CAP Talk

At our wing conference this past weekend, National Vice Commander BGen Vasquez said that there is discussion of moving CAP from Air Education and Training Command (AETC) to Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC).  A search of CAP Talk to make sure a thread on this hadn't already been started found none, but did find several threads where members have suggested this move.

Mike

Moving CAP-USAF to AFRC could be possible.  If so, it may be a good thing.  For example, airlift to NCSAs and NB meetings may be possible again.  Also, it may be easier for squadrons to meet at reserve centers.

Airlift restrictions are not because of rules prohibiting them, it's because there aren't any planes or people available to do them anymore.
Other than some synergy with the CAP-RAPs, I don't see what difference it would make.

Could be right.  However, with the drawdown in Iraq and Afganistan, AFRC aircraft may become availible.  Otherwise, there reallly won't be any difference to CAP.

Personally, I think better connectivity with the National Guard, both Air and Army, would be a better idea.

Their staffing model is a lot closer to ours (i.e. less regular duty, more sensitivity to civilian employment and other concerns, etc.), and
their mission includes domestic operations.    Their split universe of state / federal engagement might make them more benevolent to our
own split personality of federal / corporate.

Don't recall this suggestion though for a while folks here were hot and heavy to put us in the National Guard Bureau. 

I'd be surprised if they did it considering how they just put us in with all the ROTC/JROTC folks. 

Frankly, given how little interaction with actually have with the Air Force in regular life, I don't think it makes a bit of difference where we (really meaning CAP-USAF, not CAP) are placed within the AF administrative structure.   

Interesting...however, such a move only provides benefits if people on both the CAP and USAF Reserve are on the same page for a "closer relationship" to exist.

There is lots of potential...but again, what is really possible IAW prevailing attitude by both parties.

Sirs, what would be the...

1) Best case scenario... (pipe dream)

2) Worst case scenario... (exaggeration)

3) Most likely turn of events (realist view)

...in your informed and professional opinion en re CAP?

If we are going to do something like this...why no just go directly under ACC and 1st AF?

As I said previously, there will not be much difference in CAP-USAF becoming part of AFRC to CAP.  However, the larger the organization, the more difficut it will be for the CAP-USAF/CC to get their agenda passed up the chain.  This could be problematic to us in getting uniform requests accepted and, funding changes approved.  AFRC is much larger than AU.  It also has a mission which is not really in line with all of CAP's mandates. 

So, in summary, I have no idea... ::)

The holm center is definitely the right place for the cadet program, no problems there on any level that I can think of.

The problem comes with CAP's multi-role nature.
ES does not fit very well under the holm center, I tend to agree that it probably fits best under 1AF...


USAF is not generally structured to deal with situations "like this" and when you see other organizations in USAF structure who don't fit neatly into a box, you start seeing them thrown 'wherever' or wherever is the 'best fit' even if it isn't a great fit.



Regardless, I don't think NGB would be a very good move for CAP at all.

CAP is bigger than AFRC.  Not quite sure they would "want" that elephant in the room with them (heh)

I can only come up with a couple of advantages to being under AFRC:

1.  CAP-USAF is mostly made up of Reservists (are there any AD folks in it?), so maybe being with the rest of the reservists may be administratively easier to some extent.  Not being familiar with how all that paperwork moves, I don't really know if this would be the case or not. 
2.  Being under Holms center hasn't offered any benefits to the cadet program or CAP as a whole that I'm aware of.  So, moving away wouldn't hurt us any. 
3.  Having two different cadet programs under one roof at the AETC makes the overlap between the two glaringly obvious and I would think make either somewhat vulnerable to being cut as redundant.  So, "hiding" us under AFRC makes it somewhat harder for the average waste-cutter to notice this. 

I find it funny that while under the AETC/Air University we actually lost access as CAP members to classes/courses available at AU.  Instead of actually being integrated into the Command we have actually moved our own education and training away from AU.  I'm not sure if that was our move or the AU's unwillingness to adapt to our customer needs.  Maybe the Reserve Command might be better.

If we leave AETC, will National HQ (eventually) need to move elsewhere?

Quote from: ZigZag911 on April 24, 2012, 03:07:43 PM
If we leave AETC, will National HQ (eventually) need to move elsewhere?

I do not see why.  There are AFRC units on Maxwell; the 908th Airlift Wing is there.  There are AFRC tenant units on many Air Force and Air National Guard bases.

As SARDOC pointed out, we've been moved out of AETC, whether or not we did it or they did it.

I have never seen the logic of having Air University oversee us.  We are not a school, though of course we do training.

This would be going back to our "roots" in a way, when we were overseen by Continental Air Command.

Even though working with the ANG/ARNG is a good thing, I don't think we could be under their command (though the Army might actually treat us better than the benign indifference we've got from the AF for about the past 20 years; I know I personally get a more cordial reception from Army personnel I meet) because of Title 10 issues.  We would have to be organisationally reconfigured to operate at the State, rather than Federal, level, and in doing so we might step on the toes of various SDF's.  Remember that the basic role of the ANG/ARNG is to be the Army and Air Force of the states and territories when not in Federal service, responsible to Governors and Adjutant Generals.

I'm not saying it would be a bad thing, but it would potentially take a big reorganisation on our part.

I also believe that AFRC would be much more accustomed to part-time personnel than AETC.  ESGR doesn't apply to us, but who knows what help they may be able to offer in mediation between a CAP member wanting to take time off for CAP and their employer, since the laws about that vary widely from state to state?

In our present situation, other than "the devil you know v. the devil you don't" syndrome, what is to our advantage being part of AETC?  How many in AETC even know or care who we are, much less support our mission, outside of Colonel Gloyd and his staff?

My first squadron had a member who was also in the Air Force Reserve (1st Lt. with CAP, MSgt with AFRES).  He was not a CAP-RAP, but he was able to secure a lot of things for us at the local Reserve installation for training, billeting, mess privileges, etc...and that was an informal relationship with him acting as a "bridge" between our unit and his wing king (who was very supportive of CAP, God bless him).

Who knows what benefits a more formal relationship could bring?  As it stands now, I would use the term "stagnant" to describe our relationship with the AF.

Quote from: Eclipse on April 24, 2012, 03:30:26 AM
Their split universe of state / federal engagement might make them more benevolent to our own split personality of federal / corporate.

I wouldn't want to encourage that at all.  That schizoid nature is one of the big hobbles on CAP.

Perhaps reservists could fill some of the gaps left by the loss of state directors.

Quote from: wuzafuzz on April 24, 2012, 05:44:00 PM
Perhaps reservists could fill some of the gaps left by the loss of state directors.

There's already a specific position created for that - each wing will appoint a volunteer member with military and program experience to
liaison with military bases, o-rides, and assist with other duties normally done by the former SD's.

The problem with having reservists do it is that they cost money.

Quote from: RiverAux on April 24, 2012, 01:05:06 PM
I can only come up with a couple of advantages to being under AFRC:

1.  CAP-USAF is mostly made up of Reservists (are there any AD folks in it?), so maybe being with the rest of the reservists may be administratively easier to some extent.  Not being familiar with how all that paperwork moves, I don't really know if this would be the case or not. 
2.  Being under Holms center hasn't offered any benefits to the cadet program or CAP as a whole that I'm aware of.  So, moving away wouldn't hurt us any. 
3.  Having two different cadet programs under one roof at the AETC makes the overlap between the two glaringly obvious and I would think make either somewhat vulnerable to being cut as redundant.  So, "hiding" us under AFRC makes it somewhat harder for the average waste-cutter to notice this.

One of the ongoing issues is coordination with the Air Force given the decreasing number of active duty slots dedicated to CAP.  AFRC probably has more manpower available that could provide much better AF oversight.  They're going to pay the reservists anyway...

It's not a horrible idea.

I personally don't see much plus to changing, I don't see much negative either. Maybe USAF just thinks thy will be able to use us better, more efficiently, or I'm sure they have a valid reason for it somewhere. But I don't think it would do much to us. Would it?

Air University falls under AETC.

Unless such a move came with a MAJOR re-evaluation of CAP's purposes and strategic direction it would be nothing more than moving boxes around on an organization chart.  No big deal. 

