Main Menu

Structural Change

Started by Nick Critelli, December 23, 2006, 12:23:13 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ZigZag911

Quote from: Dragoon on January 12, 2007, 03:17:49 PM

I think most CAP members want to be extremely close to the Air Force, but also have the Air Force treat us as an equal.  Sadly, 60+ years of experience say this won't be the case.  Not for any nefarious reason, but simply because we don't support the core missions of USAF - Air Superiority and putting bombs on target.  We are a niche player.


You've stated the simple truth....I think it may prove Kach's case, that we belong with the National Guard Bureau now....USAF sees our ES role as peripheral, and it has little relationship to their core mission (this has been a gap growing since 1947, if not since 1942 and ;strategic bombing' by USAAF)

USAF likes cadet programs as a recruiting tool....probably would prefer it was run entirely by retired AF personnel. I think they are neutral on AE, it can get them positive attention.

CAP does not fit with mainstream USAF anymore....at least in WWII it was recognized that we were freeing airmen for combat by doing necessary work on the homefront....it has been decades since CAP was anything more than a fringe ("niche") element in USAF....calling us the 'fourth component' makes a nice sound bite, but does not reflect the reality of the situation.

Understand, I'm not jumping all over USAF....the job Congress gave them took them along certain paths....in the course of which CAP became more of a distraction than anything else.

If we belong anywhere in USAF today, it might be 1stAF; as NORTHCOM's air component, their responsibilities intersect rather nicely with some of our capabilities.

If we were to be moved over there, we would still retain a relationship with AETC & AU (as all parts of USAF do) for training & professional development.

RiverAux

Quote•   We started as an independent operation. 

No, we started out as part of the Office of Civilian Defense. 

isuhawkeye

river,  thanks for the clarification.