Structural Change

[MIKE]

Can we try to keep the Structural Change threads within the existing topic please.  There are presently three  active threads with Structural Change in the topic title.

[A.Member]

I also fully concur with the need for a much higher standard to obtain the rank of 2d Lt. 

What exactly would those standards be?

This is a portion of what I wrote in one of my posts in another thread:

"Unlike the "real military", rank is essentially awarded to anyone that completes the correct amount of paperwork.   Instead, there should only be a certain number of positions available at any given rank - the paperwork should be the minimum requirement (BTW, AFAIDL 13 should be one of the minimum requirements to wear the butterbar and the course should be supplemented with formal classroom sessions - not to be waived unless a person has held a real Commission).  Our cadets must go before promotion boards, why should the "officers" be any different?  Still, the trouble with this is that unlike the "real military"  there is no retirement - especially from the higher ranks.  The organization ends up top heavy.  Quite frankly, the attrition from the higher ranks is more likely to be the result of someone dying than it is stepping away from the organization.   So, the trick is, how do you manage the ranks to get a proper system in order?  I don't know the answer but if we could figure it out and get it implemented, I think the organization would benefit significantly.  The idea of returning senior enlisted ranks is appealing but still does not solve the problem.  Duties/responsibility perhaps should be commensurate, in some way, to rank.  Regardless, rank must have some meaning.  We do ourselves and the real services a disservice when it doesn't."

So, in addition to the current requirements, do the following:
1)  Complete AFIADL 13 (after it's numerous errors are corrected, of course) as well as a corresponding classroom session(s) for the material - ie. OTS or similar - prior to obtaining 2d Lt.
2)  Limit officer slots at all levels in some more meaningful way (not everyone can be king)
3)  Require members to appear before an actual review board (group level?) for each promotion.  This includes requiring the candidate to complete a promotion form similar to that of cadets.
4)  Possibly a post-secondary/bachelor's degree requirement or some type of equivalent.

[DNall]

yeah, actually it might be best to lock some of these older threads. We've tried to progress it from a general discsssuon (this one) to prep for the call (read-ahead), & now working final input to collaborate on a paper or series of papers. They're all pretty well labeled, but yeah these older ones are obselete.

[ELTHunter]

It was frustrating to hear so much and get no chance to reply! I must say that I think too much time was devoted to the strategic partner issue....believe it or not, I really feel that is the leser concern....CAP's biggest problems now are internal.....and, while Nick is correct that any human institution will always have politics, I think our major hurdle right now is to develop checks and balances to  minimize egregious politicking & cronyism, and to mitigate the damage it has done to CAP.

In brief, if we put our house in order, I believe we'll find out strategic partner/parent organization will be quite willing to work with us.

The more I think about it, the more I also am leaning this was.  Seems to me that we have the foundation in place with a strategic partner and have for years.  We just need to work harder and smarter at developing that relationship.  Better CAP PD, ID leaders in the AF that will help CAP identify areas that we can really support the AF mission, get on board as a part of the team, drop the "corporation" mentality, if not literally, than at least in pratical application.

I heard once that it is easier to grow business with a customer you already have then to find new customers.  Following that line of thinking, we keep the AF as our partner.  Assemble a team of both Air Force leaders and CAP leaders that can work togather to identify how we can better integrate.

Organizationally, we are broke, I agree.  We need to come to grips with that.  There are a number of good ideas being voiced here.

[ZigZag911]

OPCON -   I really really have to emphasize also that while Guard sounds great & shorten the stack of paperwork for immediate disaster response (a position I still say we can duplicate w/ MOUs & maybe even streamline the process to come w/ fed funds also)

I support Dnall on this...a national level MOU endorsed by 1AF, NGB, CAP & CAP-USAF can simplify the procedural aspects of disaster relief and other state-requested missions.....forming the positive working relatinship then remains the task of each wing.

[ZigZag911]

ZZ:

After reading carefully your proposals, I wish we had not had a techno-failure last night.

Officer qualification and development is a sore point in CAP, and contributes substantially to the deterioration in our CAP-USAF relationship.  When I first joined CAP, and through the 70's, most CAP officers came from the military.  Even if they had been enlisted or NCO's, they had an appreciation for the military lifestyle and values, and could adapt to the CAP military culture.  In the last 20 years, however, we have had a substantial shift in demographics, and the majority of CAP officers have no military background at all. If you don't believe me, check out the ribbon racks of CAP guys at the next semi-formal get-together, and se how few have the National Defense Service Medal or the Basic Training Ribbon.

