDU only, I might not like it, but I think that I would put the mission first over my personal taste. Just so long as they don't make me wear the polo or (G-d forbid) some sort of hideous G/W combo in the field. I detested the OG-107 fatigues when I joined and wished we could have worn jungle fatigues full time. Then, there was the glorious time of the BDUs. And now, no one knows what direction we are headed with the utility/field uniform. BDU? ABU? BBDU? Some Other?

I guess every uniform and combo has a shelf life. Perhaps we should consider adopting the BBDU as the official CAP field uniform since we are (apparently) not getting a new AF-style uniform any time soon. It can't be any worse than the Smurf Suit.

Is there anyone actually still using it, that there is reason to continue to manufacture in accordance with the specification? 

.. or will the marketplace just evolve towards whatever they want to do?

Personally, for field use I'd go 100% non-military - an ANSI II Yellow long and short sleeved shirt,
ANSI II ball cap and Black tac pants or similar.

No patches, no nametags, nothing, it totally necessary, one patch on the breast - the MAJCOM
and move on.

Simple, effective, mission-focused and inexpensive.

Quote from: a2capt on May 19, 2014, 10:12:44 PM
Is there anyone actually still using it, that there is reason to continue to manufacture in accordance with the specification? 

.. or will the marketplace just evolve towards whatever they want to do?

There's some agencies still wearing - haven't been on base in a while, but last time I was the SeaBee candidates
were still wearing them, and as we saw in another thread, they are now being sought after for jungle wear.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2014, 10:15:42 PM

Quote from: a2capt on May 19, 2014, 10:12:44 PM
Is there anyone actually still using it, that there is reason to continue to manufacture in accordance with the specification? 

.. or will the marketplace just evolve towards whatever they want to do?

There's some agencies still wearing - haven't been on base in a while, but last time I was the SeaBee candidates
were still wearing them, and as we saw in another thread, they are now being sought after for jungle wear.

'Cording to what I have read, LEOs, some SWAT, some Navy detachments, numerous foreign militaries, even an Army unit or two. It's like when the OG jungies went on the market after Viet Nam...market profusion and everyone had a set. Or five.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2014, 04:20:33 PM
The cadet program is >not< a recruiting arm of the USAF.  It's not intended for that, and it doesn't perform that mission.
The fact that recruiters may visit a unit occasionally, and that the CP can give a cadet a small taste of military life as an orientation
doesn't change the primary intention and goal of the CP.

S'funny, the State Director I've mentioned on here who visited a former composite squadron of mine, and who told us seniors bluntly that our only real raison d'etre was to "shepherd cadets through CAP so they can get their Mitchell so they can get E-3 after Lackland."  This was a former AF/AFRES Lt. Col.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2014, 04:20:33 PM
Like many things American's have taken for granted for decades, CAP is at significant risk.  I think that it is not beyond fixing, but we need to start making tough, unpopular choices, accept the reality of the data and the times, and stop taking credit for things which were put in motion 10 years ago.

What needs fixing?  I agree that a lot of things besides uniforms (which is the most visual manifestation of our "brokenness") are seriously up the pipe, but what, to your mind and years of service, need fixing?  I know that you (correctly) talk up recruiting and retention, but what else?

Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2014, 04:20:33 PM
A train running downhill, with it's boilers cold, will continue quite a while on its own inertia, before it comes to a full stop, never to move again.  That's pretty much where CAP is today - running on inertia with its boilers cold.

If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got.

Quote from: Garibaldi on May 19, 2014, 10:10:59 PM
...we are (apparently) not getting a new AF-style uniform any time soon, period.

FTFY. 

Quote from: Devil Doc on May 19, 2014, 04:59:23 PM
I do have a question that has been bothering me. Why are we never told what happend to the CSU and other ideas that got Canned? Why is CAP NHQ not telling us? We are volunteers for goodness sake, its not like we can use it against them.

That, I think, will never be known.  I think it was Colonel Fred Weiss who said here on CT that those involved had to sign a nondisclosure agreement.

However, I think it was to "purge" the most visual vestige of the General Palpatine era, and I think attitudes of those with the power to do such things have hardened against any sort of change from the status quo.

The CSU (with exceptions, of course) was quite popular...do a lookup on Knowledgebase.

As I said, most of those who kept asking me to post my "uniform reform" proposal either never bothered to look at it, or did not deign to critique it.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2014, 10:14:06 PM
No patches, no nametags, nothing, it totally necessary, one patch on the breast - the MAJCOM and move on.

I would go even more minimalist, using a version of something the USAF tried back in the '90s.  Leather aircrew-type patch on BBDU's and that's your lot.

Quote from: CyBorg on May 19, 2014, 10:51:49 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2014, 04:20:33 PM
The cadet program is >not< a recruiting arm of the USAF.  It's not intended for that, and it doesn't perform that mission.
The fact that recruiters may visit a unit occasionally, and that the CP can give a cadet a small taste of military life as an orientation
doesn't change the primary intention and goal of the CP.

S'funny, the State Director I've mentioned on here who visited a former composite squadron of mine, and who told us seniors bluntly that our only real raison d'etre was to "shepherd cadets through CAP so they can get their Mitchell so they can get E-3 after Lackland."  This was a former AF/AFRES Lt. Col.

He's an...somewhat misguided in is characterization.  I would say that to his face, and someone should have challenged him
immediately when he said it.

Not only is it literally not true, his day-to-day responsibilities, even at the most basic level, would indicate otherwise.
With that said, despite the majority of them being excellent servants of CAP, we've had more then a couple of stories
here that historically some have been "less then invested".

Quote from: CyBorg on May 19, 2014, 10:51:49 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2014, 04:20:33 PM
Like many things American's have taken for granted for decades, CAP is at significant risk.  I think that it is not beyond fixing, but we need to start making tough, unpopular choices, accept the reality of the data and the times, and stop taking credit for things which were put in motion 10 years ago.

What needs fixing?  I agree that a lot of things besides uniforms (which is the most visual manifestation of our "brokenness") are seriously up the pipe, but what, to your mind and years of service, need fixing?  I know that you (correctly) talk up recruiting and retention, but what else?

In all seriousness, what doesn't?

The regs are a mess - many are so outdated they require processes, tasks, or classes no longer possible or practical.

eServices and OPS Quals are a mess and the systems many times don't match the regs, or even make logical sense.
In a web-enabled world, there's no simple way to get at otherwise (internally) public information, no APIs, and no
official mission, activity, or unit management system yet at the same NHQ is constantly increasing the administrative
requirements for the average member just to show up to a meeting, let along have a successful, engaged CAP career.

We don't have a uniform, we have a poor compromise.

As the program shrinks, and the active members age, recruiting isn't even an afterthought on any national scale.
Units are folding, and we have a 15-20% churn, yet the rhetoric is "that's about what we always had".  except that
at least anecdotally, the empty shirts seem to be increasing steadily - people not yet ready to disavow another check,
but not showing up to activities or meetings - numbers look good, but operations are cricket farms.  Which seems
fine until someone >FINALLY< normalizes the ranks and sees an overnight reduction of active members in the 25+ percentile.

The rhetoric of ES doesn't match the reality, and we are basically doing the same things we've done for 15 years
while the world around us evolves and changes. Opportunity and circumstance are literally POUNDING on the door,
but we can't answer because relationships and agreements which have been in planning or draft form since the
century had a 19 in the front are still not completed, assuming they ever will be, and most 3-and 4-letter agencies
that can use our help don't even know who to call.

Instead of being on the call sheet at the national level for organizations like FEMA and HLS, unit CCs and staff
are expected to create local relationships and agreements, despite the fact that few, if any, units, or even groups,
can sustain response on their own without members from all over the wing coming over the hill.

No one seems to have an inkling how to learn and adapt from past mistakes - much better to just start over every time.

We basically have 52 mini-CAPs, despite a lot of rhetoric about standardization.

And at the core?

NO.

STRATEGIC.

PLAN.

OR.

VISION.

Certainly nothing which has been communicated downstream and translated into meaningful tasks and goals.
We have Wing and Region CC's woefully concerned about things like the CAC, yet not even discussing the fact that there's
no "program" for them to advise commanders about.  (Though with that said, about the only
place you ever here "recruiting and retention" is that it's the first thing on a new CAC's annual agenda, and
it's one of the things a CAC really has no control over, which brings us back to "DOH!")

We basically have 12 or 1300 little cells of self-actualization, units doing "as they will" and "as they please",
and unless they >really< screw up bad, no one cares much what they do.  Every couple of years
there's an exercise where the unit checks some boxes and then publishes a report no one
reads  (SUI) and then it's back to status quo.

Few, if any, wings can respond to major ES or DR incidents without an "all-hands on deck" wing-wide effort,
and there's no depth at most positions - if "Jim is on vacation, and Jane's at encampment." There's no
decent PSC, IC, GBD, etc., and the wing is scrambling.  Yet there's no national framework or expectations
for readiness or manpower. Lord help any Wing with more then a couple of missions on any given week.

Quote from: CyBorg on May 19, 2014, 10:51:49 PM
If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got.

And that's what CAP has been doing for at least the last 10 years, all the while denying there's
an issue and espousing accidental or circumstantial success.

^ Truth. And nothing but truth.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2014, 10:02:23 PM
It no longer provide USAF affinity or affectation.

It never did link us to the Air Force as there was and is not any thing on this uniform that says "Air Force".  If anything, the BDU linked us just as much to the Army and Marines as the Air Force. 

-----

True, CAP never officially asked for the ABU, but I believe that if the AF actually cared about us being their Auxiliary they wouldn't have waited for us to ask, they would have just authorized it when they authorized as a routine thing after it became generally available. 

Quote from: RiverAux on May 20, 2014, 06:05:34 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2014, 10:02:23 PM
It no longer provide USAF affinity or affectation.

It never did link us to the Air Force as there was and is not any thing on this uniform that says "Air Force".  If anything, the BDU linked us just as much to the Army and Marines as the Air Force. 

-----

True, CAP never officially asked for the ABU, but I believe that if the AF actually cared about us being their Auxiliary they wouldn't have waited for us to ask, they would have just authorized it when they authorized as a routine thing after it became generally available.

The BDUs link us to the military in the eyes of the general public, not necessarily the Air Force.   The blues, perhaps a different story depending on the level of knowledge of service uniforms Mr. or Mrs. Public happens to have.   

A (particular) uniform, to me, serves two purposes:

1. Identifies you as a member of a given organization.
2. Serves to keep those members identifiable as a team.


In our case, I prefer to be identified with the military for a few reasons.  First, it sets the right expectation in the minds of the public, since we are a military auxiliary and are organized and commanded along those lines.   I think that the BBDU sets the wrong expectation - that we are either police or USCG.    I know that on some late-night UDF missions, I'd rather be seen as military and NOT police, since there's less of a threat conveyed to those who might have an issue with the police.  Who doesn't love the military?

Second, it sets a more positive professional frame of mind with the military that we work with when we are in a recognizable uniform.  Imagine what your average USAF member must think when they see someone whom they are told is with the USAF's auxiliary but wearing a USCG uniform (BBDU).   Regular BDUs merely say that we are behind the times.   ABUs would seal the deal psychologically.

I can understand USAF not relegating the BDU to a Corporate uniform status since it IS so indelibly linked to USAF/the military in the eyes of the public.   However, I think that would be a decent solution - ABUs for the USAF-style uniform, and BDUs for the Corporate style uniform, and ditch the BBDU entirely.

Students at the Army Jungle Warfighter school are wearing BDUs again.

Anyone who feels "disconnect" from the Air Force can just pretend they are part of the JW school if it's really that important to them.

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 20, 2014, 06:01:25 PM
A (particular) uniform, to me, serves two purposes:

1. Identifies you as a member of a given organization.
2. Serves to keep those members identifiable as a team.

So then what does the mish-mash-mess of CAP's multiform mean?

And what of the 50+ percent of the adult members and some cadets who have no "choice" to be part of the "team"?

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 20, 2014, 06:01:25 PM
Second, it sets a more positive professional frame of mind with the military that we work with when we are in a recognizable uniform.

And how often, exactly, does the average member "work with" anyone in the military, USAF or otherwise?
Certainly not enough that it should shape our uniform. The blue and white "CIVIL AIR PATROL" on the front should be somewhat of a clue who is in front of them.

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 20, 2014, 06:01:25 PM
Imagine what your average USAF member must think when they see someone whom they are told is with the USAF's auxiliary but wearing a USCG uniform (BBDU).

I'd imagine that it's about the same timbre of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot that they say when they see a gaggle of multiformed members today.

That or more likely they give it literally zero thought, and are more concerned with CAP holding up their corner then what they are wearing.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 20, 2014, 11:02:37 PM

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 20, 2014, 06:01:25 PM
A (particular) uniform, to me, serves two purposes:

1. Identifies you as a member of a given organization.
2. Serves to keep those members identifiable as a team.

So then what does the mish-mash-mess of CAP's multiform mean?

To my thinking, a number of different organizations.   

Quote from: Eclipse on May 20, 2014, 11:02:37 PM

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 20, 2014, 06:01:25 PM
Second, it sets a more positive professional frame of mind with the military that we work with when we are in a recognizable uniform.

And how often, exactly, does the average member "work with" anyone in the military, USAF or otherwise?
Certainly not enough that it should shape our uniform. The blue and white "CIVIL AIR PATROL" on the front should be somewhat of a clue who is in front of them.

Many units meet on Air Force Bases.  Oftentimes, those units host bivouacs or other activities on base.   Some bases host airshows with CAP involvement.   

As has been stated many times in many different forums, lots of USAF folks have no idea that they HAVE an auxiliary, let alone what it is or what it does.    Polo shirts and USCG uniforms do little to change the problem that they don't have that clue as to who is in front of them.

Quote from: Eclipse on May 20, 2014, 11:02:37 PM

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 20, 2014, 06:01:25 PM
Imagine what your average USAF member must think when they see someone whom they are told is with the USAF's auxiliary but wearing a USCG uniform (BBDU).

I'd imagine that it's about the same timbre of Whiskey Tango Foxtrot that they say when they see a gaggle of multiformed members today.

That or more likely they give it literally zero thought, and are more concerned with CAP holding up their corner then what they are wearing.

Exactly my point, more or less.  If we looked and quacked like a duck, we might be more recognizable as a duck. 

Quote from: RiverAux on May 20, 2014, 06:05:34 AM
True, CAP never officially asked for the ABU, but I believe that if the AF actually cared about us being their Auxiliary they wouldn't have waited for us to ask, they would have just authorized it when they authorized as a routine thing after it became generally available.

A very true statement.  If they cared about us being their Auxiliary, we would still have "USAF AUX" on our aircraft.

