i have forgotten how to do polls so just go with it. :(
Do you think CAP should have H1 Hummers Wagons instead of vans?
Yes!
No.
or Both
Quote from: usafcap1 on April 07, 2012, 04:07:34 AM
i have forgotten how to do polls so just go with it. :(
Do you think CAP should have H1 Hummers Wagons instead of vans?
Yes!
No.
or Both
I think CAP might do well to have a few such vehicles for instances where SAR work goes into "the field"...however, the CAP VAN is the primary method to transport cadets en masse from place to place. They are also no longer in production...last year was, if memory serves, 2006. We can't sacrifice "function" for "cool."
So, the answer is NO.
No not fuel efficient and hardly any cargo or passenger capacity.
No.
The are useless as transport vehicles - seat 4 max and anyone who has every ridden in one for more than an
hour knows that it is a toss-up which will cost more - fuel or the chiropractor.
Expensive for SAR.
Expensive for repairs.
No longer manufactured.
Jeeps or other similiar scale SUV's are much more appropriate for CAP.
H1's are impractical for CAP use.
Full size vans like the econoline are great for CAP, although I think Ford is ending the production of Econoline vans this year IIRC. Quigely does offer 4wd conversions for full size vans and is something CAP should look into. They are factory approved modifications. I've driven them. You just have to remember the center of gravity is higher.
If the vans won't work, crew cab pickups would work fine.
http://www.quigley4x4.com/Home.aspx (http://www.quigley4x4.com/Home.aspx)
chevrolet suburban offers 7 passenger capability with storage and more 4x4 than 99% of the missions need. Much better option
I really like the Ford Expeditions we have running around in some places. Between those and the vans the vast majority of our missions should be covered, at least here in ILWG.
No.
Quote from: isuhawkeye on April 07, 2012, 05:12:19 AM
chevrolet suburban offers 7 8 passenger (driver + 7) capability with storage and more 4x4 than 99% of the missions need. Much better option
FTFY.
H-1s are one of the vehicles specifically forbidden for CAP use/ownership for these reasons:
a. They are VERY expensive to buy and maintain.
b. They are totally impractical for CAP use for reasons stated above.
Nah man, you need an MRAP or a Stryker. You never know what we might run over or hit >:D
In all reality, no, a hummer wouldn't be practical, or even cool. A Ford F-350 would be great, and for the cool factor, try to get away with less CAP stickers and maybe a new surround sound system 8) (I kid, I kid, with the surround sound system). Hummers are a pain to maintain, they don't have much space, and you can find MUCH better transports than it. I'll be the black sheep and say I absolutely hate vans because they are just useful for transports. I get why we have them, and that for most squadrons, they are practical (and mainly the only thing they can get in this economy), but I'd rather have a a few trucks and a minivan than just one van.
YMMV.
I'd say YES...only if they were painted safety orange with huge bold lettering on the side "CIVIL AIR PATROL SEARCH AND RESCUE". Also, they need several flashing yellow strobes. ;D
Quote from: Walkman on April 07, 2012, 03:41:05 PM
I'd say YES...only if they were painted safety orange with huge bold lettering on the side "CIVIL AIR PATROL SEARCH AND RESCUE". Also, they need several flashing yellow strobes. ;D
The word "Civil" needs to be in ALL CAPS and made with blue LEDS that are constantly lit.
Wouldn't want to be confused with the "real" military. That would make us wannabes!!!
Some sort of SUV would make more sense, better fuel efficiency and passenger capacity, similar capabilities to HMMV.
Here in FLWG, we have a handful of nice expeditions. Of course, the nicest one is issued to the Wing Commander, another one to the CV, one has a DDR Wrap on it, and there's a few others elsewhere. They can seat 8 so are decent for transport, as well as being ideal for back country SAR. They have CAP and aircraft band radios and a light bar. Something like this is way more practical for our use. Though, I'd love to find a stockpile of good condition Bronco's out there somewhere! :)
Vans are just fine. Definitely no need for hummers. No need to be anywhere with a CAP vehicle that you need 4wd or super high clearance anyway Walk that extra quarter mile or so if needed.
