Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 22, 2019, 07:34:44 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Change to Title 10 For CAP
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]  All Send this topic Print
Author Topic: Change to Title 10 For CAP  (Read 17357 times)
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,994

« Reply #80 on: January 16, 2007, 03:25:23 PM »


We could not only provide a force to fly the infernal machines (Airplanes without pilots-- its like selling your soul to the Devil) but every pilot we kick in releases a pilot or navigator to go back into the air. 

Can you spell "Force Multiplier," boys and girls?

Back into the air in WHAT, John?

I understood AF was taking rated officers from arcraft that were being phased out and using those individuals for UAV operations.
Report to moderator   Logged
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #81 on: January 16, 2007, 04:44:21 PM »

Chicken and egg.

We are eliminating aircraft from the inventory because we lack sufficient aircrew to fly them, and the USAF has prioritized UAV's as higher than the eliminated aircraft.

Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
Dragoon
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 979

« Reply #82 on: January 16, 2007, 06:40:08 PM »

It may have something to do with budget stuff as well - the Army's gain in this years PRESBUD was the Air Force's loss....
Report to moderator   Logged
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #83 on: January 16, 2007, 07:47:53 PM »

Exactly.

They have to prioritize officer assignments becuase the Army and Marines are getting a greater share of the personnel slots.

All these are reasons why, if we could do it legally, a plan for CAP private pilots to operate UAV's would have a big effect on the Air Force and our war effort.

Maybe we wouldn't need to get a legislative change.  Maybe we could just re-define "Combat."

The last time I was in "Combat," the North Vietnamese Army was actively trying to kill me, I was in a country other than the United States, I didn't have to pay taxes, and I got a medal just for making it there on the MAC charter (MAC... Dating my combat experience!)  None of these conditions would be present at a CONUS Air Force Base from which the UAV would be operated. 

Maybe flying that bad boy could be re-defined as "Support?"   
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
Dragoon
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 979

« Reply #84 on: January 16, 2007, 07:57:50 PM »

Umm...that's not what I was getting at.  They also had to prioritize Operations and Maintenance funds, used to keep planes in the air.

I believe USAF got a bit less than normal.  Meaning regardless of personnel size, the fleet had to shrink (especially if they wanted to pursue big ticket items like the F-22).  Less planes means less need for pilots.  So......makes sense to put 'em in UAVs.  The alternative is to dump them on the street.
Report to moderator   Logged
afgeo4
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,566

« Reply #85 on: January 17, 2007, 06:25:51 AM »

Chicken and egg.

We are eliminating aircraft from the inventory because we lack sufficient aircrew to fly them, and the USAF has prioritized UAV's as higher than the eliminated aircraft.



We are eliminating aircraft because we are able to achieve mission parameters with fewer aircraft (due to technology) and because we have less funding, not because there are less aircrew to man them. UAV's aren't higher or lower than the legacy aircraft being retired. All USAF aircraft are designed to perform a specific set of missions. Legacy aircraft were designed for all out cold war air supremacy fighing. Today's aircraft need to be designed for other functions. The F-22, F-35, Predator, Global Hawk, V-22, HH-46, Advanced Tanker and other programs are the way the Air Force will distribute mission taskings in the future. These aircraft have shown that they are able to complete the mission with less than half aircraft needed vs. legacy systems such as F-15, F-16, A/O-10, MH-53, HH-60. Add to that the fact that the new aircraft also require less maintenance and maintainers to keep them flying and you have a win/win situation when it comes to fiscal constraints. This is one of the reasons why I think CAP should start thinking about operating UAVs of our own (simple, cheap ones, not Predators) and look into more high-tech small airframes to replace the C-172. The money we can save the Gov't will pay off in the future.
Report to moderator   Logged
GEORGE LURYE
afgeo4
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,566

« Reply #86 on: January 17, 2007, 06:34:02 AM »

Exactly.

They have to prioritize officer assignments becuase the Army and Marines are getting a greater share of the personnel slots.

All these are reasons why, if we could do it legally, a plan for CAP private pilots to operate UAV's would have a big effect on the Air Force and our war effort.

Maybe we wouldn't need to get a legislative change.  Maybe we could just re-define "Combat."

The last time I was in "Combat," the North Vietnamese Army was actively trying to kill me, I was in a country other than the United States, I didn't have to pay taxes, and I got a medal just for making it there on the MAC charter (MAC... Dating my combat experience!)  None of these conditions would be present at a CONUS Air Force Base from which the UAV would be operated. 

Maybe flying that bad boy could be re-defined as "Support?"   

