Lucerne is basically correct, we do have a system that works fairly well when properly tasked, the SEAT is an effective tool when correctly used. the large helos are a very good complement to the SEAT fleet, and this is supported by a large number of call when needed SE FW ACFT.
Our topography, geography, water resources, population quantity and density, our vegetation is all different to most of the USA that i have visited. this is not to say that large tankers can't technically work, but our current SEAT system is flexible and versatile and is highly cost effective for our little bit of paradise.
Ultimately it is the ground based assets that do the hard work and the aerial fire attack fleet assist them as much as possible, again when tasked properly.
I have flown SEAT and have spent time in the US visiting fire bases, including CALFIRE at mcClellen in Sacramento. rows of converted P3s P2s C130's and firecats, even 747 with OV10 bird dogs and again rows of kingairs.
if anyone really REALLY thinks that one convair is going to be effective when california alone has all of that inventory of aircraft, as well as numerous super well equipped fire bases capable of loading eight or ten large tankers AT THE SAME TIME, then you are sadly deluded. the USFS and other departments tip many times more into their fire suppression fleet than we do, so can support this huge aerial armada. just the CALFIRE base in sacramento makes our air force look pathetic in comparison.
No doubt the whole debate will start again soon with summer on the way, but here in Vic the government has slashed fire fighting funding on the basis that we are unlikely to have as bad a season as during the drought, so on that basis alone i cannot see a significant investment in aerial firefighting assets in the immediate future.
HD