Numbered Air Force?

[SAR-EMT1]

I was sitting here in an exhaustion induced vegitative state and a question hit me like a thunderbolt... ok maybe not.

Considering that the Air Force has been using numbered "Air Forces"  for some time now, would it make sense to designate CAP as a Numbered Air Force under the Command of AETC? (Or 1st AF etc )

Resons might include...

- with 50,000 + members we have the manpower required for the designation
(Yeah I know that maybe only 20-30  are active )

- We have confirmed mission objectives (CP, AE, ES )

- We have an assimilated MAJGEN /CC

-We have a Nationwide presence

-------------

My reason for asking this is two fold...

One, at present, by functioning as a DRU of AETC/AU we (CAP) does not enjoy much notice from Joe Airman, if he knows we exist... By achieving a designation as a numbered Air Force we increase our visibility from the average crowd
(and potential recruits) PLUS we might get extra notice from Washington.

Two, by having designation as a numbered Air Force we might be able to define (for ourselves and others) our missions better, and might aid in strengthening the lines of communication and understanding.

I DONT know how viable such an idea might be.
(Corporate considerations be darned)
---------------------------

To a lesser extent

- Why do we still use the "Region " designation?
Is there something better out there ?

- What status exactly does CAPNHQ/ CAP-USAF hold in regard to relations with the  AETC/AU  /CC  and how often do they communicate with each other?

[DNall]

AETC/AU is where AFROTC/AFJROTC are located, professional development, all training (everyone in AF passes thru), only people flying light aircraft close to the GA class, they're the primary source of AE from AF, domestically oriented & operating, presence on more bases across the country than anyone else....

The only other legit competitor you could reassign CAP to would be 1AF, which would still lose you a whole lot of necessary resources.

As a separate numbered AF you encapsulate yourself off from everyone else, & you cut the close link for a lot of resources we rely on...

So, we're a DRU to XOH; ADCON is AETC, delegated to AU, executed by CAP-USAF; OPCON by 1AF, delegation varies by mission. I'm open minded, but there's really not another option out there that has more potential for CAP, in or out of the AF, including ANG

[JayT]

I was sitting here in an exhaustion induced vegitative state and a question hit me like a thunderbolt... ok maybe not.

Considering that the Air Force has been using numbered "Air Forces"  for some time now, would it make sense to designate CAP as a Numbered Air Force under the Command of AETC? (Or 1st AF etc )

Resons might include...

- with 50,000 + members we have the manpower required for the designation
(Yeah I know that maybe only 20-30  are active )

- We have confirmed mission objectives (CP, AE, ES )

- We have an assimilated MAJGEN /CC

-We have a Nationwide presence

-------------

My reason for asking this is two fold...

One, at present, by functioning as a DRU of AETC/AU we (CAP) does not enjoy much notice from Joe Airman, if he knows we exist... By achieving a designation as a numbered Air Force we increase our visibility from the average crowd
(and potential recruits) PLUS we might get extra notice from Washington.

Two, by having designation as a numbered Air Force we might be able to define (for ourselves and others) our missions better, and might aid in strengthening the lines of communication and understanding.

I DONT know how viable such an idea might be.
(Corporate considerations be darned)
---------------------------

To a lesser extent

- Why do we still use the "Region " designation?
Is there something better out there ?

- What status exactly does CAPNHQ/ CAP-USAF hold in regard to relations with the  AETC/AU  /CC  and how often do they communicate with each other?

We use the Region designation because it's...a good representation of what it is. It's a group of several wings in a geographic location. What else would you use? Rather then North East Region, would you prefer........4451 SAR Task Force?

What would be the benefits of radically changing the organization, and the organization of the Air Force itself?

You also say that "by having designation as a numbered Air Force we might be able to define (for ourselves and others) our missions better, and might aid in strengthening the lines of communication and understanding.'

To me it seems like that is another case of 'results before action.' Changing the name of the organization, or designating it whatnot will not really change anything. Maybe if we change underlying problems, we can one day take a more active part in the day to day operations of the Air Force.

[SAR-EMT1]

Sorry, Im really not talking about a change in our organization or anythinfg of that nature.

Just a change in title or in designation.

For example the Air Force considers us a DRU under AETC(delegated to AU)
They sometimes think of us as the Auxilliary.

All Im asking is if it would make more sense to think of us as
" 99th Air Force" - Auxilliary. Or something else.

