What sort of vehicle should we be driving?

[RiverAux]

Seeing as how unless you've got a really small cadet unit, even the larger vans are not enough to haul everybody around, maybe we should be looking at something smaller that would avoid all these issues and make sense from a ES point of view. 

Yes, yes, the vans are used for much more than ES, but like I said, they're never going to hold everyone for the big events, but ES missions tend to require a smaller turnout.  For example, you don't need a van for a UDF team, or even for a more normal sized ground team of 5-7 members. 

Given the issues with the large vans, what vehicle might suit our purposes the best?

[arajca]

Basing vehicle selection on ES would lead to Suburban/Excursion class vehicles or four-door pickups, preferably with short beds and work toppers - the ones with side doors and rear barn-style doors. Provides seating for six - nine members and can carry quite abit of stuff.

[MIKE]

M1126 Stryker ICV 

[mikeylikey]

M1126 Stryker ICV 

Perhaps your unit, but for others I reccomend a Schwinn or a huffy all terrain bicycle.  Some people should not be driving to begin with (reference the 90 year old CAP 2nd Lt driving Cadets around in the woods on an ELT mission)

[Stonewall]

(reference the 90 year old CAP 2nd Lt driving Cadets around in the woods on an ELT mission)

No kidding, we thought for sure we'd be doing CPR before the mission was over.  3 cadets in a VW bug with a 70+ year old senior member who smoked like he was going to the chair.

As a cadet and senior, for a long long time I had a Ford Ranger XLT (king cab) pick-up, in AF blue, of course.  We'd use my truck to haul team gear and the squadron van to haul the team.  When we didn't have a van during my cadet daze, we used a POV, usually our CC's conversion van, Jeep Cherokee or a combination of vehicles. 

Later, I got a Ford Exploder Explorer which proved to be very useful.  Enough room for a 5-man ground team and our gear.  Or, 2 personnel up front with the backseats down for the team gear while the rest rode in the van.  Again, the Explorer is AF blue.  These days I suppose a white vehicle would fit in better, but the AF uses a lot of blue trucks these days.

[♠SARKID♠]

Seeing as how unless you've got a really small cadet unit, even the larger vans are not enough to haul everybody around, maybe we should be looking at something smaller that would avoid all these issues and make sense from a ES point of view.

The problem I see is with dual purpose functions.  If you have one vehicle for carrying half the squadron, and one for ES, you have twice the maintanance, liability, insurance, etc.  I agree, a smaller vehicle is better for ES which is why I love our squadron's Expedition.  But if you have a single vehicle it can dual purpose as a bus, and ES carrier.  I want to agree with you so so much but its that cost factor holding me back.

[RiverAux]

Didn't suggest getting another vehicle.  I meant replacing the vans with something else...

[♠SARKID♠]

Didn't suggest getting another vehicle.  I meant replacing the vans with something else...

My mistake, on to the next foreseen problem.  If you switch to a more ES suitable vehicle you'll probably be looking at the Suburbans and Excursions as arajca said.  And with only being able to seat about nine, you'll still need two vehicles to get people where they need to be for those larger events.

[Walkman]

There's a ton of 'Burbs out here. Large families + mountains + mean winters, what else are ya' gonna drive? I've got a 4wd 9-passenger GMC that I've used for CAP stuff. Works great.

[_]

And with only being able to seat about nine, you'll still need two vehicles to get people where they need to be for those larger events.

That's what roof racks and duct tape are for.

My vote is for the 4x4 van:
Quigley Motor Company

[SJFedor]

And with only being able to seat about nine, you'll still need two vehicles to get people where they need to be for those larger events.

That's what roof racks and duct tape are for.

My vote would is for the 4x4 van:
Quigley Motor Company

Or a small box trailer.

That's pretty sweet right there, though.

[Eagle400]

I think short of busses, deuce-and-a-halfs, humvees and the obvious APC's the SF personnel use, CAP should use the same vehicles as the Air Force.

But now that I think about it, a lot of the CAP "4-wheel fleet" consists of the same vans the Air Force uses. 

I would say that they are older than most of the ones in the Air Force, but that wouldn't be accurate because I rode in an Air Force van at Keesler in the Summer of 05' that was just as old as most CAP vans I rode in as a cadet.     

