Placing CAP under command of 1st Air Force

[RiverAux]

Every now and again we have a discussion about the proper administrative placement of CAP within the federal government.  Some favor keeping us right where we are underneath the Air University in the AF's Air Education and Training Command.  Others have advocated placing us under 1st Air Force since we have a strong "operational" component while others have talked about putting us under the National Guard Bureau or even transferring us to other federal agencies such as Homeland Security. 

Personally, I can understand why we're under AETC since one of our major missions is education, but considering that when we're "operational", we're working for the AFRCC, a 1st Air Force unit, during missions.  Would having CAP and CAP-USAF under 1st AF result in getting missions that we're not now?  Possibly. 

The opposite question also applies:  Do we really gain any signifcant benefits to our AE mission by being placed under AETC?  Not that I have seen.  I suspect that we would have just as much access to them if we were under 1st AF. 

I think in terms of visibility, we would be better off being a 1st AF unit.  After all, right now our 56K people are hidden down multiple layers below any "operational" decision makers.  While we have heard that CAP is getting mentioned regularly in 1st AF daily briefings, is that good enough? 

[Cecil DP]

 In my opinion CAP should have the same relationship to the Air Force as the CG Aux has with the Coast Guard. That is HQ USAF-CAP Commander reporting directly to the Air Staff, regarding CAP's capabilities, requirements, and abilities. Up until the early 60's CAP was a part of USAF Headquarters Command and had this relationship.

Of course we also had General Spaatz as the Chairman of the Board.

[IceNine]

That's a tuffy,
  2 of our chartered programs deal directly with education (CP and AE).  Only one of them has an operational component.  So to place us under another organization because we are operational seems a bit of a stretch.

[RiverAux]

As I'm fond of pointing out, these are the offiical purposes of the CAP:

1.  Encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in maintaining air supremacy.
2.  Encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare.
3.  To provide aviation education and training especially to its senior and cadet members.
4.  To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.
5.  To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.
6.  To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its non-combat programs and missions.

Yes, quite a bit of what we do relates to education, but just what are we getting from AETC now that we wouldn't get were our organization somewhere else? 

[O-Rex]

Placing us under another command will not necessarily drive our operational capability: we have to gear-up for it. . .

History is in the making-what we do today drives where we are tomorrow.

[arajca]

The Air Staff reviewed this very topic a year or two ago. They determined CAP was appropriate were it is.

[RiverAux]

Perhaps they did, but since they didn't produce any sort of report on the issue available to us, theres no telling exactly how serious this "review" was.

Nevertheless, the AF isn't adverse to reversing their decisions on such things pretty quickly --- witness the AFRCC's short stay within Special Operations Command...

[Eagle400]

In my opinion CAP should have the same relationship to the Air Force as the CG Aux has with the Coast Guard. That is HQ USAF-CAP Commander reporting directly to the Air Staff, regarding CAP's capabilities, requirements, and abilities.

That would require Congressional action.  Congress is the only governing body that can approve of changes made to CAP's structure.

I'd like to see this happen as well as you do, but in order to do so you'd have to convince Congress that the corruption in CAP is actually worse than the corruption in Congress.  Not an easy thing to do.     

Up until the early 60's CAP was a part of USAF Headquarters Command and had this relationship.

Yes, and (unfortunately) I fear that the glory days of CAP are long gone and may never come back. 

[RiverAux]

No, not at all.  CAP and CAP-USAF have been moved around within the internal structure of the AF many, many times over its history.  No congressional action needed for that. 

[SAR-EMT1]

What visible changes would we see if we switch?

[JohnKachenmeister]

There WAS serious consideration given to placing CAP under the Air National Guard, but there were non-concurrences from the State AG's which centered on the fact that they did not want to be responsible for administering and supporting the cadet program.

[mikeylikey]

There WAS serious consideration given to placing CAP under the Air National Guard, but there were non-concurrences from the State AG's which centered on the fact that they did not want to be responsible for administering and supporting the cadet program.

