Okay, I've never been entirely happy with the current CAP squadron naming conventions. I've probably proposed several different options over the years, but haven't really been entirely satisfied with any of them. Now, of course the premise of this thread is that I become National Commander and have enough blackmail on other members of the NB to make this happen. Short of that I fully realize that no one is ever going to believe that the current system is enough of a problem to make such a major change.
But, this is CAPTalk, so lets talk about it anyway.
By the way, for whoever wants to be first saying "solution looking for a problem", the problem is that I don't like the current system and this will solve my problem. Don't like it, don't play.
In general, this will be a very AirForcey proposal. As the auxiliary of the AF I think it appropriate that CAP squadrons be named in a manner similar to AF units. Why? Because there is no real reason why we shouldn't. However, there will be a key difference in that at the squadron level "Auxiliary" will be incorporated into all squadron names in the manner outlined below.
All existing CAP squadrons will be given a numeric designator based on their original charter date no matter what type of unit they are. The oldest existing CAP squadron would be called the "1st ....." The rest of the name will be based on the rules below.
Cadet squadrons would still be called cadet squadrons since that is their primary function, but would receive numeric designations based on their original charter date. So, a wing might end up with the 15th, 332nd, 451st, and 555th Auxiliary Cadet Squadrons.
Based on the assumption that senior and composite squadrons have more of an operational role in ES and that the basic function of most CAP units is search and rescue, the term "Rescue" will be applied to those units following a renumbering similar to what I proposed for the cadets. Since the AF uses "Rescue" for their units with a similar role, I think this is appropriate and since "Auxiliary" will be included in the title, we won't be infringing on their turf. So, we would end up with something like the 57th Auxiliary Rescue Squadron.
So a group might have the following units:
89th Auxiliary Cadet Squadron
97th Auxiliary Rescue Squadron
339th Auxiliary Rescue Squadron
417th Auxiliary Cadet Squadron
500th Auxiliary Rescue Squadron
I would be open to including other functional designations into the system, but I just don't see many CAP units wanting to get that specialized. Some options:
15th Auxiliary Communications Squadron (self explanatory)
223rd Logistics Readiness Squadron (AF uses them for a variety of logistics activities. Perhaps CAP could use this designation for units focusing on shelter support, and similar disaster relief activities).
Solution looking for a problem ::)
But I would go with that....I see resitance in some quarters with the "auxillry" title...but logically it makes a lot of sense.
Overall +1
(See River we can agree on some things ;D)
YGBSM! This one's just as bad as the wing number thing. Actually worse. It's bigger and more complex.
Who cares if it's not just like the AF? I sure don't, and I've been a member for a long time.
As for putting things in charter number order, some charters don't even have the right dates on them. I think the certificate at my unit has a 20xx date on it from when it was reissued. I know the unit's been around longer than that, but I'm not sure there's any definite record of the real charter date. I'm sure that's the case for a lot of other units.
Looking past that, who do you expect to pay for this transition, should it come into being? It would entail changing pubs, databases, stationery, patches, and anything else with the unit name on it.
Sheer folly!
Oh, yeah, functional names went away some time back. I guess someone had a good reason for doing so.
How would you find time to be National Commander with your busy CAPTalk posting schedule?!
I don't know about this, but I'm not a huge fan of "Composite" or "Senior." Neither makes sense to the outside and really I think all squadrons should be either a composite or senior unless it's a specialty thing that requires it to be a cadet squadron (like a school). I still don't care for the name "Senior Squadron," but I don't really know what my solution would be. I'm not against senior squadrons existing...the senior squadron in our area supports the cadet program well with flights (they're nearly all pilots).
To me, I'd probably have a geographic identifier, leave out "Composite," and a number. I like the numbers, personally. I think they're quick and easy ways to identify a unit - especially here where you get a general idea of where it is if you don't know where the city is or it's a memorial unit. They're based on the old group structure of PAWG. For instance, the suburban area west of Philadelphia was Group 100 and those units are 100 plus a number...1001, 1006, 1007, 1008. If someone says a 20+ a number unit, I know it's northeastern PA immediately. If someone says a 10, I know it's a unit in the immediate Philadelphia area.
It's more military-sounding like Smitty wants, but without the insanity of producing $400,000 in new flags...If they were to institute numbers in states that don't have them, I wouldn't think it truly necessary to go produce new flags and all. Just replace them as the old flags need replacing for condition.
Quote from: SarDragon on May 11, 2010, 04:50:13 AM
As for putting things in charter number order, some charters don't even have the right dates on them. I think the certificate at my unit has a 20xx date on it from when it was reissued. I know the unit's been around longer than that, but I'm not sure there's any definite record of the real charter date. I'm sure that's the case for a lot of other units.
