Thread: Usaf p34

  1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    122

    Default Usaf p34

    Looks like the USAF has a new piece of apparatus coming on line.....

    6/23/2011 - TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) -- Soon Air Force firefighters will have a new weapon in their arsenal. The P-34 Rapid Intervention Vehicle will be in production by late September 2011.

    With a capacity of 500 gallons of aggregate firefighting agent, the P-34 RIV will be smaller and more agile than the older vehicles currently in the Air Force's crash response fleet. Built on a Ford F550 chassis with an enhanced front axle, the cab is designed to accommodate three firefighters and their equipment. The UHP turret, mounted on the front bumper, is powered by a four-stage, high-pressure centrifugal pump that discharges 60 gallons of firefighting agent per minute. The turret is designed to be joystick operated by the driver in the cab. The RIV can deploy the UHP turret while modulating around the fire, or from a static position.

    At less than $160,000 each, the RIV will replace the authorization for the older P-19 vehicle, some of which have been in service since the 1980s.

    The Air Force is in the process of buying at least 207 RIVs, which will reduce the age of our vehicle fleet...

    Here is the entire story....

    http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123261191

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    441

    Default

    "Pierce Manufacturing in Bradenton, Fla." too bad.

    Perhaps is a Pierce Bean (to follow the Pierce Bronto and the Pierce Snozzle)?

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Outside Philadelphia
    Posts
    519

    Default

    For those not in the know, this vehicle is bad, bad, bad. It was designed with one purpose...cut staffing. They followed the Navy's precedence with this vehicle.
    A Fire Chief has ONLY 1 JOB and that's to take care of his fireman. EVERYTHING else falls under this.

  4. #4
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JTFIRE80 View Post
    For those not in the know, this vehicle is bad, bad, bad. It was designed with one purpose...cut staffing. They followed the Navy's precedence with this vehicle.
    I wouldn't doubt that at all. According to the article, the P34 will have a crew of 3. Years ago when I was new and so was the P19, we had a crew of 4. I know that the USAF had been experimenting with UHP, but it was mainly placed on units like the Gator and such protecting tent cities. I'm really surprised that they would put this unit in place of an actual ARFF. I'm certainly not upset to see the P19 go. Heck, I thought the old P4 would do circles around the P19. We couldn't even fill up the P19 all the way with fuel because of the angle of the fill on the fuel tank!

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    710

    Default

    From the article:
    "With new UHP technology, that same 1,000-gallon vehicle is now equivalent to 3,500 gallons of firefighting capability."

    I am skeptical of any technology that claims to defy the laws of physics. 3,500 gallons of water will absorb more BTU's than 1,000 at any pressure.

    I can't help but think of the old high pressure pumps sold by John Bean for structural use. As we now see, that innovative technology became a fire service staple.

    The UHP technology sounds like CAFS adapted to aircraft application.

    C6

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,284

    Default

    I was a WiANG CFR FF from 1991 to 1998 and the idea of CAFs for ARFF was being thown aound back then. The Air Force was spending some money doing research and the amazing part to me is they seemed to be talking to, and actually listening to, some line firefighters.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    gunnyv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    1,436

    Default

    They have been working on UHP for years now. If you haven't seen it in action, you will be surprised. The USAF has copious test results proving it works for ARFF. I have less concern for UHP's effectiveness than for the durability of a F550 with a 500 gallon tank plus equipment.

    My larger concern is for USMC ARFF. We have tied our future to a $1M+ "P-19 replacement" that is little more than a 1000 gal commercial crash truck painted green and with the capability to up-armor. In the fiscal future we face, how do we justify such a purchase when another service replaces the same truck with something that costs 15% of our choice? Especially when 2/3 of those vehicles will never leave a stateside airfield.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnyv View Post
    They have been working on UHP for years now. If you haven't seen it in action, you will be surprised. The USAF has copious test results proving it works for ARFF. I have less concern for UHP's effectiveness than for the durability of a F550 with a 500 gallon tank plus equipment.

    My larger concern is for USMC ARFF. We have tied our future to a $1M+ "P-19 replacement" that is little more than a 1000 gal commercial crash truck painted green and with the capability to up-armor. In the fiscal future we face, how do we justify such a purchase when another service replaces the same truck with something that costs 15% of our choice? Especially when 2/3 of those vehicles will never leave a stateside airfield.
    Good ideas Top, I will push the thoughts along to some folks that can make a difference. Semper Fi.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Outside Philadelphia
    Posts
    519

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnyv View Post
    They have been working on UHP for years now. If you haven't seen it in action, you will be surprised. The USAF has copious test results proving it works for ARFF. I have less concern for UHP's effectiveness than for the durability of a F550 with a 500 gallon tank plus equipment.
    My personal feeling is that UHP is awesome. I also think in time, it will make it's way back to the "civilian" world. That said, I have always had an issue with something/anything that reduces staffing.

    To DennisTheMenace, see what you can do about getting rid of the pointless Silver's that we use. Thanks.
    A Fire Chief has ONLY 1 JOB and that's to take care of his fireman. EVERYTHING else falls under this.

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Command6 View Post
    From the article:
    "With new UHP technology, that same 1,000-gallon vehicle is now equivalent to 3,500 gallons of firefighting capability."

    I am skeptical of any technology that claims to defy the laws of physics. 3,500 gallons of water will absorb more BTU's than 1,000 at any pressure.

    I can't help but think of the old high pressure pumps sold by John Bean for structural use. As we now see, that innovative technology became a fire service staple.

    The UHP technology sounds like CAFS adapted to aircraft application.

    C6
    My response to THAT overrated claim? Koolaide BOOSCHIT! T.C.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    gunnyv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    1,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JTFIRE80 View Post
    To DennisTheMenace, see what you can do about getting rid of the pointless Silver's that we use. Thanks.
    ^^^^^^^That, 100% that.

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    gunnyv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    1,436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DennisTheMenace View Post
    Good ideas Top, I will push the thoughts along to some folks that can make a difference. Semper Fi.
    Don't get me in trouble

  13. #13
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    My response to THAT overrated claim? Koolaide BOOSCHIT! T.C.
    Extinguish more fire with less water, fewer personnel, and with a less expensive apparatus.

    If it sounds too good to be true.......

    C6

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. USAF Fire Statistics
    By Andyboyfire in forum Federal & Military Firehouse Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-21-2008, 06:38 PM
  2. USAF relations
    By Thoe1 in forum Innovative Community Programs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-2000, 05:22 PM
  3. USAF Firedawgs
    By Thoe1 in forum Emergency (& Non) Entertainment
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-2000, 11:51 AM
  4. USAF Firedawgs
    By Thoe1 in forum Fire Buffs' Firehouse
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-2000, 11:49 AM
  5. Looking for USAF Fire Classmates
    By phxfyr in forum Meet and Greet
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-23-1999, 01:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register