Structural Change

[DNall]

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.

Cadet program is for some time now the thing that delivers them the most contribution to AF - just period right the, but certainly for the money.

Are we seriously charting the demise of CAP here. I mean there's already plans out there by people that want to destroy this organization, do you really think they need our help?

I guess after they take our planes away & throw us all in the street that they might give some of the planes to CGAux rather than just state police & sell the rest. What's the difference. Either way CAP is out of business for good. The CP mitigation I've heard if this goes down is to roll in w/ ACA as an AF based program, or aborb under their existing programs. That'd work fine.

The point of this thread is how to get CAP's crap together, so AF will hand us real work, which'll make us so critical they can't do w/o us. That means changing who we are, how we do business, & what our missions are - nothing CAP hasn't done a half dozen times in 65 years.

[DNall]

I understand about the title 36 proposal to make us inelelgible to receive federal property.  But legally....CAP aircraft are corporate property...they are NOT federal property.  Yes they were bought with federal money...but I don't think congress can just arbitrailly take them back.  I may be wrong...but that is one of the whole points about use NOT being part of the USAF.  If they were USAF assets and they were just loaned to us...then that would be a different story.  I just don't think that is the case in this situation.

Yes & no... for instance, if CAP knows AF requires a fleet of 525 planes all spread out, it can't decide we didn't get enough in the budget so we'll sell down to 500 to finance the dif & AF can replace the planes if they want to. That would be illegal. They're given to us conditionally, and we can't get rid of them except under a very tight proceedure - there's a lot of law to prevent converting govt property to personal profit. So anyways, if you dissolve CAP as a legal entity, then who owns the planes? That's right, either the planes or profits from govt supervised sale have to be returned to the treasury. You don't even have to go that far with it. Congress decides to take back the planes, they can just order it done & hold them while CAP tries to fight it - they can wait you out & have them sold or re-distributed before you can do anything about it. Also, after you fight the govt for rights to the stuff, & get painted as stealing taxpayer resources after the job is over... assuming you win & get some of the stuff back in usable condition, who are you flying missions for again, and how do you pay the tens of millions per year to keep a quarter of the fleet going?

If they want you dead, you're dead. I'd prefer to make it so they have to shoot themselves to get to us. And THAT is the central point of my vision/philosophy on just about all subjects CAP related.

[DNall]

With all due respect, some of these 'this candidate...' and 'that candidate...' sounds an awful lot like rumor and speculation and little else.

That's not to say that our house doesn't need to be set in order - absolutely it does. It's just that I've grown more than a little weary of so many rumors over the years.

I wouldn't want to name members of congress in a public forum. I worked as a consultant & junior staffer to a well known congressman for a couple years ending this past summer. This individual was a former CAP cadet & stayed very in tune with the subject. CAP was forst established as & has always been a pet project for which a bi-partisan group of fans trades political capital to protect & keep us funded. There has not ever until 1999 been a group of congressmen who stuck with their opposition to CAP. The problem these people have is still related to the stinck created in 98/99, that they feel CAP was pandered to & got special treatment, which is true, and the structure put in place in 2000 has failed to bring the accountability demanded at that time.

[RiverAux]

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? 

I wouldn't favor it at all.  CG Aux Air is aimed primarily at conducting routine patrols, primarily along the coastline.  They rarely do any emergency response. 
Aux Air is also based entirely on privately-owned airplanes which lack any comm or DF gear.

Basically, if we were wanting to do some combination it would make much more sense to transfere CG Aux Air to CAP.  Our ES infrastructure and corporate owned fleet are far superior to theirs.  There really is just no comparison.  The only thing they have the advantage over CAP is having some multi-engine airplanes that are more appropriate for overwater missions. 

The other issue is that CG Aux does not really run any of their operations.  Ops are directed by the CG and control is scattered among stations all over the country.  They just are not geared towards responding over a large area, and as noted before, while CG and CG Aux can be found within the interior of the country, they are spread incredibly thin.  They just wouldn't have the people to run things. 

Guys, I like a lot of things about the CG Aux and I'm not saying anything bad about CG Aux Air crews, but their mission and capabilities are so different that it would be much easier for us to absorb their missions rather than them trying to absorb ours. 

[Major_Chuck]

Attempted several times to log into the Webinar with no luck.   

[TDHenderson]

It is scheduled for 7PM CST, not Eastern.

Hope that helps!

[Dragoon]

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? 

I wouldn't favor it at all.  CG Aux Air is aimed primarily at conducting routine patrols, primarily along the coastline.  They rarely do any emergency response. 
Aux Air is also based entirely on privately-owned airplanes which lack any comm or DF gear.

Basically, if we were wanting to do some combination it would make much more sense to transfere CG Aux Air to CAP.  Our ES infrastructure and corporate owned fleet are far superior to theirs.  There really is just no comparison.  The only thing they have the advantage over CAP is having some multi-engine airplanes that are more appropriate for overwater missions. 

The other issue is that CG Aux does not really run any of their operations.  Ops are directed by the CG and control is scattered among stations all over the country.  They just are not geared towards responding over a large area, and as noted before, while CG and CG Aux can be found within the interior of the country, they are spread incredibly thin.  They just wouldn't have the people to run things. 

Guys, I like a lot of things about the CG Aux and I'm not saying anything bad about CG Aux Air crews, but their mission and capabilities are so different that it would be much easier for us to absorb their missions rather than them trying to absorb ours. 

The question is - what if the SAR mission was transferred from USAF to CG?  What then?