It would be interesting to see what official justifications would be put forward within the AF for such a move.  You would think they'd need to come up with some pretty solid reasoning. 

Quote from: coudano on April 24, 2012, 11:38:24 AM
CAP is bigger than AFRC.  Not quite sure they would "want" that elephant in the room with them (heh)

CAP is bigger than AETC as well.

Quote
40,000 active duty members, over 3,000 Reserve and Guard personnel, and approximately 14,000 civilians assigned

The numbers above reflect 57,000.

If the issue is money......and it is always about money.

Moving us from AETC to AFRC or ACC moves us to a larger pot of money.
But it puts us at the end of the budget fight.

ACC will only look at us in ways that it will help their operations.  CP and AE will be a third wheel in their eyes.
AFRC IIRC does not have their own operational budget.  They get their ops budget from the command they support....so again we will be behind all those operational concerns.

The problem with moving us the the NG is that they are even worse off for operation funding.  And operationally the NGB is not an operational command...but a coordinating command.  NG operations for the most part fall compeletly within the STATE level.....so again it would put us behind all those operational units when fighting for money.

Also please note that the USAF is right now looking at ways of cutting both the NG and AFR to support AD operations....so a move that way right now would not necessarily be a good thing.

As Riveraux said....unless there is also a change in the conecpt of operations....moving us does not really help us at all.

ACC, if it don't fly we don't buy.

Quote from: abdsp51 on April 24, 2012, 11:40:13 PM
ACC, if it don't fly we don't buy.

Unless the Army wants to buy it......"oh.....okay we'll do that for you!"

A-10
UAVs
CAP SP program.

BTDT!

Yup, spent 3 1/2 years in ACC, never again.

So, it seems we've finally come full circle and back to the days when CAP was aligned with AFRES and ANG under the Continental Air Command...guess I'm not surprised with the mission tasking of First Air Force....could this also mean that we're not going to be red-headed step children anymore?

You know it may be something that makes mission call out easier being under AFRCC.

Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on April 25, 2012, 02:02:43 AM
You know it may be something that makes mission call out easier being under AFRCC.

How much eaiser can it be then now......the requestion agency just calls the NOC/AFRCC and they issue the mission number.

Right, they call AFRCC, not Air Education. It could be that someone sees it as taking someone elses personnel. It could be something completely different. But if it could possibly mean we could be held in a better light, I'm all for it!

Sorry, that doesn't fly.  Who else in the AF is going to call us other than the people that are calling us now?  Who is afraid to call us because we're under AETC?  If you're talking about people outside the AF, they probably have no clue who we work for when we're not on a mission and they don't care.  As was said, they call NOC or AFRCC. 

That's not what I meant, let me try again.

It might be easier for admin purposes or what have you to have us under AFRCC than AETC, because our search and rescue missions, ELTs and such, are given by AFRCC. Just a thought, I don't know how valid it could be, but it would make sense to me.

I agree...that it makes sense to put us under 1st AF...because the ES chain runs through them....that way there is no cross command issues....i.e. we always belong to ACC....not just when we are flying ES.

But...the down side to that is 1st AF won't care too much about the CP or AE mission...which AETC does care about....which would hurt funding in those areas.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 25, 2012, 04:44:04 AM
I agree...that it makes sense to put us under 1st AF...because the ES chain runs through them....that way there is no cross command issues....i.e. we always belong to ACC....not just when we are flying ES.

But...the down side to that is 1st AF won't care too much about the CP or AE mission...which AETC does care about....which would hurt funding in those areas.

Also, there is an AFRES or AFRC presence through AFRCC. I don't think cadet and AE programs would be hurt because those are our assigned missions.

Wonder if this means that CAP's NHQ would move to Warner-Robins? But, I'd bet not since Maxwell has a Reserve unit (908th Airlift Wing) and falls under 22nd Air Force.

You guys are really making me smile.  However, my popcorn bag is about empty and, before I gobble the last kernal, I must remind everyone we are NOT moving anywhere. CAP is a "Federally Chartered Non Profit Corporation".  AFIs clearly make it known we are NOT a part of the Air Force (as its Auxiliary) unless we are on a AFAM.  It also states that AE and CP are not part of that Auxiliary Status.  CAP deals with AU thru CAP-USAF whch acts as the Liason agency between us and the AF.  It is they who may "move".  No one will be going anywhere physically.  Especially after a multi million buck renovation of the HQ building. 

And, if there is such a "move".  I can assure you there will be absolutely no difference in what we do now. 
Now that I got that off my chest, please continue.  I still need to lick the butter off the bag... ;D

Quote from: FW on April 25, 2012, 11:34:30 AM
I still need to lick the butter off the bag... ;D

Somehow, Colonel, the mental picture that conjured up was ... weird ...

And you're a dentist.  You oughta know better than that!   ;D

Jack

Quote from: flyboy1 on April 25, 2012, 01:26:20 AM
So, it seems we've finally come full circle and back to the days when CAP was aligned with AFRES and ANG under the Continental Air Command...guess I'm not surprised with the mission tasking of First Air Force....could this also mean that we're not going to be red-headed step children anymore?

It's going to take a lot more awareness of who and what we are among the AF, and reconciling the split personality CAP has, before we'd ever shake that status.

I'm not holding my breath.

Discussed or not, I'd be willing to bet that any change of that magnitude wouldn't get beyond the second latte until the current issues with the reorg of the SD's, which includes re-writing almost every AFI and CAPR, are at a steady state.

One positive note I heard about this move is there are fewer steps in the food chain between CAP and the upper echelons to fight to keep our funding.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 24, 2012, 11:42:24 PM

Quote from: abdsp51 on April 24, 2012, 11:40:13 PM
ACC, if it don't fly we don't buy.

Unless the Army wants to buy it......"oh.....okay we'll do that for you!"

A-10
UAVs
CAP SP program.

BTDT!

G-91.

(http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Aircraft/G91/G91ARMY1.jpg)

There are times when I think CAP would be better off with the Army than with the AF.

Our cadets could somehow integrate with the USAC, we could learn a lot of ground team procedures from National Guard SAR units/instructors, and we could potentially have access to Army aircraft clearly marked as humanitarian:

(http://www.dod.state.ga.us/armyguard/armyimages/Huey422departs.jpg)

What that would mean for our own aircraft fleet I honestly don't know.

Maybe paint them in Army colours with the CAP roundel?

(http://www.cactusairforce.com/images/320_T-41B_Muscalero.jpg)

And maybe...just maybe...we wouldn't have the uniform hassles we have today?

Any moves will have to wait until the governance issue is settled.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 25, 2012, 04:44:04 AM
But...the down side to that is 1st AF won't care too much about the CP or AE mission...which AETC does care about....which would hurt funding in those areas.

Not sure what the evidence is that AETC really cares about what CAP is doing in those areas either. 

QuoteAny moves will have to wait until the governance issue is settled.

Why?  CAP governance has absolutely nothing to do with where CAP-USAF fits in the AF hierarchy. 

Quote from: RiverAux on April 25, 2012, 07:35:22 PM
Not sure what the evidence is that AETC really cares about what CAP is doing in those areas either. 

If at all.

Quote from: CyBorg on April 25, 2012, 09:53:16 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on April 25, 2012, 07:35:22 PM
Not sure what the evidence is that AETC really cares about what CAP is doing in those areas either. 

If at all.

Considering that AFETC contains components like AFROTC, AFJROTC, and you have your answer. Years ago, I saw an AF Fact Sheet on CAP and was surprised to see that the cadet program was ranked first before any other mission.

Given all of the nationally-recognized operations that CAP has been involved with over the past decade, I'm pretty sure that the Air Staff is seeing that we are a force to be reckoned with. If alligning us with AFRC is, indeed, in the wings, then I would hope it is the beginning of a brighter future for us because it opens the door to other opportunities and more direct involvement like CAP-RAP.

If CAP-USAF goes under AFRC it is not going to help the CAP RAP problem.

There is just not enough man days available.....period.  It is not like AFRC is hording them because they don't appriciate CAP's mission.....they just don't have enough for their operational mission.

In my day job....I directly support an AFRC unit doing realworld combat missions in the sand box....and they are hurting for man days.