[floridacyclist]

I had a 4X4 diesel Suburban for a while..blew it up on my way home from Katrina. We replaced it with an Astro for family use and by the time I bought another vehicle of my own, my family had shrunk until a 4X4 pathfinder handled it nicely. This seems about the perfect size for GT use and we still have the squadron van along with several pvt minivans if we need more room for an event.

[RiverAux]

An average CAP squadron has about 30 members (based on the last time I divided national membership by number of chartered squadrons).    There is no chance that 1 van is ever going to be able to haul around all the members of squadron to an event, whether ES-related or not.  So, trying to get as large a vehicle as possible will never really do what we need it to. 

I think a 6 person mini-van would be best for most units.  Those that have regular occassion to go 4x4 would work better in a SUV, but it won't be necessary for most work.  Some will say that we need 4x4 on everything for the backcountry missions, but I've been on pretty rugged roads in all parts of the country and you cna get pretty darn far with a street vehicle (yes, I've used minivans on Forest Service roads pretty regularly and never had any trouble).

As to exactly what model, I'm not knowledgable enough about the current market to make a good suggestion there.   

[♠SARKID♠]

I think a 6 person mini-van would be best for most units.  Those that have regular occassion to go 4x4 would work better in a SUV, but it won't be necessary for most work.  Some will say that we need 4x4 on everything for the backcountry missions, but I've been on pretty rugged roads in all parts of the country and you cna get pretty darn far with a street vehicle (yes, I've used minivans on Forest Service roads pretty regularly and never had any trouble).

I oppose that for one reason -

"Hello, I'm MSgt Turkal from the Civil Air Patrol, Soccer Mom Squadron 032."

[DNall]

Vans suck & they aren't appropriate for a lot of mission needs. Last couple days being a good example. The issue is... you can do most ES missions in vans, you can't trans lots of people in a mid-size 4wd.

We really do have to keep the large vans. What I'd prefer is to get rid of the 7pax mini-vans we have in favor of 7-9pax 4wd vehicles. That gives you roughly the same hauling capacity AND a better vehicle.

[nesagsar]

I think short of busses, deuce-and-a-halfs, humvees and the obvious APC's the SF personnel use, CAP should use the same vehicles as the Air Force.

But now that I think about it, a lot of the CAP "4-wheel fleet" consists of the same vans the Air Force uses. 

I would say that they are older than most of the ones in the Air Force, but that wouldn't be accurate because I rode in an Air Force van at Keesler in the Summer of 05' that was just as old as most CAP vans I rode in as a cadet.     

My squadron was stationed on an Army Guard post until a few years ago when they moved to an Air Guard base. When we were on the Army side they let us use military vehicles sometimes. The most memorable was the use of a duece and a half for transporting GP Mediums, cots, heaters, and radios to our bivouac site.

[Ned]

We really do have to keep the large vans. What I'd prefer is to get rid of the 7pax mini-vans we have in favor of 7-9pax 4wd vehicles. That gives you roughly the same hauling capacity AND a better vehicle.

All things being equal a 7pax 4wd will be more useful than a 7pax minivan.

But all things are not equal.  Maintenance and (especially) fuel will be much, much higher for the 4wd vehicles.

That's probably why we have some of both.

[A.Member]

The turbo-diesel, passenger version of the Dodge Sprinter 3500.  Durable, multi-purpose and holds plenty.

[SSgt Rudin]

just keep the vans a get these, throw them on a trailer. Put another seat in the back and a gear rack on the roll cage and you can haul a 4 person ground team around.

[321EOD]

Ok, so what process do you go through to request a vehicle? I submitted a CAPF175 last year and it doesnt seem to be making much progress

[mikeylikey]

^ Um ya.....unless the Wing King needs a new expidetion good luck! 

[afgeo4]

I think full-size crew cab pick-ups with regular beds should work quite well. They tend to fit up to 6 adults and lots of gear of whatever kind in the back. They tow well if needed and come with 4wd as an option.

[afgeo4]

The turbo-diesel, passenger version of the Dodge Sprinter 3500.  Durable, multi-purpose and holds plenty.

