The Army's TFFT

[Tiredoldman]

Is there anyone else out there NOT impressed with this thing? Truthfully, I think I'd rather have the refurbed MACI back.

[JTFIRE80]

OshKosh= Great Truck Manufacturer
Pierce= Great Fire Apparatus Manufacturer

OshKosh Pierce TFFT= *****

I can't blame Oshkosh though, as this is what the Army asked for. Just look at the chassis, there was literally no other way to do it, and the end-user suffers do to lack of forsight by Army Brass.

The 1 Awesome thing about the TFFT is its BII though. Most of that is 2nd to none!!!

[Tiredoldman]

Yeah, I have to agree the equipment itself is top notch. It just irks the sh*t outa me that there were definitely other options out there, but NOOOOO we know your jobs better that you guys do.

I came out of retirement for this!?

[FWDbuff]

The MACI was one of the biggest schitbarges I ever had the displeasure of using, no wonder the canuks shipped it down to us.

Never had to use a TFFT. Can't comment on those other than I saw the two pre-production models when they were at Aberdeen Proving Ground for field testing, and thought "Schit thats BIG!"

[shortimer52]

We got a few of the first ones off the line at my unit. A few months later the engineers came down to ask us what we think about it. Man they were very proud of it, and then we started in. No trash line, the 2 foot gap in between the steps on the one side on the rear crew compartment , A/C sucks, you guys cant be firefighters to design a thing like this, etc, etc, etc. Well by the end of the day they were ****ed and left early if I remember right.

I don’t think it’s totally crap, but it’s what the army asked for and I’m guessing it was by a bunch of brass who (once again) thought they knew the enlisted job better then the enlisted.

But we did get camo bunker gear about the same time, really neat stuff. To bad it don’t fit.

[Tiredoldman]

Camo bunker gear?! I'd like to see a pic of that! Does it have reflective striping?

[ryguy1]

maybe im a little slow, but i still can't figure out the point of seperating the cab???

[Tiredoldman]

There's no room behind the main cab. That's where the engine is. The idea was to take a current military chassis, and build a fire truck around it. Myself, I think there are better chassis out there than the HEMMT.

[gunnyv]

As a Marine used to P-19s, I couldn't believe the size of the TFFT. Must be double the size for the same water capacity. We're hoping to go smaller, not bigger, to meet the expeditionary requirements. The USMC is backing the USAF research into the ultra high pressure units, hoping to drop the water requirement to 750 gals per truck. We throw all of our rescue gear in a HMMV.

Best thing about the TFFT, IMO, was the equipment that comes with it. I'd love to get issued all that rescue gear with the truck, than to beg, borrow, and stel it from unit funds.

[Tiredoldman]

The turning radius on this thing is horrendus. It can't even make a complete circle in the motor pool lot. Everything seems to be electrical and I wonder who's going to fix that in the middle of the desert-or whereever.

Gunny, you should see the list of additional equipment that's being issued (maybe). I about crapped myself when I saw it. They had better come up with a tactical heavy rescue if they want us to carry it all. Everything from confined space, hazmat, wildland, building collapse, and other stuff I can't remember now. They have even included a Bobact front end loader and John Deere gators. This is for EACH firefighter team. We have 3 in my location.

I agree with the AF attempts with the high pressure P-19's. Frankly, with a few modifications, I think the P-19s a tanker, and some type of rescue or cargo type truck would have been fine for the Army.

Anyone think that a 4 door FMTV chassis with a fire body on it would have worked better?

[gunnyv]

Personally, I'd like to see us go even smaller than the 750gal truck. Anything that big runs against the MAGTF commander's intent to maintain a small footprint. That's one the reasons we don't have a deployable tanker in the USMC inventory. With the contractors taking over in the base areas, we should be making ourselves smaller so we can get to the fight. I'd like to see something like the HMMV mounted quick attacks seen at the airports. With the UHP system, 200 or 300 gallons on 2-3 rigs would be good enough for most of the work. Combine that with the Gator mounted UHPs the USAF has for FOBs and FARPs, and I think we would be far more involved than we are today.

[Tiredoldman]

I think Army wise, we'll still need a large vehicle (larger than a HUMMER anyway) to carry all of our equipment. Something like a medium duty RIV maybe. But, I'll probably be retired again before that happens. I think this TFFT is going to be around a while.

The science behind that UHP system is interesting, but I'll bet you hear a lot of screaming and hollering if this gets adapted to the civilian world.