For that reason, we need to improve officer accession training.  Once that's done, we can look again at command requirements.  Level 2 is good for now, but I would want to expand level 1 to include a lot of the elements of level 2.     

Thanks, John...I was a cadet in the early 70s, and recall well that many seniors had at least some military background....now we find ourselves in a very different world, and need to do a more thorough job orienting those new seniors lacking any prior military (or cadet/ROTC/JrROTC) experience.

Level 1 does indeed need to be expanded.....Iowa is on the right track, and you've mentioned some interesting things going on in your wing (FL, yes?)... the t
rick now is to identify the critical curriculum and content that needs to be standardized, while permitting some elements of method to remain open to local discretion.

[ZigZag911]

To do this, I think we need to restructure the units.  Having three types of "Generalist" units is a non-starter.  All units actually do focus on one or two missions to the exclusions of others.  I think we should structure our units  based on the missions.

Probably would work well in metropolitan areas and areas with lots of people and units. Get away from the cities and you'd have no units because there wouldn't be people to support three or four units or you'd have one doing everything - kind of like now.

As an aside, there was a proposal before the NB/NEC to reduce the unit level staff requirements due to the typical unit size, but CAP-USAF had serious reservations about it. So, the idea was dropped.

The answer here seems to have more flights (the unchartered type, with a squadron or group as the parent/sponsor)....even in the less populated areas, you could presumably have a small flight of a dozen or so people pursuing two missions (cadet program & ES, for instance) effectively because most of the admin is happening at the 'base' squadron some distance away.

The 'full squadron' would meet only periodically...details for testing would need to be resolved (but it is possible)

[DNall]

To do this, I think we need to restructure the units.  Having three types of "Generalist" units is a non-starter.  All units actually do focus on one or two missions to the exclusions of others.  I think we should structure our units  based on the missions.

Probably would work well in metropolitan areas and areas with lots of people and units. Get away from the cities and you'd have no units because there wouldn't be people to support three or four units or you'd have one doing everything - kind of like now.

As an aside, there was a proposal before the NB/NEC to reduce the unit level staff requirements due to the typical unit size, but CAP-USAF had serious reservations about it. So, the idea was dropped.

The answer here seems to have more flights (the unchartered type, with a squadron or group as the parent/sponsor)....even in the less populated areas, you could presumably have a small flight of a dozen or so people pursuing two missions (cadet program & ES, for instance) effectively because most of the admin is happening at the 'base' squadron some distance away.

The 'full squadron' would meet only periodically...details for testing would need to be resolved (but it is possible)

I would tend to endorse something along those lines. Having understaffed units (aren't we all) trying to do the job of 50 is just crazy. I like the idea of mission dedicated flights. That doesn't mean though that your location of 30 might not have a cadet flight & an ES flight, & the aircrew flight the next town over & the two seperate cadet flights on the other side all grouped together as one Sq; draw a few members from each flight wear a second hat on the shared CAP Sq staff. Just be careful you don't push a wedge down between cadet programs & ES sides of CAP.

[JohnKachenmeister]

OPCON -   I really really have to emphasize also that while Guard sounds great & shorten the stack of paperwork for immediate disaster response (a position I still say we can duplicate w/ MOUs & maybe even streamline the process to come w/ fed funds also)

I support Dnall on this...a national level MOU endorsed by 1AF, NGB, CAP & CAP-USAF can simplify the procedural aspects of disaster relief and other state-requested missions.....forming the positive working relatinship then remains the task of each wing.

I talked about a 50-meter bracket between my proposal and DNall's.  ZZ, you may have come up with the direct hit.

The reason I proposed that CAP go under NGB was to smooth the trasition into the new mission areas and adopt any new NGB regulations that might be needed.  Their supervision of NHQ could be accomplished in other ways, including by remaining under AETC/AU.  I think, since we are talking using the ANG for the bulk of our Title 36 missions, that an NGB representative should also be on the BoG.

If I might clarify this vision...

Under Title 10 we are the Auxiliary of the US Air Force when working for any federal agency or department.

Under Title 36, as I propose it, we would be the "Auxiliary" of the Air National Guard when working for state agencies and NGO's.

This status would be independent of where our NHQ is and independent of what Air Force command it falls under.

If the goal can be achieved by a comprehensive MOU with NGB, I'm thinking that would be far less cumbersome than 52 state-level MOU's; or trying 51 more times to replicate Iowa's success in getting favorable state-level legislation.