And imagine that vehicle set up with 4 seats (driver + 3 pax) up front, commo gear on walls in back, flat panel tv, and a couple of laptops with wireless connection. Add DF antennae and 2 more seats in the back for operators. You'll have a mobile command post, ES van and transport, all in one!

[badger bob]

Up here in snow country, I would like to see some 4x4 Suburbans.

Good all weather and all road capabilities, good interior room, capacity for 8 with a radio console up front, and much better for towing trailers when needed then the 15 pax vans.

[SAR-EMT1]

I am slightly unnerved by the sprinters.. I use one as an ambulance at one of my stations and though there isnt anything I can put my finger on... anytime it gets above 50 I get nervous.

As for ground trans: CAP should get rid of its minivans (personnal opinion)
Stick with the box 15 pax. and SUV 4x4s. I WILL say that every effort should be made to go to hybrid fuel.  The overall savings would be significant.

[afgeo4]

Good point, but what hybrid vans/4x4 are out there?

[SarDragon]

Good point, but what hybrid vans/4x4 are out there?

4WD SUVs -
2007 Ford Escape Hybrid   
2007 Lexus RX 400h
2007 Mercury Mariner Hybrid   
2007 Toyota Highlander Hybrid

Vans -
Scion xB
Dodge Caravan
The eBox
Mercury Meta One
Toyota Sienna Hybrid

That's what's out there. I am making NO claims regarding their usefulness to CAP.

[adamblank]

The problem I have seen at least on the Air Force side of the house is that they will only go with American made products.  For the nice Montana winters a Subaru outback might be the best choice but since its not American it will never be considered.

On another note, I work logistics and our wing needed a new vehicle I completed a CAPF 175 and sent it off to the wing/cc.  The key is look in the regulation for justification.  You can use hours, times, or miles.  The region/cc to my understanding will at least consider it if it is reasonable and can be justified, but in CAP you never know!

[badger bob]

Good point, but what hybrid vans/4x4 are out there?

4WD SUVs -
2007 Ford Escape Hybrid   
2007 Lexus RX 400h
2007 Mercury Mariner Hybrid   
2007 Toyota Highlander Hybrid

Vans -
Scion xB
Dodge Caravan
The eBox
Mercury Meta One
Toyota Sienna Hybrid

That's what's out there. I am making NO claims regarding their usefulness to CAP.

The Dodge Caravan has a E85 option, not hybrid.

The Hybrid Chevrolet Tahoe/ GMC Yukon Hybrids are being shipped now -We have 4 availalbe at our GM store.
The 2009 Dodge Durango/ Chrysler Aspen Hybrid will start shipping in June

[afgeo4]

Good point, but what hybrid vans/4x4 are out there?

4WD SUVs -
2007 Ford Escape Hybrid   
2007 Lexus RX 400h
2007 Mercury Mariner Hybrid   
2007 Toyota Highlander Hybrid

Vans -
Scion xB
Dodge Caravan
The eBox
Mercury Meta One
Toyota Sienna Hybrid

That's what's out there. I am making NO claims regarding their usefulness to CAP.

The Dodge Caravan has a E85 option, not hybrid.

The Hybrid Chevrolet Tahoe/ GMC Yukon Hybrids are being shipped now -We have 4 availalbe at our GM store.
The 2009 Dodge Durango/ Chrysler Aspen Hybrid will start shipping in June

E-85... what a useless thing. It is so inefficient to produce that more carbon is used to make it (plant usually use coal and electricity to produce this) than is offset by reduction in oil consumption. In addition, the fuel is only about 82% as efficient as gasoline, which means that more of the blend is needed to run the same amount of miles on the same vehicle which means you actually end up not saving almost any gas/oil. It also costs the same as gas.

[A.Member]

Good point, but what hybrid vans/4x4 are out there?

4WD SUVs -
2007 Ford Escape Hybrid   
2007 Lexus RX 400h
2007 Mercury Mariner Hybrid   
2007 Toyota Highlander Hybrid

Vans -
Scion xB
Dodge Caravan
The eBox
Mercury Meta One
Toyota Sienna Hybrid

That's what's out there. I am making NO claims regarding their usefulness to CAP.

The Dodge Caravan has a E85 option, not hybrid.