So like FW said.....nothing major will change no matter who CAP-USAF is under......there are somethings that could get better....like fall out funding, or funding for specific missions...because the new command may be able to tap some operational funds....AETC does not have access to.

But as far as CAP RAPS, more access to bases, more access to AMC flights.....that is still all driven my money/OPSTEMPO......and that is not going to change.

It's driven by money only in terms paid Mandays, and that wasn't what I meant. In the broader picture, support can have many more aspects.

CAP units on military bases are seen more for the community relations and youth program than anything else; while there are a few times when there is a direct mission tie. Why do you think Boy and Girl Scout or Explorer units are so prevelant on a military base? Yet, even on a Reserve station or base, the CAP can still be perceived as a red-headed step child, especially when so many commanders are faced with real world budetary problems.

About six months after the AF realligned its major air commands and we went from MAC, SAC, and TAC to AMC and ACC, I remember sitting in an AFRES Wing command and staff meeting and hearing the wing commander brief the staff that the DoD was shifting to a "purple base concept" where a whole spectrum of DoD or other assets/forces would start to be consolidated on different bases: First, as a cost-saving factor guaranteed to keep the base open and to keep it economically viable; Second, it also was to promote federal law that demanded that the different military services cooperated with each other for greater mission effectiveness.

Now you have so many joint-base operations where this cooperation is key and CAP itself has been pulled, kicking and screaming, through an evolution of missions away from just search and rescue to more of a Homeland Security tool where our training is more and more alligned with the National Incident Management System-- just like the Coast Guard Auxiliary.

So then (if, indeed) you move CAP under AFRES (a command that understands the citizen airmen/soldier culture because a Reservist is still a civilian unless called to active duty), and you have a new means to encourage CAP presence on a reserve base for community relations and mission effectiveness. It also means a different level of support that could be facilities, it could be hangar space, it could be new members coming from the Reserve community, or it could be Reservists volunteering with the unit for points or to gather justicification for that Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal. Don't believe me, then look at New York State, where CAP has a strong enough presence on one Reseve base that the base hosts things like the NER Chaplains Staff College, a group headquarters and composite squadron, and a three-day cadet leadership school; and the members regularly get military orientation flights -- or the three or more ANG bases or centers that host things like units, encampments, units, and even CAP operations centers.

In another part of this forum, I read about how CAP-USAF was dealing with manpower cuts that resulted in the proposed elimination of state directors.  What would happen if the move under AFRES meant that the liaision structure remained intact but composed of AFRES personnel?

Quote from: flyboy1 on April 26, 2012, 10:11:19 AM
Now you have so many joint-base operations where this cooperation is key and CAP itself has been pulled, kicking and screaming, through an evolution of missions away from just search and rescue to more of a Homeland Security tool where our training is more and more alligned with the National Incident Management System-- just like the Coast Guard Auxiliary.

CAP was pulled kicking and screaming to homeland security missions?  If anything the demand from CAP members to do homeland security missions is way behind the actually supply of them. 

And CAP has been and still is way ahead of the CG Aux in terms of using ICS.   CAP was using ICS long before it became a CG Aux requirement.  CG Aux doesn't even come close to being able to set up and run its own mission bases using ICS like CAP does, primarily because CG Aux almost always operates as single resources, except for a few special events here and there.  Based on my experiences, the average CAP Wing can probably set up and run a mission base using ICS just as good, if not better, than the Coast Guard can (and they rarely would anyway).

Quote from: flyboy1 on April 26, 2012, 10:11:19 AM

Why do you think Boy and Girl Scout or Explorer units are so prevelant on a military base? Yet, even on a Reserve station or base, the CAP can still be perceived as a red-headed step child, especially when so many commanders are faced with real world budetary problems.

Unless I'm mistaken, Congress allocates the money for us, so we're not part of any military commander's real world budetary problem.  It's not like Congress says "give USAF a billion dollars and AF, you share some of that with CAP."  We're not a budget problem for any military component.  I could be wrong about that, I'm not an expert on higher level budgeting.  But I've read the bill allocating money for CAP, so we have money outside of what anyone else gives us.

I think you're talking about a different problem - you don't get perceived as a red-headed stepchild because you need money, you get perceived that way because you have an image problem.  My opinion is that we do have an image problem based on how CAP has had negative interactions with other people in the past.

I take that further and say that the negative interactions came about because of CAP culture, which goes back to leadership.  Inflexibility is a cultural component of CAP that causes friction with others.

To put it in kindergarten terms - we don't play nicely with others.  Therefore we are the red-headed stepchild.

Just observations- take them for what they are.

Quote from: flyboy1 on April 26, 2012, 10:11:19 AM
CAP units on military bases are seen more for the community relations and youth program than anything else; while there are a few times when there is a direct mission tie.

I don't want to interrupt your flow here, but may I gently remind you that CP is one of the missions of CAP?  In fact CP is the largest single mission of CAP measured by man hours expended and number of members primarily participating in and supporting it.

So by definition, anytime there is a cadet or composite unit on a military base it is indeed "a direct mission tie."

You guys may now go back to discussing USAF policy.  Just don't forget to tell Gen Schwartz what you decide he should do.

Ned Lee
CP Enthusiast

Ned,

You owe me a new keyboard. :)

I think its a hoot how it was a discussion about moving to the reserve side and not how a decision has been made. 

And Col Lee I just got the laugh I needed for the day thank you.

Well organizational now under the AF it's kind of mixed up, because although CAP is under AETC, there's also a section in the Secretary of the Air Force's office that have oversight of CAP.    CAP still is required to make a report to the Secretary of the AF every year, that hasn't changed.

For my tax money, I'd put CAP under the Air National Guard/Guard Bureau  --  We basically have the same mission of "Citizen's Serving Communities".  The NGB also has  youth programs and CAP could be folded or even expanded into this.

Some CAP wings seem to have very good relations with the National Guard (Adjutant General) in their respective states and get regular access to national guard facilities.  Perhaps they could share with other wing commanders how/why they are successful.   I would think that as an overall objective of the BOG, that would be a good goal to work.  Of course since BOG short/medium/long term objectives are never presented to the membership (or as best as I can determine even to wing commanders), who really knows. :-\ :-[
RM   

Quote from: RADIOMAN015 on April 26, 2012, 09:34:18 PM
For my tax money, I'd put CAP under the Air National Guard/Guard Bureau  --  We basically have the same mission of "Citizen's Serving Communities".  The NGB also has  youth programs and CAP could be folded or even expanded into this.

Except that there are Title 10 issues.  The ANG operates on the state level.  We do not.  We are Federally chartered.

The only catch I see in putting CAP under National Guard is that the Guard is a State based organization.  It creates quite a bit of confusion to have one national organization interfacing with 50 State organizations that all want to do things a little different.

One advantage I can see is that if CAP is under the Reserve component, that potentially increases our interfacing with JROTC and ROTC units, which I understand has been lagging over the past couple of years.

I think the AF probably sees cadet programs as the most important aspect of CAP since they probably view that as a prime recruiting pool.

Quote from: bflynn on April 26, 2012, 10:13:33 PM
I think the AF probably sees cadet programs as the most important aspect of CAP since they probably view that as a prime recruiting pool.

That's been my experience, unfortunately.

I remember a visit from a State Director some years ago who didn't give a rip about senior members...it was all cadets, cadets, cadets and in his eyes our only function was to make sure the cadets got at least their Mitchell. >:(

Quote from: CyBorg on April 26, 2012, 10:24:44 PM

Quote from: bflynn on April 26, 2012, 10:13:33 PM
I think the AF probably sees cadet programs as the most important aspect of CAP since they probably view that as a prime recruiting pool.

That's been my experience, unfortunately.

I remember a visit from a State Director some years ago who didn't give a rip about senior members...it was all cadets, cadets, cadets and in his eyes our only function was to make sure the cadets got at least their Mitchell. >:(

Well, what does CAP do for the Air Force that they can't do for themselves?  You look at it from a WIIFM (what's in it for me) view, an honest answer has to be not a whole lot.  We don't do a whole lot for the Air Force other than supply them with recruits.  *shrug*, we do work for our community.

I'd like to see us out in the community a little more doing AE and promotion of civil aviation, but that's a personal desire...