The Region question was similar, I know that  "Region" describes it pretty well.
I just was curious as to what term the AF uses in place of "Region" these days and wondered if such a term should apply to us.

These questions just relate to us alligning ourselves closer to the current AF CoC structure nomenclature.

The term "Region" disappeared from the USAF varnicular about the same time as Hard rank on Flightsuits.
Well, we are changing to cloth rank, so i didnt know if now was the time to change our terms.  - tongue in cheek, lets avoid a uniform discussion-

[jimmydeanno]

The Region question was similar, I know that  "Region" describes it pretty well.
I just was curious as to what term the AF uses in place of "Region" these days and wondered if such a term should apply to us.

The AF has the following:

Flight
Squadron
Group
Wing
Numbered Air Force
Major Command

That wouldn't work for us because we are set up geographically and not divided by mission.  Region does a great job of explaining what it covers.

If you look at say the 27th Intelligence Wing, there are squadrons in that wing in multiple geographic locations.

I think region works the best for us as a descriptor.

[SAR-EMT1]

OK, that leads to another question. Why isnt CAP listed as a MAJCOM under AETC?

I know its not usually set up that way. I guess my point is to ask if We are organized as effectively as possible at the "levels above Wing"
Is there anything that should be changed in order to increase effective communication. ?

What relationships does Courter have with CAP-USAF, the Executive Director, and the AU/CC and vice versa? Does she teleconfrence them on a daily basis? Or does the Air Force just "Call us when they need us? "

The /CC is appointed by the BOG and confirmed by SECAF, but how often does CC/ CAP and CC/ CAP-USAF talk to SECAF ?

[JayT]

OK, that leads to another question. Why isnt CAP listed as a MAJCOM under AETC?

I know its not usually set up that way. I guess my point is to ask if We are organized as effectively as possible at the "levels above Wing"
Is there anything that should be changed in order to increase effective communication. ?

What relationships does Courter have with CAP-USAF, the Executive Director, and the AU/CC and vice versa? Does she teleconfrence them on a daily basis? Or does the Air Force just "Call us when they need us? "

The /CC is appointed by the BOG and confirmed by SECAF, but how often does CC/ CAP and CC/ CAP-USAF talk to SECAF ?

Why do we need to be listed as a MAJCOM again?

[CAP Producer]

OK, that leads to another question. Why isnt CAP listed as a MAJCOM under AETC?

I know its not usually set up that way. I guess my point is to ask if We are organized as effectively as possible at the "levels above Wing"
Is there anything that should be changed in order to increase effective communication. ?

What relationships does Courter have with CAP-USAF, the Executive Director, and the AU/CC and vice versa? Does she teleconfrence them on a daily basis? Or does the Air Force just "Call us when they need us? "

The /CC is appointed by the BOG and confirmed by SECAF, but how often does CC/ CAP and CC/ CAP-USAF talk to SECAF ?

Why do we need to be listed as a MAJCOM again?

It appears that in the February 2008 Issue of Airman Magazine (www.af.mil/news/airman), Page 11 we are listed directly after PACAF under "organizattions" So I guess that big brother blue considers us a MAJCOM.

YMMV.

[DNall]

Because AETC is a MAJCOM, and MAJCOMS don't answer to other MAJCOMS.

Again, we are not under AETC. We are under the XO of the Air Force, specifically the XOH. They deal with the strategic long-term side & no one ever hears about them. Our administrative (day-to-day) control is delegated to AETC & by them to AU. That is based on the synergy of resources I mentioned in my first post. Our operational control is delegated to 1AF. That is based on the synergy of dif missions we participate in all falling under their mandate.

That's how the AF chooses to manage & oversee CAP. There really isn't a better way for that to be done. Our designation problems are at the low end of the spectrum based on unit size & scope, not so much at the national level.

The CAP-USAF/CC & staff are in constant contact with NHQ, including CAP/CC. That's their jobs. The AU/CC is a tab bit busy with bigger concerns, but does address CAP issues on a semi-regular basis. AETC isn't usually very involved unless it's a big deal.

[mynetdude]

For example the Air Force considers us a DRU under AETC(delegated to AU)
They sometimes think of us as the Auxilliary.

Um, aren't we the auxilliary or at least aren't they already thinking of us as the auxilliary? I'm not sure about the term "sometimes" because the red tri-prop with blue triangle in a circle has the Civil Air Patrol - U.S. Air Force Aux plastered all over it so I think they ALWAYS think of us as the Auxilliary?

