via Oshkosh press release.
OSHKOSH, Wis. (May 31, 2013) — The U.S. Marine Corps has selected Oshkosh Defense, a division of Oshkosh Corporation (NYSE:OSK), to deliver its new fleet of P-19 Replacement Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) vehicles. The Oshkosh P-19R will be the Marines’ first-response vehicle in aircraft fire emergencies at military bases and expeditionary airfields. This next-generation vehicle will provide more advanced on-road and off-road firefighting capabilities to Marines and replace their current fleet of Oshkosh P-19 ARFF vehicles as the vehicles reach the end of their service lives.Simple questions. What happened to the days of the Marine Corps piggy backing off the Navy or Army buys of equipment that was not Marine Corps unique?
Logistics would be simplified across the DoD.
Training would be simplified across the DoD.
During wartime, spares could be pulled from any service to make up for shortfalls.
The old way would seem to be more efficient but then you would have the possibility of manufacturers go out business further eroding the defense industrial base. Still consider the following....
*All the services sport different combat uniforms (while I love the Marine Corps uniqueness and smarts by designing and selecting the current model, there is something to be said for having the same gear across all service lines).
*The Army and Marine Corps use different 782 gear.
*The Marine Corps uses the SMAW and the Army the Carl Gustav (the Israeli weapon is good but so is the Carl Gustav. Does the SMAW bring enough to the table to warrant an individual purchase?)
I don't have the answers but we can't fix this stuff until we can answer basic questions.
Two problems with procurement:
ReplyDelete1. We insist that what is necessary is that we are different from the Army above all.
2. We do not have good Marine officers with real engineering education and experience in key positions in program offices. Instead the system is that the contractors are supposed to supply all engineering expertise.
agree 110%. how do we change that? the answer? it can only come from the Commandant. we need the next guy to be a "back to basics" champion like Gray or Puller or hell...even Mundy.
DeleteThe original P-19 was a joint buy, but the USMC version had additional equipment because the P-19 was the only firefighting vehicle used by the USMC, while the AF had several different types. The USMC version needed capabilities the AF didn't. Same thing again. The AF replaced their P-19s with an F-550 based truck costing less than $180K each, but they also deploy pumpers, tankers, rescues, and 2 larger model crash trucks. USMC will have only P-19Rs and some HMMVs with a set of extrication tools tossed in the bed. It will be the only ARFF vehicle in the USMC, for both MCAS duty and deployments. The logistical and training issues will be minimal, as any OshKosh ARFF truck will use many of the same components, and the price is in line with the average cost for the type of vehicle.
ReplyDeleteThe replacement of the P-19 was 10 years overdue. My concern, as a retired 7051, is that the P-19R is too big. We had enough trouble getting commanders to commit shipping to our gear, this will make it worse. Our community got capability happy and wanted more water plus armor for the cab, which significantly increased the HP/torque/engine/transmission required. I vehemently disagreed when I was asked my opinion, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with this mess.
wow. i didn't know a thing about the road traveled to get this piece of gear. GREAT INFO! quite honestly i went on a tangent and don't believe i made a judgement about whether or not his was effective or not but i see its time to broaden my horizons and look at some of the lesser known Marine Corps gear.
DeleteIs it stealthy?
ReplyDeleteWe have the same problems with the 7-tons. Yes it is a great truck, but doesn't anyone else think it is sad that the Army and the USMC cannot even agree on a truck? In the name of all that is holy it is just a truck!
ReplyDeleteAlso why could we not take a basic 7-ton Mk23-25 and bolt on the equipment needed for crash rescue? Again not ideal but surely easier and cheaper the going through the whole development process of a special truck.
As for uniforms I read the complete GAO report on it and if you really want a read on how messed up the system is read that.
-Air Force tested the USMC desert in a forest and woodland in the desert and declared them inferior to selected Air Force uniform. (No crap)
-Army spent 3 million dollars testing wrote the report and sent it up only to discover that the decision was made already. 3 million dollars wasted.
-Army spent 4 million developoing the new pattern for Afghanistan and it was basically the one that pattern that won the first time.
-The USMC uniform was developoed for 300K proved expectional in Iraq and Afghanstan and is well like by all Marines. So we refused to share with anyone else in America although several foreign militaries have uniforms that are basically identical.
So at the end of the day the USMC developed the best uniform for cheap, refused to share and threw a fit when the Navy developed new uniforms that are basically identical and even blocked the Navy from deploying them to Afghanistan. So Navy Seabees and EOD supporting Marines in the Afghan desert must wear the woodland pattern so that everyone knows they are not Marines but Navy. But SEALS can wear the new desert uniform in Afghanistan, just not everyone else.
0802,
ReplyDeleteThere is a firefighting variant of the 7 ton. However, it is built for wildfires, not ARFF. The 7 ton is way too slow to meet FAA and NAVAIR specifications that require an ARFF vehicle to reach the crash site within a certain time frame. The cost per truck for ARFF vehicles is pretty consistent across manufacturers and models. They use most of the same components and the USMC is building a relatively large quantity for that type of vehicle, so the economies of scale are there. The problem with the development process was that it took 20 years to get funding, and requirements and wish lists kept evolving.
I understand that cost is relatively small on these pieces of equipment but the far larger problem is the one that you mention in your last sentence and that is the requirements wish list constantly evolving. The "dreamquirements" as stated in the "Stop Building Death Stars" DAU article. Instead adapting a 7-ton to fulfil the basics of firefighting duties would have given us the vehicle we more or less need in a very reasonalbe timeframe. I would guess that the USMC spent as much on this program before the aquisition as it spent on the costs of the trucks themselves.
ReplyDeleteThat is the problem and why I think that the procurement system is out of line.
I would like to withdraw at least of my objections. This thing is based on the LVSR. That now makes me wonder, why did it take so long?
ReplyDelete0802,
ReplyDeleteSir, I think you are a little fixated on the 7 ton. Then again, I know a bit more about how this particular case went down.
The 7 ton could not meet the minimum requirements, period. However, there were commercial ARFF trucks that could meet 90% of the requirements off the shelf, and 100% with some minor mods. We kept ignoring those in favor of building one to our own requirements, and the longer funding kept getting pushed to the future, the more the good idea fairies kept adding to the requirements.
Well it was poorly worded but once I learned it was based on the LVSR I dropped at least most of my objections. Bolting the hardware onto the existing LVSR chassis, which is extremely adaptable, works for me and is exactly how I think we should do business, so I was wrong.
ReplyDeleteThat being stated how much was lost or gained going from a 7-ton to the LVSR chassis? You say flat out the 7-ton does not meet the requirements and I acceept that. But are the requirements what we truely needed or could we do with less? Almost any airfield that we operate off of for more than a couple of days would become joint because most MAGTFs would need logistics delivered by C-17 in a short amount of time. Could the Navy or Air Force provide the heavier trucks and we tough it out until they show up? Or are we trading an expeditionary capability for capabilites that are nice but not required? You stated in an earlier reply that you believe this is more likely the MAGTF commander will leave this truck at home because of the weight.
By the way I have come to hate the good idea fairy. Little bastard almsot always screws up more than he helps.