That is a legitimate problem and you're correct that we probably couldn't put them all in exact order. But, as that part of my proprosal is just a nod towards our history, I don't see it as a major issue and there are several ways that they could be adjusted.
QuoteHow would you find time to be National Commander with your busy CAPTalk posting schedule?!
If Ned can do it while being on the BoG, I might be able to handle it.
QuoteOh, yeah, functional names went away some time back. I guess someone had a good reason for doing so.
Although there is no way to know exactly why this happened, I suspect it was because every unit was coming up with their own functional names and it was starting to look pretty crazy so they decided to nip it in the bud and standardize with the current system. However, as this is a proposal to totally revamp the current standardized system, I don't see it as a problem to replace it with a different standardized system.
Non-concur.
Some units, including mine, have a history associated with their squadron number. It is common practice around here to name squadrons based upon the guard unit which houses or sponsors the squadron. While they may seem like random numbers to some, they have a definite place in the relationship between the squadron and guard unit.
How do you handle a squadron that changes focus? I believe that was the rationale behind dropping the functional names. Also, "Rescue" is a very limited description of what ES is about. Consider Disaster Relief, Counter Drug, Homeland Security. Would you have separate designations for units with those focuses? How about someone who wants to work with cadets, but the only local unit is a Rescue unit? Or vice versa?
fixed some words
Along that line you could drop the Cadet, Composite and Senior labels from a Squadron. Just have town name and a number if there is more than one Squadron in the town. This might read as "York Squadron 1 or York Squadron 2. Cant really use Charter numbers to determine how long a Squadron has been in existence since for many years there were no charter numbers
I think there is a tendency in CAP to hold on to history excessively.
Case in point being the wing patches, which were designed (as far as I know) during world war II. Frankly a good deal of them look comical and most are oddly shaped. They may have seemed like a good idea back then, but times have changed. I think by 2010 we could certainly have updated the wing patches to follow modern AF standards for wing patches.
(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/000000CAP0637F.jpg)
(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/000000CAP0637Y.jpg)
History is good, but sometimes I think CAP needs to move on a little.
Quote from: BillB on May 11, 2010, 03:28:02 PM
Along that line you could drop the Cadet, Composite and Senior labels from a Squadron. Just have town name and a number if there is more than one Squadron in the town. This might read as "York Squadron 1 or York Squadron 2. Cant really use Charter numbers to determine how long a Squadron has been in existence since for many years there were no charter numbers
Agreed, the current "functional" identifiers are confusing and limiting. Having Cadet and Senior in the squadron name tends to scare away the opposite demographic, and the general public has no idea of what a Composite squadron is supposed to be.
BTW, squadrons that like their functional identifiers should be allowed to keep them if they wish.
It makes the name too long... and having Auxiliary in it makes it sound like part of a Roman Legion.
666th Cadet Sq is nice and short... and >:D.
Quote from: Fuzzy on May 11, 2010, 03:33:11 PM
I think there is a tendency in CAP to hold on to history excessively.
Case in point being the wing patches, which were designed (as far as I know) during world war II. Frankly a good deal of them look comical and most are oddly shaped. They may have seemed like a good idea back then, but times have changed. I think by 2010 we could certainly have updated the wing patches to follow modern AF standards for wing patches.
(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/000000CAP0637F.jpg)
(http://www.vanguardmil.com/images/000000CAP0637Y.jpg)
History is good, but sometimes I think CAP needs to move on a little.
CAP can relinquish its history when the US ARMED FORCES does...
Case in point being the official seals of many of our Armerd Forced, which were designed (as far as I know) during the American Revolution, Civil War and WWII. Frankly a good deal of them look comical and most are oddly shaped or have obsolete items in their association. They may have seemed like a good idea back then, but times have changed. I think by 2010 we could certainly have updated these seals to follow modern standards reflecting the times
(http://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/usmc.jpg)
(http://www.usafa.edu/df/dfr/images/army_seal.jpeg)
History is good, that why we keep it.
Quote from: arajca on May 11, 2010, 03:13:17 PM
Also, "Rescue" is a very limited description of what ES is about. Consider Disaster Relief, Counter Drug, Homeland Security. Would you have separate designations for units with those focusii? How about someone who wants to work with cadets, but the only local unit is a Rescue unit? Or vis-versa?
How about "123rd Operations Squadron" for the senior squadrons, "456th Training Squadron" for those that have only a cadet program, and "789th Joint Operations Squadron" for the current composite squadron-style unit. Simple, generic, and military-like.