The Hybrid Chevrolet Tahoe/ GMC Yukon Hybrids are being shipped now -We have 4 availalbe at our GM store.
The 2009 Dodge Durango/ Chrysler Aspen Hybrid will start shipping in June

E-85... what a useless thing. It is so inefficient to produce that more carbon is used to make it (plant usually use coal and electricity to produce this) than is offset by reduction in oil consumption. In addition, the fuel is only about 82% as efficient as gasoline, which means that more of the blend is needed to run the same amount of miles on the same vehicle which means you actually end up not saving almost any gas/oil. It also costs the same as gas.

Hybrids are just as useless.  Diesel (bio-diesel) is the best of the current offerings in terms of fuel efficiency (which is most important right now) and overall impact.

BTW, non of the vehicles listed above would be very effective at meeting our needs.

[mynetdude]

Good point, but what hybrid vans/4x4 are out there?

4WD SUVs -
2007 Ford Escape Hybrid   
2007 Lexus RX 400h
2007 Mercury Mariner Hybrid   
2007 Toyota Highlander Hybrid

Vans -
Scion xB
Dodge Caravan
The eBox
Mercury Meta One
Toyota Sienna Hybrid

That's what's out there. I am making NO claims regarding their usefulness to CAP.

The Dodge Caravan has a E85 option, not hybrid.

The Hybrid Chevrolet Tahoe/ GMC Yukon Hybrids are being shipped now -We have 4 availalbe at our GM store.
The 2009 Dodge Durango/ Chrysler Aspen Hybrid will start shipping in June

E-85... what a useless thing. It is so inefficient to produce that more carbon is used to make it (plant usually use coal and electricity to produce this) than is offset by reduction in oil consumption. In addition, the fuel is only about 82% as efficient as gasoline, which means that more of the blend is needed to run the same amount of miles on the same vehicle which means you actually end up not saving almost any gas/oil. It also costs the same as gas.

Hybrids are just as useless.  Diesel (bio-diesel) is the best of the current offerings in terms of fuel efficiency (which is most important right now) and overall impact.

BTW, non of the vehicles listed above would be very effective at meeting our needs.

So which ones do you think would meet the needs?

[A.Member]

Up here in snow country, I would like to see some 4x4 Suburbans.

Good all weather and all road capabilities, good interior room, capacity for 8 with a radio console up front, and much better for towing trailers when needed then the 15 pax vans.

I also am in a cold, heavy snow weather climate.  How many times have you actually needed all-wheel drive for your CAP vehicle?  I've never needed it.  Tough to justify the extra cost.  Have you ever tried to put 8 full size people in a Suburban?  And what exactly do you need to tow?  All the gear could fit in the back of a Sprinter.  Having a couple in the Wing might be OK but they aren't anything that should be purchased at squadron levels.

[A.Member]

Hybrids are just as useless.  Diesel (bio-diesel) is the best of the current offerings in terms of fuel efficiency (which is most important right now) and overall impact.

BTW, non of the vehicles listed above would be very effective at meeting our needs.

So which ones do you think would meet the needs?

I threw out my suggestion earlier.   If we sat down with a list of requirements, I'd guess that the Sprinter would best meet the overall needs/mission requirements.  It's base price is the same or less than that of most configurations of the aformentioned Chevrolet Suburban.  Stardard (and realistic) seating for 12 (plus still some room for gear).  Standard safety features include ABS, traction and stability control.  As for fuel efficiency, supposedly 22 city/24 highway.  Not at all bad for the size and type of vehicle.

[afgeo4]

As far as 4x4 is concerned... I used our wing's 2x4 GMC Sierra pickup... crew cab with long bed and a single set-up in back (not dually) and that thing is HORRIFIC in any type snow/ice. I mean it just won't go anywhere. I got stuck in 1/2 inch of snow in NYC one day. The next day there was a small patch of ice under one of the rear wheels an the thing wouldn't move a millimeter. Thank god for the sanitation front loader whose daughter turned out to be an AF Captain. He hooked up a chain and pulled me out. Otherwise it would probably still be in that parking space. I really recommend 4WD on vehicles like that.

[SarDragon]

You didn't need 4WD, you needed a limited-slip (locking) differential.