I would be interested in an examination of whether we could actually save money by eliminating the vans and most CAP ground vehicles and just paying gas costs for personal-owned vehicles. The only real advantage the vans offer is having radios mounted in them for ES work. This is not something I'm actively advocating without such evidence, but it seems worth considering.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 07, 2012, 09:40:55 PM
No need to be anywhere with a CAP vehicle that you need 4wd or super high clearance anyway Walk that extra quarter mile or so if needed.
You don't live where it snows do you?
Not so much now, but I have.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 07, 2012, 09:40:55 PM
Vans are just fine. Definitely no need for hummers. No need to be anywhere with a CAP vehicle that you need 4wd or super high clearance anyway Walk that extra quarter mile or so if needed.
I would be interested in an examination of whether we could actually save money by eliminating the vans and most CAP ground vehicles and just paying gas costs for personal-owned vehicles. The only real advantage the vans offer is having radios mounted in them for ES work. This is not something I'm actively advocating without such evidence, but it seems worth considering.
Um, no. If you drive a POV on a mission, you are on the hook for any damage or personal liability. Without CAP coverage on a corporate vehicle, I'm not driving anywhere. My umbrella policy only goes do far.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 07, 2012, 10:05:18 PM
Not so much now, but I have.
I need 4wd to get out of my freaking driveway some days. No joke. You get out of the city and the plows take the better part of a day to get everything. Having some 4wds scattered around an area up in these parts would be prudent.
Quote from: davidsinn on April 07, 2012, 10:17:20 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 07, 2012, 10:05:18 PM
Not so much now, but I have.
I need 4wd to get out of my freaking driveway some days. No joke. You get out of the city and the plows take the better part of a day to get everything. Having some 4wds scattered around an area up in these parts would be prudent.
So, since CAP generally doesn't have 4wd you're saying that we've been totally unable to field ground teams on a regular basis due to snow problems?
Quote from: RiverAux on April 08, 2012, 12:16:20 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on April 07, 2012, 10:17:20 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 07, 2012, 10:05:18 PM
Not so much now, but I have.
I need 4wd to get out of my freaking driveway some days. No joke. You get out of the city and the plows take the better part of a day to get everything. Having some 4wds scattered around an area up in these parts would be prudent.
So, since CAP generally doesn't have 4wd you're saying that we've been totally unable to field ground teams on a regular basis due to snow problems?
No, I'm saying it could impact ops if the conditions are right. We haven't had many sorties in this area that weren't related to summer storms in quite a while.
I always thought the HMMWV was one of the most dangerous vehicles we could put on the road... and that was during my time in the Army. Having had to drive them on many occassions through a wide variety of conditions from heat to snow to rain and just about everything in between, I have to confess there were plenty of times I thought the least that would happen would be that I'd take out several civilian vehicles. They're terrible on ice (I had mine 90° sideways on a narrow city street once - very scary), loud on highways, awful at the pump, and garbage for seating capacity and comfort. Granted, out Econolines can't mount a .50 caliber or Mk19, but that's not really part of the mission. :)
About the only thing I found they were pretty good at that translates vaguely to CAP was their ability to run through water up to the hood, and the ability to climb some seriously steep grades. Just doesn't seem to justify the expense of acquiring and operating the beasts.
Quote from: RiverAux on April 08, 2012, 12:16:20 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on April 07, 2012, 10:17:20 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 07, 2012, 10:05:18 PM
Not so much now, but I have.
I need 4wd to get out of my freaking driveway some days. No joke. You get out of the city and the plows take the better part of a day to get everything. Having some 4wds scattered around an area up in these parts would be prudent.
So, since CAP generally doesn't have 4wd you're saying that we've been totally unable to field ground teams on a regular basis due to snow problems?
My wing has 4 ford SUVs and a ford truck that has all wheel drive.... Im pretty sure the wing next to us has at least that many as well.