(http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/Airplanes/large/Gippsland%20Airvan.jpg)

This L-16 still has U.S. Air Force on the tail, as well as CAP markings.  Imagine if we would try to get by with that now...no, we wouldn't try, because CAP wouldn't ask.
(http://www.caphistory.org/galleries/Airplanes/large/L-16%20Aeronca_DS_side%20view.jpg)

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 21, 2014, 12:30:11 AM
As has been stated many times in many different forums, lots of USAF folks have no idea that they HAVE an auxiliary, let alone what it is or what it does.   

And who owns the problem with that?  I, and others, have suggested just the barest of education to new Airmen, either at BMT (I would have learned more that was actually USEFUL at BMT by doing that than yet another marathon underwear/sock folding session), or at their first duty station.  However, some of the other habitues here on CT say it's NOT the Air Force's responsibility, and WE have to "sell ourselves" to THEM, which I will NEVER understand, let alone agree with.

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 21, 2014, 12:30:11 AM
Polo shirts and USCG uniforms do little to change the problem that they don't have that clue as to who is in front of them.

How DARE you criticise the hallowed polo shirt?!  That would be like criticising the Dress Blues to a Marine!  I am being sarcastic of course; I have never owned the polo shirt, and doubt I ever will.

However, as a former CGAuxie, and as one living in a city with a significant CG presence, I see Coasties about town in their ODU, and they're not the same.  Maybe it's because I've been in both and can tell the difference.

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 20, 2014, 06:01:25 PM
Imagine what your average USAF member must think when they see someone whom they are told is with the USAF's auxiliary but wearing a USCG uniform (BBDU).

I really doubt they care, as long as one of those "CAPpies" doesn't try to troll for a salute or buy at the commissary.  After all, they read about it in the Air Force Times, and their MTI warned them about it. >:(

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 20, 2014, 06:01:25 PM
I think that the BBDU sets the wrong expectation - that we are either police or USCG.    I know that on some late-night UDF missions, I'd rather be seen as military and NOT police, since there's less of a threat conveyed to those who might have an issue with the police. 

Now that I understand a bit more, though in my experience police tactical uniforms are usually accompanied by body armour, helmets, etc., clearly marked "POLICE," "FBI," "SHERIFF," "CUSTOMS," etc. in reflective lettering.

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 20, 2014, 06:01:25 PM
Who doesn't love the military?

More than you may think, unfortunately.  I grew up in the immediate post-Vietnam '70s and even "playing Army" was not encouraged, especially not at my grade school.  Today, there are recruiters who have a stink of a time getting to talk to schools at almost all levels.  At least I was able to have that...an Army recruiter talked to my 5th grade class and a Marine recruiter (in full dress blues) talked to my 6th grade class.

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 20, 2014, 06:01:25 PM
Who doesn't love the military?

A lot of folks. I know people personally who downright loathe the military as a bunch of violence-loving warhawks. And as mentioned previously, during the height of Viet Nam, no one supported the military, it seems. Protestors and politicians at home, teachers routinely asking their students to write essays on the badness of war and telling their kids that the soldiers fighting the "peaceful" people overseas were bad men. It even happens now, with Afghanistan and Iraq. I've seen news articles about teachers lambasting kids for supporting the troops and forcing the kids to write essays on the evils of the military and war in general. When those kids are the brothers and sisters and kids of a KIA/WIA...it really sucks. People have a right to their opinion, but when they force it on their students or congregations it becomes way wrong. To be told that your brother or father died for a "worthless oil war and he was wrong for going in the first place"? What kind of asinine crap is that?

I'm getting off my soapbox now.

(http://austinisafecker.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/pussy.jpg)

Not that was funny   8)

Olde is Olde. But good.

Quote from: Garibaldi on May 21, 2014, 07:09:22 PM

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 20, 2014, 06:01:25 PM
Who doesn't love the military?

A lot of folks. I know people personally who downright loathe the military as a bunch of violence-loving warhawks. And as mentioned previously, during the height of Viet Nam, no one supported the military, it seems. Protestors and politicians at home, teachers routinely asking their students to write essays on the badness of war and telling their kids that the soldiers fighting the "peaceful" people overseas were bad men. It even happens now, with Afghanistan and Iraq. I've seen news articles about teachers lambasting kids for supporting the troops and forcing the kids to write essays on the evils of the military and war in general. When those kids are the brothers and sisters and kids of a KIA/WIA...it really sucks. People have a right to their opinion, but when they force it on their students or congregations it becomes way wrong. To be told that your brother or father died for a "worthless oil war and he was wrong for going in the first place"? What kind of asinine crap is that?

I'm getting off my soapbox now.

While all of the stuff you mentioned is inarguably abhorent, I think there are a lot of people today, especially younger people, who simply don't agree with the fact that America has been at war for 50% of their lives, and they feel like they are helpless to do anything about it. Not every problem can be solved with fighting wars. and it's a pity that you have people who sign up to fight for their country with the faith that their country will only engage in warfare for truly good reasons, and yet they get forced to go fight in wars they feel are unessessary and pointless.

Furthermore, I see a big problem with young people (especially cadets) who have the wrong view of war in general. War is never "Cool." War is only to be properly viewed as an unfortunate and pathetic result of supposedly intellegent species who after thousands of years of existance still have not learned how to solve problems without killing. I get that in our current world, war sometime has to exist. Still does not ever make it a good thing.

Also, young people tend to get too wrapped up in all the cool technology of killing. Too often I hear a cadet say, "I can't wait till I grow up and join the army so I can kill arabs by blasting them with such and such a tank or advanced weapon." Wrong attitude. I think we all to often end of glorifying the killing in war. We don't mean too...........most of us with healthy minds are simply fascinated by the advanced military technology. But I think we need to always be cognizant as to what message it sends to young people.

Just my unrelated two cents.. :)

Who says....war is not cool?

Sorry.....yes your are correct.....the judicial use of applied fire power is not the answer to every problem.

And solders/sailors/airman/marines will be the first to tell you that.

But sometimes it IS the proper answer to the problem at hand.

One man's "glorifying  the killing" is another man's pride in doing a dirty tough job that someone had to do.

Quote from: lordmonar on May 23, 2014, 01:18:11 AM
Who says....war is not cool?

Sorry.....yes your are correct.....the judicial use of applied fire power is not the answer to every problem.

War, huh, yeah
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Say it again, y'all

War, huh, good God
What is it good for
Absolutely nothing
Listen to me

:)

Death and destruction is unfortunately a necessary evil sometimes. 

On a side note, despite the fact that this song was an anti-war song, the irony with this new official music video is interesting to say the least

http://youtu.be/ObntvRcKMrE (http://youtu.be/ObntvRcKMrE)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DboMAghWcA&feature=kp (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DboMAghWcA&feature=kp)

The deal with war........sure we can all be enlighten new age touchy feelie types.   But last time I checked the world is not populated by enlightened touchy feelie types.

I would love to be able to sit down at the table and talk out our differences with the Taliban.  Al Qaeda.  Boko Horam.  North Korea. 
In fact I know we have offered to sit down with all these organizations.......not seeing it happen though.

In the mean time......the most trusted military organization  in the world is on the job.

On a related topic, see this article:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/05/23/army-selects-new-camouflage-pattern.html?ESRC=eb.nl (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/05/23/army-selects-new-camouflage-pattern.html?ESRC=eb.nl)
To summarize: the Army is selecting Scorpion, a variation on Multicam.
and this older article.
http://soldiersystems.net/2013/10/23/if-the-army-adopts-ocp-will-the-air-force-follow-suit/ (http://soldiersystems.net/2013/10/23/if-the-army-adopts-ocp-will-the-air-force-follow-suit/)

Yup.. As noted:

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18900.msg345756#msg345756 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=18900.msg345756#msg345756)

(http://blogs.militarytimes.com/flightlines/files/2014/05/0340-copy.jpg)

Farva rocks.

We could go back to OD green!

Quote from: JoeTomasone on May 20, 2014, 06:01:25 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on May 20, 2014, 06:05:34 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on May 19, 2014, 10:02:23 PM
It no longer provide USAF affinity or affectation.

It never did link us to the Air Force as there was and is not any thing on this uniform that says "Air Force".  If anything, the BDU linked us just as much to the Army and Marines as the Air Force. 

-----

True, CAP never officially asked for the ABU, but I believe that if the AF actually cared about us being their Auxiliary they wouldn't have waited for us to ask, they would have just authorized it when they authorized as a routine thing after it became generally available.

The BDUs link us to the military in the eyes of the general public, not necessarily the Air Force.   The blues, perhaps a different story depending on the level of knowledge of service uniforms Mr. or Mrs. Public happens to have.   

A (particular) uniform, to me, serves two purposes:

1. Identifies you as a member of a given organization.
2. Serves to keep those members identifiable as a team.


In our case, I prefer to be identified with the military for a few reasons.  First, it sets the right expectation in the minds of the public, since we are a military auxiliary and are organized and commanded along those lines.   I think that the BBDU sets the wrong expectation - that we are either police or USCG.    I know that on some late-night UDF missions, I'd rather be seen as military and NOT police, since there's less of a threat conveyed to those who might have an issue with the police.  Who doesn't love the military?

Second, it sets a more positive professional frame of mind with the military that we work with when we are in a recognizable uniform.  Imagine what your average USAF member must think when they see someone whom they are told is with the USAF's auxiliary but wearing a USCG uniform (BBDU).   Regular BDUs merely say that we are behind the times.   ABUs would seal the deal psychologically.

I can understand USAF not relegating the BDU to a Corporate uniform status since it IS so indelibly linked to USAF/the military in the eyes of the public.   However, I think that would be a decent solution - ABUs for the USAF-style uniform, and BDUs for the Corporate style uniform, and ditch the BBDU entirely.

I don't come on here much because I find CAPtalk doesn't mirror the rest of CAP.  People here obsess about uniform regs and how much the air force cares about us.  I honestly really don't care about how much the air force likes us, disses us, or is indifferent.  That is not why I am in CAP.  I have been here for two years, and in that time I have gotten a lot of good training, a renew interest in aviation, and the change to serve my community. 

I have had the opportunity to participate in one real-world rescue and I was wearing the BBDU's at the time.  While carrying the man down the mountainside in the litter, I didn't stop for one second and say to myself, "I hope I get a medal out of this" or "I really wish I could be wearing the regular BDUs like everyone else", or "this is stupid, the air force doesn't even appreciate what I am doing".  I was thinking about helping the man with broken leg get to the hospital.

I am proud of my awards, ratings, and accomplishments, and wear them with pride, but I didn't join CAP so I could wear a certain uniform.  Personally I think BDUs are kind of silly because they are woodland cammo, and we spend most of our time in the woods, but want people to see us.  So, we put reflective vests over our nametapes, patches, and badges.  Kind of counter-productive.  I think seniors should have one dress uniform and one utility uniform.  Let the cadet keep on what they are doing, but have the senior wear practical SAR uniforms.
(http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r220/calitopgun/Mobile%20Uploads/696DC9B7-8C41-48A6-BB0D-9BC380FD8BDB.png)


(http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r220/calitopgun/Mobile%20Uploads/3232319A-CAE5-4231-A358-FD2C6BC4FE71.png)

Quote from: umpirecali on June 04, 2014, 07:31:31 PM
Let the cadet keep on what they are doing, but have the senior wear practical SAR uniforms.

So why should not cadets wear practical SAR uniforms?  Are not they also doing the same SAR work?

I guess they could. Cadet don't have multiple uniforms, so I'd hate to create complexity where simplicity exists.  Plus senior have more $$.  I was just addressing the 8 some-odd uniforms seniors can wear (I'm sure someone here will point out another), which defies the word uniform.

Polo, blues, gray/white, bdu, bbdu, flight suit, blue flight suit, and blazer

Not all seniors have an interest in SAR.

Quote from: umpirecali on June 05, 2014, 01:56:08 AM
I guess they could. Cadet don't have multiple uniforms, so I'd hate to create complexity where simplicity exists.  Plus senior have more $$.  I was just addressing the 8 some-odd uniforms seniors can wear (I'm sure someone here will point out another), which defies the word uniform.

Polo, blues, gray/white, bdu, bbdu, flight suit, blue flight suit, and blazer

Not true.  Cadets over the age of 18 are required to wear gray/white and BBDUs if they do not meet the weight standards. 

Quote from: abdsp51 on June 05, 2014, 01:59:12 AM
Not all seniors have an interest in SAR.

Well that uniform would work well for AE also.

The much hated / exalted golf shirt / tactical pants combo fulfills 95% of the need for 95% of CAP missions, including
95% or SAR, including, but not limited to:

Everything AE.

>ALL FLYING< ALL. Every flight, in every wing.

All unit meetings, staff meetings, round tables, drill practices, IACE, flight academies, SLS/CLS/UCC/TLC/RSC/NSC, National board meetings, commanders calls, planning meetings.

99% of NCSAs

99% of encampment activities.

It is also the preferred dress for a significant number of other agencies that CAP works with on
even a semi-regular basis, especially most EMAs, FDs, and a lot of LEAs.

Anything more is affectation, or clothing worn outside of its intended purpose, which is the antithesis
of a mission-focused uniform.  This isn't going to change, because form is clearly more important then
function, but the sooner this is understood and accepted, the better for everyone's mental health.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2014, 07:49:51 PM
The much hated / exalted golf shirt / tactical pants combo fulfills 95% of the need for 95% of CAP missions, including
95% or SAR, including, but not limited to:

Everything AE.

>ALL FLYING< ALL. Every flight, in every wing.

All unit meetings, staff meetings, round tables, drill practices, IACE, flight academies, SLS/CLS/UCC/TLC/RSC/NSC, National board meetings, commanders calls, planning meetings.

99% of NCSAs

99% of encampment activities.

It is also the preferred dress for a significant number of other agencies that CAP works with on
even a semi-regular basis, especially most EMAs, FDs, and a lot of LEAs.

Anything more is affectation, or clothing worn outside of its intended purpose, which is the antithesis
of a mission-focused uniform.  This isn't going to change, because form is clearly more important then
function, but the sooner this is understood and accepted, the better for everyone's mental health.

You need to get out more and preface your absolute statements with they are just your opinion.

Nothing above is disputable.

None of the activities indicated require anything more then a golf shirt and tac pants.

Somehow the rest of the world, and most other similar organizations, especially those
that include youth memberships, camp, fly, drive, and basically live in jeans and a t-shirt,
adding a collared golf shirt on more formal days.

Uniforms have their place and purpose.  But since CAP doesn't actually have a uniform,
we should stop kidding ourselves about the reasons most of the multiform exists, or the reasons
members wear what they do when they do.

The golf shirt / tac pants combo is all anyone needs anything else is optional, and generally
worn for affectation or affinity, not mission purpose.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2014, 08:19:00 PM
Nothing above is disputable.

Listen up CAP world Eclipse has spoken. Thanks for making my case.  With your absolute, black and white, linear thinking you must be a joy to work with.  Carry on with your bullying bluster.

Quote from: PA Guy on June 05, 2014, 08:33:52 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2014, 08:19:00 PM
Nothing above is disputable.

