Discussion of Moving CAP To Air Force Reserve Command

[lordmonar]

I'm not disputing that the Air Force has been directed to cover something.

But that doesn't make it part of their core mission or part of their focus.  My boss can direct me to make sure the trash is taken out daily and I'll do it, but taking care of clients is still my primacy focus and what I'm interested in.  The rest is an inconvience because it detracts from doing the part that makes me money.

Individuals in the organisation may not have any direct relation to the core compentancy of that organistion.

The food service guy....has nothing to do....directly....with air superiority.  But the system cannot work with out him.  You are getting "tasks" confused with core competancies/mission.

[lordmonar]

Hmm, does that mean that I can call the local Air Force base for personnel when I'm short on aircrew members? 

There are very few CAP missions that the AF would actually do with its own personnel if we weren't here.  The AFRCC would just call the state and say, "hey there is an airplane missing in your state.  If you need some federal resources give us a call.  Good luck".

Those "federal resources" would be who exactly?   

[FlyTiger77]

I'm not disputing that the Air Force has been directed to cover something.

But that doesn't make it part of their core mission or part of their focus...

A directive from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of the Air Force (which I have referenced twice and you seem to keep purposefully ignoring) does an amazing job of focusing the organization. It is hardly the equivalent of "Oh, by the way, make sure the trash is taken out every day."

But, to use your flawed analogy, what would happen to your business (mission) if the trash were not taken out?

In many cases, the DSCA missions (which we are discussing here moreso than humanitarian aid [which mostly goes to foreign countries]) allow the Military Departments to use their assets and skills on real-world missions. Using a CH-47 to plug breaks in a levee is hardly a core competency for the Army, but by doing so, the Chinook pilots were able to get some valuable training and help the populace of New Orleans after Hurricane KATRINA.

As LordMonar pointed out, the very existence of AFRCC shows that the Department of the Air Force has an in-land SAR mission, that the Department of the Air Force acknowledges that it has that mission, and that the Department of the Air Force has assigned resources against that mission in order to effectively accomplish it.

Even though taking out the trash is not a core competency, it is still a task that must be done. Probably even in your office.

[RiverAux]

Hmm, does that mean that I can call the local Air Force base for personnel when I'm short on aircrew members? 

There are very few CAP missions that the AF would actually do with its own personnel if we weren't here.  The AFRCC would just call the state and say, "hey there is an airplane missing in your state.  If you need some federal resources give us a call.  Good luck".

Those "federal resources" would be who exactly?   

National Park Service, US Forest Service, Dept. of Homeland Security, the military, and I suppose even the IRS. 

[PHall]

Hmm, does that mean that I can call the local Air Force base for personnel when I'm short on aircrew members? 

There are very few CAP missions that the AF would actually do with its own personnel if we weren't here.  The AFRCC would just call the state and say, "hey there is an airplane missing in your state.  If you need some federal resources give us a call.  Good luck".

Sure, I bet that they have lots of qualified observers and scanners just sitting around.
Make sure they bring their AF Form 8 so you can varify they are qualified in Cessnas.

[AirDX]

I don't see emergency services to the people of the United States in there.

Very well, then here's your reading assignment:

Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 1, Air Force Basic Doctrine, Organization and Command, particularly the section on Homeland Organizational Considerations, page 83.

AFDD 2, Operations and Organization.  Defense Suport of Civil Authorities, p. 27

AFDD 3-27, Homeland Operations, sections for your convenience (bolding mine):

Homeland operations incorporate all applications of air and space power designed to detect, preempt, respond to, mitigate, and recover from the full spectrum of incidents and threats to the homeland, whether man-made or natural. (Page 1)

The Air Force contributes to homeland security through its military missions overseas, homeland defense, and support to civil authorities. (Page 9)

In providing defense support for civil authorities, the Air Force supports federal, state, or local civil authorities in cases of natural or man-made domestic emergencies, civil disturbances, or authorized law enforcement activities. (Page 25)

AFDD 3-27, Chapter Two, Force Presentation and Organization of Forces, addresses CAP beginning on page 20:

The AFAux/CAP is authorized, when directed by the Secretary of the Air Force, to fulfill any non-combat mission of the Air Force. When CAP operates in AFAux status, it is an Air Force federal military activity and as such is required to comply with the Posse Comitatus Act and intelligence oversight restrictions. AFAux/CAP forces are presented through the Air Education and Training Command commander to AFNORTH (1 AF) or PACAF in response to requests for DSCA, consequence management operations, and other federal operations.