Quote from: Pump Scout on April 08, 2012, 12:55:22 AM
I always thought the HMMWV was one of the most dangerous vehicles we could put on the road... and that was during my time in the Army. Having had to drive them on many occassions through a wide variety of conditions from heat to snow to rain and just about everything in between, I have to confess there were plenty of times I thought the least that would happen would be that I'd take out several civilian vehicles. They're terrible on ice (I had mine 90° sideways on a narrow city street once - very scary), loud on highways, awful at the pump, and garbage for seating capacity and comfort. Granted, out Econolines can't mount a .50 caliber or Mk19, but that's not really part of the mission. :)
About the only thing I found they were pretty good at that translates vaguely to CAP was their ability to run through water up to the hood, and the ability to climb some seriously steep grades. Just doesn't seem to justify the expense of acquiring and operating the beasts.
******** you missed something- as a former MP I can state with personal knowledge that you can string up a hammock inside for a snooze in the field, which could be beneficial at times >:D
Quote from: davidsinn on April 08, 2012, 12:28:10 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 08, 2012, 12:16:20 AM
Quote from: davidsinn on April 07, 2012, 10:17:20 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 07, 2012, 10:05:18 PM
Not so much now, but I have.
I need 4wd to get out of my freaking driveway some days. No joke. You get out of the city and the plows take the better part of a day to get everything. Having some 4wds scattered around an area up in these parts would be prudent.
So, since CAP generally doesn't have 4wd you're saying that we've been totally unable to field ground teams on a regular basis due to snow problems?
No, I'm saying it could impact ops if the conditions are right. We haven't had many sorties in this area that weren't related to summer storms in quite a while.
If the snow and ice conditions are so bad that the only way to get around is in 4wd the chances are that they are too dangerous to be driving around in 4wd either -- at least for CAP operations. If someone wants to leave their house in 4wd to go to the grocery store (or their job for that matter), thats up to them but its pretty much a no go for CAP. Its one thing if you're doing it in a vehicle you drive every day and for which you fully understand its capabilities and limitations, but quite another for a CAP vehicle that you probably haven't driven for months and chances are have never driven in really bad conditions.
We don't need them at all. If any old military vehicles would come in handy I'd say the CUCV would seem like a better fit.
I will however say that I was in the Army and my unit has more HMMWVs assigned to it for field use than any other unit in the whole US Army (seriously, we had a plaque in the motor pool NCOs office from GM for it). I've ridden a whole bunch in those things and they are far from comfortable but are purpose built and work well in the field. I've heard from some people who are still in that they're not even allowed outside the walls now in Afganistan though because the IEDs have gotten bad enough that it takes out even the up armored ones easily.
As far as the maintenance goes I don't agree that they're a nightmare. With proper training and maintenance they can be extremely reliable. The problem most guys have with them, that served in the military, is that they drove HMMWVs that had been driven before by young kids with an invincible attitude and maintained by mechanics with a "that's good enough" mentality.
This would be cool. I don't think CAP could get the EPA exemption to run the diesel pickups as they have no emissions stuff on them.....
http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_lssv.php (http://olive-drab.com/idphoto/id_photos_lssv.php)
I know of a unit that used a few old CUCVs and they ran solid.
This is silly. Frankly, why the CAP doesn't get some old M-114's or M-113's for off road work I don't know. Oh-Wait, the M-114 Recon Vehicle, light, fast, Chevy 283 cu in engine, fun to drive but had some real problems in Vietnam getting over rice patty dikes head on, so forget about these and go with the M-113. Gas and Diesel variants were made, the M-113 can carry a load of people (and supplies) has great off road capabilities, and if CAP is ever called on to help quell civil unrest, the 113 can even mount an impressive array of weapons (see M-113 ACAV). But as I grew up (or older, I can't remember which) the Cav and my tastes changed. Clearly an M-1 Abrams won't be of much use to CAP but what about the M-2/M-3 Bradley? What about the OH-58D Kiowa?
I remember seeing in National Geographic Magazine a story of some CAP Squadrons in the 1950's located in Fl, SC, and NC near the swamps that had a few CAP DKUW's (I think that's what they were called) wheeled amphibious vehicles for use in swampy areas. If these had been a sucess, CAP would still have them (same as with the 0-1's, T-34's, L-20's and such the USAF gave the CAP in the 1960's). CAP needs equipment that can do the job, and inside the lower 48 states (Alaska being somewhat different) that means commercially available vans and pick up trucks and maybe an old school bus here and there converted into a mobile communications central. Only paint the CAP Emblem and an ID # on the roof so CAP Aircraft can identify the correct vehicle on the road enroute to an event site.
