[quote=“tango_lima” post=2212][quote=“wilf_san” post=2209]
They just do things so differently in the US, for both for regular and reserve air forces.[/quote]
What were you thinking of in particular?
[/quote]
Well…you appear to be one of the depressingly-few people either in (or outwith) the Reserve Air Forces of the Crown that actually have a good handle on understanding the history, context and roles of said formations. The rest of the world (light-blue or otherwise) tends not to have a clue… :mad:
When you say…
[quote"tango_lima"]Other than the wider roles for US part-timers? (Certainly if you think Air Guard = RAuxAF, USAF Reserves = Sponsered reserves)[/quote]In my opinion, you’d be almost 100% spot-on if this were still 1957. I don’t just mean the obvious loss back then of almost the UK’s entire volunteer military (both RAuxAF and FAA® squadrons), but also the crazy early previous loss of the RAF SR squadrons pre-WW2, which along with the FTRS concept, took MoD and the AFB another half-century to resurrect at long last in 1997.
I think that the whole approach to Air Reserves in the USA is much more co-ordinated, and better understood by wider society and the parent service…and appreciated. Even at the highest levels, the structures such as the Department of the Air Force, the integrated-yet-specialised respective lead roles for the ANG/USAFR/CAP. In the US, the expression “Air Force” is still understood to mean an umbrella military collective term for a range of distinct-yet-complimentary forces, plural when required, unified when necessary. There is a perspective that this has been getting steadily blurred/eroded in the UK since 1957, yet being progressively refined and sharpened in the US over that same timescale.
Arguably, the changes that were attempted under RFA96 were to both turn the clock back 40 years, and to catch-up with the US Air Reserves model (in all aspects bar aircrew options)
Is this perhaps not just a US variation upon the good-old British concept of “Non-Public Funds”, in the sense that if Citizen Airmen/Airwomen were involved in activities which were not directly-resulting from a federal authorisation or activiation (say training/airshows?) budgets would have to be found from their home US State NG/ANG financial sources, and not from the DeptAF or USAF?? Similarly, if they were CAP (when acting as USAF Aux, eg on SAROPS ), my understanding is that they would be messed/rationed on straight cost to the regular USAF.
But I’d agree with your other point, that to a big extent the roles the USAFR has been covering are similar in style to the remits of individual RAFR ResO/ResA ‘digital’ posts (where FTRS mobilised, and similarly, RAuxAF FTRS). They’re also I suppose a bit like the poor old MMU.
(And it is very scary to read that the USAFR has actually got more personnel in it than the entire regular RAF+RAuxAF combined…without even thinking about the ANG!!)
Oh to be back to the happy days of 1947, and to have squadrons of Mk24 Spits lined-up on the flight-line… :unsure:
wilf_san