[JohnKachenmeister]

To do this, I think we need to restructure the units.  Having three types of "Generalist" units is a non-starter.  All units actually do focus on one or two missions to the exclusions of others.  I think we should structure our units  based on the missions.

Try this:

1.  Cadet Squadrons.  Exclusive focus on the cadet program.  No internal ES, AE is only that which is incorporated into the cadet program.  Cadets with a few officers (or NCO's) serving as cadre and trainers.

2. Emergency Services Squadrons.  This squadron is made up of all officers/NCO's with the duty to be the focus of ES operations.  The unit will have the gear, tentage, field desks, grid maps, L-pers, radios, vans, etc. and will provide training and support to all other CAP personnel and units in their assigned area.  Maintains all ES qualification records.

3.  Aircraft Support Squadrons.  Home for the pilots, IP's Check pilots, maintenance officers, and all pilot records for those who use the assigned airplane(s).  Provides pilot training and checkout, provides O-flights on request, assigns a pilot to teach AE in cadet squadrons.  All officers, no cadets assigned.

4.  Educational Services Flights.  All officers usually, but can also accept assignment of cadet officers.  This unit will provide both the external AE mission, and will provide the "Schoolhouse" for OTS and advanced officer training (SLS and CLC).

The units will have to be mutually supporting, and organized under a group HQ, except for the very small wings.  All support (Admin, PA, SJA, Chaplain, Finance, etc.) would be a function of Group.   

Ideas?  Comments?  This paper is getting longer!

Probably would work well in metropolitan areas and areas with lots of people and units. Get away from the cities and you'd have no units because there wouldn't be people to support three or four units or you'd have one doing everything - kind of like now.

As an aside, there was a proposal before the NB/NEC to reduce the unit level staff requirements due to the typical unit size, but CAP-USAF had serious reservations about it. So, the idea was dropped.

Andy:

I'm not sure why you think this wouldn't work in rural areas.

Let's say you are a cadet squadron commander.  You run the cadet program.  You block off time for ES and O-flights, For ES training, the ES unit sends a contact team to your unit to do the unit-level training for you.  For O-flights, you coordinate with the Aircraft Support unit, who will send a plane and an O-flight pilot to you.  You would be relieved of the duty to arrange this training yourself.

When you want to go on a field trip to an aviation museum, you coordinate a van and driver from the ES unit, who runs the motor pool.  If you are an efficient commander, and you have CAP-licensed drivers in your unit, you simply arrange pickup of the van in time for your unit movement.

When there is a mission, we call up and utilize people as individuals.  Unit integrity on missions isn't something that happens here.  IF the Mission Commander wanted cadets, the ES unit would identify what cadets are qualified for the jobs needed (Flight line, ground team, etc.) and they would be called directly.

[RiverAux]

John, I am still having a very hard time understanding how putting CAP under the NG for state missions will help us as compared to the state emergency management agency which is with who CAP usually has the MOU that lets us do our missions now. 

If a county sheriff needs help on a SAR he can call the state EMA for help and the EMA can call CAP OR the county sheriff can call AFRCC directly and they can call CAP.  Inserting the NG seems to be adding another level of bureacracy to the system that will slow response time. 

Right now there are almost no barriers from the Wing and potential "customers" in the state, but if we have to work through another state agency before doing anything it will hurt us. 

[Earhart1971]

John, I am still having a very hard time understanding how putting CAP under the NG for state missions will help us as compared to the state emergency management agency which is with who CAP usually has the MOU that lets us do our missions now. 

If a county sheriff needs help on a SAR he can call the state EMA for help and the EMA can call CAP OR the county sheriff can call AFRCC directly and they can call CAP.  Inserting the NG seems to be adding another level of bureacracy to the system that will slow response time. 

Right now there are almost no barriers from the Wing and potential "customers" in the state, but if we have to work through another state agency before doing anything it will hurt us. 

I don't understand the National Guard thing either.

