Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 22, 2017, 06:39:44 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: Operation Iowa Flag
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2  All Print
Author Topic: Operation Iowa Flag  (Read 11888 times)
isuhawkeye
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,300

John's web site
« on: August 03, 2007, 03:27:23 PM »

1. The MISSION. IAWG has been asked to assist the Iowa Air National Guard and the Iowa Army National Guard in operation IOWA FLAG. IOWA FLAG is a multi agency, multi unit, high level test and training exercise involving the following Air and Army National Guard units:

Support Units: 133TS, CFACC;
C2/C3s (JSTARS) 169ASPS, 182 ASOC, 133ACS, 552ACW, 116OSS,

Fighters (F16-C): 132FW, 124FS, 183 FW, 170FS (F-16C);

Bombers: (B2) 509BW

Helos (UH60) 147AvBCo.

Tankers (KC135) 185ARF;

UAV (Cessna 182) IAWG-CAP.

2. Operation: Operation Iowa Flag and Close air Support Exercises are customer driven elements designed to meet realistic training demands of the modern battle field in a low cost setting. Activities are specifically designed to meet training requirements associated with current and foreseeable future real world operations and are based on the recent combat experience of exercise directors and supporting staffs

Sections Omitted FOUO.
 
IAWG-CAP Operation IAWG-CAP’s involvement will be consistent with the restrictions in AFI 10-2701 paragraph 2.2.4. Combat Training Support. We will provide NO combat support services. Our services are limited to emulate the presence of a UAV so as to test the capabilities and calibrate the equipment of the 133TS control center in a simulated situation while at the same time providing a training platform for IAWG-CAP’s Emergency Service and Disaster Relief mission.
5. Safety All IAWG-CAP operations will be conducted in a safe manner to as to protect life and property. If a situation is present which you deem to put person or property in jeopardy you must take those steps necessary to allievate the danger and notify the IAWG-CAP mission commander immediately.

Logged
pixelwonk
Alt-F4 pilot
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,108

« Reply #1 on: August 03, 2007, 03:44:29 PM »

Manned aircraft simulating unmanned aircraft replacing manned aircraft.  ;D
Logged
RogueLeader
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,626
Unit: Of measure

« Reply #2 on: August 03, 2007, 04:26:31 PM »

Way to go IAWG.  Wish I was there to help. If anybody wants to come get me. . . . . .  ;D, but really, I think this is a payout from all the work that IAWG has done in the State.  The wing made some hard choices, as we have already discussed, and it is paying them in more missions, more and more.  Hooah IAWG.
Logged
<redacted>

GRW 3340
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,900

« Reply #3 on: August 03, 2007, 05:33:42 PM »

Nice mission but it is obvious which way the winds are blowing just from what they're asking CAP to do here...
Logged
RogueLeader
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,626
Unit: Of measure

« Reply #4 on: August 03, 2007, 06:36:22 PM »

Nice mission but it is obvious which way the winds are blowing just from what they're asking CAP to do here...
??? ??? is it?
Logged
<redacted>

GRW 3340
CadetProgramGuy
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,355

« Reply #5 on: August 03, 2007, 07:56:57 PM »

Nice mission but it is obvious which way the winds are blowing just from what they're asking CAP to do here...

Remember, CAP is a non-combat entity.  What IAWG is simulating are UAV's, which is just about as non-combat as you can get in a combat environment.

This looks not to be a situation of CAP begging to belong, but instead a decision of include CAP in a combat orientated exercise while staying inside our mandates and regulations.
Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,900

« Reply #6 on: August 03, 2007, 08:35:42 PM »

Maybe it isn't as obvious as I thought .... they're using CAP planes to simulate UAVs....in the not so distant future they will have UAVs and won't need CAP for that purpose and probably won't need us for other missions as well when they've got newer, shinier toys to justify having. 
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 9,933
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #7 on: August 03, 2007, 09:25:10 PM »

But you can't fly UAVs for $100/hr! Not now, nor in the forseeable future.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,900

« Reply #8 on: August 03, 2007, 11:06:25 PM »

And neither can they use the F-16, etc. they've got in the exercise for 100/hour.  Once they have UAVs, they will be using them as part of the exercise no matter the cost.  And just like the Guard likes to use their 1K+ (or whatever it is) per hour choppers for SAR when they can because of the PR, they will want to use the UAVs. 
Logged
CadetProgramGuy
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,355

« Reply #9 on: August 03, 2007, 11:08:42 PM »

$3500 / hr for Blackhawks
Logged
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,971

« Reply #10 on: August 04, 2007, 01:12:20 AM »

My father tells me that in 1943, in Army basic training, they drilled with Springfield '03 rifles, only using the limited M1s available to qualify on the range.

When he reached his replacement company in North Africa (combat zone), he was issued his M1.

Similarly, I suspect the limited number of UAVs are going to be kept in combat zones, or training those who are imminently on their way there, for some time to come.