Meanwhile, the toys of my youth, the M-114's, M-113 ACAV's, OH-58's, and such will reside in museums, memories, and as models on the bookshelf - where they now belong.
Quote from: SarDragon on April 07, 2012, 07:13:13 AM
FTFY.
H-1s are one of the vehicles specifically forbidden for CAP use/ownership for these reasons:
a. They are VERY expensive to buy and maintain.
b. They are totally impractical for CAP use for reasons stated above.
+1
CAPR 77-1 sec 1-6
Given the choice between a vehicle even the military didn't want any more and a 7 pac van or SUV with 10-30k on it, I'll take the latter every time.
My Squadron had a CUCV for years, and it was solid as Sears. Major problems were hard to source ( 24 Volt) parts, and no air conditioning, and only enough room for 2-3 passengers. I wonder if the people who want HUMVEES have spent any time in the real vehicle? ( as opposed to the civilian HV) It rides like a skateboard, its noisy, uncomfortable, and lots of sharp widgets inside to bang your knees, knuckles and elbows on. They are very fatiguing to drive . In Northern California, a 4 X 4 is ideal for our snowy Sierras, and low altitude wet lands, and deserts. I would much prefer a Civilian Suburban ( not the diplomatic protection service variant with a pop-up mini-gun, although it would be great for road rage.....) Lots of room for passengers, gear, and it has nuclear heating and A/C to help you stay alive after you have been toasted or frozen in the bush. Passenger vans are good for cadet programs and UDF missions, but they are not all weather machines.
Major Lord
Hummers are maintenance nightmares. As a heavy machine gun section leader and Plt Sgt I had 8 of them. CONSTANT Mx......and expensive Mx to boot.
A few years ago, the AF decided they were not going to support (pay for maintenance) the CUCVs any longer. Therefore, CAP returned them to DLA (fmr DMRO).
I have a 4WD 'Burb, and I love it. Driven reasonably, I average almost 14 mpg, and it's got 107,000 miles on it. Just barely broken in. Seats 8, or 5 with lots of gear. Tows 5500 pounds. $45K+ out the door is a bit of a turn-off though.
As for buses, we can't have those either. They had maintenance and licensing issues. The stuff CAP got from the AF was pretty thrashed, and required a lot of upkeep.
Quote from: SarDragon on April 08, 2012, 05:47:29 PM
$45K+ out the door is a bit of a turn-off though.
You weren't turned off at "14 mpg"? >:D
Absolutely no need for an Hummer.
Would not be opposed to a 4x4 quad-cab pickup or a 4x4 SUV.
Quote from: Cliff_Chambliss on April 08, 2012, 02:30:23 PMMeanwhile, the toys of my youth, the M-114's, M-113 ACAV's, OH-58's, and such will reside in museums, memories, and as models on the bookshelf - where they now belong.
Aw, you left out my favorite... the Gama Goat.
I know several local Scout camps that still use the goat. ( surplussed from Chanute AFB to local councils when the base closed in the early 90's)
Took a ride on one a few times. . . Although I shudder to think what a PITA maintaining them was / is.
I don't see what you guys are on about, I think its a great idea. :P
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/YZhqvZ35nNyXWgpTV83ubweadCE4DASVQ4zvthhhTgmP0-YdyjcrGPnbyGOg5QRqUWcvqQ1SqE9Oc_ZdYDGhg_cq5w)
I'm sure the U.S. Military has a few Hummers they would be glad to give us. They weigh over 6000 pounds and I'm sure the fuel cost of diesel to drive them would leave them sitting around a lot. The cost of maintenance is a big consideration also with most anything on an H-1 that needs to be fixed. On a side note I know of a local Police Dept that took receipt of a donated UH-1 Huey Helicopter. The donor threw in 2 additional scrapped Hueys for spare parts. The Police Dept couldn't afford the cost to keep one flying.