Listen up CAP world Eclipse has spoken.

Thank you!

Eclipse, are you trying to put us all in golf shirts?

That won't fly with a lot of members, me included...I've never owned one and don't plan to.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2014, 07:49:51 PM
The much hated / exalted golf shirt / tactical pants combo fulfills 95% of the need for 95% of CAP missions, including
95% or SAR, including, but not limited to:


>ALL FLYING< ALL. Every flight, in every wing.

Not in California Wing. And we have a supplement to back it up too.
CAWG Supplement to CAPR 60-3, 24 Aug 12.  Para 1-11 c

Yes.  we're all very excited for you.

Making something "Required", doesn't make it "necessary".

Most of CAP, NESA, many flight academies, and the vast majority of the GA community fly in
goldf shirts, and even shorts (CAP too), but CAWG wing apparently needs to be different.

...gold shirts...

Is that why their uniforms are so expensive?

;D

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on June 06, 2014, 12:45:57 AM
...gold shirts...

Is that why their uniforms are so expensive?

;D

Weirdest thing - when I type, "golf" is almost always "gold" and "you" is almost always "yo".

Quote from: PA Guy on June 05, 2014, 08:07:53 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2014, 07:49:51 PM
The much hated / exalted golf shirt / tactical pants combo fulfills 95% of the need for 95% of CAP missions, including
95% or SAR, including, but not limited to:

Everything AE.

>ALL FLYING< ALL. Every flight, in every wing.

All unit meetings, staff meetings, round tables, drill practices, IACE, flight academies, SLS/CLS/UCC/TLC/RSC/NSC, National board meetings, commanders calls, planning meetings.

99% of NCSAs

99% of encampment activities.

It is also the preferred dress for a significant number of other agencies that CAP works with on
even a semi-regular basis, especially most EMAs, FDs, and a lot of LEAs.

Anything more is affectation, or clothing worn outside of its intended purpose, which is the antithesis
of a mission-focused uniform.  This isn't going to change, because form is clearly more important then
function, but the sooner this is understood and accepted, the better for everyone's mental health.

You need to get out more and preface your absolute statements with they are just your opinion.

Eclipse is not wrong.  It annoys me that the regulations require I own, at a minimum, the white shirt uniform.  I never wear it, and I have never seen a need beyond the golf shirt

Quote from: PA Guy on June 05, 2014, 08:33:52 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2014, 08:19:00 PM
Nothing above is disputable.

Listen up CAP world Eclipse has spoken. Thanks for making my case.  With your absolute, black and white, linear thinking you must be a joy to work with.  Carry on with your bullying bluster.

Yet you didn't present one example of how he is wrong.  Name one thing we do on a regular basis that can't or shouldn't be done in tac pants and a polo ... Granted i wish our polls were made out of a more modern lighter mesh or wicking fabric

Quote from: umpirecali on June 06, 2014, 04:22:14 AM

Quote from: PA Guy on June 05, 2014, 08:33:52 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2014, 08:19:00 PM
Nothing above is disputable.

Listen up CAP world Eclipse has spoken. Thanks for making my case.  With your absolute, black and white, linear thinking you must be a joy to work with.  Carry on with your bullying bluster.

Yet you didn't present one example of how he is wrong.  Name one thing we do on a regular basis that can't or shouldn't be done in tac pants and a polo ... Granted i wish our polls were made out of a more modern lighter mesh or wicking fabric

Well the fact he stated nothing he said was disputable might have influenced me. But for you I will offer my opinion.

IACE participants wear slacks and polos but also have a formal uniform. Somehow being introduced to the Chief of Staff of the Belgian Air Force or other country at a formal dinner wearing tac pants just doesn't cut it.

COS is conducted on Maxwell AFB at the Sqdn Officers College. The AF UOD is short sleeve shirts. While this activity is for cadets seniors should as close as possible to the cadets they are working with.

NSC. See above for location and UOD.

RSC.  See above for those held on a military base.

Graduation ceremonies for the above

Encampment.  Seniors should be in the same uniform AF/Corp as the cadets.  Seniors standing on the reviewing stand or receiving an award would be insulting the cadets who busted their butts for a week to look squared away and a senior wanders up in tac pants and a polo or even slacks and a polo.

National Board Banquet.  It is clearly inappropriate to wear tac pants and a polo to that.  The only thing that could make it worse would be blousing one's boots. A coat and tie would suffice.

Wing Conf. Banquet.  See above.

Any senior who works regularly with cadets should be in the AF/Corp version of what the cadets are wearing.  As I said just my opinion

I think that about covers the tower fly-by.

Quote from: umpirecali on June 06, 2014, 04:22:14 AM

Quote from: PA Guy on June 05, 2014, 08:33:52 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2014, 08:19:00 PM
Nothing above is disputable.

Listen up CAP world Eclipse has spoken. Thanks for making my case.  With your absolute, black and white, linear thinking you must be a joy to work with.  Carry on with your bullying bluster.

Yet you didn't present one example of how he is wrong.  Name one thing we do on a regular basis that can't or shouldn't be done in tac pants and a polo ... Granted i wish our polls were made out of a more modern lighter mesh or wicking fabric

IMHO ground teams should not be done in tac pants and polo.  You should have a long sleeve and durable shirt for ground team operations and the polo shirt just does not cover it.

So...other then that.....Eclipses statements are true......but his assessment and his judgmental attitude about it being an affection or antithesis of a mission focus uniform is just wrong.

a) No one has ever said that "mission focus" was the only or even the main purpose of any of the uniforms.
b) All "uniforms" are an affection........if all we really cared about was getting the job done.....we would not care what you wore.
c) His judgmental attitude is counter productive to the discussion of "fixing" the uniform problem....which I think was PA Guy's point.   

Quote from: PA Guy on June 06, 2014, 05:22:20 AM

Quote from: umpirecali on June 06, 2014, 04:22:14 AM

Quote from: PA Guy on June 05, 2014, 08:33:52 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2014, 08:19:00 PM
Nothing above is disputable.

Listen up CAP world Eclipse has spoken. Thanks for making my case.  With your absolute, black and white, linear thinking you must be a joy to work with.  Carry on with your bullying bluster.

Yet you didn't present one example of how he is wrong.  Name one thing we do on a regular basis that can't or shouldn't be done in tac pants and a polo ... Granted i wish our polls were made out of a more modern lighter mesh or wicking fabric

Well the fact he stated nothing he said was disputable might have influenced me. But for you I will offer my opinion.

IACE participants wear slacks and polos but also have a formal uniform. Somehow being introduced to the Chief of Staff of the Belgian Air Force or other country at a formal dinner wearing tac pants just doesn't cut it.

COS is conducted on Maxwell AFB at the Sqdn Officers College. The AF UOD is short sleeve shirts. While this activity is for cadets seniors should as close as possible to the cadets they are working with.

NSC. See above for location and UOD.

RSC.  See above for those held on a military base.

Graduation ceremonies for the above

Encampment.  Seniors should be in the same uniform AF/Corp as the cadets.  Seniors standing on the reviewing stand or receiving an award would be insulting the cadets who busted their butts for a week to look squared away and a senior wanders up in tac pants and a polo or even slacks and a polo.

National Board Banquet.  It is clearly inappropriate to wear tac pants and a polo to that.  The only thing that could make it worse would be blousing one's boots. A coat and tie would suffice.

Wing Conf. Banquet.  See above.

Any senior who works regularly with cadets should be in the AF/Corp version of what the cadets are wearing.  As I said just my opinion

I said 95%.

The above concurs with my assertion.

Impress the Belgian Air Force commander...

Lets see, according to the Wikipedia, the total personnel of the BAF is 8,600.

According to National Headquarters, we number Cadet, 24513 and Senior, 34473 (as of 31 May 2014).

Nope, I do not want to impress a force we outnumber in personnel and about match in size of airplanes (even if among those airplanes there are a few F-16s).

;D

The long and the short of it is, Eclipse is a very, very opinionated man.

Most of what he says here is based on his experience.

A lot of people here disagree with his opinions, myself included at times.

However, I see a lot of merit in his posts, and I agree with a few of them. Most don't.

It's like trying to give an explanation of why the sky is blue. Some give reasons, such as "It is the reflection of the oceans" and while it sounds good, it just ain't right. Yet others say "The sky is blue because when the light wave hits out atmosphere, the blue wave moves the slowest, and that is why." but that doesn't explain why the sun is still orange or the moon appears white when we see it during the day. Others simply don't care, it is what it is, that's it, let's move on. And an even smaller group says "God/The FSM/The Great Pumpkin made it that way" and won't listen to any other viewpoints.

Eclipse is the way he is, either right or wrong, but he defends his points with fact and reason, while some respond to him with invective and vitriol. Who looks more foolish, the man with the facts and figures on his side and has done the research, or the man who sneers and says "you're out of your mind?"

Personally, right or wrong, I usually side with the rational minds.

Quote from: umpirecali on June 06, 2014, 04:22:14 AM
Granted i wish our polls were made out of a more modern lighter mesh or wicking fabric

Well cotton is a terrible fabric now that we have synthetic blends.  Have you considered creating a proposal to change the fabric of the polo shirt?  It is not like we are limited on choices for that uniform.

Although I do not agree with dropping the BDUs, but I could see a lot of seniors getting behind just wearing the polo shirts or having a polo shirt and a dress uniform.  Echoing a similar question, has any one ever proposed this idea?  A lot of ideas, some good and some bad, are discussed on forums, but they usually go no where beyond the cyber world.  Yet people get upset about CAP not changing. 

Lets see how many will start arguing we will need a change in regs to use that new version of the polo!

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2014, 07:49:51 PM
The much hated / exalted golf shirt / tactical pants combo fulfills 95% of the need for 95% of CAP missions, including
95% or SAR, including, but not limited to:

Everything AE.

>ALL FLYING< ALL. Every flight, in every wing.

All unit meetings, staff meetings, round tables, drill practices, IACE, flight academies, SLS/CLS/UCC/TLC/RSC/NSC, National board meetings, commanders calls, planning meetings.

99% of NCSAs

99% of encampment activities.

It is also the preferred dress for a significant number of other agencies that CAP works with on
even a semi-regular basis, especially most EMAs, FDs, and a lot of LEAs.

Anything more is affectation, or clothing worn outside of its intended purpose, which is the antithesis
of a mission-focused uniform.  This isn't going to change, because form is clearly more important then
function, but the sooner this is understood and accepted, the better for everyone's mental health.

So you are saying that the other uniforms are only suited for ES?

Well, at least we'd save a lot of money..  No need to buy grade insignia or ribbons, and we can just trash the PD structure since you'll never wear the fruits of it on your golf shirt.   Eliminates CAPR 39-3 as well!

Just buy a Blue Golf Shirt and get the CAP logo imprinted on it. I would, that way you can have your "Synthetic" fabric

Quote from: Devil Doc on June 06, 2014, 02:19:56 PM
Just buy a Blue Golf Shirt and get the CAP logo imprinted on it. I would, that way you can have your "Synthetic" fabric

You DARE to try to cut Vanguard out of the loop so they can't get their cut? :o

Keep an eye out for those black vans... >:D

Quote from: JoeTomasone on June 06, 2014, 02:08:29 PM
So you are saying that the other uniforms are only suited for ES?

No, that is not what I said.

What I said was that 95% of the missions and activities CAP is involved in, including 95% of SAR
and 100% of flying, can be done in the golf shirt and tac pants.

And as a mater of fact, for a fair amount of members, 100% of their CAP activities already occurs in that uniform, including
the formal events (not saying that's "right") because that is all they own.

Further to that, many of the organizations we aspire to, work with, or compare ourselves to,
wear nothing but a similar uniform, some ever, some regularly.

So if CAP is going to raise the bar on uniform expectations, add-in expensive combinations, and generally
spend people's money, the emphasis should be on mission performance, not affectation and affinity, it should
be a uniform, not a fashion show, there should be prescriptions, not "choices" (i.e. "you will", not "you should"),
and the rules should be the same for all and not treated like a suggestion, especially leaders in visible
positions of influence.

Quote from: JoeTomasone on June 06, 2014, 02:08:29 PM
Well, at least we'd save a lot of money..  No need to buy grade insignia or ribbons, and we can just trash the PD structure since you'll never wear the fruits of it on your golf shirt.   Eliminates CAPR 39-3 as well!

Where do I sign?

Quote from: Devil Doc on June 06, 2014, 02:19:56 PM
Just buy a Blue Golf Shirt and get the CAP logo imprinted on it. I would, that way you can have your "Synthetic" fabric

My kids and wife have the BSA Microfiber shirts - this type of thing is the result
of people caring about function over form, without sacrificing either.

It's super-light, dries from full-soaked in about ten minutes just hanging up,
and it has a vent panel on the back for hot days.  It's admittedly more difficult
to sew, but only if you don't take your time.

That and the cargo pants with the zip-off shorts.

What do CAP cadets wear in the summer, regardless of the weather and during most
activities that don't have a uniform waiver? 

Dark-colored camo and black t-shirts.

The math is yours to do.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 06, 2014, 03:15:18 PM

Quote from: Devil Doc on June 06, 2014, 02:19:56 PM
Just buy a Blue Golf Shirt and get the CAP logo imprinted on it. I would, that way you can have your "Synthetic" fabric

My kids and wife have the BSA Microfiber shirts - this type of thing is the result
of people carrying about function over form, without sacrificing either.

Agreed.

Quote
It's super-light, dries from full-soaked in about ten minutes just hanging up,
and it has a vent panel on the back for hot days.  It's admittedly more difficult
to sew, but only if you don't take your time.

That and the cargo pants with the zip-off shorts.

Shorts? SIGN ME UP!

Quote

What do CAP cadets wear in the summer, regardless of the weather and during most
activities that don't have a uniform waiver? 

Dark-colored camo and black t-shirts.

The math is yours to do.

Done and dusted. I would LOVE to have a shorts option with the Polo.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 06, 2014, 03:15:18 PM

activities that don't have a uniform waiver? 

"Uniform waiver"?  What does that mean?

Quote from: JoeTomasone on June 06, 2014, 03:53:44 PM
"Uniform waiver"?  What does that mean?

A number of activities, including soaring, NESA, and most flight academies, have "special" uniforms approved by NHQ.

If we axe everything but the polo combination, we may as well get rid of ranks, awards, etc., because we will no longer have anything to wear them on.

While at it, get rid of all customs and courtesies, because they would be goofy in a polo shirt.

CAP will also have at least one less member.

The polo shirts remind me too much of high school in the early '80s, with all the preppies/jocks wearing their Izod alligator shirts with the collars flipped-up (which I was recently reminded of by watching the 1983 film Valley Girl).  I was not one of them.

Quote from: CyBorg on June 06, 2014, 04:23:00 PM
If we axe everything but the polo combination, we may as well get rid of ranks, awards, etc., because we will no longer have anything to wear them on.