[davidsinn]

You didn't need 4WD, you needed a limited-slip (locking) differential.

Or some proper ballast.

[c/A1C Johnson]

we should get hummers millitary kind so we can take them off road for es and we can pull peoples cars or people out of floods

[JayT]

we should get hummers millitary kind so we can take them off road for es and we can pull peoples cars or people out of floods

We're prohibited from using them.

[SarDragon]

we should get hummers millitary kind so we can take them off road for es and we can pull peoples cars or people out of floods

If you look back in the thread, you will see that we are specifically forbidden from having certain vehicles, including Hummers. They require a lot of time and money to maintain, and aren't cost effective for CAP.

Would you rather have 10 O-flights or a Hummer?

[mikeylikey]

Would you rather have 10 O-flights or a Hummer?

Tough question.......

Hummer!

[Becks]

A hummer? (H1, H2, H3...is there an H4?) , thats a civilian vehicle, in fact didnt IL wing have one they drove down to Katrina?
Now a HMMWV on the other hand.......

[Eclipse]

A hummer? (H1, H2, H3...is there an H4?) , thats a civilian vehicle, in fact didn't IL wing have one they drove down to Katrina?
Now a HMMWV on the other hand.......

Yes, and with deference to Sam, it was way more trouble (IMHO) than it was ultimately worth.

Real Hum-Vees are not good transport vehicles - they have uncomfortable straight-up seats (try that for 13 hours!)



They get (obviously) terrible mileage, and his was diesel, which made fuel enroute a real concern, especially into the disaster area.  (once in the AO, everything from an agency was diesel, so there were fuel cels all over the place, Sam was gassing up with the Army every day).



Its also pretty heavy and slow, in comparison to the average civilian-esque COV or POV, so that increased our travel time somewhat. Having only 4 seats means its an expensive per-man hauler, too. (you can see the mil-spec trailer he was pulling loaded with water, food and gear.

Now, once in the AO, you obviously want the biggest hammer you can carry, and I understand there were a few times he did get to utilize the capabilities pretty well, and of course you never know what you >might< run into, but for the most part we were in flat, urban areas, so there wasn't a lot of need for advance off road ability (or climbing, etc.).


From my experience, the Ford Aerostar we had turned out to be the perfect sortie vehicle - plenty cushy and smooth for the transit there and back, and room for up to 6 or 7 legally if needed (though it'd be 7 little fellers). 

Once there, we pulled the middle seats, which made it easy-in / easy -out  even with the full rattle on, and left room for a notebook in the middle for navigation.



Now, with all that said, we sure didn't lose any cool points driving around with it down there, that's for sure.   

[♠SARKID♠]

Oh man, I remember the family aerostar from when I was about 6.  My dad used to sing "Hot Rod Aerostar" while driving down the road.  And props on pic #2, thats my beloved Orca2 in the background!

[SarDragon]

A hummer? (H1, H2, H3...is there an H4?) , thats a civilian vehicle, in fact didnt IL wing have one they drove down to Katrina?
Now a HMMWV on the other hand.......

The cadet said hummer. I responded in kind.

[sarmed1]

I think there is no cookie cutter vehicle type that fits CAP operations.  Just like any other emergency service organization the vehicle types and number sare specific to the individual agency (or thinking Fire Department like....station) even to the point not just state to state but even as close as one squadron to the next.  Based on that I think the 15 pasenger van with the occasional 4x4 SUV is the best option for now...only because of the varied mission requirements those two types meet the majority of needs. 
Certainly I can see some special requirements such as mobile command vehicles or commo vehicles.  Specialized 4x4....ie the overgrown ATV's, boats or even light weight pick up type trucks (thinking small 4 door toyota type's) even some large 2 1/2 ton military type (or stake body) for hauling gear and equipment packages (or resupply or fuel bladders/tanks)

mk

[SAR-EMT1]

I think there should be a single`C-130 at national HQ for use in KAtrina like emergencies and also as an IACE taxi.
Impossible to obtain, maybe not -fedex has one - (that i know of)
Thoughts?

[Eclipse]

Our thinking has been a pickup with a pop-up camper trailer approaches the perfect combo.

Relatively cheap, and your team rolls up with a shelter and a sortie vehicle.

