Placing CAP under command of 1st Air Force

[CadetProgramGuy]

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.

Not exactly......The USCG is under the DOT, unless we are in a time of war, then they are under the Navy.

[Eagle400]

Not exactly......The USCG is under the DOT, unless we are in a time of war, then they are under the Navy.

Actually, the USCG is under DHS.  It was moved from DOT to DHS shortly after 9/11. 

[davedove]

Not exactly......The USCG is under the DOT, unless we are in a time of war, then they are under the Navy.

Actually, the USCG is under DHS.  It was moved from DOT to DHS shortly after 9/11. 

Correct, USCG is now under DHS, except when placed under the Navy in war.

By the way, this is one of the review questions for the AFIADL 13 that is now wrong, so if you're studying for this, remember the old relationship.

[JayT]

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.

The Air Force has another cadet program, don't forget.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Yes, I know.  That is the school-based JROTC program.

However, the CAP cadet program is far more successful.

[Falshrmjgr]

Yes, I know.  That is the school-based JROTC program.

However, the CAP cadet program is far more successful.

I remember my AFJROTC Squadron had 120 Cadets (CA-11), when my CAP Squadron (Marin Composite Squadron 4) had like 12.  More successful???  I think that really depends on when and where.

[JayT]

Yes, I know.  That is the school-based JROTC program.

However, the CAP cadet program is far more successful.

At what?

I've seen JROTC cadet units that would kick the average CAP unit up and down the block, but I haven't seen many CAP units who are even able to parade the entire squadron in the same uniform.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Anecdotally, yes.  There are some highly successful JROTC units and some poor CAP squadrons.

But overall, nationwide, CAP is more succesful than JROTC because of our more-flexible community base, and the more intense leadership training which is developed by placing cadets on actual missions and expecting them to perform.

[RiverAux]

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.

Many problems with this idea...
1.  As you correctly pointed out, the cadet program would be a big issue.  There is no reason for DHS to fund a cadet program aimed at the AF.  However, the AF might not fight it since they've already got 3x as many kids in JROTC and they're been cutting AF size for years - and will continue to do so.

2.  DHS already has a military auxiliary in the CG Aux.  Granted, the CG Aux focuses almost all of its effort supporting the CG and aren't really used to supplement DHS in general.  However, they could always expand use of CG Aux if they needed more civilian volunteers and actually given the already authorized ability of the CG to turn Auxies into Temporary Reservists, the CG Aux is potentially more flexible in how it could be used by DHS. 

2A.  The CG Aux already has an aviation program, which while I think it is far inferior to CAP's capabilities is there.  Why would they want to take on CAP and pay for all our planes, etc?

3.  DHS already is forming Homeland Security Air Wings made up primarily of light aircraft supplemented with technology beyond what CAP has.  If anything these Air Wings will slowly be driving CAP out of the limited HLS missions we've got now except those directly related to AF activities. 

4.  I just don't think the Navy/CG relationship would be a good parallel for a DHS/CAP/AF relationship if CAP was administered by DHS, but used by the AF.  Right now almost all of our federal missions relate to AF missions.  So, why would DHS want to be involved.  This would be akin to DHS paying for the CG but hardly ever using it for DHS purposes.  If 95% of CG missions were being directed by the Navy, they would just transfer the whole CG over to the Navy. 

[JayT]

Anecdotally, yes.  There are some highly successful JROTC units and some poor CAP squadrons.

But overall, nationwide, CAP is more succesful than JROTC because of our more-flexible community base, and the more intense leadership training which is developed by placing cadets on actual missions and expecting them to perform.

What if I never want to do a single day of ES training through? Am I failing as a cadet?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Anecdotally, yes.  There are some highly successful JROTC units and some poor CAP squadrons.

But overall, nationwide, CAP is more succesful than JROTC because of our more-flexible community base, and the more intense leadership training which is developed by placing cadets on actual missions and expecting them to perform.

What if I never want to do a single day of ES training through? Am I failing as a cadet?

OK, you guys are right.  Our cadet program, is a failure.  We're lost.  Lets quit.

[SAR-EMT1]

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."     

If this happens would we become in effect the "Eighth Uniformed Service"? Would we recieve Commissions or Appointments? Lose any of our three primary missions?
Be eligible for items such as the National Defense Medal?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Calen, your guesses are as valid as mine.  I would like to point out that this discussion is a lot more than wild conjecture.

We have moved all the way to uninformed speculation!

[JohnKachenmeister]

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.

Many problems with this idea...
1.  As you correctly pointed out, the cadet program would be a big issue.  There is no reason for DHS to fund a cadet program aimed at the AF.  However, the AF might not fight it since they've already got 3x as many kids in JROTC and they're been cutting AF size for years - and will continue to do so.

2.  DHS already has a military auxiliary in the CG Aux.  Granted, the CG Aux focuses almost all of its effort supporting the CG and aren't really used to supplement DHS in general.  However, they could always expand use of CG Aux if they needed more civilian volunteers and actually given the already authorized ability of the CG to turn Auxies into Temporary Reservists, the CG Aux is potentially more flexible in how it could be used by DHS. 

2A.  The CG Aux already has an aviation program, which while I think it is far inferior to CAP's capabilities is there.  Why would they want to take on CAP and pay for all our planes, etc?

3.  DHS already is forming Homeland Security Air Wings made up primarily of light aircraft supplemented with technology beyond what CAP has.  If anything these Air Wings will slowly be driving CAP out of the limited HLS missions we've got now except those directly related to AF activities. 