I am not advocating getting rid of other combinations.

I am saying that the golf shirt fits the need, everything else is extra.

The golf shirt should be the defacto uniform for all members, including cadets. 
Other uniforms would be added as needed.  Cadets can get their blues after Curry,
or at some point after they have actually shown some commitment and understand the conversation,
until then, the golf shirt would be cheap, simple, and identify them as part of the organization.

Cadets not involved in SAR have no use for BDUs, and they don't even serve the purpose of service affinity anymore.

As it is today, the whites or blues are the required uniforms for all members, yet I'd hazard
25% of the membership doesn't even know that, and it's not enforced at all.  When you
mention it to people who haven't ever read the reg, they get all sad about that.

Organizations with complicated, unenforced regulations and policies are the breeding ground
for GOBN networks, exclusion, and general malaise.  Sound familiar?

Either change what we have, or at least inform and enforce what exists.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 06, 2014, 04:31:16 PM
The golf shirt should be the defacto uniform for all members, including cadets. 

As long as it is optional.

As much as I hate agreeing with Eclipse, I think he made a very valid point (even if the way he said it rubs us the wrong way). He didn't say that we use the Polo combination for 95% of CAP activities, but that we could. As someone who wears BDUs and Blues most of the time (and the Polo occasionally), I have to agree that the CAP Polo combination could fulfill the vast majority of our uniform needs, which is what Eclipse said.

Yes that is true.

But the Polo Combo does not fulfill all the roles we want out of our uniforms.

Quote from: lordmonar on June 06, 2014, 05:47:34 PM
Yes that is true.

But the Polo Combo does not fulfill all the roles we want out of our uniforms.

That's also true, but none of our individual uniforms do.

Agreeing with Eclipse here. Making a deal with the devil, yada yada....

Flying: 100%. No reason to wear anything else in the plane.

ES:90%, mostly mission base and aircrews. Even with the tactical pants, ground teams may want something sturdier with long sleeves.

Cadet programs: I'm going with 90% here too. Cadets have to wear uniforms, so in my OPINION, their leaders should as well, either BBDU or BDU, or Blues or G/W.

Meetings: SM-90% (see above re cadet programs).

YMMV.

The eClipseco Committee on Perpetual Planning accepts your reinforcement of numbers already published.
All documents are to be adjusted to reflect what was always the plan and that margins were exceeded by 200%.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 06, 2014, 05:55:48 PM
The eClipseco Committee on Perpetual Planning accepts your reinforcement of numbers already published.
All documents are to be adjusted to reflect what was always the plan and that margins were exceeded by 200%.

:o

And so the "de-Air Forceisation" of our outward appearance continues, slowly but inexorably...and our "colleagues" on military installations will wonder even more "who the heck are that lot, running around with preppy shirts on?"


(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Mqn-vlTNtus/UOpCHYgPGqI/AAAAAAAACbI/RNHQoQ_XXVg/s1600/valley-girl.png)


Oh, well, at least it will suit (pun intended) the percentage of our membership who don't want to be bothered with C&C's, ranks or any of that "wannabe military" crap, who just want to be "all ES, all the time."

Quote from: Eclipse on June 06, 2014, 04:14:18 PM

Quote from: JoeTomasone on June 06, 2014, 03:53:44 PM
"Uniform waiver"?  What does that mean?

A number of activities, including soaring, NESA, and most flight academies, have "special" uniforms approved by NHQ.

Ah, National violating their own regs again.   Gotcha.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 06, 2014, 04:31:16 PM
The golf shirt should be the defacto uniform for all members, including cadets. 

Did you bump your head? Seriously?

Quote from: NIN on June 06, 2014, 08:19:37 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on June 06, 2014, 04:31:16 PM
The golf shirt should be the defacto uniform for all members, including cadets. 

Did you bump your head? Seriously?

It is warm here.

We're talking about "need", not "nice".

I've always been partial to the guayabera. I recall being a brand new SM and seeing a 5 foot tall and 4 foot wide lieutenant colonel showing off his awesomeness in it and thinking "I can't wait until I can wear that smock looking doodad!"

CAP and its multiforms....the topic will never cease being...interesting....

Quote from: THRAWN on June 06, 2014, 08:26:30 PM
CAP and its multiforms....the topic will never cease being...interesting....

Interesting in the way many cannot ignore going by a car wreck.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on June 06, 2014, 05:48:44 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on June 06, 2014, 05:47:34 PM
Yes that is true.

But the Polo Combo does not fulfill all the roles we want out of our uniforms.

That's also true, but none of our individual uniforms do.

I don't think tac pants and our polo is the way to go.  I was advocating tac pants and something useful for our missions such as this:

http://www.511tactical.com/hi-vis-performance-shirt.html (http://www.511tactical.com/hi-vis-performance-shirt.html)

Add some orange on black name tapes, a patch or two and you are good to go.  Metal rank on the collar would an option for those who think this detrimental to PD.

This may have been covered already, but being that we kind of get our funding through the Air Force (chartered by congress), it is important that we remain a part of it. If we were to separate from the Air Force, we would have two options. Beg and plea to allow congress to let us join a department of the government (transportation, like the Coast Guard, or homeland security like TSA) or we could become a completely separate entity and cut all ties from the government, similar to the Sea Cadets (not sure exactly how their system works, but I'm fairly certain they do not receive government funding of any kind).

Both situations are less than ideal and the latter would likely result in a severe loss of membership due to the amount of financial burden that would be put upon all members. The first situation, joining a government agency as an independent organization is a case of wishful thinking. Although it'd be great to be independent and receive our own funding, Congress would never allow it. Money's tight as it is and the last thing congress wants to deal with is another organization asking for funding.

The second situation would be more likely to occur, but would probably cause a huge hit in CAP membership. I know in my Wing, most cadets have their uniforms provided and have five powered and non-powered o-flights. Along with uniforms and flying, cadets and seniors are reimbursed for travel for CAP purposes. If we went fully corporate, all that would go away. Overall, though, I think it would be... interesting if we did separate from the Air Force. Results would be somewhat unpredictable for the first few years, but I think in the end CAP would be more like it once at its inception.

Quote from: THEcadethall on June 08, 2014, 06:10:21 AM
This may have been covered already, but being that we kind of get our funding through the Air Force (chartered by congress), it is important that we remain a part of it. If we were to separate from the Air Force, we would have two options. Beg and plea to allow congress to let us join a department of the government (transportation, like the Coast Guard, or homeland security like TSA) or we could become a completely separate entity and cut all ties from the government, similar to the Sea Cadets (not sure exactly how their system works, but I'm fairly certain they do not receive government funding of any kind).

Both situations are less than ideal and the latter would likely result in a severe loss of membership due to the amount of financial burden that would be put upon all members. The first situation, joining a government agency as an independent organization is a case of wishful thinking. Although it'd be great to be independent and receive our own funding, Congress would never allow it. Money's tight as it is and the last thing congress wants to deal with is another organization asking for funding.

The second situation would be more likely to occur, but would probably cause a huge hit in CAP membership. I know in my Wing, most cadets have their uniforms provided and have five powered and non-powered o-flights. Along with uniforms and flying, cadets and seniors are reimbursed for travel for CAP purposes. If we went fully corporate, all that would go away. Overall, though, I think it would be... interesting if we did separate from the Air Force. Results would be somewhat unpredictable for the first few years, but I think in the end CAP would be more like it once at its inception.

Just an FYI the US Coast Guard moved from Department of Transportation to Homeland Security in 2003

I was unaware of that. Thank you.

Quote from: THEcadethall on June 08, 2014, 06:10:21 AM
This may have been covered already, but being that we kind of get our funding through the Air Force (chartered by congress), it is important that we remain a part of it. If we were to separate from the Air Force, we would have two options. Beg and plea to allow congress to let us join a department of the government (transportation, like the Coast Guard, or homeland security like TSA) or we could become a completely separate entity and cut all ties from the government, similar to the Sea Cadets (not sure exactly how their system works, but I'm fairly certain they do not receive government funding of any kind).

Both situations are less than ideal and the latter would likely result in a severe loss of membership due to the amount of financial burden that would be put upon all members. The first situation, joining a government agency as an independent organization is a case of wishful thinking. Although it'd be great to be independent and receive our own funding, Congress would never allow it. Money's tight as it is and the last thing congress wants to deal with is another organization asking for funding.

The second situation would be more likely to occur, but would probably cause a huge hit in CAP membership. I know in my Wing, most cadets have their uniforms provided and have five powered and non-powered o-flights. Along with uniforms and flying, cadets and seniors are reimbursed for travel for CAP purposes. If we went fully corporate, all that would go away. Overall, though, I think it would be... interesting if we did separate from the Air Force. Results would be somewhat unpredictable for the first few years, but I think in the end CAP would be more like it once at its inception.

Well I'll throw this out there for discussion, maybe a merger of CAP with the USCGAux would be the answer, with an appropriate transfer of control and funds from USAF/DoD to USCG/DHS.

CAP squadrons would be rolled into USCGAux Air Flotillas and such.

It would require some "painful" changes on both sides to merge their corporate cultures and I'm not sure either the USCG or USCGAux is ready to take on a junior cadet/midshipman program.

BUT

That being said... it could work... maybe.  :-\

Quote from: shuman14 on June 08, 2014, 01:23:12 PM

Quote from: THEcadethall on June 08, 2014, 06:10:21 AM
This may have been covered already, but being that we kind of get our funding through the Air Force (chartered by congress), it is important that we remain a part of it. If we were to separate from the Air Force, we would have two options. Beg and plea to allow congress to let us join a department of the government (transportation, like the Coast Guard, or homeland security like TSA) or we could become a completely separate entity and cut all ties from the government, similar to the Sea Cadets (not sure exactly how their system works, but I'm fairly certain they do not receive government funding of any kind).

Both situations are less than ideal and the latter would likely result in a severe loss of membership due to the amount of financial burden that would be put upon all members. The first situation, joining a government agency as an independent organization is a case of wishful thinking. Although it'd be great to be independent and receive our own funding, Congress would never allow it. Money's tight as it is and the last thing congress wants to deal with is another organization asking for funding.

The second situation would be more likely to occur, but would probably cause a huge hit in CAP membership. I know in my Wing, most cadets have their uniforms provided and have five powered and non-powered o-flights. Along with uniforms and flying, cadets and seniors are reimbursed for travel for CAP purposes. If we went fully corporate, all that would go away. Overall, though, I think it would be... interesting if we did separate from the Air Force. Results would be somewhat unpredictable for the first few years, but I think in the end CAP would be more like it once at its inception.

Well I'll throw this out there for discussion, maybe a merger of CAP with the USCGAux would be the answer, with an appropriate transfer of control and funds from USAF/DoD to USCG/DHS.

CAP squadrons would be rolled into USCGAux Air Flotillas and such.

It would require some "painful" changes on both sides to merge their corporate cultures and I'm not sure either the USCG or USCGAux is ready to take on a junior cadet/midshipman program.

BUT

That being said... it could work... maybe.  :-\

I don't really think that would be viable for several reasons:

The need to change the US Code

The CG Aux has very few Air Aux units, most units are move involved with Maritime safety and vessel inspection

Since they actually use their auxilliary to augment the active service I don't see how the younger cadets could be involved.

Their background check is far more detailed than ours the only reason I got my id in less than 3 months is because I already possess a clearance and therefore all the information they wanted was in JPAS

Quote from: Alaric on June 08, 2014, 01:33:06 PM
I don't really think that would be viable for several reasons:

The need to change the US Code

The CG Aux has very few Air Aux units, most units are move involved with Maritime safety and vessel inspection

Since they actually use their auxilliary to augment the active service I don't see how the younger cadets could be involved.

Their background check is far more detailed than ours the only reason I got my id in less than 3 months is because I already possess a clearance and therefore all the information they wanted was in JPAS

Oh, I concur, I was just throwing it out there for discussion.

Plus the cultures are just too different to ever merge.

And I hear you about the clearances, we lost lots of people who either couldn't pass the background or simply refused to submit for it.

Interesting...

If we ever pursue an EPIRB or ELT as part of the CGAux, we can say... We'll pursue the ELT on Air, Land, and Sea!

Or we can word it this way "...on Sea, Air, and Land!"  We could be CAP Seals.  Wouldn't that open up a whole can of worms.  Especially on uniforms and the bling that goes with it.

Oh, great, Rangers and Seals.

As a former CG Auxiliarist, I can say that trying to merge the two auxiliaries would be like oil and water...the cultures are completely, totally different.

CGAUX does not have ranks, they have "offices" (with a plethora of alphabet soup designations I never got my head around).  They elect their leaders who appoint their staff officers.  They do not address one another by ranks, nor do they salute one another, but they are required to salute any and all commissioned and warrant officers, regardless of the office insignia they hold.  Thus, you will see someone wearing insignia that looks like an Admiral in the CGAUX saluting a brand-new CG Ensign or Warrant Officer.  The question of CG saluting Auxiliarists is a non-issue, though it does happen.  I never once heard of an Auxiliarist supposedly trolling for a salute.

They have a MUCH closer relationship with their parent service; beyond anything CAP has ever had with the AF in the 20 years I've been around CAP.  CG commissioned, warrant and petty officers always seemed to be around at everything from boat shows to actual missions.  The last time I saw a CAP-RAP person was about four years ago.  He was an Air Force Reserve Major who flew for the airlines and I never saw him again.  The Chief Director Auxiliary is an AD CG Captain:

(http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg3/cg3pcx/cginfo/Rizzo.jpg)
Captain Mark Rizzo, USCG, CHDIRAUX

As has been mentioned, the CG AuxAir is extremely, extremely limited.  There is very, very little of any aviation culture in the CGAUX, except perhaps for units based on CG Air Stations.  You also have to go through a LOT more to become qualified as an Auxiliary pilot or aircrew than one does in CAP.

Uniforms are almost a non-issue.  You wear the CG uniform with CGAUX (gold instead of silver) insignia, regardless of height/weight/grooming, period.  There is an optional blazer, which I saw being worn a grand total of one time, at a Change of Watch ceremony, and only because they guy wearing it didn't have service or mess dress.  I cannot recall one incident in which I heard an Auxiliarist grumble about uniforms.  It just was not on the radar.

As for cadets, at best that would have to be folded into the NSCC, because there is little provision for such things in the CGAUX, beyond CG installations sometimes hosting NSCC units, and CG/CGAUX personnel volunteering their time with NSCC.

No, the NSCC does not have a direct auxiliary relationship with the Navy.  However, they do receive funding from Congress.  They also receive a lot of logistic and other kinds of support from the Navy, Marines and Coast Guard.

http://homeport.seacadets.org/display/AdvanceTraining/2014/02/05/NSCC+Funding+Update+for+2014 (http://homeport.seacadets.org/display/AdvanceTraining/2014/02/05/NSCC+Funding+Update+for+2014)

I have to confess that personally I was much happier in the CGAUX, in large part because I felt a lot more "needed" by the parent service, and because I was always treated well by Coasties of any rank (Petty Officer to Lieutenant-Commander), in contrast to the often barely-acknowledged responses I've gotten from AF personnel.  However, I have little to no interest in things that float on the water (aircraft carriers excepted!) and have always been interested in airplanes.