[isuhawkeye]

that would require a re write of the National SAR plan

[Dragoon]

Yup.  And I'm not advocating it - but about a decade ago McCain was.  He wasn't thinking CG - I think the plan was NTSB.  Let the guys who deal with plan crashes go find them as well, and get the DoD out of a "non warfighter" line of business.

[JAFO78]

I attended the meeting, I thought it was very good. I could not hear anything, but just the same I was able to view it. Will it be rebroadcast?

I so far am leaning to Kack's plan.

Even though at present time I am not in CAP, I try to keep up to date with what's going on.

[isuhawkeye]

Well that was interesting. 

I for one enjoyed hearing  a frank discussion about CAP, it's future, and our organization.  Lt. Col. Critelli asked that I post a summary of what I heard during the talk.


The first talking was our current organizational structure.  The moderators talked about the current BOG, NEC, NB, and Staff organization.  The consensus seemed to be that our current organization made it difficult for any commander to get anything accomplished, and that accountability was muttered across the board.  The group talked about ideas to improve the existing structure, and each moderator added insight into improvements.  The group felt that the best organization for CAP would be a Top down hierarchy with the BOG selecting command officers, with a purely vertical structure. 

Next each of the presenters talked about the need for a strategic partner.  All three felt that CAP needed a Governmental agency to partner with CAP to support all of our missions, and operations. 

Three major programs were presented. 

#1 moved CAP under direct operational control of First air force

#2 moved CAP under direct Operational control of the National guard bureau

#3 (whose presenter could not talk due to technical difficulties) maintained CAP under AETC.

The talk was interesting and heated, but in the end all of the presenters seemed to agree that a strategic partner needed to be established with specific goals to support federal, state, and local takings.

If I missed something let me know.  I would like to hear what others got from the talk.

[Al Sayre]

One of the early topics was a CAC type system for the rank and file membership to have their voices heard.  I kind of like that one.

[DNall]

If you couldn't hear the convo you missed a LOT but yes it was VERY good, and THANK YOU  Nick for hosting!! Outstanding strategic conversation. I felt like I was getting double teamed in there w/ Iowa swinging to the NG perspective, but no problems. I think Iowa is great, but I don't think it scales w/ NGB as the partner, but rather w/ 1AF standing that post.

I think we need to work on a plan for what we have in common... then present a spectrum of options for the areas in which we disagree. Then I think we should tap resources for further investigation at AWC, answer the call for papers at A3/SHA, show some things at NGB in DC... Let's get something together & ship it to some destinations where the masters can argue the points too. Then I can help you hook into some congressional sources that'd like to see how the conversation is going.

I don't know if we can predetermine a destination, but I think we can motivate some movement in the right direction.

Nice talking to yall by the way. John I'll be out your way this Spring. We might just test your ability to stay above the table. And Nick, I don't guess we can get you down here, but I'm really hoping we can get at least a couple folks out for CTEP this string to help w/ your IWCPA (or whatever the acro is on that). Again, outstanding!!!

[JohnKachenmeister]

Heated?

Passionate, maybe.  But nobody got heated.

[RiverAux]

The question is - what if the SAR mission was transferred from USAF to CG?  What then?

I guess what I'm saying is that neither the CG or the CG Aux is set up to take on this mission and it would take major changes in both organizations it to be accomplished.

If I had to chose which military service would be the best home for CAP's SAR functions other than the Air Force it would be the Army.  They are a ground-oriented service that uses aviation to support its ground operations.  That is pretty much what CAP does in SAR.  Our light aircraft are used to find a target that is then approached on the ground by a team either from CAP or another agency.  

Sure, they don't have a real SAR mission, but while the CG does have one it is so focused on maritime ops that transferring it to inland SAR just isn't a good fit.  

[JohnKachenmeister]

Would you guys want to collaborate on a paper?

And Dennis:  Let me know when in the spring.  I have a guest room, and I'm about 6 miles from the ocean.

[TDHenderson]

Dang sorry I missed it!  Thanks so far for the reports from those of you who attended.

I'd second the vote for a re-cast if possible.

[DNall]

Hey the ocean I got, oil spill last week & all.     Sister's wedding in April, supposed to be leave right after... the orders say 28th at Benning for trans & airborne, get some break & then the Ruck for WOCS & start flyin, they're jackin w/ me about pushing the dates though so who freaking knows at this point. I'll be there though. No way in hell your butt is gettin off the stool w/o a couple rounds on my tab.

Yes on the paper.... how you feel about this:

I think we need to work on a plan for what we have in common... then present a spectrum of options for the areas in which we disagree.

Then I think we should tap resources for further investigation at AWC, answer the call for papers at A3/SHA, show some things at NGB in DC... Let's get something together & ship it to some destinations where the masters can argue the points too. Then I can help you hook into some congressional sources that'd like to see how the conversation is going.

River down there... Army does disasters w/ NG resources; CG does coastal SaR/HLS/HLD; AF does inland SaR & air portin of Disaster/HLD... the national plan does the break down pretty well. To each their own & stick to your specialties. Can we change it? yeah, but why when it actually makes sense already?

[RiverAux]

I don't think so.  Overall, I lean towards DNalls way of thinking as to where CAP should be structurally within the AF.  I don't see us moving from the AF to another service or combining with CG Aux a paper would be way too speculative for me.  

[DNall]

paper on the conf call topics. that's pretty standard to congeal a conversation into a concept area at least & put it out to people in other strategic thinkers for input. I imagine they'll overwhelm us, but that's fine. Two-way comms is a good thing. It's also responding to requests for such papers from parts of the AF who are trying to fig out what to do with us.      I hope NB/BoG takes up the issue, but pressure from both sides & a the best idea we can come up with as a team is what we all want.