HAHA......do they want FEDERAL $$....they will do what they are told.  I am shocked they were even given a say in the matter.  In fact, the NG should remove their "U S AIR FORCE", "U S ARMY", branch tapes.  They are not all federalized.  I say they should wear their state name in place on the branch tapes.

Where was this topic going......oh ya, move CAP?  YES......to the Coast Guard!

[ZigZag911]

I believe that we are under the "operational control" of 1stAF, but the administrative control of AU (or is it AETC again? I can't keep track!)

[RiverAux]

Basically that is correct.  The question before the group is whether it would benefit CAP and the AF to have CAP under administrative control of the 1st AF as well.

[SAR-EMT1]

I wouldnt want to see where NHQ would move. Nor do I want to lose the AFIADL courses.

[Eclipse]

There WAS serious consideration given to placing CAP under the Air National Guard, but there were non-concurrences from the State AG's which centered on the fact that they did not want to be responsible for administering and supporting the cadet program.

There was also an actual attempt (scuttle has it) to place us under HLS.  Assuming that's a good idea (which I don't' agree with), you still have issues with what to do with the cadets (who are a huge >asset<), and also funding.

Moving us anywhere else jeopardizes funding, especially with regards to the transition year and the losing and gaining agencies work out the changes to the budget legislation, etc.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Over the years there have been several attempts to move CAP.

In the 90's, when the FBI served search warrants at NHQ and some folks got into some trouble over re-selling military supplies, there was talk about transfering us to the USCG and consolidating all SAR/Drug Interdiction assets there.  The USCG was happy with that, since they would get our planes.  That didn't happen, though.

There was talk about transfering the CAP to the ANG, but the Air Staff bought into the non-concurrences of some state AG's.

There has been talk about transfering command and control to 1AF, but since we have an MOU with 1AF that accomplishes everything that operational control accomplishes, I don't think that talk is going anywhere.

I still like the Guard idea, but I'm kind of a lone voice in the wilderness on that issue. 

There has been talk, I don't know how serious, about making CAP a co-equal agency with the USCG in sort of an air arm of the Dept. of Homeland Security.  We would remain the "Auxiliary" of the USAF when tasked to perform a USAF mission, but any other federal mission would fall under DHS.  That (if you ask the grassy-knoll crowd) is why we have the new TPU uniform, to give us a military uniform separate from the USAF for when we become a separate service. 

You know, the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."     

[ZigZag911]

What do they say about the grass always being greener elsewhere?

My vote is to leave well enough alone....I don't see any of the options mentioned benefitting us nationally....ANG connection could conceivably help some wings, while not others.

[mikeylikey]

There has been talk, I don't know how serious, about making CAP a co-equal agency with the USCG in sort of an air arm of the Dept. of Homeland Security.  We would remain the "Auxiliary" of the USAF when tasked to perform a USAF mission, but any other federal mission would fall under DHS.  That (if you ask the grassy-knoll crowd) is why we have the new TPU uniform, to give us a military uniform separate from the USAF for when we become a separate service. 

You know, the "U.S. Civil Air Patrol."     

I would support!  I think there would be many that would support it as well.  Hell....having a Federal Agency/ Department that gets the current funding we have now, and all of the personell are volunteers would be great!  It would also mean we could return the "US" to our lapels in place of the "CAP" cutouts on the TPU.

I would also support us loosing AF AUX status permanently if we became a separate agency!  We could still have a Cadet Program, but one that is geared more to Homeland Defense and Security.

I wish this were real.....as in......I hope there is a discussion about this going on somewhere.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I doubt that the USAF would give up the cadet program, nor should we abandon our traditions lightly. 

But... the USCG falls under the Navy Dept. when performing Navy missions, I see no reason why the  (US)CAP could not parallel the USCG... attached to the USAF for AF missions, and under DHS for all other purposes.