I think a six passenger 4WD Chevy supercab truck or a Suburban would be a better bet as a standard vehicle for CAP.
I'm not sure how many of you actually go off-road with your vehicles, because there is one thing you are missing with regard to the H-1. In addition to reasons supplied already, the Hummer H-1 is simply too wide of a vehicle to access remote trails.
More appropriate would be a Jeep:
(http://www.jgms.com/resource/medium/13e45cad074f4a78967dbf86edc6f5cb.jpg)
The advantage with the Jeep is that it is flat-towable behind a CAP van, and can be deployed when needed.
Quote from: N Harmon on April 09, 2012, 12:35:16 PM
The advantage with the Jeep is that it is flat-towable behind a CAP van, and can be deployed when needed.
Not to mention cheaper to purchase, cheaper to own, and
they are still manufactured. Besides, I don't think you'll ever find a video game themed H1
(http://www.digitalnoob.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/fi1.jpg)
Hummers are silly for pretty much any civilian use.
I've seen a few of those MW3 Jeep Unlimiteds on the lot. Nice, but not worth the overcharge for the bling. A nice Rubicon or Sahara may be in my future soon.
Quote from: Spaceman3750 on April 08, 2012, 06:17:40 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on April 08, 2012, 05:47:29 PM
$45K+ out the door is a bit of a turn-off though.
You weren't turned off at "14 mpg"? >:D
It was a consideration, but it fits my needs. I can carry around 8 people, or juggle the seats and carry 4'x8' sheets of whatever, totally weather-proof. A pick-up is cheaper, and gets a little better MPG, but doesn't do what I want. And, I have managed to successfully repress the urge to barf when I spend $100+ to fill my tank.
Quote from: Nathan on April 09, 2012, 02:34:00 PM
Hummers are silly for pretty much any civilian use.
I had a client with a cattle ranch. The Hummer was good for carrying lots of hay, dead cows, etc. Good farm vehicle.
Major Lord
Quote...carrying lots of hay, dead cows, etc.
Like this: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=15111.msg272272#msg272272 (http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=15111.msg272272#msg272272)
Mike
Oooooh, snow cats! I would love to drive a tracked vehicle around Napa, CA! I am sure my neighbors would be delighted...
Major Lord
In Napa, an M-1 would be better than a Snow Cat.
Quote from: Woodsy on April 07, 2012, 06:13:06 PM
Here in FLWG, we have a handful of nice expeditions. Of course, the nicest one is issued to the Wing Commander, another one to the CV, one has a DDR Wrap on it, and there's a few others elsewhere. They can seat 8 so are decent for transport, as well as being ideal for back country SAR. They have CAP and aircraft band radios and a light bar. Something like this is way more practical for our use. Though, I'd love to find a stockpile of good condition Bronco's out there somewhere! :)
Bronco's are a High risk vehicle. meaning their pron to tipping over when driving
Well, we have mutually exclusive conditions - prone to tipping over, and good condition. The former units are at least 35 years olde, and likely not in good enough condition to be useful to CAP. The newer, full-size units, do not have handling issues.
Quote from: niferous on April 08, 2012, 03:45:01 AM
We don't need them at all. If any old military vehicles would come in handy I'd say the CUCV would seem like a better fit.
oooooo aaaaaaaaaah painted trucks
Ford Bronco
Fuel mileage isn't the greatest expect to average 12-13 MPG with a bone stock truck
The tailgates had a tendency to rust on the bottom
The brakes are bit undersized for the weight of the vehicle, hence a set of front pads don't last as long as you might expect
The automatic hubs aren't the best, mine never failed, but plenty of people had theirs break
They ten to tip over
The only major repair that I had to do on mine was a transmission rebuild around the 170k mile mark.
http://answers.yahoo.com
What year is that commentary about? Do you own it, or is this just something you got off the 'Net?
The link is useless, since it goes to the Yahoo! Answers home page.
Quote from: SarDragon on April 10, 2012, 05:29:47 AM
What year is that commentary about? Do you own it, or is this just something you got off the 'Net?