I do believe that at some stage, CAP will be disconnected from the AF.  I don't know when, or how, but simply because of technological advancements, like drones, eventually we will be made redundant.

The CG has a need for an Auxiliary because they don't have the numbers available that the AF does, plus the CG Reserve is very small.  The AF not only has its AD resources, but also the ANG and AFRES.  At some point I think we will just not be needed by them any more.

Quote from: Panzerbjorn on May 19, 2014, 01:10:14 PM

Let's be truly, completely, and absolutely honest.  Do you think that the Air Force would fund 535 aircraft, 1000+ ground vehicles, pay for thousands of flight hours, and all of our maintenance if we weren't part of the "AF team"?  Not even USCGA has that kind of support.  Last I knew, they fly privately-owned aircraft, and I think they need to pick up the tab for the gas too (not 100% sure on the gas point). 

You let me know when we need to buy our own aircraft, buy our own vehicles, and pay for our sorties always out of our own pocket, and I'll start to agree that the AF is trying to get rid of us and we're not part of the family.  Until then, I'm quite content wearing my BBDUs and polo shirts.

Couple of things.

USCGA is the Coast Guard Academy. USCGAUX or CGAUX for Auxiliary. In any case AUX members do not pay for fuel. As long as the fuel being used in whatever facility (facility is the term used to described a private vehicle, aircraft or watercraft used for AUX purposes) is for a CG authorized mission it is completely reimbursed along with some, if not all, maintenance.

Comparing private usage of AUX members to AF paid for equipment isn't the best comparison in that the AF is significantly larger with much greater funding. A couple hundred thousand Airmen to about 45K Coasties. Apples and oranges.

Those two things aside I agree with your post.

After reading seven pages of this I have a few observations.

First, apparently the AF doesn't like us but they do except that they are going to get rid of us but they aren't.

Second, we don't wear the ABU because the AF doesn't like us (but they do when they don't) except that CAP withdrew its request because we'll never see combat nor work in the desert except for those people in TX, AZ, NM, CO, NV, UT, CA and so on.

I can go on, but my point is that everyone has a different opinion (and lets be honest that's all these comments are) but there seems to be very little of actual knowledge going on. Of course we all have our own opinions. Its good that we hash them out here. Helps get ideas out in the open. The only way we move forward as an organization is to air differences, air new ideas and work on creating a better force. I don't necessarily disagree with anyone's opinions here other than out of personal taste.

Back to the uniform topic though...

My only real complaint is that the only thing uniform about our uniform is the word uniform in its title. We have too many uniforms for in-shape and out-of-shape and for those who don't want to wear the uniform. Would be nice if we condensed the number of options to a smaller number regardless of which uniform we went with.

I'd also like to see us move away from full color patches. I understand that with the old fatigues it was standard for full-color but not anymore. I also understand the heraldry behind them, but all the branches have maintained the heraldry of the designs while changing the patches to a more uniform pattern in shape with one exception.. the Army. Funny enough CAP seems more in line with the Army than the USAF when it comes to shape, size, color and design on patches but makes sense as the AF came from the Army. Subdued patches would go a long way unless we use BBDU which full color would make sense. I'm just talking common sense. I seriously doubt most people confuse CAP with actual AF personnel, and I doubt even more so that the AF would be confused by CAP members and not know what to do.

I don't particularly see any problem with any of our CAP uniforms. We stay with the BDU or BBDU I don't care. Go to the ABU I don't care, but lets be honest here... does anyone truly think if we had switched to the ABU that this whole stupid conversation wouldn't continue? We'd replace the ABU with the multicam or some other option.

Before answering your post, I think I get your point about so many contradictory messages in CAP.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 15, 2014, 05:04:31 AM
First, apparently the AF doesn't like us but they do except that they are going to get rid of us but they aren't.

The AF is more ignorant of us than actually disliking us.  If you would ask the average Airman below the grade of E-5 or the average Lieutenant fresh out of OTS about us, chances are good you'd get a "Who?" or possibly a "Oh, yeah, I know those guys.  They dress up and play like they're in the Air Force and expect us to salute them.  I read all about it in the Air Force Times.  Bunch of poseurs."

In general, I would say the policy from the AF is one of benign (not malign) neglect.  They pony up for funding, but not much else, dependent on where you are.  Some AF/AFR/ANG bases are very hospitable to us, others don't want anything to do with us.  The best treatment any of my squadrons received was one at a National Guard armoury.  The CWO-3 there gave us almost unlimited access.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 15, 2014, 05:04:31 AM
Second, we don't wear the ABU because the AF doesn't like us (but they do when they don't) except that CAP withdrew its request because we'll never see combat nor work in the desert except for those people in TX, AZ, NM, CO, NV, UT, CA and so on.

From what I know, CAP withdrew the request for the ABU because the Air Force itself is going to discontinue it.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 15, 2014, 05:04:31 AM
I can go on, but my point is that everyone has a different opinion (and lets be honest that's all these comments are) but there seems to be very little of actual knowledge going on. Of course we all have our own opinions. Its good that we hash them out here. Helps get ideas out in the open.  The only way we move forward as an organization is to air differences, air new ideas and work on creating a better force. I don't necessarily disagree with anyone's opinions here other than out of personal taste.

Like my dad always said, opinions are like [censored]s.  Everybody's got one, they all stink, some more than others.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 15, 2014, 05:04:31 AM
My only real complaint is that the only thing uniform about our uniform is the word uniform in its title. We have too many uniforms for in-shape and out-of-shape and for those who don't want to wear the uniform. Would be nice if we condensed the number of options to a smaller number regardless of which uniform we went with.

It wasn't always that way.  The corporate styles came in around the '90s, around the time the AF took away metal grade from us and imposed the H/W restrictions.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 15, 2014, 05:04:31 AM
I'd also like to see us move away from full color patches. Subdued patches would go a long way unless we use BBDU which full color would make sense. I'm just talking common sense.

Common sense perhaps (for aesthetics if nothing else) but it will never happen.  No way would the AF sign off on that.  I've related a story of where I talked briefly to an Ensign in the USNSCC and he was wearing woodland BDU's with subdued nametapes and subdued metal rank.  He said he couldn't figure out why the Air Force treated us the way they did regarding uniforms.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 15, 2014, 05:04:31 AM
I seriously doubt most people confuse CAP with actual AF personnel, and I doubt even more so that the AF would be confused by CAP members and not know what to do.

Rarely have I been confused with AF personnel, and I use such times as an opportunity to educate about CAP.

Most of the time when I have been on an AF installation I get no reaction at all from AF personnel, except when I salute a senior officer, who must then return the salute.  It wasn't always this way, but most rank-and-file Airmen I encounter tend to avoid us/act like we're not there.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 15, 2014, 05:04:31 AM
I don't particularly see any problem with any of our CAP uniforms. We stay with the BDU or BBDU I don't care. Go to the ABU I don't care, but lets be honest here... does anyone truly think if we had switched to the ABU that this whole stupid conversation wouldn't continue? We'd replace the ABU with the multicam or some other option.

I've aired my loathing for the grey/white/blazer so I won't do it again, other than to say I wear the G/W grudgingly because I have to.  I have no problem with the BBDU or blue flight suit, both of which I wear proudly.

As someone who does a fair amount of coordination and work with the Air Force (AFRCC, Air Force installations, etc.), I don't see a problem with our relationship. I believe the Air Force appreciates what CAP does. The problem is that we're just a small part of the equation when it comes to the Air Force as a whole. Some members may interpret that as something else. I don't.

When I was on Active Duty......we used to complain "no one likes comm until the phones don't work".
Basic fact of life in the USAF.....the closer you are to getting bombs on target the better you are "liked". 
But we are all an important part of the machine.....and we should not get too wrapped up in what we think the USAF thinks about us or what our uniform rules implies the USAF thinks about us.

Suffice to say....if the USAF hated us.....they would end us.   It is that simple.

I think you gentlemen are looking at it from what I would call the "macro" point of view.  You are fortunate enough to have experienced interaction with the AF, and so you can see things with a broader lens.

My experience with the USAF viz. CAP has been very much at the "micro" level.

I have never been on a major USAF base in a CAP capacity - my experience has been limited to ANG and AFRC bases, and then usually only for a squadron meeting, weekend activity (SLS, CLC, comm school) or some sort of thing where the only real contact with AF personnel has been Guard/Reserve on UTA.  That or going to MCSS (where, unlike some CAP members, I've never had trouble purchasing uniforms).

When I first joined ('93) I got a hearty handshake and "attaboy for all you CAP volunteers do for the Air Force" from a USAF Reserve (I think) Lt. Col. coming out of MCSS.  That was a real warm fuzzy.

It kind of went downhill from there, in my experience; now even getting a greeting (unless I am saluting a senior officer) is more the exception than the rule.

Of course there was the State Director I mentioned who came to a meeting and told us that our only purpose was to shepherd the cadets to get their Mitchell so they could get their E-3.  Credit where it's due - Eclipse said he was way out of line and should have been challenged, but I think we were all too gobsmacked at the time.

But those are just my experiences.  Obviously, you gentlemen, having contact with those more highly placed, have had different experiences.

To be honest I view our relationship with the AF like how supply clerks are viewed by infantry in the Marines, or support elements are viewed by Rangers in the Army, etc. We're viewed as a lesser force, but tolerated because of need. I'm sure that's not service wide for those in the AF, but its just my general experience. I know that the USAFA definitely appreciates CAP though based on personal experience.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 17, 2014, 03:27:48 AM
To be honest I view our relationship with the AF like how supply clerks are viewed by infantry in the Marines, or support elements are viewed by Rangers in the Army, etc. We're viewed as a lesser force, but tolerated because of need. I'm sure that's not service wide for those in the AF, but its just my general experience. I know that the USAFA definitely appreciates CAP though based on personal experience.

How does CAP support USAFA?

Quote from: Archer on June 17, 2014, 03:46:56 AM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 17, 2014, 03:27:48 AM
To be honest I view our relationship with the AF like how supply clerks are viewed by infantry in the Marines, or support elements are viewed by Rangers in the Army, etc. We're viewed as a lesser force, but tolerated because of need. I'm sure that's not service wide for those in the AF, but its just my general experience. I know that the USAFA definitely appreciates CAP though based on personal experience.

How does CAP support USAFA?

Sends them students?

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 17, 2014, 03:27:48 AM
To be honest I view our relationship with the AF like how supply clerks are viewed by infantry in the Marines, or support elements are viewed by Rangers in the Army, etc. We're viewed as a lesser force, but tolerated because of need. I'm sure that's not service wide for those in the AF, but its just my general experience. I know that the USAFA definitely appreciates CAP though based on personal experience.

I'd venture to guess that the majority of the AF doesn't even know we exist, and the one's that do, don't care either way. My Squadron operates out of hangar on Randolph AFB that also houses an AF pilot training squadron and I've already had to explain what CAP is to a few people who work in the same building next door to us.

It's hardly the same relationship shared by Infantry and POGs.

Quote from: PHall on June 06, 2014, 12:13:04 AM

Quote from: Eclipse on June 05, 2014, 07:49:51 PM
The much hated / exalted golf shirt / tactical pants combo fulfills 95% of the need for 95% of CAP missions, including
95% or SAR, including, but not limited to:


>ALL FLYING< ALL. Every flight, in every wing.

Not in California Wing. And we have a supplement to back it up too.
CAWG Supplement to CAPR 60-3, 24 Aug 12.  Para 1-11 c

Not according to NHQ.  NHQ's list of approved waivers or supplements to 60-3 does not list one for CA, and NHQ and CAP-USAF  approval is required for supplements to 60-3

http://capmembers.com/emergency_services/operations_support/approved-supplements-waivers-ois-etc-to-capr-60-3/ (http://capmembers.com/emergency_services/operations_support/approved-supplements-waivers-ois-etc-to-capr-60-3/)

Also, CA's supplement to 60-1 has been expired and of no force or effect for nearly 2 years.
http://www.capmembers.com/emergency_services/aircraft_ops__staneval/approved-supplements-waivers-ois-etc-to-capr-60-1/ (http://www.capmembers.com/emergency_services/aircraft_ops__staneval/approved-supplements-waivers-ois-etc-to-capr-60-1/)

Quote from: lordmonar on June 16, 2014, 07:55:32 PM
When I was on Active Duty......we used to complain "no one likes comm until the phones don't work".
Basic fact of life in the USAF.....the closer you are to getting bombs on target the better you are "liked". 
But we are all an important part of the machine.....and we should not get too wrapped up in what we think the USAF thinks about us or what our uniform rules implies the USAF thinks about us.

Suffice to say....if the USAF hated us.....they would end us.   It is that simple.

I've yet to come across truer words.  Though for me you'd replace phones with servers, specifically email. 


I still remember block 2 of my tech school where our instructor listed the most common types of servers we'd work with, in order of priority to work on should they go down.  Exchange (email) was #1.

Being a "necessary evil" doesn't exactly stir the hearts of men.

"Join the CAP and become a tolerated economic necessity..."

Quote from: Eclipse on June 17, 2014, 02:34:32 PM
Being a "necessary evil" doesn't exactly stir the hearts of men.

"Join the CAP and become a tolerated economic necessity..."

It is more then just a economic necessity.   Those that pay us really do like us.  Those we work for really like use.  Those that don't work with us......just don't know who we are.   Which in the USAF is no difference then any other squadron in relation to yours.   In the USAF the world revolves about YOU and YOUR squadron.  If you are Comm....that is the center of the world and I would not know what a Test and Evaluation Squadron is....except that need 20 phones, 10 NIPR computers, 5 SIPR dropps and they keep asking for satellite TV.   Last I checked there were very few TV commercials saying "Join the Air Force and work the trouble calls desk". 
We ain't sexy....but we are vitally important to getting bombs on target.

Quote from: The14th on June 17, 2014, 07:15:26 AM
I'd venture to guess that the majority of the AF doesn't even know we exist, and the one's that do, don't care either way.

True.  And who owns the problem with that?

That is, unless they hear of some apocryphal story about a CAP officer trying to "make them salute."

Quote from: CyBorg on June 17, 2014, 07:23:33 PM

Quote from: The14th on June 17, 2014, 07:15:26 AM
I'd venture to guess that the majority of the AF doesn't even know we exist, and the one's that do, don't care either way.

True.  And who owns the problem with that?

Why is that a problem? I'm not familiar with every single component, organization or capability of the Air Force. CAP is just a small part of that. The people who need to know who we are do. That's all that matters.

Quote from: CyBorg on June 17, 2014, 07:23:33 PMThat is, unless they hear of some apocryphal story about a CAP officer trying to "make them salute."