Civil Air Patrol when called up by congress or the military under title 10 orders falls under Air Education Command AETC out of Maxwell AFB. CAP is the only flying unit assigned to AETC. When CAP is not on title 10 orders it is a seperate government chartered organization.

As a CAP-USAF reservist my job is oversight and to act as Liaison with CAP and the USAFR. In addition we monitor CAP assets provided by the USAF in order ensure AF assets are accounted for. We also ensure that safety measures are being followed to avoid tort law liability.

Although Im an IMA reservist with another unit I am attached as a CAP-USAF member for additional retirement points. You may wonder why you dont often see a reservist at CAP meetings events etc. Its because for the majority of the time we only get points and no pay for duty. Sometimes the Air Force comes up with some cash to provide us mandays to assist such as Cadet Encampments etc.  Most states have few if any Reservist assigned to CAP-USAF. There area active duty CAP-USAF military members but they are employed at a higher level.

I dont see CAP being assigned under active duty at any time as it is not an active duty asset.

Quote from: zachattack631 on April 27, 2012, 12:42:35 AM
CAP is the only flying unit assigned to AETC.

seriously???

Quote from: coudano on April 27, 2012, 01:22:16 AM

Quote from: zachattack631 on April 27, 2012, 12:42:35 AM
CAP is the only flying unit assigned to AETC.

seriously???

I guess the 71st, 47th, and the 12th FTW don't exsist.

Quote from: bflynn on April 26, 2012, 10:13:33 PM
The only catch I see in putting CAP under National Guard is that the Guard is a State based organization.  It creates quite a bit of confusion to have one national organization interfacing with 50 State organizations that all want to do things a little different.

One advantage I can see is that if CAP is under the Reserve component, that potentially increases our interfacing with JROTC and ROTC units, which I understand has been lagging over the past couple of years.

I think the AF probably sees cadet programs as the most important aspect of CAP since they probably view that as a prime recruiting pool.

I take it you've never heard about the National Guard Bureau.  All 53 National Guards report to the National Guard Bureau.

Quote from: zachattack631 on April 27, 2012, 12:42:35 AM
Civil Air Patrol when called up by congress or the military under title 10 orders falls under Air Education Command AETC out of Maxwell AFB. CAP is the only flying unit assigned to AETC. When CAP is not on title 10 orders it is a seperate government chartered organization.

Well, there is no such thing as "Title 10 orders" that "call up" CAP members.  Perhaps you're just using that as a short-hand to refer to Air Force Assigned Missions, but the sort of terminology you're trying to use isn't really used in CAP. 

Also can't remember the last time Congress called up CAP....

Quote from: PHall on April 27, 2012, 01:56:29 AM
I take it you've never heard about the National Guard Bureau.  All 53 National Guards report to the National Guard Bureau.

Not exactly...
The NGB is a conglomerate of the 53, and it 'interfaces' the guard to the federal Army and USAF, but it doesn't hold a directive command relationship over them.

Each individual state adjutant general is responsible to his/her own governor,
not to the chief of the ngb.

^ that's nice in theory, but when the FED through the NGB says "jump" every State jumps!  In fact, the Administration wants to cut National Guard personnel and Assets. 

So, how can the Federal Government cut anything, if we are following your model? 

The true intent of the Guard and Reserve was lost between Korea and 1960!!

Quote from: zachattack631 on April 27, 2012, 12:42:35 AM
Although Im an IMA reservist with another unit I am attached as a CAP-USAF member for additional retirement points. You may wonder why you dont often see a reservist at CAP meetings events etc. Its because for the majority of the time we only get points and no pay for duty. Sometimes the Air Force comes up with some cash to provide us mandays to assist such as Cadet Encampments etc.  Most states have few if any Reservist assigned to CAP-USAF. There area active duty CAP-USAF military members but they are employed at a higher level.

Retirement points are your pay!! I see too many reservists doing nearly nothing and getting the points.  To me that's like stealing. 

Quote from: bflynn on April 26, 2012, 10:30:32 PM
Well, what does CAP do for the Air Force that they can't do for themselves?  You look at it from a WIIFM (what's in it for me) view, an honest answer has to be not a whole lot.  We don't do a whole lot for the Air Force other than supply them with recruits.  *shrug*, we do work for our community.

I'd like to see us out in the community a little more doing AE and promotion of civil aviation, but that's a personal desire...

The ES mission saves the USAF millions of dollars every year.

As far as supplying the USAF with recruits.......does anyone have hard number on how many of our cadets go on to the USAF?

In my un scientific experiance....that number is pretty low.  But maybe it is like the expense of the T-birds.....there is some intangible amount of recruiting that does happen.....even if there are hard numbers.

CAP does a lot for the Air Force, and they would be hard pressed to find another organization that does the things we do. I don't know of anyone else that can do ELT like we do. Even if that is the only thing we do, it is a massive thing that we do.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 27, 2012, 04:57:45 AM

The ES mission saves the USAF millions of dollars every year.

We might do millions of dollars worth of ES missions each year, but does that contribute to the mission of the AF?  To fly, fight and win...in air, space and cyberspace.

The Air Force has three core competencies: Developing Airmen, Technology-to-Warfighting and Integrating Operations.

These core competencies make six distinctive capabilities possible:  Air and Space Superiority, Global Attack, Rapid Global Mobility, Precision Engagement, Information Superiority, Agile Combat Support.

I don't see emergency services to the people of the United States in there. 

Quote from: bflynn on April 27, 2012, 01:01:06 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 27, 2012, 04:57:45 AM

The ES mission saves the USAF millions of dollars every year.

We might do millions of dollars worth of ES missions each year, but does that contribute to the mission of the AF?  To fly, fight and win...in air, space and cyberspace.

The Air Force has three core competencies: Developing Airmen, Technology-to-Warfighting and Integrating Operations.

These core competencies make six distinctive capabilities possible:  Air and Space Superiority, Global Attack, Rapid Global Mobility, Precision Engagement, Information Superiority, Agile Combat Support.

I don't see emergency services to the people of the United States in there.

QuoteKaffee: Corporal, would you turn to the page in this book that says where the mess hall is, please.
Cpl. Barnes: Well, Lt. Kaffee, that's not in the book, sir.
Kaffee: You mean to say in all your time at Gitmo you've never had a meal?
Cpl. Barnes: No, sir. Three squares a day, sir.
Kaffee: I don't understand. How did you know where the mess hall was if it's not in this book?
Cpl. Barnes: Well, I guess I just followed the crowd at chow time, sir.
Kaffee: No more questions.

We get it. you're here to fly. Carry on, sir.

Quote from: bflynn on April 27, 2012, 01:01:06 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 27, 2012, 04:57:45 AM

The ES mission saves the USAF millions of dollars every year.

...I don't see emergency services to the people of the United States in there.

You are probably looking in the wrong place then. You might find it by researching the Department of the Air Force responsibilities under Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA).

DoD Directive 3025.18 is the DCSA capstone document. I would imagine there are a number of AFIs implementing the guidance of 3025.18.

The Military Departments have numerous missions besides the ones that are obvious to the casual observer.

Quote from: coudano on April 27, 2012, 02:43:41 AM

Quote from: PHall on April 27, 2012, 01:56:29 AM
I take it you've never heard about the National Guard Bureau.  All 53 National Guards report to the National Guard Bureau.

Not exactly...
The NGB is a conglomerate of the 53, and it 'interfaces' the guard to the federal Army and USAF, but it doesn't hold a directive command relationship over them.

Each individual state adjutant general is responsible to his/her own governor,
not to the chief of the ngb.

I knew an AF officer (mustang; MSgt who got commissioned) and his last post was at the NGB.

He said that it was what finally moved him to seek retirement.

He got tired of 50-odd Governors and Adjutant Generals jockeying for position on who got what equipment.

He said something that makes a lot of sense (and I say this as former ANG myself):

Move all the fighter/attack units and tankers into the Air Force Reserve.  What does a Governor need with a wing of F-16's?

Restructure the ANG to focus on transport/helicopter/combat SAR, because all those are things that a Governor can make use of (disaster relief, insurrection) and that the USAF can make use of.  A state can make more use of a C-130 or C-27 than an A-10.

