Structural Change

[Major Carrales]

I've owned and driven several  "Land Yachts" over the years... do those count?

Yes, "land yachts" and "Air Ships" welcome!!!! 

[sandman]

I've owned and driven several  "Land Yachts" over the years... do those count?

Yes, "land yachts" and "Air Ships" welcome!!!! 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Actually, that is ONE of the things that have been discussed... Abolishing CAP as an instrumentality of the USAF and boosting the USCG Aux Air with our aircraft.

Don't ask me who does inland SAR in Nebraska under this plan.  I know it exists but I don't know the details.

But, after all, when would a politician concern himself with all the mundane "Details" of a plan?  Remember the Vietnam War?

[sandman]

Actually, that is ONE of the things that have been discussed... Abolishing CAP as an instrumentality of the USAF and boosting the USCG Aux Air with our aircraft.

Don't ask me who does inland SAR in Nebraska under this plan.  I know it exists but I don't know the details.

But, after all, when would a politician concern himself with all the mundane "Details" of a plan?  Remember the Vietnam War?

Who was discussing this? Was it on an official level or just a blog?

[RiverAux]

That is to assume that a Coast line is necessary for a Coast Guard and its auxiliary.

CG Aux is found just about everywhere.  Keep in mind that many large rivers and lakes are considered federal waters over which the CG has jurisdiction.  However, CG Aux Air is primarily a coastal mission. 

[Major Carrales]

John, let us not kid ourselves.  Abolish CAP and it will be gone forever, no matter where its former members go.  That would be sad.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Actually, that is ONE of the things that have been discussed... Abolishing CAP as an instrumentality of the USAF and boosting the USCG Aux Air with our aircraft.

Don't ask me who does inland SAR in Nebraska under this plan.  I know it exists but I don't know the details.

But, after all, when would a politician concern himself with all the mundane "Details" of a plan?  Remember the Vietnam War?

Who was discussing this? Was it on an official level or just a blog?

I heard it from a region commander, but I don't know the status of the consideration.  I also heard the same issue raised back in the 1990's, when I discussed it with the RAP officer assigned to my wing.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Sorry.  I didn't notice there was another line to your post, and I inserted my answer in your quote.  My bad.

[MIKE]

Sorry.  I didn't notice there was another line to your post, and I inserted my answer in your quote.  My bad.

Fixed.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Sorry.  I didn't notice there was another line to your post, and I inserted my answer in your quote.  My bad.

Fixed.

Thanks.

[shorning]

Sorry.  I didn't notice there was another line to your post, and I inserted my answer in your quote.  My bad.

Fixed.

Ya know, Mike...you should do that as a fund raiser for the forums. 

[Dragoon]

Actually, transferring SAR to the Coast Guard from USAF, and then using CGAUX to do the mission ain't a half bad idea.

The big downside is the possible demise of the cadet program as we know it.  I don't think the Coast Guard will be real interested in it, and I'm not sure USAF would support it without the rest of the CAP "package"

[JohnKachenmeister]

Dragoon:

There are advantages and disadvantages to any of the proposed courses of action, including the current course we are on.

Would you, maybe by coordinating with RiverAux, be interested in developing some facts about the concept of placing CAP under the USCG AuxAir that we could discuss? 

[Nick Critelli]

It's show time! 

If you want to hear what John Kachenmeister, DNall and ZigZag911 really think about this topic... AND if you want your questions answered you still have time to register for this evening's  7:00 PM CST Webinar.  Log on at : https://www.gotomeeting.com/register/472612695

Will anyone really care what we think? Will anyone listen?  You bet they will...they've already registered.  We will be heard.

NICK CRITELLI

[A.Member]

Well, I'm not able to particpate but I'll simply say this:

There is significant opportunity for change/improvement within the organization.  We should start there first before reaching out with all this pie-in-the-sky talk of changing laws, changing oversight from USAF to NGB, CGAUX or whoever, etc. 

Start with what we can control - and there is plenty.  We haven't done that yet - not at all.  We can change the reporting structure of the CC, BOG, NB to minimize some of the glaring issues with it's structure.  We can change/improve our training for members - to the point of bringing back enlisted ranks for seniors if we wanted.  Eliminate the focus on all these silly uniform changes - we control that.  Set a strategic direction and communicate it - we control that!

Once we get our act together internally, there will be plenty of opportunities/missions for us with external customers.  If we don't get our act together internally, none of the other stuff matters.

[Dragoon]

Dragoon:

There are advantages and disadvantages to any of the proposed courses of action, including the current course we are on.

Would you, maybe by coordinating with RiverAux, be interested in developing some facts about the concept of placing CAP under the USCG AuxAir that we could discuss? 

Not sure I'd know where to start in fleshing out the concept. RiverAux, any ideas?

[sandman]

Actually, transferring SAR to the Coast Guard from USAF, and then using CGAUX to do the mission ain't a half bad idea.

The big downside is the possible demise of the cadet program as we know it.  I don't think the Coast Guard will be real interested in it, and I'm not sure USAF would support it without the rest of the CAP "package"

In a sense, that's true as far as the CAP cadetting program goes. However, there are several cadetting programs that are available as an alternative as you're aware and discussed on other threads. The CG AUX charter does not allow it to have an organic cadet program (although that can change too) but it is very involved with US Sea Cadets. IMHO, USNSCC would be a great alternative as it does not have cadet officers, and the cadets get great training on land and sea (Seabee training, SEAL orientation, Flight orientation, etc. etc.)
Sorry to blather too far off topic, but the point is is that if CAP is folded, while missed it is not irreplaceable.

[ZigZag911]

Actually, transferring SAR to the Coast Guard from USAF, and then using CGAUX to do the mission ain't a half bad idea.

The big downside is the possible demise of the cadet program as we know it.  I don't think the Coast Guard will be real interested in it, and I'm not sure USAF would support it without the rest of the CAP "package"

From what I've heard USAF's prime interest in CAP IS the Cadet Program!

[Dragoon]

Actually, transferring SAR to the Coast Guard from USAF, and then using CGAUX to do the mission ain't a half bad idea.

The big downside is the possible demise of the cadet program as we know it.  I don't think the Coast Guard will be real interested in it, and I'm not sure USAF would support it without the rest of the CAP "package"

From what I've heard USAF's prime interest in CAP IS the Cadet Program!

I've heard that as well, for many years.  But if you look at the dollars - it's clear that ES is the thing they're actually willing to pay for.

[Major_Chuck]

Actually, transferring SAR to the Coast Guard from USAF, and then using CGAUX to do the mission ain't a half bad idea.

The big downside is the possible demise of the cadet program as we know it.  I don't think the Coast Guard will be real interested in it, and I'm not sure USAF would support it without the rest of the CAP "package"

From what I've heard USAF's prime interest in CAP IS the Cadet Program!

Always will be, especially in light of todays modern marval technology.  I feel that sometimes we over inflate our importance as 'low cost' when the same observation missions can now be accomplished by a small remote control plane with a camera mounted on it.

I am going to use the search for that missing guy Kim out west as an example.  The sheriff who had operational control for the search failed to use our assets, even acknowledged we had them but still opted not to bring us to the table.

To add to the whole mess is our own messed up reality of 'corporate vs air force' mentality.  We do our ownselves in all the time.