Even as the number increases, it is more likely the surplus will go into border security and other HLS roles.

It will be quite some time, I  believe, before Guard units in the US proper have UAVs.

Until then, CAP 172s & 182s will serve just fine simulating them.
Logged
SAR-EMT1
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,503
Unit: GLR-IL-328

« Reply #11 on: August 04, 2007, 04:01:05 AM »

Way to go IAWG.  Wish I was there to help. If anybody wants to come get me. . . . . .  ;D, but really, I think this is a payout from all the work that IAWG has done in the State.  The wing made some hard choices, as we have already discussed, and it is paying them in more missions, more and more.  Hooah IAWG.

Where is the payoff? I dont see it at all.

1 Cessna portraying a UAV?
Being unable to provide Combat support, being unable - I assume- to assist in the Military Command  Post, etc.
Is there actually anything else that IAWG is doing in regard to the other units involved?

Short of a small Mission Base and an aircrew, no one is doing anything. I see very little (if any) work availible for non pilots.   
This excercize would be a prime time to test an effective augmentation program.
Logged
C. A. Edgar
AUX USCG Flotilla 8-8
Former CC / GLR-IL-328
Firefighter, Paramedic, Grad Student
isuhawkeye
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,300

John's web site
« Reply #12 on: August 04, 2007, 12:00:03 PM »

We are supporting an air force need. 

Nothing more, nothing less. 

So many of you complain that CAP has gotten away from the air force, and whine up a storm that CAP is pulling away from supporting "Mama blue".  Now that they have come forward with a legitimate need (even if it is only for a few years) all you do is complain that it is not enough. 

The pay off is this.  We get to help the air force.  Our pilots get to support the active duty, reserve, and guard troops operate safer.  Isn't that enough.  Isnt that why we became the air force auxiliary in the first palce. 

PS.  this is an AUX OFF mission.....

Figure that one out
« Last Edit: August 04, 2007, 12:15:22 PM by isuhawkeye » Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,900

« Reply #13 on: August 04, 2007, 12:40:46 PM »

Really??? I'm sure the feds are paying the majority of the costs of the overall exercise, so why not pay for CAP?  Well, I can understand to some extent why the AF wouldn't want to pay for it, however there is no excuse for it not to be an AF-approved non-reimbursed mission (Mission Symbol B-14).  It is only right to provide the federal benefits to CAP members supporting a federally-funded military exercise.  Putting all the risk on CAP corporate for this type of mission makes no sense. 

The Wing staff should go back to the AF with a B-14 mission request for this.
Logged
Nick Critelli
Forum Regular

Posts: 154

« Reply #14 on: August 04, 2007, 04:23:21 PM »


The Wing staff should go back to the AF with a B-14 mission request for this.

DON'T GET ME STARTED!!!!!!!!!!!!1 >:( >:(
Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,900

« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2007, 04:50:21 PM »

Stating the blatantly obvious wasn't I?   >:D
Logged
Nick Critelli
Forum Regular

Posts: 154

« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2007, 05:05:25 PM »

Iowa National Guard just issued the following press release:

The Iowa Army and Air National Guard, various active duty units, and the Iowa Wing of the Civil Air Patrol (CAP) will participate in a joint training event, Iowa Flag, August 7-18 in northwest Iowa. 

Iowa’s participation in the Global War on Terror requires joint reconnaissance and combat support missions.  In combat theaters of operation, Iowa Air and Army National Guard aircraft are required to track human and vehicle movement, both friendly and hostile, through urban environments, as well as on open stretches of highway and in sparsely-populated rural areas.  These types of missions, and certain Close Air Support operations, require lower altitudes not currently available in Military Operating Areas (MOAs). 

This multi-faceted event utilizes many different military assets from fighter    aircraft to ground vehicles. Here’s what Iowans may see over the course of the    exercise:
A number of ground teams will operate in and around the Carroll, Storm Lake, and Pocahontas areas.  These teams will operate a variety of vehicles, including tractor-trailers, delivery-type trucks, Humvees, various military cargo trucks, green or blue pick-up trucks, white Civil Air Patrol vehicles, plus other equipment.  Personnel will operate both in town and out in the country.

The ground teams will utilize sophisticated optics and communications equipment, including night vision equipment, laser ranging equipment (eye safe), satellite communications systems, and Line of Sight (LOS) radio equipment.
Small military convoys will operate on numerous roads between Cherokee and Carroll.

The Iowa Wing of the CAP will be flying circular and “Figure 8” search patterns over Carroll, Storm Lake and other northwest Iowa locations during the exercise.  These aircraft are white, single-engine propeller aircraft (like Cessna 172s and 182s) with CAP markings in dark blue and red.  These aircraft and personnel may also utilize airports in various northwest Iowa communities.

For the duration of the exercise, Iowa Army National Guard UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters from Boone and Waterloo will be operating at the Carroll and Storm Lake airports, and near various northwest Iowa communities.  These aircraft will be offloading and loading troops.