I think this whole thing is apocryphal in itself. Never have I encountered someone in the Air Force who's said anything remotely close to that. Even if you've unfortunately experienced that, that doesn't make it a widespread problem.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on June 17, 2014, 07:34:51 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on June 17, 2014, 07:23:33 PMThat is, unless they hear of some apocryphal story about a CAP officer trying to "make them salute."

I think this whole thing is apocryphal in itself. Never have I encountered someone in the Air Force who's said anything remotely close to that. Even if you've unfortunately experienced that, that doesn't make it a widespread problem.

I haven't experienced it directly, for several reasons.

I have never tried to troll for a salute from a military member.  If I receive one, which is rare from AF members but not other services, it's a nice bonus.  I'm just as content with a friendly greeting.

I always salute officers senior in grade to me, even if they're foreign and I don't recognise their rank.  My first squadron CC talked about when he was at Maxwell he would see Germans, French, Dutch, British, Canadian, Australian, Japanese et. al. personnel and he always saluted them.  He said "I may have been saluting Corporals but at least I know I'm within regs."  I take the same approach.

I have never spent a lot of time on a USAF base in a CAP capacity.  The nearest to me is an ANGB and the only reason I go there is maybe once a year to MCSS, and then I transact my business and get in and out.

On the extremely few times it apparently has happened...well, General Courter felt it necessary to issue a memorandum on the matter.

https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Documents/Military_Salute_Letter_to_all_CAP_members.pdf (https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Documents/Military_Salute_Letter_to_all_CAP_members.pdf)

Even if that's happened on occasion, it doesn't mean that it's a systemic problem within CAP or that the perception of most Air Force personnel is that CAP members are always trolling for salutes. I would say that that's the exception, not the rule.

Quote from: CyBorg on June 17, 2014, 07:53:52 PM
On the extremely few times it apparently has happened...well, General Courter felt it necessary to issue a memorandum on the matter.

https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Documents/Military_Salute_Letter_to_all_CAP_members.pdf (https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Documents/Military_Salute_Letter_to_all_CAP_members.pdf)

Our Wing/CC made clear that his reaction to such an incident would be simple.  It started with the number "2" and ended with the letter "b".

Quote from: JeffDG on June 17, 2014, 08:39:58 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on June 17, 2014, 07:53:52 PM
On the extremely few times it apparently has happened...well, General Courter felt it necessary to issue a memorandum on the matter.

https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Documents/Military_Salute_Letter_to_all_CAP_members.pdf (https://www.capnhq.gov/news/Documents/Military_Salute_Letter_to_all_CAP_members.pdf)

Our Wing/CC made clear that his reaction to such an incident would be simple.  It started with the number "2" and ended with the letter "b".

"CAP membership, brought to you Sesame Street style, by the number 2 and the letter b"

Quote from: Storm Chaser on June 17, 2014, 08:25:10 PM
Even if that's happened on occasion, it doesn't mean that it's a systemic problem within CAP or that the perception of most Air Force personnel is that CAP members are always trolling for salutes. I would say that that's the exception, not the rule.

Actually, I am (sort of) with you on this one.  It happens MUCH less than the incident described (which made Air Force Times online forum with subsequent online disparaging remarks about CAP) would make one think (I nearly posted a heated rejoinder on this forum, but restrained myself as it wouldn't have made the situation any better).

I have never seen it happen, nor do I know anyone who has.

Quote from: Archer on June 17, 2014, 03:46:56 AM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 17, 2014, 03:27:48 AM
To be honest I view our relationship with the AF like how supply clerks are viewed by infantry in the Marines, or support elements are viewed by Rangers in the Army, etc. We're viewed as a lesser force, but tolerated because of need. I'm sure that's not service wide for those in the AF, but its just my general experience. I know that the USAFA definitely appreciates CAP though based on personal experience.

How does CAP support USAFA?

CAP squadrons in the area, and the one on the installation, do a lot of work for the Academy. They may not these days, but they were heavily active in the past with on base activities such as maintenance, cleaning and promotions.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 22, 2014, 07:41:39 AM

Quote from: Archer on June 17, 2014, 03:46:56 AM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 17, 2014, 03:27:48 AM
To be honest I view our relationship with the AF like how supply clerks are viewed by infantry in the Marines, or support elements are viewed by Rangers in the Army, etc. We're viewed as a lesser force, but tolerated because of need. I'm sure that's not service wide for those in the AF, but its just my general experience. I know that the USAFA definitely appreciates CAP though based on personal experience.

How does CAP support USAFA?

CAP squadrons in the area, and the one on the installation, do a lot of work for the Academy. They may not these days, but they were heavily active in the past with on base activities such as maintenance, cleaning and promotions.

Well, yeah, we also used to kill people with bombs; I'm curious as to what we actually do for the academy other than perhaps coincidentally turning our members on to the idea of crossing into the blue.

Quote from: Archer on June 22, 2014, 08:10:06 AM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 22, 2014, 07:41:39 AM

Quote from: Archer on June 17, 2014, 03:46:56 AM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 17, 2014, 03:27:48 AM
To be honest I view our relationship with the AF like how supply clerks are viewed by infantry in the Marines, or support elements are viewed by Rangers in the Army, etc. We're viewed as a lesser force, but tolerated because of need. I'm sure that's not service wide for those in the AF, but its just my general experience. I know that the USAFA definitely appreciates CAP though based on personal experience.

How does CAP support USAFA?

CAP squadrons in the area, and the one on the installation, do a lot of work for the Academy. They may not these days, but they were heavily active in the past with on base activities such as maintenance, cleaning and promotions.

Well, yeah, we also used to kill people with bombs; I'm curious as to what we actually do for the academy other than perhaps coincidentally turning our members on to the idea of crossing into the blue.

I literally just told you and you even quoted my response.

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 22, 2014, 08:11:22 AM

Quote from: Archer on June 22, 2014, 08:10:06 AM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 22, 2014, 07:41:39 AM

Quote from: Archer on June 17, 2014, 03:46:56 AM

Quote from: NorCal21 on June 17, 2014, 03:27:48 AM
To be honest I view our relationship with the AF like how supply clerks are viewed by infantry in the Marines, or support elements are viewed by Rangers in the Army, etc. We're viewed as a lesser force, but tolerated because of need. I'm sure that's not service wide for those in the AF, but its just my general experience. I know that the USAFA definitely appreciates CAP though based on personal experience.

How does CAP support USAFA?

CAP squadrons in the area, and the one on the installation, do a lot of work for the Academy. They may not these days, but they were heavily active in the past with on base activities such as maintenance, cleaning and promotions.

Well, yeah, we also used to kill people with bombs; I'm curious as to what we actually do for the academy other than perhaps coincidentally turning our members on to the idea of crossing into the blue.

I literally just told you and you even quoted my response.

"They may not these days[...]" led me to believe that you meant that we used to directly do good things for the Academy, but not anymore. Kind of like how we used to kill Nazi's, but not anymore. Is their anything CAP does currently that supports USAFA other than kind of introducing some tid bits of the Air Force to its members?

Quote from: CyBorg on June 17, 2014, 10:57:54 PM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on June 17, 2014, 08:25:10 PM
Even if that's happened on occasion, it doesn't mean that it's a systemic problem within CAP or that the perception of most Air Force personnel is that CAP members are always trolling for salutes. I would say that that's the exception, not the rule.

Actually, I am (sort of) with you on this one.  It happens MUCH less than the incident described (which made Air Force Times online forum with subsequent online disparaging remarks about CAP) would make one think (I nearly posted a heated rejoinder on this forum, but restrained myself as it wouldn't have made the situation any better).

I have never seen it happen, nor do I know anyone who has.

Though this does not deal with the trolling for or demanding salutes, this incident did happen: The year was 2000...the place was Honolulu airport and Hickam AFB.  Hickam was the site of the Chaplain Service (now Corps) Region Staff College where a CAP captain (then a MLO/now CDI) called the base making a heavy-handed request of having someone send a car to pick him up at the airport.   Needless to say the Region Chaplain, the National Staff Chaplain (back then an active-duty Chaplain assigned to CAP-USAF HQ), the Region and Wing Commanders, and National Headquarters were not 'happy campers" when they learned of this incident.   Nor was the individual who no longer enjoys membership in CAP.  Since then there has been a lot of discussion regarding protocol as well as the CAP/USAF relationship.

In almost all cases it's one idiot, kick them apologize to the base CC (or whoever) and leave the rest of us out of it
instead of issuing "memos", etc., etc.

Quote from: Eclipse on June 24, 2014, 08:11:35 PM
In almost all cases it's one idiot, kick them apologize to the base CC (or whoever) and leave the rest of us out of it
instead of issuing "memos", etc., etc.

And one of the "lessons learned" for future schools was making sure that the transportation schedule to and from the airport (or in some cases, train depot) was sent out and acknowledged prior to the event. 

http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140603/NEWS07/306030068/Deployed-airmen-wear-new-Army-camo-pattern (http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140603/NEWS07/306030068/Deployed-airmen-wear-new-Army-camo-pattern)

So start the clock on Scorpion W2 being the new USAF field uniform.  Both houses have directed consolidated field uniforms
by 2018, the USAF and Army will both wear Scorpion while deployed, etc., etc.  My predication is the 2017 "compromise"
is all services in Scorpion for 2019 except for the Marines which will keep MultiCam MARPAT.

(http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/MSG-Benjamin-Owens-in-OCP-ACU-US-Army-Photo-3-440x959.jpg)

CAP has no need for any of it, though I would like to see them move the dark blue field uniform shirts to the slant pockets.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 12, 2014, 05:23:18 PM
My predication is the 2017 "compromise" is all services in Scorpion for 2019 except for the Marines which will keep MultiCam.

May I assume you mean "MARPAT" versus MultiCam, which they don't wear today (well, as of my deployment, they didn't)?

Yah.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 12, 2014, 05:23:18 PM
CAP has no need for any of it, though I would like to see them move the dark blue field uniform shirts to the slant pockets.

Negative.  Quantum mathematics have shown that there is a non-zero chance that Airman Billy may, in a hypothetical scenario where it is midnight in the middle of winter and there's a blizzard taking place, mistake a CAP member in Blue BDUs for a RealMilitary® officer, and may render a salute.

^ You're right.  The velcro pockets alone are an insurmountable issue of low-light audible identification.

Quote from: Panache on August 12, 2014, 05:48:27 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 12, 2014, 05:23:18 PM
CAP has no need for any of it, though I would like to see them move the dark blue field uniform shirts to the slant pockets.

Negative.  Quantum mathematics have shown that there is a non-zero chance that Airman Billy may, in a hypothetical scenario where it is midnight in the middle of winter and there's a blizzard taking place, mistake a CAP member in Blue BDUs for a RealMilitary® officer, and may render a salute.

Airman Billy, fresh out of BMT and Tech School, and therefore knowing everything about the Air Force but nothing about CAP, could well be crewing in a Pave Hawk equipped with NVG's, FLIR and other assorted goodies.

If he uses said toys to pick out a CAP Major walking down the sidewalk of Bumfart AFB from about a half-mile away, he can complain to his First Shirt about this CAP Wannabe who he thought tried to use his radio to talk to Airman Billy and saying "Son, you'd better throw me a salute when you land!"  Of course, 1st Sgt Bigdiamond is going to believe 19 year old Airman Billy and goes through channels to complain about this Major Wannabe.

Complaint reaches CAP-USAF...who promptly direct National CC to issue a knuckle-rapping memo to CAP membership about not trolling for salutes and then starts wringing hands about how our uniform needs to be more "distinctive"...so as to avoid another such possible incident with an AF Lieutenant WSO in the back seat of an F-15E potentially thinking a CAP Captain is trying to make him salute.

Quote from: CyBorg on August 12, 2014, 08:28:08 PM
Complaint reaches CAP-USAF...who promptly direct National CC to issue a knuckle-rapping memo to CAP membership about not trolling for salutes and then starts wringing hands about how our uniform needs to be more "distinctive"...so as to avoid another such possible incident with an AF Lieutenant WSO in the back seat of an F-15E potentially thinking a CAP Captain is trying to make him salute.

New 39-1:  "Effective immediately, all Civil Air Patrol Senior Members must, while acting in a CAP capacity on or near ("near" is defined as within a 50-mile radius) of any US military instillation (up to, and including, recruiting offices), must have a scarlet "C" branded upon their foreheads."

Quote from: CyBorg on August 12, 2014, 08:28:08 PM
Complaint reaches CAP-USAF...who promptly direct National CC to issue a knuckle-rapping memo to CAP membership about not trolling for salutes and then starts wringing hands about how our uniform needs to be more "distinctive"

Obviously your post was sarcasm, but interestingly, I was reading an old newspaper article (1944 I think) that stated the 4th Air Force prohibited its service members from saluting CAP officers as they did not deserve the salute. 

Quote from: LSThiker on August 13, 2014, 04:40:30 AM
Obviously your post was sarcasm, but interestingly, I was reading an old newspaper article (1944 I think) that stated the 4th Air Force prohibited its service members from saluting CAP officers as they did not deserve the salute.

My sarcasm isn't really directed at the issu of saluting per se, except that there are so many apocryphal and outright Bravo Sierra "stories" of CAP officers trying to make military members salute us.  Then when one documented case actually does happen, the whole organisation gets its knuckles rapped because of the actions of one member who should certainly know better.

My sarcasm is directed much more at the inane, undefinable, unquantifiable, unenforceable "low-light/at-a-distance" clause in AFI 10-2701 that causes so much cognitive dissonance over what is "distinctive" and what is not.  To me, if someone, ANYONE, Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine, Coastie cannot read "CAP" on shoulder marks of whatever colour, and read what our nameplates say, then as far as I am concerned we do not own the problem.

Actually, I could care less if an enlisted person, NCO, warrant officer or commissioned officer decides not to salute me.  A friendly greeting goes as far with me as a salute does.  It's just an extra warm fuzzy if a military member decides to.

That is where my sarcasm is directed...at an undefineable standard.

I'm glad you recognised it as sarcasm.  My wife says I have the most acidic sarcasm of anyone she's ever met, as well as the darkest sense of humour...things like that don't come off easily on the 'net.

Quote from: CyBorg on August 13, 2014, 05:53:11 AM

My sarcasm isn't really directed at the issu of saluting per se, except that there are so many apocryphal and outright Bravo Sierra "stories" of CAP officers trying to make military members salute us.  Then when one documented case actually does happen, the whole organisation gets its knuckles rapped because of the actions of one member who should certainly know better.

Ever notice that most of those BS stories include some version of...."Then (s)he said 'see this/these bar(s)/oak leaf? ...'?"

Its almost as if CAP has us memorize a "trolling script."

Quote from: CyBorg on August 13, 2014, 05:53:11 AM
My sarcasm isn't really directed at the issu of saluting per se, except that there are so many apocryphal and outright Bravo Sierra "stories" of CAP officers trying to make military members salute us.  Then when one documented case actually does happen, the whole organisation gets its knuckles rapped because of the actions of one member who should certainly know better.