4.  I just don't think the Navy/CG relationship would be a good parallel for a DHS/CAP/AF relationship if CAP was administered by DHS, but used by the AF.  Right now almost all of our federal missions relate to AF missions.  So, why would DHS want to be involved.  This would be akin to DHS paying for the CG but hardly ever using it for DHS purposes.  If 95% of CG missions were being directed by the Navy, they would just transfer the whole CG over to the Navy. 

Point #2 (and 2A):  No argument there.  But, since the change we are discussing would require Congressional action to change the charter and status of CAP, anything can happen.  CG Aux Air (at least from what my sources tell me) is increasingly dysfunctional.  The CG could transfer its AuxAir missions to a newly-reorganized CAP under DHS.  CG would not then be paying, but DHS would.

Point #3:  Or, CAP would be re-formed under DHS with a "Regular" component (The new DHS Air Wings) and an "Auxiliary" component (us, augmenting the "Regular" component with our light aircraft and with softer technology requiring less training)  See point #2 that all prior bets are off once Congress goes to work.

Point #4:  Any federal mission currently flown by CAP is flown as an auxiliary of the Air Force.  That is current law.  That doesn't mean the AF is paying.  DHS can pay for the mission, and the AF in turn, pays CAP.  The advantage (and as far as I can see the ONLY real advantage) is that if CAP were transfered to be a DHS asset, then the Posse Commitatus Act would not apply to us.  But, if the AF had an inland SAR mission, and Congress did not transfer inland SAR to DHS along with CAP, then CAP assets could be placed under AF control, just as CG assets are placed under Navy control to conduct Navy missions.

Don't read me as an advocate for this "CAP to DHS" plan.  I'm just making observations regarding its viability.  I still think CAP is a better fit under the ANG with cadet programs managed separate from the state chain of command directly from NHQ.

[Skyray]

CG Aux Air (at least from what my sources tell me) is increasingly dysfunctional.  The CG could transfer its AuxAir missions to a newly-reorganized CAP under DHS.  CG would not then be paying, but DHS would.

Although you might get that impression from on line discussions, I think it is only dysfunctional in one small area near you.  My personal opinion is that is because the District Staff Officer (Air) was pollinated with the Florida Wing paradigm by the Major General who-shall-not-be-named and the Air Wing in south Florida has never recovered.  New Jersey has a exemplary program as well as San Francisco and the Florida Panhandle/Mississippi-Alabama Gulf Coast.  Flip over to Military dot com and read some of the old posts by Flyandscuba about some of his missions.  There is an issue that some of the pilots were flying junk heaps, and they were actively resisting a safety program that would put the junk heaps in the barn.  The Coast Guard dictated maintenance to commercial standards about ten months ago, and hopefully the junk heap problem is solved.  Even south Florida has started to improve lately.

[RiverAux]

Any federal mission currently flown by CAP is flown as an auxiliary of the Air Force.

advantage (and as far as I can see the ONLY real advantage) is that if CAP were transfered to be a DHS asset, then the Posse Commitatus Act would not apply to us. 

Sorry, Kach, you can't have it both ways...If we were to transfer CAP to DHS we would have to change that little aspect of that law, otherwise it would mean that even while supporting DHS (our supposed parent agency), it would have to be done while working for the AF.  Wouldn't make much sense.  Also, this would have to be changed because if any federal mission still had to be done as an AFAM, then posse comitatus would still apply even though we were part of DHS. As long as we would be going in there to change the other laws, that would have to be changed too.   

I agree with skyray, that I don't think CG Aux Air is dysfunctional.  I think a lot of it is unnecessary and redundant.   For the sake of this argument I was just pointing out that DHS already has volunteer pilots that can do some of what CAP could do for them.   

[JohnKachenmeister]

River:

I did not make myself clear.

Yes, the LAW would have to be changed, since the law puts us under the USAF for all federal missions at this time.  We would require Congressional action and Presidential approval for a change.  But that which Congress created, Congress can modify.

I would see this as the likely outcome:

Missions flown as a DHS asset:

--  All Counterdrug.
--  All Disaster Relief
--  All Training, except for SAR-specific training
--  Border Patrol
--  Law Enforcement Support
--  Humanitarian missions, blood/organ runs, etc.

Missions flows as AF Aux:

--  Inland SAR, (If AF retains that mission)
--  Cadet orientation flights

[JohnKachenmeister]

So...

AF calls up CAP as an Auxiliary to search around a wilderness campground for a missing 8-year old.  (USAF Mission)

While we are up, a ransom note is recieved.  This mission now is a Law Enforcement mission, and the USAF (including us in the auxiliary) cannot do it.  We must land and abandon the mission.

But...

If CAP was under DHS, WE would continue the mission, but the AF would not.  We would revert to our "Default" status as DHS, and continue searching in support of the FBI.

My point is that we could also do this as a part of the Air National Guard, provided the governor wanted to fund the flight under his Title 36 authority.

[BillB]

Great, you move CAP under DHS. and your membership drops 45%. How you ask, DHS does not have a cadet program so all cadets would lose membership. (DHS through FEMA has a minimum age of 18) Eevryone seems to forget there are three missions of CAP, and all they look at is flying and who pays for it.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I agree with you, Bill.

I do not like this proposal, I was only speculating on how it would work.

As far as the cadets are concerned, it wouldn't work at all.

And without our cadets, CAP's future officer corps won't exist.  Just check your own units and see how many of your officers started out as cadets.

I'm guessing about 60-70 percent.