When you're done with that, let us know if you still have any questions about the Air Force role in ES.

Links:

AFDD1: http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFDD1.pdf
AFDD2: http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFDD2.pdf
AFDD 3-27: http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFDD3-27.pdf

[lordmonar]

Hmm, does that mean that I can call the local Air Force base for personnel when I'm short on aircrew members? 

There are very few CAP missions that the AF would actually do with its own personnel if we weren't here.  The AFRCC would just call the state and say, "hey there is an airplane missing in your state.  If you need some federal resources give us a call.  Good luck".

Those "federal resources" would be who exactly?   

National Park Service, US Forest Service, Dept. of Homeland Security, the military, and I suppose even the IRS.

So....again.....how is this getting the USAF off the hook for providing SAR assets?
That is just shifting the bill from one federal agency to another with a rise in costs due to redundancy.

[RiverAux]

State governments always have the option of requesting federal assistance in any emergency.  If CAP weren't around, I'm pretty confident that the locals wouldn't be requesting the feds do anything that they wouldn't have done anyway.  Would the local sheriff's office be calling in federal resources to look for a lost person?  To take some photos of tornado damage to use in a powerpoint presentation two months later?  Nope. 

CAP is a nice thing to have, but the AF would not do most of what we do if we weren't here. 

[lordmonar]

The question was How Does the CAP affect the USAF's mission.

Without CAP the USAF would have to pick up the inland SAR mission or pass it off to another agency or onto the states.....with an INCREASE in spending and a decrease in military projection (assuming the USAF passed on the mission).

[flyingscotsman]

At the risk of inciting a flame war, let me pose a question to you lot...

Please make an honest attempt to think this through with an open mind, and resist the temptation to "defend" your favorite mission. Would the AE, CP, and ES missions be more efficiently served with spinning off into two more focused organizations. In this hypothetical situation, creating an "Air Cadets" organization focused on CP and AE missions, while at the same time focusing CAP on the ES mission. CAP as it is today has a widely diversified scope of work, with many different internal factions competing for attention because they feel they are the most important. There isn't any consistent focus, which in my opinion serves to weaken the organization. I think a split would strengthen each resulting organization, as we no longer have to worry about the shifting winds of CAP leadership who see one mission as more important/deserving than another. In a split scenario there is nothing to say that the organizations can't support each other where appropriate, for example o-rides could continue as they do today, and members of each organization would be free to be members of both if they desire.

Bringing this back full circle to the conversation thread, I could see the "Air Cadets" style organization connected up with AETC, while CAP would be freed up to associate with AFRC. Perhaps creating a better fit with the work each do today.

I wanted to throw this out there, as it's something I've thought about from time to time but haven't shared it with anyone.

Please be gentle.

[BillB]

he idea of splitting off the cadet program was informally discussed at a National Board meeting in the 1970's. The main problems were that it would require two meeting locations, two staffs for the "Air Cadets" and "CAP-ES" units. It was felt that the "Air Cadet" units would not have enough Senior member to support it. What would the "CAP-ES" units do if no aircraft was available? Do you think that a "CAP-ES" unit would take on the missing person mission, and away from local EM or LE organizations? Leaving out AE, historically CAP since 1942 has involved both a CP and ES program. It can be said the original purpose of CAP CP was to provide AE training for the military. To an extent that still exists today. This can be shown by the 10% of the Air Force Academy Feshman class being composed of former CAP Cadets. If the cadet program was split off of the ES mission you would have a loss of a large number of Squadrons. The majority of Squadrons are Composite or Cadet. And how many Senior members from those Squadrons would transfer to an ES only unit?

[FW]

The idea was also formally discussed at the pentagon about the same time of CAP's last reorg in 2000.  There was a "white paper" discussion separating the "Auxiliary" from CAP; forming two distinct organizations.  The "Auxiliary" was to conduct SAR/DR/HS and, CAP; to support a cadet program and AE outreach.  We ended up with one organization with the Auxiliary "on/off switch"...

I have mixed feelings about changing the nature of CAP. Part of my positive experiences as a cadet involved  ES missions.  It would be a shame, IMO, if that experience was missing for cadets.  On the other hand, separating would mean greater possible funding sources for CP and AE.  The "New CAP"  would be able to create a sizable contributor base if no federal funding stigma were attached.