I understand that.  However, it is interesting in that discussing the transition from metal rank to maroon epaulets, people always refer to salute trolling at some undefined location at some undefined time between two undefined people.  When in reality, such disdain was already found in the 1940s.

Misunderstandings in history have occurred on other items:

For example, the NRA badge for cadets when there other badges and programs.  Well, the NRA has been providing marksmanship training to seniors and cadets since 1942.  The medical officer is one of the first advance promotions that existed in CAP as medical officers were promoted to captain in the 1940s similar to the AAC.  The pilot wings, glider wings, and observer wings are essentially the same design since 1945. 

^ These are the fault of the regulation author for writing the spec too tight and not accommodating
flexibility or changes.

I can't even imagine what it must have been like 25 years ago when one person in the unit could
squirrel away all the hardcopy regulations and become the Oracle - talk about knowledge being power.

In some ways CAP still acts that way.  Regulations are no longer stone tablets, inconsistencies, conflicts
and typos can and should be fixed on the fly, but it appears that is still not possible,

If you had the "big blue binder of death" you were the go to person for almost every aspect of Civil Air Patrol.  In my early experience the only two regulations that were common knowledge were the uniform manual and the flight program manual.  Everything else was left to the Oracle.

Quote from: Salty on August 13, 2014, 04:56:12 PM
If you had the "big blue binder of death" you were the go to person for almost every aspect of Civil Air Patrol.  In my early experience the only two regulations that were common knowledge were the uniform manual and the flight program manual.  Everything else was left to the Oracle.

I joined at the tail end of that and it was horrible.  Wive's tales abounded, as did interpretations by those not
authorized to interpret.  Ask to "see it" and you got "the look".

There were people in CAP whose whole existence was based on the care and feeding of those binders.
It gave me a fair amount of pleasure when they went in the round file when I assumed command.

Quote from: Salty on August 13, 2014, 04:56:12 PM
If you had the "big blue binder of death" you were the go to person for almost every aspect of Civil Air Patrol.  In my early experience the only two regulations that were common knowledge were the uniform manual and the flight program manual.  Everything else was left to the Oracle.

I remember the big blue bible.  I threw mine out a few years ago when I got sick and tired of moving it on my bookshelf.

Quote from: CyBorg on August 13, 2014, 05:53:11 AM
My sarcasm is directed much more at the inane, undefinable, unquantifiable, unenforceable "low-light/at-a-distance" clause in AFI 10-2701 that causes so much cognitive dissonance over what is "distinctive" and what is not.

That's easy. "Distinctive" and "at a distance and in low-light conditions" is defined as whatever the U.S. Air Force says it is (cf. AFI 10-2701, Para. 1.3.4). They approve changes to the Air Force-style uniform, so they decide whether a proposed change meets this criteria or not.

^^Not so simple, Sir.

At some point someone in the USAF has to define those conditions...and who does that, I wonder, and based on what criteria?  After all, one person's idea of "distinctiveness" may not be another person's idea.  Who does it, I wonder?  CC, CAP-USAF?  CSAF?  SECAF?

I was once the keeper of the Big Blue Binder (and earned my Master's in Administration in large part keeping it updated).  I never hoarded it, but I did a lot of hours on the floor of my apartment living room keeping the bloody thing updated.

Quote from: CyBorg on August 13, 2014, 07:24:55 PM
^^Not so simple, Sir.

At some point someone in the USAF has to define those conditions...and who does that, I wonder, and based on what criteria?  After all, one person's idea of "distinctiveness" may not be another person's idea.  Who does it, I wonder?  CC, CAP-USAF?  CSAF?  SECAF?

I agree that the terms used in AFI 10-2701 are a bit subjective, but my point is that defining those terms is not something that we, CAP members, need to worry about as we have no control over that; the U.S. Air Force does.

Now, to answer your question, CAPM 39-1, Para. 13.2.7.3 states that uniform changes requiring USAF approval are "forwarded to CAP-USAF for their review and approval." AFI 10-2701, Para. 1.3.4 states that "CAP-USAF/CC must approve changes to the CAP Air Force-style uniform."

Since the CAP-USAF/CC has to approve any changes to the AF-style uniform, that makes him (or her) the final authority on defining what constitutes "sufficiently different" "at a distance and in low-light conditions".

Quote from: CyBorg on August 13, 2014, 07:24:55 PM
^^Not so simple, Sir.

At some point someone in the USAF has to define those conditions...and who does that, I wonder, and based on what criteria?  After all, one person's idea of "distinctiveness" may not be another person's idea.  Who does it, I wonder?  CC, CAP-USAF?  CSAF?  SECAF?

I was once the keeper of the Big Blue Binder (and earned my Master's in Administration in large part keeping it updated).  I never hoarded it, but I did a lot of hours on the floor of my apartment living room keeping the bloody thing updated.

That "someone" is the OPR for the AFI. Should be on the bottom right corner of the title page.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 13, 2014, 10:01:36 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on August 13, 2014, 07:24:55 PM
^^Not so simple, Sir.

At some point someone in the USAF has to define those conditions...and who does that, I wonder, and based on what criteria?  After all, one person's idea of "distinctiveness" may not be another person's idea.  Who does it, I wonder?  CC, CAP-USAF?  CSAF?  SECAF?

I agree that the terms used in AFI 10-2701 are a bit subjective, but my point is that defining those terms is not something that we, CAP members, need to worry about as we have no control over that; the U.S. Air Force does.

Now, to answer your question, CAPM 39-1, Para. 13.2.7.3 states that uniform changes requiring USAF approval are "forwarded to CAP-USAF for their review and approval." AFI 10-2701, Para. 1.3.4 states that "CAP-USAF/CC must approve changes to the CAP Air Force-style uniform."

Since the CAP-USAF/CC has to approve any changes to the AF-style uniform, that makes him (or her) the final authority on defining what constitutes "sufficiently different" "at a distance and in low-light conditions".

But the G/Ws and Blue BDUs are not "AF-style uniforms", are they?  Yet it appears that Ma Blue keeps a pretty tight leash on how those are set up, as well.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 13, 2014, 10:01:36 PM
I agree that the terms used in AFI 10-2701 are a bit subjective, but my point is that defining those terms is not something that we, CAP members, need to worry about as we have no control over that; the U.S. Air Force does.

Now, to answer your question, CAPM 39-1, Para. 13.2.7.3 states that uniform changes requiring USAF approval are "forwarded to CAP-USAF for their review and approval." AFI 10-2701, Para. 1.3.4 states that "CAP-USAF/CC must approve changes to the CAP Air Force-style uniform."

Since the CAP-USAF/CC has to approve any changes to the AF-style uniform, that makes him (or her) the final authority on defining what constitutes "sufficiently different" "at a distance and in low-light conditions".

Oh, I know that we have no control over the changes themselves.  My point was exactly as you said: the description is subjective, not objective, and to me a regulation of such importance should be clearly delineated.  Too many years as an IT/programmer and too many psychology courses, I guess. ;)

I will accept your position that CAP-USAF/CC is the final authority on the matter; it seems the most logical and I do not have a more probable counter-argument.

Quote from: PHall on August 14, 2014, 01:06:35 AM
That "someone" is the OPR for the AFI. Should be on the bottom right corner of the title page.

Another good point for which I have no counter-argument.

Nicely posited, gentlemen. :)

Quote from: Panache on August 14, 2014, 03:50:53 AM
But the G/Ws and Blue BDUs are not "AF-style uniforms", are they?  Yet it appears that Ma Blue keeps a pretty tight leash on how those are set up, as well.

I think that the AF only started taking a serious interest in those uniforms after the kerfuffle over the CSU.

Now, my position is well-known: it was a very attractive uniform and (mostly) very well-liked, and I know a lot of people besides myself that were/are very displeased with CAP (and it was CAP, not the Air Force, that disallowed it) disallowing it.  However, I concede a big point: the way it was introduced no doubt caused some consternation with the AF, when the former Generalissimo just showed up at some sort of staff meeting with a lot of AF higher-ups present wearing it (someone please correct me if I have facts wrong with that).

It could well be that, had the AF been contacted first, rather than after the fact, we would still have the uniform today.

I think that incident caused a double-whammy: it resulted in a (generally) popular uniform being discontinued, after some members had sunk considerable cash into purchasing it, and it has probably made the powers that be within CAP take a hard line of "no change" to the "CAP-distinctive" uniform, even though the GW/Blazer is not an equivalent to the service dress.

I believe they are much less likely to even consider suggesting modifications to the GW/blazer setup to bring them more in line with service dress; i.e., real headgear (not the nebulous "CAP baseball cap") and a service coat that CAP badging can be worn upon.

You miss the point that the writers of the AFI wanted it to subjective.    That means they can change their minds when/if they need to.  It also means that they don't ever paint themselves into a corner.  "low light and at a distance means XYZ"......if CAP makes a uniform change that meets that definition then USAF must approve....or worse yet we can go around their approval...."it meets the reg!".

Quote from: Panache on August 14, 2014, 03:50:53 AM

Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 13, 2014, 10:01:36 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on August 13, 2014, 07:24:55 PM
^^Not so simple, Sir.

At some point someone in the USAF has to define those conditions...and who does that, I wonder, and based on what criteria?  After all, one person's idea of "distinctiveness" may not be another person's idea.  Who does it, I wonder?  CC, CAP-USAF?  CSAF?  SECAF?

I agree that the terms used in AFI 10-2701 are a bit subjective, but my point is that defining those terms is not something that we, CAP members, need to worry about as we have no control over that; the U.S. Air Force does.

Now, to answer your question, CAPM 39-1, Para. 13.2.7.3 states that uniform changes requiring USAF approval are "forwarded to CAP-USAF for their review and approval." AFI 10-2701, Para. 1.3.4 states that "CAP-USAF/CC must approve changes to the CAP Air Force-style uniform."

Since the CAP-USAF/CC has to approve any changes to the AF-style uniform, that makes him (or her) the final authority on defining what constitutes "sufficiently different" "at a distance and in low-light conditions".

But the G/Ws and Blue BDUs are not "AF-style uniforms", are they?  Yet it appears that Ma Blue keeps a pretty tight leash on how those are set up, as well.

That's probably because of the requirement in AFI 10-2701 that states:

Quote from: AFI 10-2701, Para. 1.3.4CAP distinctive uniforms must be sufficiently different from U.S. Armed Forces uniforms so that confusion will not occur.

^^Point taken, but nonetheless a great deal of it is in the eye of the beholder.

I've mentioned this before, but I think it is germane to the topic.  Years ago I made a quick stop at a department store on my way home from a CAP meeting.  I was in the AF short-sleeve blue shirt, grey shoulder marks and nameplate.  A young woman came up to me and asked me if I was a store security guard.

I remember a story from years ago in Reader's Digest "Humour In Uniform" section.

A young cadet at Annapolis passed an Air Force Captain and did not salute.  The Captain scolded the young plebe for not saluting an officer.  The young plebe said, "Sir, seriously, I thought you were a mailman!"  The Captain was so taken aback by this that he dismissed the cadet without further discipline.

As has been pointed out, our BBDU's are very close to USCG ODU's (and I see Coasties quite frequently in this uniform), at least for the illiterates who cannot read "CIVIL AIR PATROL" v. "U.S. COAST GUARD."

At a quick glance, the G/W kit could be confused with Army Class B's, though that is a stretch.  It can also be confused very easily with West Point cadet uniforms (if not for the hat).  This could quite easily be a CAP Technical Flight Officer.

(http://www.west-point.org/parent/plebe-net/uniforms/white_over_gray.jpg)

I still believe there is a way to alter our "distinctive" uniforms (along the lines of civilian airline uniforms) so that we do not look like mall cops and Realtors (no offence to either).

After all, in my opinion at least, the BBDU and blue flight suit are attractive and consistent with our heritage; there is no reason I see that we cannot do similarly with our "distinctive" uniforms while still meeting the Air Force's standards.

The problem is that while many (maybe most) agree that there are shortcomings with the corporate aviator shirt uniform, not many can agree on the solution to fix it. You've mentioned adding a headgear, but there are members that are happy that the uniform doesn't have one. You mentioned changing the color of the pants to something other than gray. Well, some members like gray. Other members like that they can wear the same pants with their Aviator or Polo shirt. Heck, we've all talked about standardizing the style and color, but some members would then complain that they can't wear existing pants or that they favorite brand or vendor can't be used. Adding a service coat, while welcome by many, would add another expense that others don't want to have to incur. And then you have the issue with the pants not all being the same color (what the heck is medium gray anyway?). That's really the problem.

I don't think the Air Force is stopping CAP from improving the corporate "service" uniform, as long as it remains distinctive. And they've already determine that our current uniform is distinctive enough. The issue with the CSU is more complicated. I don't think will see something like that in a long time, but who knows?

Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 14, 2014, 12:15:32 PM
I don't think the Air Force is stopping CAP from improving the corporate "service" uniform, as long as it remains distinctive. And they've already determine that our current uniform is distinctive enough. The issue with the CSU is more complicated. I don't think will see something like that in a long time, but who knows?

Here's where I feel an issue still needs to be addressed.  Obviously the CSU issue was more complicated.  But why make it obsolete so quickly?  What caused a member of the old NEC to recommend (and the rest of the NEC to agree) that the CSU needed to be done away with?  I accept the fact that it's gone.  And I agree that even knowing why it happened won't bring it back.

But I - and many other members who invested $$ in the uniform - still deserve to know why it was canned.  And why won't anyone just answer the question?

And if the Aviator Grays are improved upon with a cap and service coat, I know many members (myself included) who will shell out the $$ for the improvements.  We'd just like to have that option.

Jack

I don't disagree and that's something our leadership may have to address at some point.

Actually, it isn't the grey trousers I've suggested changing; just standardising on a cut/shade that matches the shoulder marks/nameplate.

It's changing the white shirt to a blue Van Heusen aviator shirt.  Different shade of blue to the Air Force shirt and exact same cut/material as the white one.

ColonelJack, we will never be told the reason the CSU was disallowed.  My own opinion is that it was part of a quasi-purge to get rid of all things P****a, but that's just speculation.

Emendation: I don't think it's the Air Force stopping any changes to the G/W kit.  I think it is CAP being too fearful in the aftermath of the CSU to even propose anything but the status quo to the AF.

The answer to this entire problem is enforcing the uniform regulations fully at all levels.

There is no incentive to fix things if you feel empowered to just ignore the rules.

If Gen Vasquez enacted mandatory weigh-ins for USAF-Style uniforms this weekend,
CAP would have one coherent uniform before he left office.

Quote from: Eclipse on August 14, 2014, 02:28:34 PM
The answer to this entire problem is enforcing the uniform regulations fully at all levels.

There is no incentive to fix things if you feel empowered to just ignore the rules.