That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a "resurrection" of the old Continental Air Command as an umbrella for the ANG (in Federal status), AFRES and CAP.

Quote from: bflynn
I don't see emergency services to the people of the United States in there.

Because it's not called ES in the AF it's called humani tarian aid/relief.  Haiti earthquake USAF first in led by the 615th CRW out of Travis.  Japan tsunami again USAF in providing a good chunk of the mission.  The folks out of Moffet Field fly SAR missions as well.  All of that can fall under agile combat support.  During Katrina AF assets flew alot of equipment into LA some of the first teams there were members of the CHP and FEMA.  For every aspect of the direct support you see there's plenty of indirect support you don't see.

Quote from: bflynn on April 27, 2012, 01:01:06 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 27, 2012, 04:57:45 AM

The ES mission saves the USAF millions of dollars every year.

We might do millions of dollars worth of ES missions each year, but does that contribute to the mission of the AF?  To fly, fight and win...in air, space and cyberspace.

The Air Force has three core competencies: Developing Airmen, Technology-to-Warfighting and Integrating Operations.

These core competencies make six distinctive capabilities possible:  Air and Space Superiority, Global Attack, Rapid Global Mobility, Precision Engagement, Information Superiority, Agile Combat Support.

I don't see emergency services to the people of the United States in there.

True, but CAP doing ES and chasing ELT's supports the Rapid Global Mobility and Agile Combat Support capabilities.  If we weren't doing it, how many Airmen and aircraft would be tied up around the country chasing ELT's at 0200 instead of fixing and flying their aircraft and performing their other missions?  How much would it cost to stand up even a small flight to perform those duties at every base in the country?  That's why CAP is a force multiplier. 

What we can do for $50 (gas) with 2 guys in a van (UDF team) and one (IC) sitting at his kitchen table drinking coffee in his boxers and waiting for the phone to ring, would cost the USAF several thousand dollars by the time they add up all the costs of supporting 2 Airmen in a van (UDF team) and an Officer of the Day (IC)sitting in an office drinking coffee and waiting for the phone to ring...

Quote from: Al Sayre on April 27, 2012, 03:13:32 PM
If we weren't doing it, how many Airmen and aircraft would be tied up around the country chasing ELT's at 0200 instead of fixing and flying their aircraft and performing their other missions?  How much would it cost to stand up even a small flight to perform those duties at every base in the country? 

None?  Why do you assume that the AF would chase down ELTs if CAP didn't? 

I'm not being flippant about this, but it's obvious that the purpose of the Air Force is air superiority.  They have a strategic mission that is agnostic to what tactical conditions are being seen at individual locations in the country.  ES or human aid or whatever...logistics support, whatever...is done as an afterthought, because they can.  It isn't a requirement that they do this.

They're about security for our country...not chasing down ELTs that someone threw in the back of their boat.

Quote from: bflynn on April 27, 2012, 03:55:03 PM

Quote from: Al Sayre on April 27, 2012, 03:13:32 PM
If we weren't doing it, how many Airmen and aircraft would be tied up around the country chasing ELT's at 0200 instead of fixing and flying their aircraft and performing their other missions?  How much would it cost to stand up even a small flight to perform those duties at every base in the country? 

None?  Why do you assume that the AF would chase down ELTs if CAP didn't? 

I'm not being flippant about this, but it's obvious that the purpose of the Air Force is air superiority.  They have a strategic mission that is agnostic to what tactical conditions are being seen at individual locations in the country.  ES or human aid or whatever...logistics support, whatever...is done as an afterthought, because they can.  It isn't a requirement that they do this.

They're about security for our country...not chasing down ELTs that someone threw in the back of their boat.

Again, I would remind you that the Military Departments (which obviously includes the Department of the Air Force) have a responsibility under DSCA:

Quote from: FlyTiger77 on April 27, 2012, 01:26:03 PM
You are probably looking in the wrong place then. You might find it by researching the Department of the Air Force responsibilities under Defense Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA).

DoD Directive 3025.18 is the DCSA capstone document. I would imagine there are a number of AFIs implementing the guidance of 3025.18.

The Military Departments have numerous missions besides the ones that are obvious to the casual observer.

A directive from the Secretary of Defense is not normally viewed as either optional or an afterthought by most military officers and/or organizations. I am not sure of your background or experience, but these are activities that the Military Departments put a good deal of thought and manpower behind.

Quote from: bflynn on April 27, 2012, 03:55:03 PM

Quote from: Al Sayre on April 27, 2012, 03:13:32 PM
If we weren't doing it, how many Airmen and aircraft would be tied up around the country chasing ELT's at 0200 instead of fixing and flying their aircraft and performing their other missions?  How much would it cost to stand up even a small flight to perform those duties at every base in the country? 

None?  Why do you assume that the AF would chase down ELTs if CAP didn't? 

I'm not being flippant about this, but it's obvious that the purpose of the Air Force is air superiority.  They have a strategic mission that is agnostic to what tactical conditions are being seen at individual locations in the country.  ES or human aid or whatever...logistics support, whatever...is done as an afterthought, because they can.  It isn't a requirement that they do this.

They're about security for our country...not chasing down ELTs that someone threw in the back of their boat.

So beg to differ, humanitarian aid is a huge part of what the US military does in conjunction with national security.  There are so many facets that average Joe doesn't see on a day to day basis.  World wide the DOD provides support in many different aspects.  Simply because you don't see or hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.  And security takes many different forms and guises. 

I'm not disputing that the Air Force has been directed to cover something.

But that doesn't make it part of their core mission or part of their focus.  My boss can direct me to make sure the trash is taken out daily and I'll do it, but taking care of clients is still my primacy focus and what I'm interested in.  The rest is an inconvience because it detracts from doing the part that makes me money.

Quote from: bflynn on April 27, 2012, 05:48:45 PM
I'm not disputing that the Air Force has been directed to cover something.

But that doesn't make it part of their core mission or part of their focus.  My boss can direct me to make sure the trash is taken out daily and I'll do it, but taking care of clients is still my primacy focus and what I'm interested in.  The rest is an inconvience because it detracts from doing the part that makes me money.

You're still missing the point humanitarian aide/relief is part of the AF's mission.  Missions change as does the big picture.  National Security is both in and outside the borders and even CAP's ES is more that SAR. 

Quote from: bflynn on April 27, 2012, 01:01:06 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 27, 2012, 04:57:45 AM

The ES mission saves the USAF millions of dollars every year.

We might do millions of dollars worth of ES missions each year, but does that contribute to the mission of the AF?  To fly, fight and win...in air, space and cyberspace.

Every mission we fly for the USAF is one less that they have to fly.  Freeing them up to train and fly combat missions.
In military Jargon....CAP is a Force Multiplier.

QuoteThe Air Force has three core competencies: Developing Airmen, Technology-to-Warfighting and Integrating Operations.

These core competencies make six distinctive capabilities possible:  Air and Space Superiority, Global Attack, Rapid Global Mobility, Precision Engagement, Information Superiority, Agile Combat Support.

I don't see emergency services to the people of the United States in there.

Just because you don't see....does not mean it is not there.

Quote from: bflynn on April 27, 2012, 03:55:03 PM

Quote from: Al Sayre on April 27, 2012, 03:13:32 PM
If we weren't doing it, how many Airmen and aircraft would be tied up around the country chasing ELT's at 0200 instead of fixing and flying their aircraft and performing their other missions?  How much would it cost to stand up even a small flight to perform those duties at every base in the country? 

None?  Why do you assume that the AF would chase down ELTs if CAP didn't?

Because in land SAR....at least for missing aircraft is a USAF responsiblity.

QuoteI'm not being flippant about this, but it's obvious that the purpose of the Air Force is air superiority.  They have a strategic mission that is agnostic to what tactical conditions are being seen at individual locations in the country.  ES or human aid or whatever...logistics support, whatever...is done as an afterthought, because they can.  It isn't a requirement that they do this.

They're about security for our country...not chasing down ELTs that someone threw in the back of their boat.

And of course the USAF is solely focusted on just the narrow definition of Air Superiority.
I mean it is not like the the USAF does any counter drug missions.....oh wait.
I mean it is not like the USAF does any weather survailance missions....oh wait.
It is not like the USAF is into RD missions....oh wait.
It is not like the USAF does any disaster releif missions....oh wait.

