Strategic Plan Details Released!

[ProdigalJim]

I know for some of you "Insider" types this is old stuff, but for many of us rank-and-file members, these are new and encouraging details.

If you go here http://bit.ly/14YjUhj you'll find the website announcement/discussion of the new Strategic Plan (which is kind of bland), and then a link to the plan itself, which is here http://capmembers.com/media/cms/20132014_CAP_STRATEGIC_PLAN_Final_91538ADA14378.pdf, which actually has some extremely interesting bits.

Page 14 (Appendix C) seems to indicate we're going to get serious about finding ways to address recapitalization, both aircraft and vehicles.

Then there's this:

>> Objective 1.2.3. Establish a methodology for identifying and validating aircraft, vehicle and
equipment requirements from external customers and within the CAP.

Metric 2013: Hold a requirements summit with key external customers and CAP
leadership to identify and validate new mission opportunities, and the
aircraft, vehicle, and equipment requirements that support them. (DO, LG)

As a result of previous requirement meetings with the DHS Science and
Technology and Response and Recovery Offices and AFNORTH, finalize RFI
and publish RFP for airborne imagery system. (DO, LG)
Metric 2014: Contingent on availability of aircraft procurement funds, install first
airborne imagery system as identified above on CAP aircraft. (DO, LG)<<

There's also language about pursuing new mission areas, such as Border Patrol, and in further beefing up our RPA work.

How about this on page 15?

>> Objective 2.1.3. Explore opportunities resulting from the AF's (and other DoD/federal agencies
like the USCG) downsizing of its existing aircraft fleet and weapon systems, e.g. airlift, et al.

Metric 2013: Contact HQ DHS to establish lines of communication and further develop
opportunities to leverage the GAO report. (DO)

Hold a requirements summit with key external customers and CAP
leadership to identify and validate new mission opportunities and the
aircraft, vehicle, and equipment requirements that support them. (DO, LG) <<

And this one will warm Cyborg's cockles...

>> Goal 2.3. Develop CAP "true-blue" initiative. CAP has over 1,500 units nationwide. Most of those units
are not collocated with an active duty, Guard or Reserve installation. CAP members are proud of the
fact that they are the AF auxiliary, and it is important that the AF and CAP expand the opportunities CAP
members have to interact with AF members. These "mentoring" opportunities will benefit both
organizations and should also aid AF recruiting efforts in the short and long terms as cadets advance and
get older.
Objective 2.3.1. Pursue Air Reserve Component partnerships/mentorships to fill gaps.
Objective 2.3.2. Explore military installation access.
Objective 2.3.3. Work with AF/A8 and SAF/MR to pursue "CAP" in the Total Force definition. << (Emphasis mine)

Wow. Putting my newsman hat on, CAP committed news in several of these pages. And Objective 2.3.3 is one of those things that looks bland on the surface if you don't know what it means, but that's a pretty significant goal...whether or not it happens, the fact that it was created and stated publicly is pretty interesting.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

You are correct in saying that part of the plan will "warm my cockles."

However, it is one thing to say it on paper.  To put it into action can be an entirely different kettle of fish.

[FARRIER]

Objective 3.1.6.  Create an inclusive environment and ensure diverse pools of candidates are
available for leadership positions.  Work with organizations like League of United Latin American
Citizens (LULAC), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP),
Tuskegee Airmen Incorporated (TAI), Women in Aviation International (WAI) and Black Pilots of
America (BPA).

They missed a group, the disabled. http://www.wheelchairaviators.org/index.html

I'm serious on this one. When I worked in the airlines as a ground school instructor for aircraft dispatchers, there was a pilot ground instructor who was wheelchair bound, was a line pilot before a skiing accident. There are aviation and aerospace professionals who are disabled.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

There are aviation and aerospace professionals who are disabled.

Not to mention many rank-and-file members of CAP who have disabilities that are not visible.

[NCRblues]

After reading it, it looks pretty good. I do have to wonder though, what will the command specialty track look like?

[SarDragon]

Never mind. 

[NCRblues]

I get that in the past we didn't have one, but the new strategic plan calls for one to released this year.

and I see your never mind... so ill stop typing my response 

[SarDragon]

The little clue bird was late and didn't tell me I should check out the doc before I posted.

[A.Member]

Concur that this is a lot of encouraging info, not the least of which appears to be a renewed effort to tighten our bond with the AF. 

Kudos to NHQ for finally putting together a plan and communicating it.

I hope that 1.2 "Stabilize the acquisition of CAP aircraft, vehicles, equipment, supplies, and other resources" means that we slow our roll and quit making off the cuff decisions that lead to things such as buying GA-8's and ARCHER systems.  We need to stick with our core competencies and be realistic about the levels of proficiency our members can maintain (hopefully 2.2 gets to some honest answers about that). 

My only real concern is the reference to an AI acquisition in the Appendix (which stands in contrast to my statement above).   This better not be another limited ARCHER, GEIIP, SDIS, et al system that is a one-off goofball technology with no hope for member proficiency.  If it's not a solution that can be rolled out in adequate numbers so as to be relevant, then it should be DOA and never move out of RFP.  If it results in a solution with a widely accepted and PROVEN technology that requires a minimal amount of training, such as FLIR (just an example), with several units being available to each Wing, then I'm cool with it.

