Oshkosh Fuel Tanker....too much truck...too little fuel!!!

Discussion in 'Weapons, Equipment & Rations' started by C5H12O, Jan 6, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Although it maybe an improvement on the old Foden TTF's, its not exactly what we asked for was it. Its too big for UK roads, turning circle is crap, too many switches in the cab, the rifle clip are postioned to guarantee you getting wacked in the knees, no comparments, its being used in place of 3rd line tankers where we need large quantitys-not 20000ltrs.
    The Multidrive was flawed but carried the same and was cheaper. Most of the parts you could pick up from a local truck dealer and was a hell of a lot easier to drive in small towns and roads. 1/4 of the budget, from buying Oshkosh, spent on improving it and we may of got a better vehicle. But then Multidrive is not American so it was f**cked from the start!
     
  2. So your RLCTDU never got involved??? or were they influenced from "other" sources?
     
  3. You sound surprised?

    I take it you haven't had much previous experience with the MoD procurement system then?

    Why should your petrol lorry be any different from the rest of the pish that we waste our Defence Budget on?
     
  4. All i can say thank god the UBRE replacement maybe just what we wanted....7000ltrs, hi-mobility, MAN truck and the designers have actually talked to "guys on the ground". Having been round the factory where they will be made i feel good about this buy!!
     
  5. I'm sure the MoD buyers will put a stop to that when they find out;

    1. It works
    2. Its what the blokes want/need
    3. Its not American.

    Cynic? You bet. I fly the winner of the lowest bid.
     
  6. This is a quote from a meeting i sat on during the trip to the factory i previously mentioned..
    "Oshkosh?....lets not make the same mistakes we made with that, with this one"!!!
     
  7. Except that they are...

    One of the major lessons learned from Oshkosh was that in terms of acceptance, you can only hold the contractor to what they stated they would do in the technical response part of the tender - not what was in the original requirements document!

    This seems to have been forgotten for the SV project, and the preferred bidder is very non-compliant in some major areas - but because it 'does what it says on the tin', there is no customer comeback.

    I would say that Oshkosh was the exception to the rule in terms of buying from the US - the usual policy is to buy British even if:
    A) Its ARRSE
    B) It means going through a UK agent, who are just a front consisting of two men and a dog, which will cost the taxpayer more for the same product.
     
  8. Anyone got a link to the Oshkosh tanker? I'm curious to know what it looks like.

    NTM
     
  9. Maybe certain areas of the SV project do have "non-compliance" but the UST side of it, with FLuid Transfer on board, do seem to be listening.
    As for Oshkosh, they also put a bid in for the GST contract. I visited Volvo UK...nice big factory, loads of finger buffet food. Multidrive....small factory but good presentation etc. Oshkosh...well they were actually Ryder Truck, meeting above a rental depot, crappy old office, few ex mil. We finished the 3 meetings and we had a chin wag and all agreed that Volvo would be the ones we would give the contract to. Well in the end it was canned as the SOR required GST to be held by the civilians till the mil wanted them, in the meantime the company would lease them to civilian firms. Well we knew that was a non starter straight away. Then couple of years later low and behold Oshkosh get the CST contract!!! I saw the Volvo CST bid and it was a DROPS lookalike, independent suspension etc...lot better than the Oshkosh! oh well!!