(I'm talking ground ops, not activity transport, etc.)

[DNall]

I think a mid-sized hybrid 4wd SUV would be best for ES. With small utility box trailers for extended stay & specialized ES gear. You need something that can haul 6-8 packed in with gear in the TLR, but then comfortably run 4-man teams in the AO, with room for gear plus excess water/MREs when some needs to be given out.

Give me per FOB 4-6 of those & an RV/bus (I know buses are on the list of things we're not supposed to have also) converted to mobile command center (C4ISR), and I'll give you back one hell of a performance.

Set that C4ISR vehicle up for task force command. TLR for sustain & extra gear.... basically let me downlink SDIS/Archer in near real time at an FOB in the mud so I can deliver intel take to the local EOCs/agencies on my FOB while they're still trying to get their feet under them. That's in business right there.

The vans actually are a good compromise. The fact is we do a whole ton more cadet hauling & UDF than we ever will GTM2/1 or greater level taskings. I think for those kinds of vehicles we're better off for the time being depending on member POVs. However, I think we do need to seek funding for several of those C4ISR converted RVs. That's what we're really missing. If you want to find missions we can do in those kinds of situations, comm support on P25 is one of those. Delivering air/grd recon in near real time while everyone else is still on their butts is one of those too (Florida Recon style).

[SarDragon]

I think there should be a single`C-130 at national HQ for use in KAtrina like emergencies and also as an IACE taxi.
Impossible to obtain, maybe not -fedex has one - (that i know of)
Thoughts?

Sure - who's going to pay for it? Who's going to use it when CAP isn't? It's too expensive an asset to leave sitting "just in case" most of the time? It costs about $3800 per hour just for fuel. That's about 38 hours flight time in our normal corporate aircraft. [Numbers rounded a little. Get over it.] Where's the money going to come from?

[DNall]

^ screw all that, who's going to fly it? We have a hard enough time with GA8s, and specifically picked that plane over other options (single turbine or twin piston) for that reason.

[sarmed1]

Our thinking has been a pickup with a pop-up camper trailer approaches the perfect combo.

The Comm king when I was in TX had one of those military boxes that mounts into the bed of the pick up...but extend the legs and it comes off in place and can be attached to a generator for a stay behind comm unit, while the truck goes mobile.

Years a go a friend had the idea to re-arange the van seats (read modify) so they mounted length wise down the sides of the van.  (kind of like the bench seat in an ambulance) you could still seat/belt like 8 in the van plus gear, plus stretcher down the center (basically a more optimal gear hauler while retaining the belted personnel capability)

I dont know about the command vehicle. Yeah sometimes they are useful, but most "field command" locations I have been at still are hard facilities..having all of your gear outside the rest of the  command locatiosn is just a PITA...I like the idea of a mobile command equipment cache, that can be set up anywhere, be it tent, gym or back of a "borrowed RV"

[JayT]

I think there should be a single`C-130 at national HQ for use in KAtrina like emergencies and also as an IACE taxi.
Impossible to obtain, maybe not -fedex has one - (that i know of)
Thoughts?

How often do we have Katrina like emergencies? Who would fly it? Would would loss a spot in flight school because a CAP guy took it? Who's gonna have time to go through the training? Who's gonna maintain it? What do you mean IACE Taxi? Are we really gonna fly this thing to a dozen different countries in the span of a few days?

How much does a hanger for a 130 cost?

Let's worry about the Herky Bird right after we get all of our people compliant with all of our regulations, NIMS, in proper uniform and gear, etc etc etc.

[DNall]

I'm not against us having some larger platforms, but nothing close to a 130. There's a few twins I'd be willing to look at though, in a quantity like the GA8. Something that can do reasonable transport and good operational payload for long duration flights. That opens up some over water HLD, a legit trans capacity, and payload missions (multi channel P25 comm support post-disaster, FLIR with downlink, etc). Something like king air sized but probably high wing & newer than some of the traditional high wing twins. Not the C27J, that's too big.

[N Harmon]

I'm not against us having some larger platforms, but nothing close to a 130. There's a few twins I'd be willing to look at though, in a quantity like the GA8. Something that can do reasonable transport and good operational payload for long duration flights. That opens up some over water HLD, a legit trans capacity, and payload missions (multi channel P25 comm support post-disaster, FLIR with downlink, etc). Something like king air sized but probably high wing & newer than some of the traditional high wing twins. Not the C27J, that's too big.