SAR is a responsiblity of the USAF.....hence the rescue squadrons and AFRCC.
CAP as I said before....CAP is a force multiplier because we take up the domestic over land SAR mission from the rescue squadrons.
Thereby saving the USAF millions in cost differences.

Hmm, does that mean that I can call the local Air Force base for personnel when I'm short on aircrew members? 

There are very few CAP missions that the AF would actually do with its own personnel if we weren't here.  The AFRCC would just call the state and say, "hey there is an airplane missing in your state.  If you need some federal resources give us a call.  Good luck". 

Quote from: bflynn on April 27, 2012, 05:48:45 PM
I'm not disputing that the Air Force has been directed to cover something.

But that doesn't make it part of their core mission or part of their focus.  My boss can direct me to make sure the trash is taken out daily and I'll do it, but taking care of clients is still my primacy focus and what I'm interested in.  The rest is an inconvience because it detracts from doing the part that makes me money.

Individuals in the organisation may not have any direct relation to the core compentancy of that organistion.

The food service guy....has nothing to do....directly....with air superiority.  But the system cannot work with out him.  You are getting "tasks" confused with core competancies/mission.

Quote from: RiverAux on April 27, 2012, 06:59:12 PM
Hmm, does that mean that I can call the local Air Force base for personnel when I'm short on aircrew members? 

There are very few CAP missions that the AF would actually do with its own personnel if we weren't here.  The AFRCC would just call the state and say, "hey there is an airplane missing in your state.  If you need some federal resources give us a call.  Good luck".

Those "federal resources" would be who exactly?   8)

Quote from: bflynn on April 27, 2012, 05:48:45 PM
I'm not disputing that the Air Force has been directed to cover something.

But that doesn't make it part of their core mission or part of their focus...

A directive from the Secretary of Defense to the Secretary of the Air Force (which I have referenced twice and you seem to keep purposefully ignoring) does an amazing job of focusing the organization. It is hardly the equivalent of "Oh, by the way, make sure the trash is taken out every day."

But, to use your flawed analogy, what would happen to your business (mission) if the trash were not taken out?

In many cases, the DSCA missions (which we are discussing here moreso than humanitarian aid [which mostly goes to foreign countries]) allow the Military Departments to use their assets and skills on real-world missions. Using a CH-47 to plug breaks in a levee is hardly a core competency for the Army, but by doing so, the Chinook pilots were able to get some valuable training and help the populace of New Orleans after Hurricane KATRINA.

As LordMonar pointed out, the very existence of AFRCC shows that the Department of the Air Force has an in-land SAR mission, that the Department of the Air Force acknowledges that it has that mission, and that the Department of the Air Force has assigned resources against that mission in order to effectively accomplish it.

Even though taking out the trash is not a core competency, it is still a task that must be done. Probably even in your office.

Quote from: lordmonar on April 27, 2012, 07:06:15 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on April 27, 2012, 06:59:12 PM
Hmm, does that mean that I can call the local Air Force base for personnel when I'm short on aircrew members? 

There are very few CAP missions that the AF would actually do with its own personnel if we weren't here.  The AFRCC would just call the state and say, "hey there is an airplane missing in your state.  If you need some federal resources give us a call.  Good luck".

Those "federal resources" would be who exactly?   8)

National Park Service, US Forest Service, Dept. of Homeland Security, the military, and I suppose even the IRS. 

Quote from: RiverAux on April 27, 2012, 06:59:12 PM
Hmm, does that mean that I can call the local Air Force base for personnel when I'm short on aircrew members? 

There are very few CAP missions that the AF would actually do with its own personnel if we weren't here.  The AFRCC would just call the state and say, "hey there is an airplane missing in your state.  If you need some federal resources give us a call.  Good luck".

Sure, I bet that they have lots of qualified observers and scanners just sitting around.
Make sure they bring their AF Form 8 so you can varify they are qualified in Cessnas. >:D

Quote from: bflynn on April 27, 2012, 01:01:06 PM

I don't see emergency services to the people of the United States in there.

Very well, then here's your reading assignment:

Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 1, Air Force Basic Doctrine, Organization and Command, particularly the section on Homeland Organizational Considerations, page 83.

AFDD 2, Operations and Organization.  Defense Suport of Civil Authorities, p. 27

AFDD 3-27, Homeland Operations, sections for your convenience (bolding mine):

Homeland operations incorporate all applications of air and space power designed to detect, preempt, respond to, mitigate, and recover from the full spectrum of incidents and threats to the homeland, whether man-made or natural. (Page 1)

The Air Force contributes to homeland security through its military missions overseas, homeland defense, and support to civil authorities. (Page 9)

In providing defense support for civil authorities, the Air Force supports federal, state, or local civil authorities in cases of natural or man-made domestic emergencies, civil disturbances, or authorized law enforcement activities. (Page 25)

AFDD 3-27, Chapter Two, Force Presentation and Organization of Forces, addresses CAP beginning on page 20:

The AFAux/CAP is authorized, when directed by the Secretary of the Air Force, to fulfill any non-combat mission of the Air Force. When CAP operates in AFAux status, it is an Air Force federal military activity and as such is required to comply with the Posse Comitatus Act and intelligence oversight restrictions. AFAux/CAP forces are presented through the Air Education and Training Command commander to AFNORTH (1 AF) or PACAF in response to requests for DSCA, consequence management operations, and other federal operations.

When you're done with that, let us know if you still have any questions about the Air Force role in ES.

Links:

AFDD1: http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFDD1.pdf (http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFDD1.pdf)
AFDD2: http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFDD2.pdf (http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFDD2.pdf)
AFDD 3-27: http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFDD3-27.pdf (http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AFDD3-27.pdf)

Quote from: RiverAux on April 27, 2012, 07:52:51 PM

Quote from: lordmonar on April 27, 2012, 07:06:15 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on April 27, 2012, 06:59:12 PM
Hmm, does that mean that I can call the local Air Force base for personnel when I'm short on aircrew members? 

There are very few CAP missions that the AF would actually do with its own personnel if we weren't here.  The AFRCC would just call the state and say, "hey there is an airplane missing in your state.  If you need some federal resources give us a call.  Good luck".

Those "federal resources" would be who exactly?   8)

National Park Service, US Forest Service, Dept. of Homeland Security, the military, and I suppose even the IRS.

So....again.....how is this getting the USAF off the hook for providing SAR assets?
That is just shifting the bill from one federal agency to another with a rise in costs due to redundancy.

State governments always have the option of requesting federal assistance in any emergency.  If CAP weren't around, I'm pretty confident that the locals wouldn't be requesting the feds do anything that they wouldn't have done anyway.  Would the local sheriff's office be calling in federal resources to look for a lost person?  To take some photos of tornado damage to use in a powerpoint presentation two months later?  Nope. 

CAP is a nice thing to have, but the AF would not do most of what we do if we weren't here. 

The question was How Does the CAP affect the USAF's mission.

Without CAP the USAF would have to pick up the inland SAR mission or pass it off to another agency or onto the states.....with an INCREASE in spending and a decrease in military projection (assuming the USAF passed on the mission).

At the risk of inciting a flame war, let me pose a question to you lot...

Please make an honest attempt to think this through with an open mind, and resist the temptation to "defend" your favorite mission. Would the AE, CP, and ES missions be more efficiently served with spinning off into two more focused organizations. In this hypothetical situation, creating an "Air Cadets" organization focused on CP and AE missions, while at the same time focusing CAP on the ES mission. CAP as it is today has a widely diversified scope of work, with many different internal factions competing for attention because they feel they are the most important. There isn't any consistent focus, which in my opinion serves to weaken the organization. I think a split would strengthen each resulting organization, as we no longer have to worry about the shifting winds of CAP leadership who see one mission as more important/deserving than another. In a split scenario there is nothing to say that the organizations can't support each other where appropriate, for example o-rides could continue as they do today, and members of each organization would be free to be members of both if they desire.

Bringing this back full circle to the conversation thread, I could see the "Air Cadets" style organization connected up with AETC, while CAP would be freed up to associate with AFRC. Perhaps creating a better fit with the work each do today.