If Gen Vasquez enacted mandatory weigh-ins for USAF-Style uniforms this weekend,
CAP would have one coherent uniform before he left office.

Not sure I follow you.

Mandatory weigh-ins would certainly eliminate not a few members from the AF-type uniform.  I know some myself.

But how would that solve the problem of a bog-ugly (my opinion), colourless "corporate" uniform?

Quote from: CyBorg on August 14, 2014, 08:43:54 PMBut how would that solve the problem of a bog-ugly (my opinion), colourless "corporate" uniform?

It might not, and that isn't really my concern, I have no particular issue with the whites and blues field uniform.
Wearing >a< uniform, whatever that turns out to be, is.

Though if >everyone< was forced to wear the grays, including those to whom wearing blue is so important
they publicly sacrifice their credibility and integrity, there would likely be more pressure and pleading to the USAF
to put everyone in blue.  If nothing else, the grays would certainly have the missing pieces added to complete the full uniform.

Either way, problem solved.

LOOK!

We're married to the idea of BDUs forever...so....you better get used to the idea!

/monty python quote

I have a full set of blues in my closet, but I currently do not wear them as I am out of H/W standards.  I could wear them, but I would be noncompliant.

I also have the G/W uniform, both S/S and L/S, which I avoid wearing whenever I can, as I feel like a goofball wearing it (I do not own a blazer).  However, when I do wear it, it is clean, pressed and with all proper badging in place (I only wear my wings, rank and nameplate on the S/S; I have my ribbons and speciality track insignia on the L/S).

However, I do like the BBDU's and blue flight suit, which is what I wear when I am not required to wear the G/W.

I think there could be pressure and pleading to high heaven but the USAF will not budge on H/W standards.  I really do not see the reason to be noncompliant in grooming standards, except for religious reasons.  I had longish hair and a beard before I last rejoined CAP.  When I rejoined CAP, I got out the razor and went to the barber shop.

What parts do you believe are "missing" to complete the "full uniform?"  I just want to see how your list corresponds with mine.

http://www.afgsc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123423443 (http://www.afgsc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123423443)

"9/4/2014 - BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. -- Security Forces Airmen at three Air Force Global Strike Command bases, as well as those in the 620th Ground Combat Training Squadron serving at Camp Guernsey, Wyoming, will soon be fielding new personal gear and sporting a new camouflage pattern uniform."

"The Operation Enduring Freedom Camouflage Pattern, called OCP and commonly referred to as MultiCam, is currently used by U.S. troops deployed to Afghanistan and will become the standard pattern used by Security Forces at AFGSC's missile wings and Camp Guernsey. OCP, which uses smooth lines and a six-color palette, has been identified by the Department of Defense as being more effective in a variety of environments than the four-color, pixelated camouflage patterns currently in use by the Air Force and Army. "

So much for "only over there".  If the clock is not set on the death of the ABU, someone needs to plug it in...

(http://www.afgsc.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/web/2014/08/140818-F-99XXX-001.jpg)
Security Forces Airmen perform a training patrol at Minot Air Force Base, N.D.
The Airman on the left is wearing an OCP (MultiCam) uniform, where the Airman on the right is wearing ABUs.
(U.S. Air Force Courtesy Photo)

(http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/86e7149e2e454d43a93dadb4bb4bb1cf3e01b996/c=36-0-1394-1021&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/GGM/AirForceTimes/2014/11/11/635513107406620009-123Multicam.jpg)
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/11/11/nuclear-changes-global-strike/18859293/ (http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2014/11/11/nuclear-changes-global-strike/18859293/)

Interestingly, the first story above is only a day apart from this one.  http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/09/03/air-force-says-no-to-new-camouflage.html (http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/09/03/air-force-says-no-to-new-camouflage.html)

Your mistake is trusting Military.com as a "source".  Military.com is a "National Enquiror" type of source.
Interesting, but nothing you would trust.

Quote from: PHall on November 12, 2014, 05:14:00 AM
Your mistake is trusting Military.com as a "source".  Military.com is a "National Enquiror" type of source.
Interesting, but nothing you would trust.

The main article cited is an AF.mil source.

There is a difference between the "USAF says no" and "AFGSC says the Security Forces within my command will wear them".

IF.....IF....army transitions to everyone in the new combat camo.....which at this point they are not going to do.....then the USAF will follow suit.  Until then "special" units and commands will continue to do what they have always done......what ever they wanted.

With today's budget....the DoD is NOT going to start a new joint "find the combat patter" effort.  Not this week.

The articles are not contradicting each other.  The AFGSC says "the Security Forces will wear them" and the Military.com article says "most Airmen will wear the ABUs".  Therefore, the AFGSC Security Forces are not part of the "most Airmen will wear ABUs" concept.  Nevertheless, at some point in the future when the Army has all Soldiers wearing the OCP (2018), the USAF will probably require all Airmen to wear the uniform also.

Quickly!

Someone bring a bat, the horses are still moving!!!



(http://file:///C:/Users/admin/AppData/Local/Temp/graphics-horses-936010.gif)


(http://file:///C:/Users/admin/AppData/Local/Temp/graphics-horses-936010.gif)

My point was that a uniform that was going to be "only over there" is, within a few months, "now over here".

It's only a matter of time now before someone says "Whatever, just give them all OCP as they wear out existing uniforms."
(I know, it won't be that simple...)

Quote from: lordmonar on November 12, 2014, 06:36:20 AMWith today's budget....the DoD is NOT going to start a new joint "find the combat patter" effort.  Not this week.

They don't need to, it's clearly already been decided, though it will be interesting to see if the Republican takeover changes
the 2018 uniform mandate, as they were pretty much against it in the House.

I wonder why we cannot agree on a field/combat/work uniform for all five services.  As I've said, when my Army ex-brother-in-law first got his BDU's, he told me it was intended for a standard uniform for all the services.

Australia just came out with a new duty uniform for the RAAF...but it is noted as not being a camouflage uniform.  Documentation says it's meant to show the colours of the sky, the RAAF ensign, etc.

RAAF airmen deployed to field/combat zones will continue to wear the standard Disruptive Pattern Camouflage Uniform.

(http://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/20140301raaf8194170_0131.jpg)

Wouldn't that "blue" camouflage look good for CAP? ;D  It would certainly be "distinctive."

Augh no!

Blue and Green clash! So cannot go into the woods to search someone! Find me something in bright orange, even fuchsia!

:angel:

Seriously.  I didn't intend to reopen the debate again, only add new info on the ongoing sage.

But the only purpose camo BDUs served was service affinity, which is no longer the case. Otherwise, the
are a safety issue and mission detriment, and if any change is considered, whatever it is, it needs to
recognize that CAP is in the SAR business not the SERE business.

Sere? Please explain. Not being funny now.

Quote from: Luis R. Ramos on November 12, 2014, 08:43:16 PM
Sere? Please explain. Not being funny now.

SERE = Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape

Quote from: lordmonar on November 12, 2014, 06:36:20 AM
There is a difference between the "USAF says no" and "AFGSC says the Security Forces within my command will wear them".

IF.....IF....army transitions to everyone in the new combat camo.....which at this point they are not going to do.....then the USAF will follow suit.  Until then "special" units and commands will continue to do what they have always done......what ever they wanted.

With today's budget....the DoD is NOT going to start a new joint "find the combat patter" effort.  Not this week.

But I believe there was a Bill passed by Congress that requires all Services to adopt a single combat camouflage uniform by 2018 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-approves-measure-to-have-military-branches-share-one-camouflage-pattern/2013/06/14/017700f6-d4ff-11e2-bc43-c404c3269c73_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-approves-measure-to-have-military-branches-share-one-camouflage-pattern/2013/06/14/017700f6-d4ff-11e2-bc43-c404c3269c73_story.html).  ???

Quote from: Eclipse on November 12, 2014, 08:42:05 PM
Seriously.  I didn't intend to reopen the debate again, only add new info on the ongoing sage.

But the only purpose camo BDUs served was service affinity, which is no longer the case. Otherwise, the
are a safety issue and mission detriment, and if any change is considered, whatever it is, it needs to
recognize that CAP is in the SAR business not the SERE business.

I agree. The woodland BDU is not practical for wilderness GSAR or UDF missions.

I wore the CAP blue jumpsuit back in the late 80s/early 90s and, in some ways, it was more practical than the current BDU.

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pRkZ3D_rsZo/TSIbTJp8BCI/AAAAAAAABxU/FPtmxS4tdDo/s1600/925_0440.JPG)

I would prefer something like this, though:

(http://blog.mlive.com/flintjournal/extra/NEUTRAL_BOUYANCY_LAB04.jpg)

I like the navy blue BDU, but a color like this would be more practical for SAR.

That's what we >used< to wear.

Quote from: Eclipse on November 12, 2014, 10:43:34 PM
That's what we >used< to wear.

That's what I said. I also said it was more practical than today's uniform.

No. The flight suit is also what we used to wear.
I still have mine.

I know. They were available in blue and orange, IIRC.

I just meant that I prefer the flight suit over the jumpsuit 

Orange is pre-me.  They were in the Bookstore catalog as discontinued.

$185 some buckos for mine, thing still looks like new.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on November 12, 2014, 11:32:13 PM
I know. They were available in blue and orange, IIRC.

I just meant that I prefer the flight suit over the jumpsuit

Those were still available in the CAP bookstore catalogue when I joined.

Ultramarine is supposed to be "our" shade of blue...except for flags, guidons etc., the USAF doesn't really use it much anymore, so I agree with the ultramarine zoom bag.

CAP Blue Jumpsuit is much more comfortable flying in Florida than flight suits.  Also looks a little less military.

And that's why it will never happen

Found an interesting article about AFJROTC in Fargo, ND and the phase out of woodland BDU's for that program and the costs involved.

http://www.valleynewslive.com/story/27370155/fargos-afjrotc-in-need-of-money-new-uniforms#.VGQg95dQGXk.facebook (http://www.valleynewslive.com/story/27370155/fargos-afjrotc-in-need-of-money-new-uniforms#.VGQg95dQGXk.facebook)

While AFJROTC has a different relationship to the AF than us, this is interesting and raises some considerations for our organization in terms of the desire among some to request wear of ABU's for CAP.

While I wear the distinctive uniforms due to being out of H/W, I do think we need to keep the woodland BDU's, or, if we're ever authorized them, ABU's for cadet retention, as young people identify with those combinations better in terms of the military aspect.

One thing that I found interesting was that the nuclear missile launch crews had blue coveralls similar in shade to our blue BDU.

Quote from: Maj Daniel Sauerwein on November 14, 2014, 04:26:23 AM
While AFJROTC has a different relationship to the AF than us

You said a mouthful there, Sir.  One is the favoured son, one is not.

Quote from: Maj Daniel Sauerwein on November 14, 2014, 04:26:23 AM
One thing that I found interesting was that the nuclear missile launch crews had blue coveralls similar in shade to our blue BDU.

Easily available on EvilBay.  I have a set that I use for my flight/utility jumpsuit.  Same cut and colour, and the quality is worlds better.

Quote from: CyBorg on November 14, 2014, 06:33:49 AM
Easily available on EvilBay.  I have a set that I use for my flight/utility jumpsuit.  Same cut and colour, and the quality is worlds better.

You brought a CAP uniform from a source other than Vanguard?  Report to Hawk Mountain for your reeducation training! >:D

Re-education, with orange paint can.

Quote from: CyBorg on November 14, 2014, 06:33:49 AM
You said a mouthful there, Sir.

You are correct Hauptmann, just trying to walk that fine line and not ruffle feathers ;).

QuoteOne is the favoured son, one is not.

I will say that your assessment of JROTC being the favored son may be due to JROTC being an easier recruiting tool for the AF by being in the high school (access to potential recruits). How many CAP squadrons meet in schools versus those that do not? How many cadets leave CAP during high school? We are a completely extra-curricular activity in most cases (exceptions being the school program squadrons), while JROTC blurs the line, as there are extra-curricular components, but it is also part of their course schedule.

JROTC was established via the National Defense Act of 1916, so it is inherently going to have a closer relationship to the parent service than CAP.

CAP's relationship to the AF is rooted in its founding during WW2, with specific missions that JROTC would not have likely been tasked for at that time. Though which AF commands we have fallen under have changed and gone from general officers overseeing us to a colonel, I feel this reflects more on the situation faced by the AF than how it feels/does not feel about us as an organization. When we fell under ACC, keep in mind how much bigger the AF was than it is now.

I will say that I feel our cadets are allowed to do much more (provided they meet the required training for it) than a JROTC cadet. Ultimately, we are two different groups with two different missions.

Quote from: PHall on November 15, 2014, 03:43:46 AM
You brought a CAP uniform from a source other than Vanguard?  Report to Hawk Mountain for your reeducation training! >:D

Is that like the reeducation camp set up at the drive in movie in Red Dawn (the original; I haven't bothered to see the remake), sir?

Quote from: Maj Daniel Sauerwein on November 15, 2014, 07:20:05 AM
You are correct Hauptmann, just trying to walk that fine line and not ruffle feathers ;).

Danke, Herr Major.  Actually, not specifiying which was which in terms of "favoured son" was my way of trying to walk that fine line and not ruffle feathers. :angel:

So the fact that all of the military branches is changing to one uniform begs the question, will we get that uniform? ... probably not.

Quote from: Toth on November 19, 2014, 04:27:44 PM
So the fact that all of the military branches is changing to one uniform begs the question, will we get that uniform? ... probably not.

Will the new uniform comply with directives set forth by our leaders for CAP use? No
Will the uniform be readily available within the next 5 to 10 years through DRMO or other sources, to us? No
Is there a need for another uniform for CAP that has zero use for us, such as the ABU? No.

Quote from: Garibaldi on November 19, 2014, 05:09:42 PM

Quote from: Toth on November 19, 2014, 04:27:44 PM
So the fact that all of the military branches is changing to one uniform begs the question, will we get that uniform? ... probably not.

Will the new uniform comply with directives set forth by our leaders for CAP use? No
Will the uniform be readily available within the next 5 to 10 years through DRMO or other sources, to us? No
Is there a need for another uniform for CAP that has zero use for us, such as the ABU? No.

Will the new uniform be available for open purchase by any civilian on the interwebs two weeks after it's issued to US Forces?  Yep...

Can I haz the green boots? >:D

^^^ Don't be silly Colonel. Green boots will only be authorized for the Hawk Mountain Super Rangers.

Quote from: Garibaldi on November 19, 2014, 05:09:42 PM
Will the uniform be readily available within the next 5 to 10 years through DRMO or other sources, to us? No

They aren't >now<, and never were in any way programmatic that made them a factor except in a few random places.

So tired of this "free BDUs from DRMO" nonsense.  Did some people get some stuff free?  Yes.

Most?  No?

Colonel,

You will be authorized either pink boots or lime green boots for higher visibility when in the field...

Lime green sounds good...