To address your question of those who would like to work with cadets, but don't have a cadet unit around, I've always been in favor of removing "senior squadrons" from the structure, and sticking with only cadet and composite. If someone would like to join solely to support ES, and wants nothing to do with the cadets, find the local composite squadron. There may be Cadets there, but that doesn't mean you would need to take an active role in their program. (Don't most composite squadrons have separate meeting nights for cadets and the operations-minded seniors, anyway?)
NHQ could also come up with a few
standardized designators (Comm, Ground Search, Air Search, etc), and the squadrons that wish to have such a designator would need to meet set criteria for which ever one they specialize in. As soon as they fail to meet that criteria, they lose the designator. Only a select few would be created, however, because then it just gets way too confusing.
Quote from: PhoenixCadet on May 11, 2010, 08:10:39 PM
How about "123rd Operations Squadron" for the senior squadrons, "456th Training Squadron" for those that have only a cadet program, and "789th Joint Operations Squadron" for the current composite squadron-style unit. Simple, generic, and military-like.
Except they are functionally incorrect - cadets can be just as "operational" as seniors.
Quote from: PhoenixCadet on May 11, 2010, 08:10:39 PM
NHQ could also come up with a few standardized designators (Comm, Ground Search, Air Search, etc), and the squadrons that wish to have such a designator would need to meet set criteria for which ever one they specialize in.
The last thing we need is units trying to specialize, that's not how the program is setup and would cause all sorts of issues when a new
commander decides he wants to launch rockets instead of talk on the radio (etc.).
How about we just call them all squadrons and quit allowing commanders and members to pick and choose their mission like this was a cafeteria?
Another possible functional squadron type that I thought of after my original post (but not being used in the way PhoenixCadet uses the same name) would be "Operational Support" Squadrons. I would suggest that this would be a good name for CAP units whose primary purpose is providing direct support to the AF through the VSAF program. If the program was properly promoted I can easily see a squadrons's worth of senior members providing support to a major AFB or possibly to Air NG or Air Reserve units. We're nowhere near that stage yet, but can see it happening.
I don't see these names as too long at all. Have you seen some of the geographic names we've got out there? For squadron patch purposes, I would authorize "Auxiliary" to be shortened to "Aux" and "Squadron" to "Sq". So, the bottom rocker might read "777th Aux Cadet Sq" or "239th Aux Rescue Sq", which would be WAY shorter than most squadron names. Other than making room on the patch, does it matter how long the name is?
Quote from: RiverAux on May 11, 2010, 09:54:07 PM
Another possible functional squadron type that I thought of after my original post (but not being used in the way PhoenixCadet uses the same name) would be "Operational Support" Squadrons. I would suggest that this would be a good name for CAP units whose primary purpose is providing direct support to the AF through the VSAF program. If the program was properly promoted I can easily see a squadrons's worth of senior members providing support to a major AFB or possibly to Air NG or Air Reserve units. We're nowhere near that stage yet, but can see it happening.
I don't see these names as too long at all. Have you seen some of the geographic names we've got out there? For squadron patch purposes, I would authorize "Auxiliary" to be shortened to "Aux" and "Squadron" to "Sq". So, the bottom rocker might read "777th Aux Cadet Sq" or "239th Aux Rescue Sq", which would be WAY shorter than most squadron names. Other than making room on the patch, does it matter how long the name is?
I think telling people you're a member of an
OSS unit, gives the wrong impression.
Quote from: arajca on May 11, 2010, 03:13:17 PM
How do you handle a squadron that changes focus? I believe that was the rationale behind dropping the functional names. Also, "Rescue" is a very limited description of what ES is about. Consider Disaster Relief, Counter Drug, Homeland Security. Would you have separate designations for units with those focuses? How about someone who wants to work with cadets, but the only local unit is a Rescue unit? Or vice versa?
fixed some words
Under my system, Rescue squadrons would also include former composite squadrons with cadet components. So, you could have cadets in a Rescue squadron.
Quote from: arajca on May 11, 2010, 03:13:17 PM
How do you handle a squadron that changes focus? I believe that was the rationale behind dropping the functional names. Also, "Rescue" is a very limited description of what ES is about. Consider Disaster Relief, Counter Drug, Homeland Security.
One alternative, which isn't very satisfying to me but would be responsive to this would be to go real old school AF and call the non-cadet squadrons "Auxiliary Observation Squadrons" (The AF had Observation squadrons up until around WWII). However, even in that scenario I would recommending retaining "Auxiliary Rescue Squadron" designation as an option for those former senior/composite units that have active ground team programs that actually could be physically rescuing somebody.