I wanted to throw this out there, as it's something I've thought about from time to time but haven't shared it with anyone.

Please be gentle. ;)

he idea of splitting off the cadet program was informally discussed at a National Board meeting in the 1970's. The main problems were that it would require two meeting locations, two staffs for the "Air Cadets" and "CAP-ES" units. It was felt that the "Air Cadet" units would not have enough Senior member to support it. What would the "CAP-ES" units do if no aircraft was available? Do you think that a "CAP-ES" unit would take on the missing person mission, and away from local EM or LE organizations? Leaving out AE, historically CAP since 1942 has involved both a CP and ES program. It can be said the original purpose of CAP CP was to provide AE training for the military. To an extent that still exists today. This can be shown by the 10% of the Air Force Academy Feshman class being composed of former CAP Cadets. If the cadet program was split off of the ES mission you would have a loss of a large number of Squadrons. The majority of Squadrons are Composite or Cadet. And how many Senior members from those Squadrons would transfer to an ES only unit?

The idea was also formally discussed at the pentagon about the same time of CAP's last reorg in 2000.  There was a "white paper" discussion separating the "Auxiliary" from CAP; forming two distinct organizations.  The "Auxiliary" was to conduct SAR/DR/HS and, CAP; to support a cadet program and AE outreach.  We ended up with one organization with the Auxiliary "on/off switch"...

I have mixed feelings about changing the nature of CAP. Part of my positive experiences as a cadet involved  ES missions.  It would be a shame, IMO, if that experience was missing for cadets.  On the other hand, separating would mean greater possible funding sources for CP and AE.  The "New CAP"  would be able to create a sizable contributor base if no federal funding stigma were attached.

Just off the top of my head, I can't see anything that would prevent someone from being a member of both groups (or only one if they so chose).  The two units could have a simple agreement to coordinate their respective regulations and that each unit recognize the rank and qualifications of the other.  A MOU or SOW could be the way to handle the O'flight issue.

Quote from: flyingscotsman on April 28, 2012, 05:40:11 AM
At the risk of inciting a flame war, let me pose a question to you lot...

Please make an honest attempt to think this through with an open mind, and resist the temptation to "defend" your favorite mission. Would the AE, CP, and ES missions be more efficiently served with spinning off into two more focused organizations. In this hypothetical situation, creating an "Air Cadets" organization focused on CP and AE missions, while at the same time focusing CAP on the ES mission. CAP as it is today has a widely diversified scope of work, with many different internal factions competing for attention because they feel they are the most important. There isn't any consistent focus, which in my opinion serves to weaken the organization. I think a split would strengthen each resulting organization, as we no longer have to worry about the shifting winds of CAP leadership who see one mission as more important/deserving than another. In a split scenario there is nothing to say that the organizations can't support each other where appropriate, for example o-rides could continue as they do today, and members of each organization would be free to be members of both if they desire.

Bringing this back full circle to the conversation thread, I could see the "Air Cadets" style organization connected up with AETC, while CAP would be freed up to associate with AFRC. Perhaps creating a better fit with the work each do today.

I wanted to throw this out there, as it's something I've thought about from time to time but haven't shared it with anyone.

Please be gentle. ;)

There is no reason why we could not do that......CAP would just be a very different organisation.

Now the questions:
What benifit to ES and/or CP would we get from splitting into two seperate organisations?
What possible road blocks would rise up if they split?

Personally......slitting them could allow the two organisations to focus on their own missions.  But.....the ES side would loose half its manpower.  We would loose the visibility that the Cadets bring to CAP.  On the CP side...the new AFCC (Air Force Cadet Corps) would loose its connection to real missions.  No more ES training.  Which would make us no different then JROTC.  We would loose our connection to O-rides...as our air planes would now all belong to another organisation. 

Just off the top of my head....I don't see any real benifit from splitting and many potential head aches if we were to split off.

Doing such a split would result in two organisations:

One that would be "all ES, all the time" and likely have no Air Force connection except for maybe aircraft funding.  I know there are people who would like that; just fly, fly, fly and not have to worry about anything to do with uniforms or C&C's.  It would be much like the Canadian CASARA, except that they work directly with RCAF SAR assets.

http://casara.ca/ (http://casara.ca/)

And...they even have a golf shirt!

(http://www2.casara.ca/images/news/Anniversary%20Golf%20Shirt.jpg)

The other would be much more like the British Air Training Corps, the Australian Air Force Cadets, Royal Canadian Air Cadets and New Zealand Cadet Forces Air Training Corps.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/aircadets/ (http://www.raf.mod.uk/aircadets/)

http://www.airtrainingcorpsnz.org.nz/ (http://www.airtrainingcorpsnz.org.nz/)

http://www.aafc.org.au/ (http://www.aafc.org.au/)

http://www.cadets.ca/air/ (http://www.cadets.ca/air/)

This organisation would be much more "military" in nature, and would probably receive more Air Force support, since they are so zealous for the CP as a recruiting tool.

However, it begs the question of what senior members' role would be.  In the UK ATC and RCAirC, they are actually commissioned into a special type of reserve category of the RAF and RCAF.  I'm not sure about the NZATC, and I don't think the AAFC requires that of its adult officers, though the RAAF supervises the AAFC a lot closer than the USAF does CAP.

Focusing on all three missions equally is not hard. It takes scheduling and people focused and acknowledging the importance of all three missions. We do it well in our squadron, first week of the month is PT and safety, second leadership and testing third leadership and aerospace fourth is ES, and if there is a fifth it is generally ES and aerospace. It's not that hard.

We already have multiple other organizations throughout the US that focus on cadet programs and AE per say.  Splitting them would IMO cause an exodus of people to leave.  Not everyone wants to do cadet programs not everyone wants to do ES, but they are intertwined along with aerospace education.

I've heard this 'split in two' suggestion discussed often over the years.

I think what needs to be considered is that ES is what makes the CAP cadet program unique when compared with other existing cadet programs.

Such a change could, in fact, result in a net loss  in cadet membership.

I feel better about this discussion now...was afraid I was going to start a riot. LOL!

Anyhow, I actually think the split would have the opposite effect on membership...I think with focused marketing we could have a net increase in participation in each organization long-term. In the short term, I agree about there being a significant number of squadrons shutdown or drastically modified, but I argue that this might not be a bad thing. While my experience lies in a particularly large wing and can't speak for the how the rest of the country may vary, I can say that something like 10 to 20 percent regular participation from both cadets and seniors alike is not uncommon and that ES participation of cadets has been fairly limited to training and exercises with them only very rarely participating in something real. Unless the squadron has custody of an aircraft either full or part time, their focus is almost exclusively on Cadet programs anyhow.

I see CAP as suffering an identity crisis of sorts, with many outsiders confused or misinformed about what we do. Heck, I think that many members around here are confused and misinformed too. Cadet programs has become the marketing tool of choice for the organization, and why not it's a big part of the work that's done, but I that ends up hurting our efforts to bring in quality people for ES-only. Just look at our public facing website, you have to read closely and click on something to figure out anything about ES because CP dominates. Seniors involved in CP would still participate in CP, I don't think that there would be a mass-exodus there. Furthermore, I don't believe cadets would drop out or decide not to join because of a lack of ES (at least not around here, we can't get them to care about ES because they're too busy with other stuff).

As far as ES goes, the seniors who enjoy supporting that would likely need to consolidate into fewer units. The organization would have to be a bit more strategic in their placement.

I heard someone say that ES is the unique item that sets us apart from other cadet programs, I argue that the aerospace aspect is the unique part, because cadets around here don't do a great deal of ES (YMMV).

There is nothing about this hypothetical that limits either organization from supporting the other (ex. o-rides, AE, ES training/exercises).

This would improve the ability to associate more closely with more appropriate USAF commands (if that even matters at this point) that make more sense for each program, potentially improving working relationships with each.

I think it would reduce the bitter battles over which is more important. Many groups down here focust almost exclusively on CP, and couldn't care less about ES, and others its the other way around. This leaves subordinate units to fend for themselves one way or the other already. Frustration reigns, participation is weak, and membership turnover is horrendous.

The CP org can focus on creating a military style program for their cadets, while the ES can drop the act and concentrate on building a more focused and better skilled force of volunteers.

