Started by sardak, October 29, 2014, 04:58:49 pm
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: sardak on October 29, 2014, 04:58:49 pm"We also had the Air ROTC and the Civil Air Patrol. We had problems with the Civil Air Patrol that was made up of non military people and generally those who had never served or did not serve on active duty in the Air Corps, but flew as civilians, flew with their own aircraft on submarine patrol, and search and rescue missions during the war and after the war.
Quote from: sardak on October 29, 2014, 04:58:49 pmThe main problem there, they made fast promotions. People were named colonel and each state had so many of them with wealth and who had airplanes who were named colonel. And, they had uniforms identical to the Air Force uniforms. They would wear an insignia identical to the Air Force with a small blue patch that designated them as Civil Air Patrol. There is a great deal of resentment among the reservists and the Guard and the regular Air Force, those on active duty. At various conventions or meetings, the heads of the Civil Air Patrol were commandeering military vehicles. The younger officers and enlisted personnel were saluting and taking some direction not knowing they were Civil Air Patrol. They had a political impact. They were organized virtually in every state and insisted on keeping the Air Force rank and uniforms.
Quote from: PHall on October 31, 2014, 12:29:05 amThe Governor of a state does NOT get to pick what kind of aircraft that are assigned to their state's Air National Guard.They can make their preferences known to the National Guard Bereau, but the NGB is not obligated to follow them.
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 31, 2014, 02:08:43 amThe Air National Guard has a dual role as the air component of the state militia and a reserve component of the Air Force when federalized. It has its place and the Air Force Reserve, which is solely a federal component, cannot replace it or fulfill many of its state functions. The ANG is as necessary as the AFRES and both are an important part of the Air Force total force. In fact, the ANG has proven its worth in many conflicts, to include the War on Terror and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, among others.While transport aircraft can be a vital asset to the states, fighter aircraft can play an important role in air defense. In the end, it's not up to the governors, but up to Congress and the DoD and USAF to determine where these assets are located.
Quote from: Simplex on October 31, 2014, 02:50:50 amAs a side note, the C-27 pictured is from the Ohio ANG at Mansfield Lahm Airport, Mansfield OH. The were to take the place of the C-130's which had been at Mansfield for some time. The C-27's are now gone, and the C-130's are back in service!
Quote from: CyBorg on October 31, 2014, 07:39:30 amMy point was to say that I found it somewhat illogical that the ANG, with its dual mission, has historically had the bulk of the Air Reserve Forces' fighter aircraft, and that the AFRES, which is Federal-only, has historically been transport-orientated (with many notable exceptions, of course). It seems to me that it would be more useful the other way around - with the ANG being able to serve their State and Federal missions more effectively with transport orientation, and for the AFRES to handle the fighter mission of Air Defence of the CONUS as a solely Federal mission. I also questioned the efficacy of a Governor having need of fighter/attack aircraft under his/her command.
Quote from: CyBorg on October 31, 2014, 03:27:17 pmWith regard to CAP, on paper I think we are closer to the Air Force than the ANG is, because we do not have dual-status as State/Federal.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 31, 2014, 03:33:44 pmThe dual corporate / auxiliary isn't getting us sitting closer at the table, either, not to mention the lack of a command chain that flows through from the USAF.
Quote from: CyBorg on October 31, 2014, 04:00:34 pmQuote from: Eclipse on October 31, 2014, 03:33:44 pmThe dual corporate / auxiliary isn't getting us sitting closer at the table, either, not to mention the lack of a command chain that flows through from the USAF.Problem 1 is as much our fault, if not more, than the USAF's. CAP in the 1990s wanted to be more "corporate," with "less interference" from the AF, though we still wanted our flying hours paid for. Be careful what you wish for...Problem 2 -
Quote from: Storm Chaser on October 31, 2014, 05:55:30 pmQuote from: CyBorg on October 31, 2014, 03:27:17 pmWith regard to CAP, on paper I think we are closer to the Air Force than the ANG is, because we do not have dual-status as State/Federal.I've served in the Air National Guard as well and can't agree with this statement.
Page created in 0.066 seconds with 20 queries.