[BillB]

John
Florida has 21 vehicles assigned, that includes a pick-up truck that has been at MacDill AFB and not moved for years and a utility trailer. If you look at the locations of the vehicles, they are fairly evenly spread out around the Wing. But lets look at Group 2 of FLWG. There are two Senior Squadrons, one at Fernendia Beach the other at St. Augustine. Jacksonville Composite, Herlong, Lake City, Gainesville, Ocala and Live Oak are all cadet or Composite Squadrons. If you put the vans at the Senior Squadrons which you call ES Squadrons, you have moved them anywehere from 30 to 75 miles away from the units that normally use them.
There are not 19 Senior Squadrons (or proposed ES Squadrons) in the Wing, so you would have to have the vans assigned to Composite Squadrons. The Wing is to spread out to locate them in motor pools. The same applies to aircraft.
As to any National Guard/CAP operation, there are six Air National Guard facilities in the state. Two are fighter Squadrons, three are weather/construction units at Camp Blanding, two are located on Air Force Bases, and one in the Panhandle. How does this help CAP? It would be much better to have liaison with 1AF for disaster operations than the National Guard. And with the recent Base Closings, you'll notice that the majority of closings were AF Reserve and National Guard. An MOU nationally with NGB probably would be a good thing, but it leaves to many questions as to a chain of command for CAP/NG operations.
In Florida cadet encampments have been held at Camp Blanding, a National Guard training site. The cost to a cadet has been in the $150 range for a one week encampment. The Region Winter Encampment has been at Tyndall AFB or Fort Benning and the cost has been $75, half of what the National Guard charges for the use of their facilities. In the past CAP has requested buildings at Camp Blanding, which are vacant most of the year, and was turned down by TAG. The State of Florida has also asked for a building and turned down. So I don't see where, at least in Florida, any advantage comes from an MOU with National Guard.

[JohnKachenmeister]

River and Earhart:

I believe that culturally, we are a better fit with the National Guard.  We have a tradition of military service, and they are also military.  The state EMA is a civilian organization, and further civilianizing the CAP is not, in my opinion, in our long-term interest.

Further, there is a principle called "Unity of Command" that tells us that all forces dedicated to a mission should be under a single commander.  Placing CAP as a military asset under the Adjutant General, who commands all military operations in a disaster is in keeping with that principle.  Placing CAP under the state EMA violates the principle of Unity of Command, unless you accept that CAP has ceased to be a military asset.

Lastly, 90 percent of the air assets dedicated to alleviating a disater will be military air assets.  Having us under the command of a single air asset commander, Army aviator officer, Air National Guard officer, or CAP officer, makes sense from the standpoint of coordination.  

With proper coordination of the airspace, helicopters and fixed wing aircraft can operate together at different assigned altitudes on different assignments within the same mission.  Common radio frequencies would be assigned, and EMA requests for air support could be asigned to whichever air asset was the most appropriate.  Again, the issue is flexibility and agility, and air assets under a single military air boss provides that agility.

This is what we do over a battlefield, gentlemen.  And EMA never sees battlefields.  We know how to coordinate air support, and it isn't by placing some of your air assets under the control of a civilian.  

[JohnKachenmeister]

Bill:

Your post assumes that the current "Senior Squadrons" would be the only ones with vans.  The plan that I proposed (Which came off the top of my head, with little thought) would be a major re-working of the entire command structure.  The placement of the vans and aircraft would be critical to the implementation of the plan, and group boundaries would have to be re-drawn. 

The purpose is to divide up the administrative workload among units in a group.  Cadet sqdns. could concentrate on cadet programs.  The ES squadrons would provide ES training and logistic support to all units in the group.  The Ed. Svcs. Flt. would handle AE and PD for the group.  The group HQ would take care of most administrative tasks.

How that settles out geographically would be the work of the wing and group commanders, and that's why they make the "Big Bucks!"

[Dragoon]

The NG is an entity with a federal presence (the NGB folks who buy the gear, plus a central staff to standardize training and operations), but with local missions focused on helping the people in each state in time of emergency.

The big USAF has no such state level ties.



The NG can be involved in durned near any emergency, on the ground or in the air.

The big USAF primarily does federal stuff, and doesn't have a lot of involvement on the ground side (I'll be we've got a lot more ground pounders, percentage wise, than USAF)



The NG has a budget in each state that they could share with us if we worked with them (and provided a service worth the funds), plus federal funds.

Big USAF has only federal money.


USAF's primary missions occur overseas where we aren't
The NG's primary missions occur right here at home where we are.

Both are involved in HLS.
Both wear the USAF uniform.
Both are federally recognized.

Honestly, I don't know why USAF hasn't turned peacetime SAR over to the Guard - it's not like there are active duty units beyond AFRCC to do the work.

[ELTHunter]

River and Earhart:

I believe that culturally, we are a better fit with the National Guard.  We have a tradition of military service, and they are also military.  The state EMA is a civilian organization, and further civilianizing the CAP is not, in my opinion, in our long-term interest.

