6 of them ^ vs 60 AT-802's
I am not involved in aerial firefighting at all but the guys who operate the SA AT's are in the hangar next door, and from what I have heard (and seen) of how they use them- they are EXTREMELY effective against small to upper medium sized fires. Of course if you got a huge inferno, then not even a skycrane will be able to do much.
One thing it seems people are missing here is the true measure of aerial firefighting- litres on the fire per hour and cost per litre of water. Without having to put up heaps of figures, I'd say the AT's do the job pretty damn well for the price. I'd certainly want 20 or so AT's scattered around the state than 2 CL's based in the capital city!
Why don't the authorities establish an operation similar to the US (can't think of the name) that had federal funding to combat their forrest fires? Surely this would benefit all involved if the states banded together and established a common organisation with common infrastructure?