[JayT]

For example the Air Force considers us a DRU under AETC(delegated to AU)
They sometimes think of us as the Auxilliary.

Um, aren't we the auxilliary or at least aren't they already thinking of us as the auxilliary? I'm not sure about the term "sometimes" because the red tri-prop with blue triangle in a circle has the Civil Air Patrol - U.S. Air Force Aux plastered all over it so I think they ALWAYS think of us as the Auxilliary?

They didn't design that patch, we did.

Also, it really doesn't matter what 'they' 'think.' It matters what 'we' 'are.' We're not the full time Auxiliary.

[mynetdude]

For example the Air Force considers us a DRU under AETC(delegated to AU)
They sometimes think of us as the Auxilliary.

Um, aren't we the auxilliary or at least aren't they already thinking of us as the auxilliary? I'm not sure about the term "sometimes" because the red tri-prop with blue triangle in a circle has the Civil Air Patrol - U.S. Air Force Aux plastered all over it so I think they ALWAYS think of us as the Auxilliary?

They didn't design that patch, we did.

Also, it really doesn't matter what 'they' 'think.' It matters what 'we' 'are.' We're not the full time Auxiliary.

Ok stupid question... if we are not the full time aux then what are we? If we aren't the Aux then why not change the patch/emblem? Because if what we ARE matters, then that should be reflected on everything people see.

[mikeylikey]

^ the name of the game is "Civil Air Patrol".  Not US Air Force Auxiliary.  It should have been removed from everything when we lost full time auxiliary status.  If you read the board proposals in the other thread, they are not going back to the patch with "US Air Force Auxiliary", as it may be a legal issue.  I am fine with the patches saying "Civil Air Patrol".  That is what we really are.

[mynetdude]

^ the name of the game is "Civil Air Patrol".  Not US Air Force Auxiliary.  It should have been removed from everything when we lost full time auxiliary status.  If you read the board proposals in the other thread, they are not going back to the patch with "US Air Force Auxiliary", as it may be a legal issue.  I am fine with the patches saying "Civil Air Patrol".  That is what we really are.

Couldn't agree more, since we are not a full time USAF Aux anyhow, and when we need to be Aux we don't have to prominently display "USAF Aux" just because we are doing it for the day or a few hours or a few weeks.

So, like you I agree that I am perfectly happy with Civil Air Patrol since like you said it is who we are.   I don't expect the NB to go back to the USAF Aux unless somehow the legal burdens were no longer a burden and the folks higher up were to look past that (not in reality) then it would be something else to consider.

But to have Civil Air Patrol/USAF Aux kind of makes you go... so we are the Civil Air Patrol and we are the USAF Aux???  We don't have to be the USAF Aux just to go look for ELTs right? Obviously we are working for the USAF when AFRCC gives us a call to go find it of course assuming that doesn't make us the Aux in that situation?

[JayT]

For example the Air Force considers us a DRU under AETC(delegated to AU)
They sometimes think of us as the Auxilliary.

Um, aren't we the auxilliary or at least aren't they already thinking of us as the auxilliary? I'm not sure about the term "sometimes" because the red tri-prop with blue triangle in a circle has the Civil Air Patrol - U.S. Air Force Aux plastered all over it so I think they ALWAYS think of us as the Auxilliary?

They didn't design that patch, we did.

Also, it really doesn't matter what 'they' 'think.' It matters what 'we' 'are.' We're not the full time Auxiliary.

Ok stupid question... if we are not the full time aux then what are we? If we aren't the Aux then why not change the patch/emblem? Because if what we ARE matters, then that should be reflected on everything people see.

We're Civil Air Patrol Inc, a volunteer NFP organization. For certain missions, we have Air Force Auxiliary status. For those missions, to get certain benefits, we're the Auxiliary. The rest of the time, for certain reasons, we're a NFP who can enter into agreements with other government organizations to preform services.

We ARE Civil Air Patrol, and we ARE the Air Force Auxiliary. When we go looking for an ELT, we're the Auxiliary. When we're flying counter drug missions, we're the Civil Air Patrol. When we're flying ROTC cadets in O-flights, we're the the Auxiliary. Normal weekly meetings, we're the Civil Air Patrol.

[SJFedor]

  We don't have to be the USAF Aux just to go look for ELTs right? Obviously we are working for the USAF when AFRCC gives us a call to go find it of course assuming that doesn't make us the Aux in that situation?