For the military aspect of CAP probably.  Also from the standpoint of the dual Federal/State missions.  However, for local missions like missing persons searches and smaller disaster relief, the local EMA Directors, Police Chiefs and County Sherriffs are probably more used to working with the state EMA rep in their area.  They might be less willing to get CAP involved if they have to go through the TAG.  Just a thought.

Let's step back a minute and look at this.  There are two areas of concern that most of us have. (1) Poor leadership and management of the organization and (2) mission tasking (or lack of same).  Changes to the organizational structure, professional development, etc, would surely help number (1).  Addressing number (2) may not neccessarily involve a whole sale change to where we report.

Restructuring the organization and changing the way we appoint/elect commanders, promote members, and develop leadership can surely make us more professional and gain some needed respect of the USAF, which will help us move closer to them as their auxiliary.  Which would also have some effect on problem (2).  Like I say about cadets.  If they are "presentable" enough to be out at Group/Wing activities, they are much more likely to get to participate in SARX's and missions.  The same could be said of CAP.  If the USAF feels we are "presentable" enough not to embarrass them as their Auxiliary, they may be much more comfortable exercising us in that capacity.

Problem (2) could also be addressed by means other than whole sale change like moving us under the NGB.  Most mission opportunities for CAP will be local in nature.  Missing person searches, SDIS missions during tornadoes and floods, infrastructure monitoring, etc.  Some of these missions will be large enough for NG callout, but many will only be worked at the local level.  I think most of these types of things can be addressed simply by establishing better relationships with local officials and "selling" them on CAP's abilities.  If we maintain a pool of resources trained to national standards (NIMS), and our squadron/group/wing leadership presents a well trained, well lead, well equipped, professional force, that will go a long way to getting more missions.

Don't get me wrong, I do think we need some organizational restructuring that will provide USAF pretty much total control over all CAP both ADCON and OPCON.  I'm just not convinced that moving us to NGB is the only way to go.  Granted, there are examples (Iowa), where CAP is teaming nicely with the NG, but that happened any way, even under the current structure.  Do it on a Wing by Wing basis where it makes sense.

[RogueLeader]

The NG is an entity with a federal presence (the NGB folks who buy the gear, plus a central staff to standardize training and operations), but with local missions focused on helping the people in each state in time of emergency.

The big USAF has no such state level ties.



The NG can be involved in durned near any emergency, on the ground or in the air.

The big USAF primarily does federal stuff, and doesn't have a lot of involvement on the ground side (I'll be we've got a lot more ground pounders, percentage wise, than USAF)



The NG has a budget in each state that they could share with us if we worked with them (and provided a service worth the funds), plus federal funds.

Big USAF has only federal money.


USAF's primary missions occur overseas where we aren't
The NG's primary missions occur right here at home where we are.

Both are involved in HLS.
Both wear the USAF uniform.
Both are federally recognized.

Honestly, I don't know why USAF hasn't turned peacetime SAR over to the Guard - it's not like there are active duty units beyond AFRCC to do the work.

I thought the reason for CAP was sothe Air Force didn't have to worry about non-combat operations here in the US.  Am I wrong in that? If so, so are the other people who have told me so.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Well, Rogue, Yes and No

The CAP was placed under the USAF in 1948.  The Congress, in the National Defense Act of 1948 gave responsibility for inland SAR to the Air Force.  CAP was an existing unit with light planes and experience conducting SAR.  Congress wrote Title 36 giving CAP broad authority to do any non-combat mission or program for the AF.

The AF was happy to take the cadet program, and happy that a community based, nationwide organization was at their disposal to educate Americans on the importance of Air Power.

The basis of this discussion is that missions that require light aircraft support have changed, and we are still operating in a late-40's early 50's Cold-War organizational structure.  My question is:  "Can we do what it is we do better by reorganizing?" I believe we can, since to place us under the Guard for our Title 36 missions and being still able to be tasked for Title 10 missions by 1AF and AFRCC puts is in position to be the most flexible and agile, and preserves the principle of Unity of Command to the TAG's.

Incidentally... Does anybody know where the law limits CAP to non-combat missions and programs in the United States?

Could CAP personnel, I'm thinking Chaplains here now, be assigned for short periods overseas?

[shorning]

Honestly, I don't know why USAF hasn't turned peacetime SAR over to the Guard - it's not like there are active duty units beyond AFRCC to do the work.

First, that's simply not true.  Secondly, the Guard doesn't have the assests nation-wide,nor would enough assets be available for every state to have their own assets to support civil SAR.  The assets the Air Force does have are primarily for CSAR, but support civil SAR when they can.  Even then, DoD isn't the lead SAR agency.