Marketing for ES program would certainly improve, since all I see right now is pictures of kids in uniforms and talk about encampment or other activities. If I'm not looking to participate in CP, and all I see is cadets on marketing materials, then I'm going to move on to something else with my energy (Angel Flight, CGAux, etc.) unless I already know about what CAP is about from other people.

Quote from: flyingscotsman on April 28, 2012, 08:16:21 PM
I feel better about this discussion now...was afraid I was going to start a riot. LOL!

That's reserved for uniform topics. >:D

Quote from: flyingscotsman on April 28, 2012, 08:16:21 PM
I see CAP as suffering an identity crisis of sorts, with many outsiders confused or misinformed about what we do. Heck, I think that many members around here are confused and misinformed too.

That identity crisis has been going on since at least 1993, when I joined.  That was soon after the Air Force took metal grade and blue epaulettes away from us because of the actions of a few idiots.  We've never really recovered from that.

The fact that someone's bright idea of us only being the Air Force's "sometime" auxiliary in the late '90s-2000s (leading to the "AUX ON/AUX OFF" mentality) hasn't helped, nor has the rise of a small-but-very-vocal segment of our membership who would "de-militarise" us completely and cut all our ties to the Air Force, except for CP.

Even many in the Air Force don't know (or care) who we are, except for isolated instances where some dim bulb tries to pull rank they don't have on an AF member.

Quote from: flyingscotsman on April 28, 2012, 08:16:21 PM
This would improve the ability to associate more closely with more appropriate USAF commands (if that even matters at this point) that make more sense for each program, potentially improving working relationships with each.

I haven't seen interest in such an improvement with the USAF on behalf of either CAP or the USAF.  We were almost disestablished in 1995 through the efforts of John McCain.

Quote from: flyingscotsman on April 28, 2012, 08:16:21 PM
I think it would reduce the bitter battles over which is more important. Many groups down here focust almost exclusively on CP, and couldn't care less about ES, and others its the other way around.

A lot of that depends on what type of squadron you are referring to.  I was a member of a senior squadron that was little more than a flying club.  They didn't give a rat's bum about AE and actively avoided giving cadet O-rides.

Quote from: flyingscotsman on April 28, 2012, 08:16:21 PM
Marketing for ES program would certainly improve, since all I see right now is pictures of kids in uniforms and talk about encampment or other activities. If I'm not looking to participate in CP, and all I see is cadets on marketing materials, then I'm going to move on to something else with my energy (Angel Flight, CGAux, etc.) unless I already know about what CAP is about from other people.

A lot of that blame must go on both CAP and the AF.

As I've said elsewhere, my encounters with (too) many AF personnel only focus on cadets.

The person who eventually brought me to join CAP initially told me that the "adult members" were there just to serve as "counsellors" for cadets. ::)

All three are important and there are some squadrons where some aspects of our missions are just not available for them.

Quote from: flyingscotsman on April 28, 2012, 08:16:21 PM
I feel better about this discussion now...was afraid I was going to start a riot. LOL!

Anyhow, I actually think the split would have the opposite effect on membership...I think with focused marketing we could have a net increase in participation in each organization long-term. In the short term, I agree about there being a significant number of squadrons shutdown or drastically modified, but I argue that this might not be a bad thing. While my experience lies in a particularly large wing and can't speak for the how the rest of the country may vary, I can say that something like 10 to 20 percent regular participation from both cadets and seniors alike is not uncommon and that ES participation of cadets has been fairly limited to training and exercises with them only very rarely participating in something real. Unless the squadron has custody of an aircraft either full or part time, their focus is almost exclusively on Cadet programs anyhow.

Well.....at some point you have to understand that once split.......they are two seperate orgainsations.  We already have a built in split between ES and CP in the form of senior and cadet squadrons.  Those who want to focus on just ES can join or form Senior Squadrons and those who want to focus on just CP can form Cadet squadrons.   Splitting into two organisations would kill the composite squadrons.   It would remove ALL ES access from the cadets.  It would remove all access to O-rides from the cadets.  It would remove access to all those CAP vehicles from the cadets.

QuoteI see CAP as suffering an identity crisis of sorts, with many outsiders confused or misinformed about what we do. Heck, I think that many members around here are confused and misinformed too. Cadet programs has become the marketing tool of choice for the organization, and why not it's a big part of the work that's done, but I that ends up hurting our efforts to bring in quality people for ES-only. Just look at our public facing website, you have to read closely and click on something to figure out anything about ES because CP dominates. Seniors involved in CP would still participate in CP, I don't think that there would be a mass-exodus there. Furthermore, I don't believe cadets would drop out or decide not to join because of a lack of ES (at least not around here, we can't get them to care about ES because they're too busy with other stuff).

That's a markeing and education problem.....not an organisational problem.  Remember that your area of CAP is not all of CAP.  Some cadet and composite squadrons have a strong cadet presence in ES.  The question to ask is how does the ES mission affect YOUR cadet program?  Are you loosing cadets becasue you are doing too much ES?  Stop doing ES.  It is not requried for the cadet program.  If your composite squadron is focusing too much on ES and not enough CP......split off and form you own cadet squadron and go it alone....or better yet ask wing CP and wing CC to help educate your commander on how to better balance the two missions.

QuoteAs far as ES goes, the seniors who enjoy supporting that would likely need to consolidate into fewer units. The organization would have to be a bit more strategic in their placement.

I heard someone say that ES is the unique item that sets us apart from other cadet programs, I argue that the aerospace aspect is the unique part, because cadets around here don't do a great deal of ES (YMMV).

lots of organisations have AE as the core center.  Young eagles, Air Explorers, and AFJROTC just to name three.  CAP is the only organisation where cadets can participate directly in ES MISSIONS.....that is real world SAR and DR activities.  That has always been our big advantage over AFJROTC.

QuoteThere is nothing about this hypothetical that limits either organization from supporting the other (ex. o-rides, AE, ES training/exercises).

No.....just like there is nothing about CAP that limits us form supporting the BSA, Red Cross, Salvation Army, PLO or any other organisation.  But beware your unintentional consequences........once split.....the two organisations can/will drift apart to the point where they don't even talk to each other.  Just look at BSA and GSA.....at one time they were almost one organisation....but over time they hardly have any contact with each other at the unit level.

QuoteThis would improve the ability to associate more closely with more appropriate USAF commands (if that even matters at this point) that make more sense for each program, potentially improving working relationships with each.

Won't have any affect on the ES side of thing associateing more closely with othe USAF commands.   We work just find with 1st AF and ACC just fine....even if our money and oversight comes from AETC.

QuoteI think it would reduce the bitter battles over which is more important. Many groups down here focust almost exclusively on CP, and couldn't care less about ES, and others its the other way around. This leaves subordinate units to fend for themselves one way or the other already. Frustration reigns, participation is weak, and membership turnover is horrendous.

I don't know what bitter battles you are talking about....but it won't help out......it simply means that there will be some new organisations call the AF Cadet Corps and AF Auxillary.....who both belong to the USAF.....neither one will talk to the other.....just as CAP hardly ever talks to the other military AUX's. (MARS and CGAUX).

QuoteThe CP org can focus on creating a military style program for their cadets,

We got that now.

Quotewhile the ES can drop the act and concentrate on building a more focused and better skilled force of volunteers.

I don't quite know what you are alluding to here........but....are you suggesting that CAP's cadet program is somehow interfereing with the professional development and ES skills of the rest of CAP?   I'm gonna have to call the BS flag on this one. 

QuoteMarketing for ES program would certainly improve, since all I see right now is pictures of kids in uniforms and talk about encampment or other activities. If I'm not looking to participate in CP, and all I see is cadets on marketing materials, then I'm going to move on to something else with my energy (Angel Flight, CGAux, etc.) unless I already know about what CAP is about from other people.

I don't see any outside marketing.......so I don't know how splitting into two organisations is going to somehow magicly make the successor to the CAP ES organisation somehow better then the current CAP marketers.

Also.......you know splitting the oraganisations now makes you have two sets of over head.  Two wing commanders and staff, two BoGs, Two NHQ staffs.......that means you are first cutting the manpower in half and at the same time building a whole new command infrasture.