Posted on Nov 20, 2015
Should military use crushing attachments for excavators and backhoes?
14.8K
13
16
4
4
0
What are your thoughts on military equipment operators using crushing attachments on excavators versus crushing plants? (click here - http://bit.ly/mbmilitary)
The Army way to crush rock with a crushing plant:
https://youtu.be/Q55pjFr0uQ4
The Air Force way to crush rock with crushing plant:
https://youtu.be/HhzRqf2YwiY?t=8m17s
Occupations:
Air Force AFSC -
Pavements and Construction Equipment (3E2X1) https://youtu.be/TnEX3ct3MX0
REDHORSE http://airman.dodlive.mil/2013/04/paving-it-forward/
Army MOS -
Quarrying Specialist (12G) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAFAvte2ApU
Horizontal Construction Engineer (12N) https://youtu.be/3Y84_FBKb3k
Concrete and Asphalt Equipment Operator (12V) https://youtu.be/I4J1LgLruzE
Navy SEABEE Rating
Equipment operator (EO) http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/enlisted/community/seabees/Pages/EQUIPMENTOPERATOR.aspx
Marine Corps MOS -
Engineer Equipment Operator (1345) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt_xCQLO3wU
The Army way to crush rock with a crushing plant:
https://youtu.be/Q55pjFr0uQ4
The Air Force way to crush rock with crushing plant:
https://youtu.be/HhzRqf2YwiY?t=8m17s
Occupations:
Air Force AFSC -
Pavements and Construction Equipment (3E2X1) https://youtu.be/TnEX3ct3MX0
REDHORSE http://airman.dodlive.mil/2013/04/paving-it-forward/
Army MOS -
Quarrying Specialist (12G) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAFAvte2ApU
Horizontal Construction Engineer (12N) https://youtu.be/3Y84_FBKb3k
Concrete and Asphalt Equipment Operator (12V) https://youtu.be/I4J1LgLruzE
Navy SEABEE Rating
Equipment operator (EO) http://www.public.navy.mil/bupers-npc/enlisted/community/seabees/Pages/EQUIPMENTOPERATOR.aspx
Marine Corps MOS -
Engineer Equipment Operator (1345) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt_xCQLO3wU
Construction
3E2X1: Pavements and Construction Equipment (DirtBoyz)
12G: Quarrying Specialist
12N: Horizontal Construction Engineer
12V: Concrete and Asphalt Equipment Operator
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 9
2
2
0
Yes. The problem is getting units to use it. I have only seen two active duty quarry's, the one at Ft. Wood and Schofield Barracs. Both see limited use. I was at ft Wood from 2000-04 we done blast and crushing operations every week. I went to Hawaii and their quarry was closed because of deployment. I returned to FLW in 2008 and the Quarry was all but closed. All rock needs were contracted out. This is a huge wast in equipment, money and expertise. All of the money spent could have been used to train the soldiers that do asphalt and quarry how to do their jobs.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
Not sure I am understanding your question. Could we use it...of course...but should we? Should is the past tense of "shall" and if you put "shall" in a reg, well then you have to use it. We definitely have applications in which we can use it. One such application where it is very handy is during airfield pavement repairs. Once the slab is removed, the pieces can be broken down further to make transportation easier. Like LTC (Join to see) said, we should be open to any and all available tools to do the job as long as they are feasible (air transportable for example).
(1)
(0)
SMSgt (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) are you getting a kickback on these attachments?
From an Air Force perspective, I think you need to understand the different missions and our manning levels. We have two distinct capability presentations, Prime BEEF and RED HORSE. RH is primarily large scale construction and PB is primarily base maintenance. There are some occasions where the lines blur but for the most part they stick into those respective lanes.
I have spent time in both, and in the PB world, there is very, very little need for rock crushing capability. PB does not possess the quarry capability, that belongs to RH so the primary application, if any, would be to crush concrete that is removed during slab repairs in a PB unit. In RH, we do have a quarry capability...as you can see in the link you provided. Actually, I was part of the operation in Afghanistan in which we quarried our own rock (mobile plant was transported by C-5 from Malmstrom AFB), batched our own concrete and then slip-formed the lanes. At least we did that until we were presented with more taskings and we had to divert personnel somewhere else leaving us not enough manpower to run the quarry portion. It was much more economical for us to purchase the required aggregates from a vendor in the long run as it freed up not only equipment operators but it freed up our water guys maintaining the well, and it freed up engineers that were performing lab testing on the aggregate mixes.
The crusher attachments in your OP really wouldn't support the needs of large scale construction that we would be crushing rock for. Even a small mobile crusher produces around 100 TPH and the attachment in your OP produces about 67% of that.