[Al Sayre]

Just off the top of my head, I can't see anything that would prevent someone from being a member of both groups (or only one if they so chose).  The two units could have a simple agreement to coordinate their respective regulations and that each unit recognize the rank and qualifications of the other.  A MOU or SOW could be the way to handle the O'flight issue.

[lordmonar]

At the risk of inciting a flame war, let me pose a question to you lot...

Please make an honest attempt to think this through with an open mind, and resist the temptation to "defend" your favorite mission. Would the AE, CP, and ES missions be more efficiently served with spinning off into two more focused organizations. In this hypothetical situation, creating an "Air Cadets" organization focused on CP and AE missions, while at the same time focusing CAP on the ES mission. CAP as it is today has a widely diversified scope of work, with many different internal factions competing for attention because they feel they are the most important. There isn't any consistent focus, which in my opinion serves to weaken the organization. I think a split would strengthen each resulting organization, as we no longer have to worry about the shifting winds of CAP leadership who see one mission as more important/deserving than another. In a split scenario there is nothing to say that the organizations can't support each other where appropriate, for example o-rides could continue as they do today, and members of each organization would be free to be members of both if they desire.

Bringing this back full circle to the conversation thread, I could see the "Air Cadets" style organization connected up with AETC, while CAP would be freed up to associate with AFRC. Perhaps creating a better fit with the work each do today.

I wanted to throw this out there, as it's something I've thought about from time to time but haven't shared it with anyone.

Please be gentle.

There is no reason why we could not do that......CAP would just be a very different organisation.

Now the questions:
What benifit to ES and/or CP would we get from splitting into two seperate organisations?
What possible road blocks would rise up if they split?

Personally......slitting them could allow the two organisations to focus on their own missions.  But.....the ES side would loose half its manpower.  We would loose the visibility that the Cadets bring to CAP.  On the CP side...the new AFCC (Air Force Cadet Corps) would loose its connection to real missions.  No more ES training.  Which would make us no different then JROTC.  We would loose our connection to O-rides...as our air planes would now all belong to another organisation. 

Just off the top of my head....I don't see any real benifit from splitting and many potential head aches if we were to split off.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Doing such a split would result in two organisations:

One that would be "all ES, all the time" and likely have no Air Force connection except for maybe aircraft funding.  I know there are people who would like that; just fly, fly, fly and not have to worry about anything to do with uniforms or C&C's.  It would be much like the Canadian CASARA, except that they work directly with RCAF SAR assets.

http://casara.ca/

And...they even have a golf shirt!



The other would be much more like the British Air Training Corps, the Australian Air Force Cadets, Royal Canadian Air Cadets and New Zealand Cadet Forces Air Training Corps.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/aircadets/

http://www.airtrainingcorpsnz.org.nz/

http://www.aafc.org.au/

http://www.cadets.ca/air/

This organisation would be much more "military" in nature, and would probably receive more Air Force support, since they are so zealous for the CP as a recruiting tool.

However, it begs the question of what senior members' role would be.  In the UK ATC and RCAirC, they are actually commissioned into a special type of reserve category of the RAF and RCAF.  I'm not sure about the NZATC, and I don't think the AAFC requires that of its adult officers, though the RAAF supervises the AAFC a lot closer than the USAF does CAP.

[manfredvonrichthofen]

Focusing on all three missions equally is not hard. It takes scheduling and people focused and acknowledging the importance of all three missions. We do it well in our squadron, first week of the month is PT and safety, second leadership and testing third leadership and aerospace fourth is ES, and if there is a fifth it is generally ES and aerospace. It's not that hard.

[abdsp51]

We already have multiple other organizations throughout the US that focus on cadet programs and AE per say.  Splitting them would IMO cause an exodus of people to leave.  Not everyone wants to do cadet programs not everyone wants to do ES, but they are intertwined along with aerospace education.

[ZigZag911]

I've heard this 'split in two' suggestion discussed often over the years.

I think what needs to be considered is that ES is what makes the CAP cadet program unique when compared with other existing cadet programs.

Such a change could, in fact, result in a net loss  in cadet membership.

[flyingscotsman]

I feel better about this discussion now...was afraid I was going to start a riot. LOL!