Sure! Let's just redefine combat and extend the Geneva Conventions protection to a bunch of civillians. I'm sure that'll have no reprocussions on the world at large what so ever. Even better when you consider that you're just doing it so that a bunch of CAP volunteers can feel better about themselves. Or... maybe we should just let the military folk do the military jobs and we could stick to other things, like search and rescue, disaster relief, cadet programs, homeland security, counterdrug operations, and aerospace education... wow... for a bunch of volunteers we don't do so bad, do we?

Sir, if you are still stuck in Vietnam, which I'm beginning to think you may be, please seek therapy. If not, please understand that CAP isn't the military and it isn't a combat organization and that we don't get paid and that more than half of us are minors and half of who are left over are over 65.
Report to moderator   Logged
GEORGE LURYE
Major Carrales
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,106

« Reply #87 on: January 17, 2007, 06:38:05 AM »

Sir, if you are still stuck in Vietnam, which I'm beginning to think you may be, please seek therapy. If not, please understand that CAP isn't the military and it isn't a combat organization and that we don't get paid and that more than half of us are minors and half of who are left over are over 65.

Whoa...let's just calm down a bit here.  I agree with your message to some degree about the status of "CAP in the big picture,"  but this may have been uncalled for.  Major Kachenmeister is a Veteran worthy of a bit more respect and a well respected CAP Officer on-line as well as in his WING and REGION.

Let's not unleash such torrents of vitriol.

Report to moderator   Logged
"We have been given the power to change CAP, let's keep the momentum going!"

Major Joe Ely "Sparky" Carrales, CAP
Commander
Coastal Bend Cadet Squadron
SWR-TX-454
DNall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,721

« Reply #88 on: January 17, 2007, 07:35:30 AM »

Exactly.

They have to prioritize officer assignments becuase the Army and Marines are getting a greater share of the personnel slots.

All these are reasons why, if we could do it legally, a plan for CAP private pilots to operate UAV's would have a big effect on the Air Force and our war effort.

Maybe we wouldn't need to get a legislative change.  Maybe we could just re-define "Combat."

The last time I was in "Combat," the North Vietnamese Army was actively trying to kill me, I was in a country other than the United States, I didn't have to pay taxes, and I got a medal just for making it there on the MAC charter (MAC... Dating my combat experience!)  None of these conditions would be present at a CONUS Air Force Base from which the UAV would be operated. 

Maybe flying that bad boy could be re-defined as "Support?"   

Sure! Let's just redefine combat and extend the Geneva Conventions protection to a bunch of civillians. I'm sure that'll have no reprocussions on the world at large what so ever. Even better when you consider that you're just doing it so that a bunch of CAP volunteers can feel better about themselves. Or... maybe we should just let the military folk do the military jobs and we could stick to other things, like search and rescue, disaster relief, cadet programs, homeland security, counterdrug operations, and aerospace education... wow... for a bunch of volunteers we don't do so bad, do we?
Actually, contractors have been used to operate the birds to a great extent. When they followed the CIA in putting missiles on they had to scramble to make sure an actual Airman was in the same building to pull the trigger. The more recent move to ensure the operator (not calling them a pilot) is also in the AF is really not about legal issues at all. It'd be prefectly lefit under the current interpretation to use CAP pilots to fly the bird in support of the Amn shooter in the seat next to you. That may be stretching the letter but not the spirit of what congress meant in specifying non-combat missions of the AF, and that's the only item that would even remotely need to be changed.

Just a reminder, CAP personnel are, by the geneva conventions, considered combatants. Any uniformed individual under military orders, regardless of the purpose of those orders, who is able to relay information, by radio or otherwise, is a 100% valid target.

The move to put actual pilots in those seats over contractors is about budget & retaining talent. It costs a lot of money to make pilots & with their operational experience they are good in a varriety of command slots even if they aren't flying. If you have a short-term budget situation that gives you more rated officers than jobs, it makes sense to retain them in other jobs & cut the un-rated. At the same time, it costs more for a contractor (plus the company's cut) to sit in that chair than a spare AF pilot waiting on a new ride. The other issue is, now that this tech has caught on we tend not to operate it from a buildnig in Virginia, but rather a trailer next to the Command Post in Quatar. It's easier to use an Amn in that role with fast low cost deployment & advanced training than a contractor.