In regards to ADR, there is not a need in the current TTPs to crush rock during the ADR operation. At most, it could be used once the airfield is restored and operations return to sustainment...you could go back and crush the debris...but I don't see an ADR application outside of that.
All in all...like I said originally...I think there are places where we could use them but there is not an across the board requirement for them in the CE or RED HORSE world.
From an Air Force perspective, I think you need to understand the different missions and our manning levels. We have two distinct capability presentations, Prime BEEF and RED HORSE. RH is primarily large scale construction and PB is primarily base maintenance. There are some occasions where the lines blur but for the most part they stick into those respective lanes.
I have spent time in both, and in the PB world, there is very, very little need for rock crushing capability. PB does not possess the quarry capability, that belongs to RH so the primary application, if any, would be to crush concrete that is removed during slab repairs in a PB unit. In RH, we do have a quarry capability...as you can see in the link you provided. Actually, I was part of the operation in Afghanistan in which we quarried our own rock (mobile plant was transported by C-5 from Malmstrom AFB), batched our own concrete and then slip-formed the lanes. At least we did that until we were presented with more taskings and we had to divert personnel somewhere else leaving us not enough manpower to run the quarry portion. It was much more economical for us to purchase the required aggregates from a vendor in the long run as it freed up not only equipment operators but it freed up our water guys maintaining the well, and it freed up engineers that were performing lab testing on the aggregate mixes.
The crusher attachments in your OP really wouldn't support the needs of large scale construction that we would be crushing rock for. Even a small mobile crusher produces around 100 TPH and the attachment in your OP produces about 67% of that.
In regards to ADR, there is not a need in the current TTPs to crush rock during the ADR operation. At most, it could be used once the airfield is restored and operations return to sustainment...you could go back and crush the debris...but I don't see an ADR application outside of that.
All in all...like I said originally...I think there are places where we could use them but there is not an across the board requirement for them in the CE or RED HORSE world.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
What a great post and nice photo! thank you for the response! My question is mainly meant to get the word out and see what actual military heavy equipment operators think about the crushing and screening attachments. Since they are not currently being used in the military, I wanted to know why not. I wanted to see what other subject matter experts thought about it and see how they could be used and if there is a need. I have found similar findings to what you posted while doing research for my company.
I agree crushing attachments would not be used as a primary provider of crushing needs to RH units that have their own crushing plants, but as a secondary or alternate crusher. There are also screening attachments that should be included in the conversation. The productivity rate of 9 tons/8 minutes is equivalent to around 67 TPH, depending on the output size, so indeed less as you said. I also think they'd be justified not only for RHS but Prime BEEF and the CES "Dirt Boyz" units as well with application toward acroos the board applications to include base maintanance, runway, road, trail maintenance, crushing of stockpiles, demolition, pipe padding for utilities, recycling, and not just big quarries and mines.
In regards to the crushing plants, how often did that equipment go down for repair or maintenance and for how long? Did this cause any other problems? Could an alternate crusher attachment resolve those problems? Also, how much was spent in time and fuel on trucking the material to the crushing plant when those costs could be avoided by crushing on site?
Lastly, In regards to ADR, I read in the link below that the 823rd and 819th RHS uses TTP that includes a " wheeled excavator with a heavy hammer attachment to break up the concrete into chunks so it can be removed." So wouldn't a crusher be quicker ,better and more versatile?
http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/Media/NewsStories/tabid/9219/Article/476447/11-step-program-repairs-airfield-damage.aspx
I agree crushing attachments would not be used as a primary provider of crushing needs to RH units that have their own crushing plants, but as a secondary or alternate crusher. There are also screening attachments that should be included in the conversation. The productivity rate of 9 tons/8 minutes is equivalent to around 67 TPH, depending on the output size, so indeed less as you said. I also think they'd be justified not only for RHS but Prime BEEF and the CES "Dirt Boyz" units as well with application toward acroos the board applications to include base maintanance, runway, road, trail maintenance, crushing of stockpiles, demolition, pipe padding for utilities, recycling, and not just big quarries and mines.
In regards to the crushing plants, how often did that equipment go down for repair or maintenance and for how long? Did this cause any other problems? Could an alternate crusher attachment resolve those problems? Also, how much was spent in time and fuel on trucking the material to the crushing plant when those costs could be avoided by crushing on site?
Lastly, In regards to ADR, I read in the link below that the 823rd and 819th RHS uses TTP that includes a " wheeled excavator with a heavy hammer attachment to break up the concrete into chunks so it can be removed." So wouldn't a crusher be quicker ,better and more versatile?
http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/Media/NewsStories/tabid/9219/Article/476447/11-step-program-repairs-airfield-damage.aspx
(0)
(0)
SMSgt (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) shoot me an e-mail at [login to see] .mil and lets take this conversation off line.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google