The link is useless, since it goes to the Yahoo! Answers home page.
off the Net
Without additional details, your info is essentially useless, by being too generalized.
Quote from: Bluelakes 13 on April 09, 2012, 02:50:05 PM
I've seen a few of those MW3 Jeep Unlimiteds on the lot. Nice, but not worth the overcharge for the bling. A nice Rubicon or Sahara may be in my future soon.
As stated, the only Jeep worth having to actually go off pavement - The Rubicon, all others not worth having except for mall cruising. Beyond that, MAYBE the Toyota FJ Cruiser.
Outside of that, and for personnel transport, the 12-pax vans currently being provided seem the best bang for the buck, but it would be nice if they had limited-slip diffs for added traction capability.
Quote from: LTC Don on April 11, 2012, 09:38:38 PM
Quote from: Bluelakes 13 on April 09, 2012, 02:50:05 PM
I've seen a few of those MW3 Jeep Unlimiteds on the lot. Nice, but not worth the overcharge for the bling. A nice Rubicon or Sahara may be in my future soon.
As stated, the only Jeep worth having to actually go off pavement - The Rubicon, all others not worth having except for mall cruising. Beyond that, MAYBE the Toyota FJ Cruiser.
Outside of that, and for personnel transport, the 12-pax vans currently being provided seem the best bang for the buck, but it would be nice if they had limited-slip diffs for added traction capability.
Actually, when you consider that the operating cost of a 12 passenger van is much higher than a 7 passenger, the cost per passenger per mile is roughly equal ("bang for the buck"). That's not factoring in MX costs which I can only assume are higher on bigger, older vans. Yes, you can carry more people, but nobody in their right mind tries to carry 12 people in a 12pac for any extended period unless they have very small, non-whiney cadets.
Quote from: LTC Don on April 11, 2012, 09:38:38 PM
Quote from: Bluelakes 13 on April 09, 2012, 02:50:05 PM
I've seen a few of those MW3 Jeep Unlimiteds on the lot. Nice, but not worth the overcharge for the bling. A nice Rubicon or Sahara may be in my future soon.
As stated, the only Jeep worth having to actually go off pavement - The Rubicon, all others not worth having except for mall cruising. Beyond that, MAYBE the Toyota FJ Cruiser.
Outside of that, and for personnel transport, the 12-pax vans currently being provided seem the best bang for the buck, but it would be nice if they had limited-slip diffs for added traction capability.
I'll fight you on that one, my 2001 Cherokee (last year of the standard size Cherokee) could go almost anywhere. Even had it out at "2 Bravo" at NESA during a medical emergency call several years ago, 2005 or 2006. A student passed out from dehydration and a 12pax van tried driving down the humvee course to get him. They didn't get very far. I strapped a backboard to the roof of my Jeep, tossed an EMT in the passenger seat, drove around the van to get to where we needed to be. Then went back to drag the van back to a graded trail.
A Jeep Wrangler Unlimited (4 door) would be a great ground team vehicle, room for 4 with web gear on and storage room for 72hr gear in the back. Holds 5 for shorter distances without gear (3 in the back seat gets a little cramped, it's still an SUV, not a full size van). A Sport (the current base model) would be plenty as long as you upgraded the tires from the base street tires to match the all-terrain tires that the Sahara comes with. The only real benefit to the Rubicon is the mud tires and locking differentials which aren't needed for most driving. And you can order the other models with a limited slip rear diff. I now have a 2012 Rubicon and lead trail rides for my local Jeep club, most of the guys don't have lockers and still get through some pretty tough rocky mountain trails. Save the $5000 you'll pay extra for a Rubicon and buy 2 shovels and a couple recovery straps. :) Rubicons also get less (2-3mpg) gas mileage due to the mud tires and steeper axle gearing.
The type of terrain where you would need the capabilities of the Rubicon (locking differentials and/or sway-bar disconnects), is not the type of terrain a CAP ground team needs to be taking a vehicle through.
As previously said, just about any model Wrangler would do. I see them as a good compromise between CAP not allowing us to use ATVs, and our need for some kind of off-road capability.