[someguythatisonheretowastetime]

Saw one up close and personal at Goodfellow and at 6' 1" I think I maybe a little short for that thing, you have to climb way up to get at the pre-connects. But I would agree with Top in the fact it is not much of a rapid deployment vehicle, cant just drive 'er into a C-130 and go. I wouldn't pass up the chance to take it off roading like you see on the Oshkosh site. What about a vehicle based on the MTVR? That would be a pretty high step too though. My Air Guard unit still runs P-4's on the front line though so we take what we can.

[gunnyv]

rc,

I tried to pass along an MTVR based water tanker with preconnects and a front mounted turret at the ARFF conference a couple of years ago-0 interest due to size. "Why would a MEF commander take that when he loses the ability to take a standard MTVR which can tow arty or chow?",,,,"Too much weight and cube".,,,etc.

[ryguy1]

Saw one up close and personal at Goodfellow and at 6' 1" I think I maybe a little short for that thing, you have to climb way up to get at the pre-connects. But I would agree with Top in the fact it is not much of a rapid deployment vehicle, cant just drive 'er into a C-130 and go. I wouldn't pass up the chance to take it off roading like you see on the Oshkosh site. What about a vehicle based on the MTVR? That would be a pretty high step too though. My Air Guard unit still runs P-4's on the front line though so we take what we can.

yeah everything on it seems to high up. and way to much electric systems going on. the army unit we sometimes train with always is having problems with there systems. they say it sprnds a lot of time out of service. a lot more than itshould for a new truck

[shortimer52]

Camo bunker gear?! I'd like to see a pic of that! Does it have reflective striping?

Well here’s the screwing thing about that. The gear is reversible with the standard bunker gear outer shell, moisture barrier, and an insulating thermal liner. THEN you have another, moisture barrier (If I remember right) and then the camo outer shell. You can’t take it apart to be washed either and how this all meets NFPA I have no clue but some how it dose.

Now why would you need camo bunker gear? I’m still trying to figure that out. Like I said really cool but not practical.

If I remember right there is no reflective striping on the camo side but it’s been a while since the last time I turned it inside out. Give me a little and ill dig it out and take pics.

[ryguy1]

heres a thought. what about a small p-4 to fit into the new (small c-130) c-27?

[USArmyFF1]

First off, if this applies to you, good. If not, disregard and keep doing your duty as best you can.

I love listening to the know-it-all morons here. I don't give a **** if you work for New York or whatever. Your "insight" is worthless here.
The TFFT is currently the truck we use and it does a fine job. The purpose of these vehicles is TACTICAL, not for your podunk volley community. Get a clue and realize that military firefighting IS NOT civilian firefighting. The dolts who want brush trucks or commercial models would be SOL in the middle of nowhere on a FOB supporting aircraft. The equipment on it is far better than anything we've had before.
On a personal note, I've got over 20 years as an Army firefighter and I have YET to see any unit or deployment I've been on work like a civilian department. It seems the ones who speak the loudest know and understand the least. I don't care what truck or equipment they give me. Interspiro, MACI, OshKosh, etc. I will STILL get the job done with a bucket, a dunk tank, and a couple of motivated soldiers. Don't like my attitude? Shut your whiny suck and go to the Air Force.

[BoxAlarm187]

Way to bring up a 2-year-old thread. And where were there any references to anyone's civilian department in this thread?

[ShredddinCali]

First off, if this applies to you, good. If not, disregard and keep doing your duty as best you can.

I love listening to the know-it-all morons here. I don't give a **** if you work for New York or whatever. Your "insight" is worthless here.
The TFFT is currently the truck we use and it does a fine job. The purpose of these vehicles is TACTICAL, not for your podunk volley community. Get a clue and realize that military firefighting IS NOT civilian firefighting. The dolts who want brush trucks or commercial models would be SOL in the middle of nowhere on a FOB supporting aircraft. The equipment on it is far better than anything we've had before.
On a personal note, I've got over 20 years as an Army firefighter and I have YET to see any unit or deployment I've been on work like a civilian department. It seems the ones who speak the loudest know and understand the least. I don't care what truck or equipment they give me. Interspiro, MACI, OshKosh, etc. I will STILL get the job done with a bucket, a dunk tank, and a couple of motivated soldiers. Don't like my attitude? Shut your whiny suck and go to the Air Force.

Seems like everyone on this old thread are giving their honest constructive opinions about the vehicle and I'm pretty sure no one is comparing or contrasting deployed firefighting versus civilian tactics. Who works for New York?