[RiverAux]

I'm pretty happy that CAP has gotten around to producing a plan, though I think that like with many such short-term plans, they're really packing way too many things into it.  The more things you're trying to do, the less likely it is that you're going to do them.  I'd rather seem them focus very sharply on a few things rather than trying to do everything at once. 

CAP VISION: Civil Air Patrol, America's Air Force auxiliary, building the nation's finest force of
citizen volunteers serving America.

Glad they clarified who we're working for....

CAP MISSION STATEMENT: Supporting America's communities with emergency response,
diverse aviation and ground services, youth development, and promotion of air, space and cyber power.

we're promoting cyber power?

Armed Forces and AF priorities --- I like that they're trying to link CAP into these higher-level goals.  Smart.  Though I'm not clear on how CAP fits into the AF's priority of

Continue to strengthen the Air Force nuclear enterprise.

.  Are we getting nukes?
Also, the list of AF priorities doesn't match up with the table showing how CAP is going to try to match them. 

Goal 2.1 -- Pursue new mission areas.  While some of these may prove interesting, it ignores the major opportunity for CAP mission growth in GSAR. 

Outside study -- they say CAP can't determine its own capabilities?  Doesn't say much for our ability to take on new missions if we don't think we can even figure out what they might be. 

Goal 2.3. Develop CAP "true-blue" initiative.

Very vague.  Are we talking about augmentation issues here or something more squishy?  It doesn't bode well for this going anywhere when they spent more time talking about CAP "branding" issues.  Why in the world are they only focusing on Air Reserve?  What about the Air National Guard?  Closer relationships with them might actually lead to some state missions.   

Goal 4.1. Assess Success of the Cadet Program.

Why aren't we also assessing the success of our other programs?  Its about time we try to do something like this.  Got to be able to show that the program is doing some good. 

Goal 4.4. Develop concepts and capabilities to address training cadets and adults to meet the cyber
challenge in space and cyberspace mission areas.

Chasing the bright shiny objects. 

Goal 4.5. Help meet the nation's need for new pilots.

Is this really CAP's job?  Well, you could see it that way as one of of the oft-forgotten purposes of CAP (ignored in this document as well) is to promote civil aviation in local communities.  However, when you talk about the nations "need" for new pilots, that implies a need for pilots in the commercial field as there isn't any "need" for private pilots.  So, is it CAP's job to be providing pilots for Delta?  We already know from the absurdly low salaries for beginning pilots that there is actually a major oversupply of pilots right now, so I question the basis for this particular goal. 

Metric 2013: Establish a directive for units to work with media outlets in a revision of
CAPR 190-1. (PA)

Are they saying our PAOs are so dumb they have to be directed to work with local media? 

[jeders]

Metric 2013: Establish a directive for units to work with media outlets in a revision of
CAPR 190-1. (PA)

Are they saying our PAOs are so dumb they have to be directed to work with local media?

I think what they're saying is that too many units don't have a PAO or any public relations connections. I don't think that a mandate is the best way to fix it, but what do I know?

[LGM30GMCC]

CAP MISSION STATEMENT: Supporting America's communities with emergency response,
diverse aviation and ground services, youth development, and promotion of air, space and cyber power.

we're promoting cyber power?

Armed Forces and AF priorities --- I like that they're trying to link CAP into these higher-level goals.  Smart.  Though I'm not clear on how CAP fits into the AF's priority of

Continue to strengthen the Air Force nuclear enterprise.

.  Are we getting nukes?
Also, the list of AF priorities doesn't match up with the table showing how CAP is going to try to match them. 

As to Cyber Power...Cyber Patriot? No reason to not find ways to expand that a little bit.

As to strengthening the nuclear enterprise no we won't get nukes. But the weapons themselves are only a small part of the whole nuclear enterprise. There are areas CAP CAN help in that area that we are currently not doing. Also, if you look at the chart...they specifically leave that off, probably because no one at NHQ or CAP-USAF really has much knowledge about the modern nuclear enterprise and what we could do to strengthen it.

[RiverAux]

There are areas CAP CAN help in that area that we are currently not doing.

You then say,

Also, if you look at the chart...they specifically leave that off, probably because no one at NHQ or CAP-USAF really has much knowledge about the modern nuclear enterprise and what we could do to strengthen it.

So, just what is it that you think that CAP can do in the nuclear area and why hasn't that occurred to NHQ? 

[LGM30GMCC]

I will not address the specifics in this forum. However, primarily along the same general lines of what have done with events like the Olympics, shuttle launches, and the like--aerial recon.

And why it hasn't occurred at NHQ is because there are about 3000 13S/13N officers in the USAF. (Or about 0.5% of the total force.) Of those fewer still are career nuclear operators. There are additional 21Ms and the like that deal with nuclear weapons. CAP-USAF is predominately pilots and the only pilots that regularly work with nuclear weapons are BUFF and Spirit drivers. Even they haven't been as active on the nuclear side of the house (this was a noted deficiency of the nuclear enterprise and one of the things the USAF has been changing.)

