Usaf p34

[rmcatee1]

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

[fireinfo10]

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

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

[JTFIRE80]

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.

[rmcatee1]

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!

[Command6]

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

[FyredUp]

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.

[gunnyv]

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.

[DennisTheMenace]

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.

[JTFIRE80]

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.

[Rescue101]

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.

[gunnyv]

To DennisTheMenace, see what you can do about getting rid of the pointless Silver's that we use. Thanks.

^^^^^^^That, 100% that.

[gunnyv]

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

[Command6]

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