The Coast Guard will be meeting those needs with the HC-144A (based on CASA CN-235). While half the size of a C-27, it may still be too big.


Another option would be the DHC-6 Twin Otter, which have re-entered production.

[DNall]

Another option would be the DHC-6 Twin Otter, which have re-entered production.

Don't we still have a couple of those in Alaska? It's still on the maint rate chart IIRC. It's a real nice durable aircraft that can handle a less than perfect runway, like for instance after a hurricane.

[N Harmon]

Don't we still have a couple of those in Alaska? It's still on the maint rate chart IIRC. It's a real nice durable aircraft that can handle a less than perfect runway, like for instance after a hurricane.

I believe you're thinking about the DHC-2 Beaver

[cnitas]

That Coastie HC-144A is a nice plane.

[afgeo4]

Are you guys planning to drive these vehicles or is this meant for some other topic?

[DNall]

Are you guys planning to drive these vehicles or is this meant for some other topic?

Meaning the planes, command vehicles, or various GT vehicles that have been mentioned?

The consensus that seems to have been reached is that the current fleet of vans are appropriate to the reality of what we're currently doing - which is not 4 wheelin it thru a fresh disaster zone. We're better off relying on member owned POVs for that capability. In that light there's some suggestions made, most of which are a compromise between room, capability, and fuel efficiency.

On the other hand, there are some vehicles that CAP could benefit greatly from in small but strategically positioned quantities. That being command vehicles & a few larger capacity aircraft.

[SAR-EMT1]

Agreed.  ... As to earlier when I threw out the C-130. We wouldnt necessarily need to train anyone. Im sure there are a handful of folks in CAP who are rated to fly it or maintain it. Cost is another matter.

[afgeo4]

Agreed.  ... As to earlier when I threw out the C-130. We wouldnt necessarily need to train anyone. Im sure there are a handful of folks in CAP who are rated to fly it or maintain it. Cost is another matter.

These folk are very few and very far between and given that they're all volunteers, it would be VERY difficult in the least to get them all in one place at one time. That, plus the fact that they would have to be current in the C-130 meaning that they are currently in the military (Res/ANG)... just won't happen. Nor will them spending many hours driving/flying to the base to then fly for a few hours (crew rest scheduling must be properly maintained)... Nah. Doesn't make any sense.

I wish my squadron had a sea plane. We actually have a ramp for it. We're on a base that used to operate Coast Guard, Navy and NYPD sea planes.

As far as vehicles go (back on topic), I think units need to request specific types of vehicles that they can actually use in their areas. Heavy ES units should be able to ask for SAR trucks (F-350 HD Crew Cab with SAR work compartments in back and a space to secure a litter). Like cadet squadrons need large passenger vehicles (former military green/blue school buses). Commo-heavy units need communication vans (like old USAF crew vans or AN/MSR 1 Misery Com Intercept Van). They should be able to request such vehicles and then CAP should keep these lists in mind when requesting vehicles from USAF.

I think USAF would rather see specific work-related vehicles in need rather than, "hey, just give me something with wheels..." type of thing. Maybe they'll think we actually do work?! Naah... that's too easy.

[JohnKachenmeister]

A C-130 for IACE?

By the time it got to some country, it would be time to go home.  Those planes are slower than a Florida blue-hair on I-95.

The C-130 is the only plane in which the pilot has to worry about bird strikes from the rear.

The vans are fine.  If you want to supplement the vans, a good crew-cab pickup would work.

[mikeylikey]

Those planes are slower than a Florida blue-hair on I-95.

Sir??  Florida Blue-Hair??

Anyway, I would love to see the GSA support CAP more.  Does anyone remember about 7 years ago when the GSA and CAP-USAF/ NHQ were working out a contract for CAP to use GSA fleet on AFAM and other similar activities?  I think it failed because the Corporate Lawyers shot it down. 

I would like to see more DOD vehicular support for thinks like Encampments.  WE don't need a CAP fleet of vehicles, we can easily make use of DOD or GSA vehicles.