Now, the force multiplier augmentation concept I support centers on looking at commands & finding ways to cut contractor, DoD civilian, enlisted, & officer slots. I hate to say aloud that thsi may eliminate AF jobs, but the purpose of CAP is to help the AF do things on teh cheap so money can be used for combat power, and what we bring to the table is cheap labor - the math ain't complicated. Anyway, the concept is to identify positions that can be done by part-time or even on-call personnel. Can you cut two slots from the day-to-day staff in this office if you have five people on-call when things get busy. These people are techincally independent contractors, but by AF giving lip service to CAP and maybe letting them wear uniforms during the activity AF gets those contract services at or below cost. I don't in general favor paying CAP members for most of what we do, but if you're deploying to a disaster zone or called to service in an AF office for more than a few days in a row, it's only reasonable to expect a little something to defer your expenses & lost income. A per diem in that case, as is paid to "volunteers" from the red cross, FEMA, ARES, & others is perfectly appropropriate.
Report to moderator   Logged
JohnKachenmeister
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,352

« Reply #89 on: January 17, 2007, 01:55:22 PM »

Exactly.

They have to prioritize officer assignments becuase the Army and Marines are getting a greater share of the personnel slots.

All these are reasons why, if we could do it legally, a plan for CAP private pilots to operate UAV's would have a big effect on the Air Force and our war effort.

Maybe we wouldn't need to get a legislative change.  Maybe we could just re-define "Combat."

The last time I was in "Combat," the North Vietnamese Army was actively trying to kill me, I was in a country other than the United States, I didn't have to pay taxes, and I got a medal just for making it there on the MAC charter (MAC... Dating my combat experience!)  None of these conditions would be present at a CONUS Air Force Base from which the UAV would be operated. 

Maybe flying that bad boy could be re-defined as "Support?"   

Sure! Let's just redefine combat and extend the Geneva Conventions protection to a bunch of civillians. I'm sure that'll have no reprocussions on the world at large what so ever. Even better when you consider that you're just doing it so that a bunch of CAP volunteers can feel better about themselves. Or... maybe we should just let the military folk do the military jobs and we could stick to other things, like search and rescue, disaster relief, cadet programs, homeland security, counterdrug operations, and aerospace education... wow... for a bunch of volunteers we don't do so bad, do we?

Sir, if you are still stuck in Vietnam, which I'm beginning to think you may be, please seek therapy. If not, please understand that CAP isn't the military and it isn't a combat organization and that we don't get paid and that more than half of us are minors and half of who are left over are over 65.

George:

I used my own experience in combat merely to illustrate how actual combat differs from operating a UAV half a planet away from hostile fire.  The purpose of my illustration was to suggest that traditional thinking about the combat-combat support-combat service support continuum may need some re-thinking in the light of technological advances.

I do not understand your references to the "Civilian" status of the Civil Air Patrol and the Geneva Convention.  One of my former assignments in the Army was on the general staff of the 300th Military Police Command, which was at the time the Army's doctrinal proponent for all prisoner of war operations.  As such I was required to develop a rather intimate knowledge of the provisions of the Geneva Convention as it pertains to the combatant status of beligerents.

CAP does not fall into any internationally-recognized non-combatant status under the Geneva Convention.  This may be difficult for you to understand, since Congress has specifically restricted CAP to supporting the non-combat missions of the Air Force.  Such a designation, under the Convention, is meaningless.  The only persons in CAP who fall into a non-combatant class of persons are the chaplains and under certain conditions, medical personnel.

CAP, as a uniformed auxiliary of the Air Force, would fall into the category of "Militia and other irregular forces," under the G.C., and as such are considered combatants.

I hate to break the news to you, George, but under the G.C. you are a "Legitimate target."

And if I need therapy at all, it is because of my time as a captain on a general staff.  In Vietnam I was allowed to shoot back.
Report to moderator   Logged
Another former CAP officer
aveighter
Forum Regular

Posts: 199

« Reply #90 on: January 18, 2007, 01:51:14 AM »


Sure! Let's just redefine combat and extend the Geneva Conventions protection to a bunch of civillians. I'm sure that'll have no reprocussions on the world at large what so ever. Even better when you consider that you're just doing it so that a bunch of CAP volunteers can feel better about themselves. Or... maybe we should just let the military folk do the military jobs and we could stick to other things, like search and rescue, disaster relief, cadet programs, homeland security, counterdrug operations, and aerospace education... wow... for a bunch of volunteers we don't do so bad, do we?

Sir, if you are still stuck in Vietnam, which I'm beginning to think you may be, please seek therapy. If not, please understand that CAP isn't the military and it isn't a combat organization and that we don't get paid and that more than half of us are minors and half of who are left over are over 65.

You have convinced me I have been in error.  I used to read your posts with interest.  But this eruption of disrespectful filth is the defining characteristic of a weak and venal man and a disgrace to the uniform I hope you don't actually wear.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]  All Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  The Lobby  |  Topic: Change to Title 10 For CAP
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.058 seconds with 25 queries.
click here to email me