Anyhow, I actually think the split would have the opposite effect on membership...I think with focused marketing we could have a net increase in participation in each organization long-term. In the short term, I agree about there being a significant number of squadrons shutdown or drastically modified, but I argue that this might not be a bad thing. While my experience lies in a particularly large wing and can't speak for the how the rest of the country may vary, I can say that something like 10 to 20 percent regular participation from both cadets and seniors alike is not uncommon and that ES participation of cadets has been fairly limited to training and exercises with them only very rarely participating in something real. Unless the squadron has custody of an aircraft either full or part time, their focus is almost exclusively on Cadet programs anyhow.

I see CAP as suffering an identity crisis of sorts, with many outsiders confused or misinformed about what we do. Heck, I think that many members around here are confused and misinformed too. Cadet programs has become the marketing tool of choice for the organization, and why not it's a big part of the work that's done, but I that ends up hurting our efforts to bring in quality people for ES-only. Just look at our public facing website, you have to read closely and click on something to figure out anything about ES because CP dominates. Seniors involved in CP would still participate in CP, I don't think that there would be a mass-exodus there. Furthermore, I don't believe cadets would drop out or decide not to join because of a lack of ES (at least not around here, we can't get them to care about ES because they're too busy with other stuff).

As far as ES goes, the seniors who enjoy supporting that would likely need to consolidate into fewer units. The organization would have to be a bit more strategic in their placement.

I heard someone say that ES is the unique item that sets us apart from other cadet programs, I argue that the aerospace aspect is the unique part, because cadets around here don't do a great deal of ES (YMMV).

There is nothing about this hypothetical that limits either organization from supporting the other (ex. o-rides, AE, ES training/exercises).

This would improve the ability to associate more closely with more appropriate USAF commands (if that even matters at this point) that make more sense for each program, potentially improving working relationships with each.

I think it would reduce the bitter battles over which is more important. Many groups down here focust almost exclusively on CP, and couldn't care less about ES, and others its the other way around. This leaves subordinate units to fend for themselves one way or the other already. Frustration reigns, participation is weak, and membership turnover is horrendous.

The CP org can focus on creating a military style program for their cadets, while the ES can drop the act and concentrate on building a more focused and better skilled force of volunteers.

Marketing for ES program would certainly improve, since all I see right now is pictures of kids in uniforms and talk about encampment or other activities. If I'm not looking to participate in CP, and all I see is cadets on marketing materials, then I'm going to move on to something else with my energy (Angel Flight, CGAux, etc.) unless I already know about what CAP is about from other people.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

I feel better about this discussion now...was afraid I was going to start a riot. LOL!

That's reserved for uniform topics.

I see CAP as suffering an identity crisis of sorts, with many outsiders confused or misinformed about what we do. Heck, I think that many members around here are confused and misinformed too.

That identity crisis has been going on since at least 1993, when I joined.  That was soon after the Air Force took metal grade and blue epaulettes away from us because of the actions of a few idiots.  We've never really recovered from that.

The fact that someone's bright idea of us only being the Air Force's "sometime" auxiliary in the late '90s-2000s (leading to the "AUX ON/AUX OFF" mentality) hasn't helped, nor has the rise of a small-but-very-vocal segment of our membership who would "de-militarise" us completely and cut all our ties to the Air Force, except for CP.

Even many in the Air Force don't know (or care) who we are, except for isolated instances where some dim bulb tries to pull rank they don't have on an AF member.

This would improve the ability to associate more closely with more appropriate USAF commands (if that even matters at this point) that make more sense for each program, potentially improving working relationships with each.

I haven't seen interest in such an improvement with the USAF on behalf of either CAP or the USAF.  We were almost disestablished in 1995 through the efforts of John McCain.

I think it would reduce the bitter battles over which is more important. Many groups down here focust almost exclusively on CP, and couldn't care less about ES, and others its the other way around.

A lot of that depends on what type of squadron you are referring to.  I was a member of a senior squadron that was little more than a flying club.  They didn't give a rat's bum about AE and actively avoided giving cadet O-rides.

Marketing for ES program would certainly improve, since all I see right now is pictures of kids in uniforms and talk about encampment or other activities. If I'm not looking to participate in CP, and all I see is cadets on marketing materials, then I'm going to move on to something else with my energy (Angel Flight, CGAux, etc.) unless I already know about what CAP is about from other people.

A lot of that blame must go on both CAP and the AF.

As I've said elsewhere, my encounters with (too) many AF personnel only focus on cadets.

The person who eventually brought me to join CAP initially told me that the "adult members" were there just to serve as "counsellors" for cadets.