Nope. AFRCC can just as easily hand an ELT search off to a local Sheriff's department, local SAR team, or any other agency. It's just that we have it worked so that we fall under their umbrella of protection (FECA/FTCA) when we're doing work for them.

As much as it saddens me to say it, we're becoming more and more of a contractor for the USAF then anything else. When they need services that we offer, they "hire" us for the job.

[mikeylikey]

As much as it saddens me to say it, we're becoming more and more of a contractor for the USAF then anything else. When they need services that we offer, they "hire" us for the job.

You Sir are exactly right.  Those in leadership abut 10 years ago really screwed all of us over.  We could have become the "Official" AF Auxiliary, but the Corporate leadership wanted none of that, and we are stuck here now in sort of a legal limbo. 

We should remove all reference to "Air Force Auxiliary".  Face it, we are in all intents a contract corporation much more like blackwater.  We (the Corporation) is paid for services under a contract, and we are given certain benefits that most Government contractors are given when performing their duties.

I heard that the leadership at the time wanted to get rid of full time Auxiliary status so we could "legally" perform Counter Drug operations.  Well, if that was the case, it WAS NOT WORTH IT!

We need to become the full time AF Auxiliary, and I am sorry to say, loose the Corporate side alltogether.  Let the AF take complete control, and get rid of everything corporate.  If that means we loose some missions (like CD) so be it. 

[mynetdude]

  We don't have to be the USAF Aux just to go look for ELTs right? Obviously we are working for the USAF when AFRCC gives us a call to go find it of course assuming that doesn't make us the Aux in that situation?

Nope. AFRCC can just as easily hand an ELT search off to a local Sheriff's department, local SAR team, or any other agency. It's just that we have it worked so that we fall under their umbrella of protection (FECA/FTCA) when we're doing work for them.

As much as it saddens me to say it, we're becoming more and more of a contractor for the USAF then anything else. When they need services that we offer, they "hire" us for the job.

I realize what you're saying as far as we are becoming more of a contractor for the USAF when we are needed.  In many states AFAIK the law places responsibility on the sherrif's department or other SAR agencies to take responsibility in responding to SAR calls.  These people could in turn call us for assistance since that is our speciality and that is what we train for.

I haven't been in CAP very long, but from reading the regs (and considering there have been changes since the 1940s) I'm sure NHQ and the higher ups in the higher branches of military have agreed that we should be the contractors for legal reasons I am sure.  If CAP were to be the first responders I'm sure there would have to be different laws/regulations set in place to allow it.

I'm going adrift here... sorry but I have to

I have seen and talked to people of fire departments who are all purely volunteer and receive county funding and monies from insurance companies.  I understand and realize that the local VFD is not the same thing as CAP... they are not a military branch or utilize the military functions/services like we can.

But the fact they go through rigorous training like paid fire fighters have to go through, not substandard they get to roll their firetrucks on a first response call from the 911 dispatch, I am sure these guys have to meet a response quota or the county will not call their station for response or allow it.

What I'm saying is, we have cadets and I realize that alone has some legal issues and burdens which prevent us from doing certain things, and I don't see how CAP can't be utilized like a local VFD and activate on a first responder basis; sure that means our training will have to be stepped up and meet certain quotas and so on maybe its worth it.

[RiverAux]

Fellas, we've been doing counter drug missions as AFAMs for 20 years.....

[mynetdude]

As much as it saddens me to say it, we're becoming more and more of a contractor for the USAF then anything else. When they need services that we offer, they "hire" us for the job.

You Sir are exactly right.  Those in leadership abut 10 years ago really screwed all of us over.  We could have become the "Official" AF Auxiliary, but the Corporate leadership wanted none of that, and we are stuck here now in sort of a legal limbo. 

We should remove all reference to "Air Force Auxiliary".  Face it, we are in all intents a contract corporation much more like blackwater.  We (the Corporation) is paid for services under a contract, and we are given certain benefits that most Government contractors are given when performing their duties.

I heard that the leadership at the time wanted to get rid of full time Auxiliary status so we could "legally" perform Counter Drug operations.  Well, if that was the case, it WAS NOT WORTH IT!

We need to become the full time AF Auxiliary, and I am sorry to say, loose the Corporate side alltogether.  Let the AF take complete control, and get rid of everything corporate.  If that means we loose some missions (like CD) so be it. 

Besides, not very many squadrons get to participate in CD... thats a small niche so losing CD isn't a huge loss.  I haven't seen our squadron do CD before, though we do have a couple of members CD eligible.