Quote from: Eclipse on May 11, 2010, 08:43:02 PM
Quote from: PhoenixCadet on May 11, 2010, 08:10:39 PM
How about "123rd Operations Squadron" for the senior squadrons, "456th Training Squadron" for those that have only a cadet program, and "789th Joint Operations Squadron" for the current composite squadron-style unit. Simple, generic, and military-like.
Except they are functionally incorrect - cadets can be just as "operational" as seniors.
Quote from: PhoenixCadet on May 11, 2010, 08:10:39 PM
NHQ could also come up with a few standardized designators (Comm, Ground Search, Air Search, etc), and the squadrons that wish to have such a designator would need to meet set criteria for which ever one they specialize in.
The last thing we need is units trying to specialize, that's not how the program is setup and would cause all sorts of issues when a new
commander decides he wants to launch rockets instead of talk on the radio (etc.).
How about we just call them all squadrons and quit allowing commanders and members to pick and choose their mission like this was a cafeteria?
Um, if I remember correctly, aren't we an AUXILIARY of the USAF, not the USAF? The USAF has a reason to name their units the way they do as they can be stationed anywhere. Our squadrons, for the most part, are always going to be in a fairly specific local area unless they go defunct then what they are called really isn't really much of a problem. I don't think my Sioux Falls Composite Squadron is going to move to Trenton, NY and be combined with them any time soon, with or without BRAC.
How about we go back to something productive, like arguing about uniforms. >:D
QuoteHistory is good, that why we keep it.
People would still be wearing tans in CAP if they could. USAF doesn't wear the same patches it wore in world war II, they've modified them into a different system.
Thats just an example anyway. History is nice, but its almost to the point of stagnation. Move on and take pictures of the old stuff for a scrap book.
Quote from: Fuzzy on May 11, 2010, 11:48:14 PM
QuoteHistory is good, that why we keep it.
People would still be wearing tans in CAP if they could. USAF doesn't wear the same patches it wore in world war II, they've modified them into a different system.
Thats just an example anyway. History is nice, but its almost to the point of stagnation. Move on and take pictures of the old stuff for a scrap book.
Sorry, no. We hold on to some some elements of the past because it establishes "roots" and provides a common heritage. The "old oak tree" in the park has roots and stays firm in place growing new limbs and leaves as the years go by. Dig out those roots and the tree falls and dies.
CAP has a distinct history different from the USAF. Our traditions are ours alone and we should cherish them. Redesigning the patches to look "more cool" or to "pretend to look" like someone else's tradition is basically a "lie." By that I mean, why should be take on the guise of the USAF when we are the CAP?
Those that turn our backs on our traditions and history are doomed to be "short term" types of people. Lack of a past is almost as bad as lack of a future.
Sparky
You could argue that CAP has no roots in USAF, pro or con. The Army Air Corp was involved with the beginnings of CAP through the Office of Civilian Defense. he original CAP Headquarters on Park Avenue in New York, had an Army staff assigned (OK so it was only three officers but the military presence was there) During World War II CAP was often considered as a "semi'reserve" force of the Army Air Corp. The cadet program was designed to produce recruits that could go into flying schools for the Air Corp. Look at the cadet manuals of the period, which can be foundon eBay.
Fuzzy
The Wing patch didn't come out until after World War II. From 1942 to 47 the shoulder patch worn was the triangle and prop emblem.
Quote from: Cecil DP on May 11, 2010, 10:00:39 PM
I think telling people you're a member of an OSS unit, gives the wrong impression.
It could be worse -- I didn't propose that they be named Auxiliary Support Squadrons >:D
Sparky: :clap:
Corporations and businesses that are in trouble radically change their logos and dump their history and traditions. As you so aptly point out, military and military-styled organizations cherish their traditions and emblems and insignia. I know some wings have modernized or modified but not gutted their 1940s/50s era designed patches.
And I think the graphic designers on here might agree with me about this point as well: today's "cool" or "modern" wing or squadron patch designs will probably look just as dated or "goofy" as the WWII-era patches in 20, 30, or 40 years. It frankly takes genius to design a logo or trademark that withstands the test of time. Think the McDonald's arches, the Ford oval, the Nike swoosh as a few examples that have don't look dated. Simple, almost simplistic, is what typically gives that a chance. But it's rare for a logo or trademark to become iconic.
But if my unit had the "goofy" Donald Duck patch for being a WWII Coastal Patrol? (Correct me if I am misremembering.) I'd be darn proud that I was in the same line of brave men and women who went out and defended their nation--for free--and did their duty at our nation's darkest hour. If that's "goofy," then consider me "goofy" as well. I'd want to make sure I upheld those high ideas as I wore that "goofy" patch on my uniform.