Iowa Air National Guard F-16 fighter aircraft from the 132nd Fighter Wing in Des Moines will be operating over much of northwest Iowa, from Carroll to the Minnesota border, and from Fort Dodge to west of Storm Lake. People may also see red flares in the sky (especially at night) that look like fireworks.
 
KC-135 tanker aircraft from the Iowa Air National Guard’s 185th Air Refueling Wing in Sioux City and other units and locations will be operating in areas from Spencer to Estherville.  The tankers will be conducting refueling operations with F-16 fighter aircraft above 20,000 feet, but it may be possible to observe their missions. There might also be flares associated with the refueling operations.

Additional aircraft, including the RC-135, E-8 JSTARS, E-3 AWACS, and B-2 Spirit bomber may also participate but their altitude or operating orbit will make it difficult to actually see the aircraft.  The B-2 bomber may be visible at a high altitude over numerous northwest Iowa communities.

IOWA NATIONAL GUARD
Americans at Their Best



Logged
RogueLeader
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,626
Unit: Of measure

« Reply #17 on: August 05, 2007, 01:25:13 AM »

So what if it's an Aux OFF Mission, still helps the AF, and they can see: "Hey, the IAWG CAP wants to help, and they aren't complaining that they take the risk for their part of it." Next time AF has a need in IA: "Hey we need support from IAWG CAP.  Last time, they did an EXCELLENT job, kept costs under what we could have done, as well as took the risk for it.  Since they help us out, lets help them out by making it an AFAM."  I don't think that this is an unreasonable interpretation of what could happen.

I'm just glad that IAWG could get involved.  Way to go Iowa. ;D
Logged
<redacted>

GRW 3340
Nick Critelli
Forum Regular

Posts: 154

« Reply #18 on: August 05, 2007, 11:38:43 AM »

Funding and Insurance Rant follows:

It is getting more and more difficult to get "A" missions that are not AFRCC tasked.  Under title 10,   SECAF  must approve all CAP "A" missions  for AF or any other federal agency. SECAF has assigned AFRCC as our tasking agent for SAR and  1st AF for  AF or other federal agency missions including AFNSEP  missions.   

It is very difficult to unravel the funding quagmire.  Here's what I have been able to surmise. Funding for "A" AFRCC mission comes out of CAP's annual congressional appropriation.  Funding for other "A" missions comes from the federal agency that requested the CAP service.  AFNSEP  have no funds so they don't task CAP under  an "A" mission status.

"B" mission status is where we pay to play but are provided with federal insurance/tort claim protection.  Remember every time that plane moves money must be paid by someone. If you are flying an AFNSEP mission in "B" status someone is paying. It could be the wing itself from dues or other income or the individual member but it is NOT the federal government.   Disaster relief is a classic example. AFNSEP, the federal agency charged with emergency preparedness including maintaining a contingent of military EPLO's (emergency preparedness liaison officers officers) can task us under "B" mission status but cannot pay us. Again we pay to play.

Remember, every time the plane moves not only does it cost someone some money, but it also puts someone at risk. The advantage to "B" mission status is that you have federal tort claim and workers comp protection and don't have to rely on CAP's private insurance coverage which affords much less protection.  The difficulty with "B" missions is the time  and process it takes to get them approved. 

"C" missions are non AF missions and have no federal insurance or tort claim protection. Protection is afforded by private  liability insurance but no workers comp protection. Get hurt or killed in a "C" mission and you or your family will get very little if any compensation.   In Iowa we passed a law giving CAP state liability and workers compensation coverage when performing a "C" mission in Iowa.  Our coverage is actually much better than that provided by the federal government.  Consequently we rarely use "B" mission status for anything.

Iowa Flag is a classic example. AF refused "A" status and "B" mission status provides us with less coverage. When AF refused, the State TAG put us on state orders to trigger the state protection.

Because someone must pay when the plane moves, we are paying for the mission ourselves. We pay to play. Now we don't charge the individual members but we do take it from our annual state appropriation which means we have less for other things like training, cadet programs, etc. 

If we were where we were three years ago with no state funding appropriation we would not be able to participate in Iowa Flag. We would have to ask the members to share in the fuel and aircraft cost to help fund the mission.  Paying to play from your annual appropriation is one thing; reaching into your billfold is entirely different...and that's where we were.

I've learned one important thing in CAP: If it moves you pay and always follow the money.

NC




Logged
RiverAux
Too Much Free Time Award
***
Posts: 10,900

« Reply #19 on: August 05, 2007, 12:36:28 PM »

B missions can be reimbursed by other agencies and in fact that is what that whole class of missions is for.  If AF approved a B14 mission the state could still reimburse IA Wing for the costs....again, pretty obvious but I don't see why the AF would object for this type of mission.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All Print 
CAP Talk  |  Operations  |  Emergency Services & Operations  |  Topic: Operation Iowa Flag
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.497 seconds with 25 queries.
click here to email me