Wunwing....
Please ignore the anguished expression on my face. I always look this way first thing in the morning.
The rest of the world uses multiple large aircraft in a planned and concentrated attack to extinguish fires as soon as they start.
I'll merely note that (a) "planned and concentrated" attacks are an issue of policy and management, not aircraft size.... and that (b) "The rest of the world" also has fires, some of which are
not extinguished as soon as they start. The first-attack success rate in SE Australia will probably stand comparison with any
similar area in the world.
As for the conversion of old, ex-military airframes for specialist fire work, I'll (for what that's worth) happily consider that as an option when somebody can show that it's both more cost-effective than the current strategy, and does not divert resources from other areas of emergency management that are just as vital.
Here are the key findings from the Bushfire CRC Aerial Suppression Research Project.
~Aerial suppression can be effective in providing
support to ground crews and improve the probability
of first attack success by up to 50 percent or more if
the FFDI is in the low, moderate and high classes.
~For an aircraft to provide effective assistance it must
be available at call, rapidly dispatched with minimal
travel time and with logistical systems in place.
~Air operations effectively integrated into the incident
management structure and competent personnel
need to be available to direct the operation.
~The use of ground resources with initial aerial
support is the most economically efficient approach
to suppression.
~The use of aircraft for first attack until ground
resources reach the fire produces the best outcome.
~Large fixed wing air tankers such as a DC 10 are at
a cost disadvantage. This is particularly the case for
first attack when fires are small and where water
drop accuracy is required.