There are 3 ICBM Wings, 3 Bomber Wings, and a smattering of other nuclear related units scattered across the country. 4/6 of those wings are located primarily in low population states where CAP has a very small presence to begin with. AFGSC itself is relatively young (a few years old at this point) and has fewer total people than CAP has Senior Members. AFGSC also tends to be very set in its ways, very insular, and very hesitant of change. We tend to handle things with very tight controls and very much within our own community.

An outside organization is unlikely to see where we could use help (we tend to keep that stuff quiet) and if offering it you need to speak the right lingo and have an inside edge. The nuclear enterprise is different from the rest of the Air Force in many ways, not as different in others, but just operates differently. This has been noted not only by our community but by folks in career fields that do shift from command to command.

It likely hasn't been considered at NHQ for the very reason the question was asked here 'Are we getting nukes?'. CAP doesn't understand the nuclear enterprise. Hell, the USAF is continuing to get its hands around and strengthen the nuclear enterprise. They are only now resplitting the 13S career field and making a concerted effort to develop nuclear experts. We continue to have commanders (and will for awhile yet) who are taking command of missile squadrons and operations groups who haven't had anything to do with nukes for 14-15 years.

[capmaj]

Without opening a real can of worms.... I didn't think we had an 'exclusive' enviroment concerning these issues?
Wasn't the intent of establishing a National Diversity Officer positon to address this?

Objective 3.1.6. Create an inclusive environment and ensure diverse pools of candidates are
available for leadership positions. Work with organizations like League of United Latin American
Citizens (LULAC), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP),
Tuskegee Airmen Incorporated (TAI), Women in Aviation International (WAI) and Black Pilots of America.

[LGM30GMCC]

If you look at the CSAG and CAG I would say it is predominately made up of white males. I see nothing wrong with at least asking the question as to why. And unfortunately, asking a group asking itself 'Why do we seem to predominately all look the same?' tends not to come up with the best answers. I don't think we have members who are purposefully trying to stifle diversity. (I certainly hope we don't, but ya never know.) I do think we have a lot of members who don't even think about ways that they might be unintentionally doing it.

For example: I had a student with disabilities at my last RSC. Our meeting is on base. The military is a number of areas exempt from the ADA. This didn't quite really hit home as a serious problem until I had a student where we needed to ask the question 'How do we find solutions for this?'

[RiverAux]

It likely hasn't been considered at NHQ for the very reason the question was asked here 'Are we getting nukes?'.

That was so obviously a joke. ....

[LGM30GMCC]

Yes. But the fact folks don't know how we could support 'strengthening the nuclear enterprise' isn't. I think it's an omission that could be rectified but it will take quite a bit of work.

I would say I chuckled...but I think my actual reaction was a slight increase in exhalation through my nostrils and a slight rolling of the eyes at the fact it would only warrant a joke rather than serious consideration or asking 'Is there a way we COULD align with the #1 priority of the USAF?'

[RiverAux]

Yes. But the fact folks don't know how we could support 'strengthening the nuclear enterprise' isn't. I think it's an omission that could be rectified but it will take quite a bit of work.

I would say I chuckled...but I think my actual reaction was a slight increase in exhalation through my nostrils and a slight rolling of the eyes at the fact it would only warrant a joke rather than serious consideration or asking 'Is there a way we COULD align with the #1 priority of the USAF?'

Actually, I would have given it a more serious comment if they had followed up on that a bit with an explanation of what they were thinking.  It is SO far outside of our traditional wheelhouse that they just can't throw something like that in there from out of the blue without a little more verbiage.

[FW]

Ummmm, interesting.....
Nice statement of strategic goals however, there really isn't anything that different from previous SPs which came before it.  And, until our leadership understands and makes the effort to succeed, the results will be the same.

Improving diversity? OK... Let's look back to our current and, last two national commanders... Compare the makup of our volunteer leadership with general membership demographics... Look at our recruiting/retention statistics of the last 5 years (since there was a diversity committee).  What has CAP done (other than create busy work) to improve the diversity of its members; let alone its leadership?

Our "true blue" initiative?  I know I'm out of the loop however, what does that mean? How does CAP become closer with the Air Force when, for the last 15 years, CAP has been removing more and more of the "Air Force Auxiliary" branding (much because of Air Force requests)?

How do we identify new missions for CAP when (any) funding is tenuous today and, when most government agencies are fighting for "their piece of the pie"? And, considering our lack of real success in obtaining alternative funding sources or a solid contributor base, how do we pay for such new missions?

The Board of Governors has a lot of work before them.  It is their responsibility to pave the way for the membership to achieve the plan.  It is very easy to state lofty goals however, the road map does not yet exist (?).  More committees and summits will take place.  More statements and objectives will be addressed.  I'm sorry to say I've witnessed all this in the past.  I fear the same results; not because of the dedication of our members but, because, IMHO, we still lack the fundimental understanding of our changing environment and, what is needed to suceed in it.
Maybe I'm just getting tired of the "same old same old"....  Sorry for the rant but, I do feel better!