Practical Fire Bomber ?

[Flying Binghi]

There's been discussion here before about what is a suitable fire bomber for Oz.
We can likely scratch one from the list for it looks like the 747 based Super Tanker has some problems...

"...Fire Commissioner says there is no operational need for the massive American firefighting aircraft, the police, which operates the plane, insisted on using it over the Jerusalem Mountains on Saturday. On Sunday, however, it took to the air and circled idly over the Israeli shoreline..."


Looks like the Israelis suffer from the same inter agency bickering we got in Oz. (I wonder if the issue were which agency will foot the bill.:hmm:)
"...police demanded to use the firefighting aircraft in the forests that border Highway 1, while the Fire & Rescue Authority determined there was no operational need for it..."
Ynetnews News - Fire commanders, police at odds over Supertanker (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4885003,00.html)


Some amazing videos of bomber flying below rooftops in the middle of a city:
Ynetnews News - WATCH: Friends in need: Many countries send firefighting aircraft to Israel (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4884637,00.html)






.

[Ascend Charlie]

Not much use in Oz anyway - runways that can take a fully loaded 747 are a long way apart. And imagine the time lost getting in and out of Sydney and taxying around to wherever a big enough garden hose is to fill it up again.

C130 is probably the better bet, with its STOL capability.

[continueapproach737]

What about the P3 Orion? Raaf retiring, good solid robust aircraft with performance

[Capn Bloggs]

runways that can take a fully loaded 747 are a long way apart.
You must be the advisor for WA Minister Joe Francis who said, during the fire that burnt Yarloop to the ground, the DC-10 would be useless because there were no jet runways 15 minutes south of Perth (or similar), Yarloop being a whole 60nm south...

[logansi]

As a CFA volunteer and pilot i beleive, large air tankers are not suited to much of Australia from both an aviation and fire point. As pointed out above runways which can handle large tankers are few and far between. From the fire perspective retardant bombing in Australia is not as effective as they are in the US. Australia bush has a very thick canopy which 'collects' most of the drop and as a result the fire just moves along under the drop in the ground fuels, American pine forests are not as dense. Australian fires also have a tendency to spot much further than US fires meaning breaches of retardant lines are much more common.

[Art Smass]

or the BAe.146 based tanker??

[Old Farang]

Does anyone know the story behind this old Neptune? Several years since I saw it at Cunderdin airport in WA.

Aircraft Registration Photos - VH-NEP - JetPhotos.Net Aviation Photos (http://www.jetphotos.net/showphotos.php?regsearch=VH-NEP&view=true)

[navajoe]

The DC 10 was flying out of Willy a few weeks ago bombing fires a few minutes away, how did it do?

[Octane]

Martin Mars! No need for suitable airfield and "reloads" are very rapid... :-)

[SnowFella]

Both the 10 Tanker DC 10 and a Coulson C130 have been based at Richmond RAAF base for quite a few weeks now and both have seen a fair bit of use. I'd guess if it wasn't for them there would of been property losses during some recent fires here in Sydney's west.

This was shot just 3 odd weeks ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6AlwhjF9pU
DC-10 turns up about 2:50 in

This was the view from my backyard during that fire, had started getting ontop of it by this stage.
http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj576/Snowfella/Dyxum/DSC09800_zpshcyxx6t6.jpg

And the same view the week before while it was still out of control.
http://i1268.photobucket.com/albums/jj576/Snowfella/Dyxum/DSC09631_zpswstjf3hl.jpg

[Dropthegear]

CL-415... Purpose built. Any modified or converted aircraft come with issues, one of which is old outdated airframes. Large commercial airliners actually have very limited firefighting scenarios where they can be effective and safely used.

DC

[Band a Lot]

A combination of aircraft is "The Best Practical Fire Bomber" Some large converted ex-airliners B747/A380 (not too long to relocate from say Adelaide, Sydney and Perth) could work on large fronts and CL-415 (based at more locations about Australia) could be more dedicated areas, a few smaller and choppers to deal with spots and protecting local areas like houses.

One size wont fit all, we need a fleet with a National approach .

[aintsaying]

What about a Convair CV580?
Just call Barry Lapointe at Kelowna Flightcraft in Kelowna BC Canada.
He will get Conair to slap a tank on and you'll have one here in no time.
I'm sure he has a few on CV580's spare at the moment...........

[Ascend Charlie]

The CL-415 is always promoted, but we are different from Canada, where a long lake is in the bottom of every valley. Try to find a body of water long enough to make a run on, without lots of dead trees in it, and it has to be fresh water - the authorities won't let you drop salt water as its residues kill the vegetation and pollute the soil. Turnarounds of more than 20 minutes are not very helpful.

[witwiw]

- the authorities won't let you drop salt water as its residues kill the vegetation and pollute the soil. Turnarounds of more than 20 minutes are not very helpful.

That wasn't the case in the Otways fires last Dec/Jan in Victoria. The choppers were filling their buckets from the ocean. Got the video to prove it.

[Sbaker]

I second the C130 as a fire bomber..... why not make it a part of the ADF.... They already assist with disaster relief, and have trained pilots on a salary - so it would not cost the taxpayer that much extra - as oppposed to paying private companies stupid amounts of taxpayer money to be on standby....

They are selling a whole bunch of C130's, why not convert 2 to fire bombers?... one for East coast, one for West coast... it is literally just a module you fit inside the cargo bay called MAFFS. Not rocket science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Airborne_FireFighting_System

If you want an idea of how much we as taxpayers pay to have private fire fighting aircraft on call. (and I am not sure if this is year round - the figure could just be during fire season?) - Firefighting choppers cost millions on stand-by - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-19/firefighting-choppers-cost-millions-on-stand-by/401846)

Victoria alone, $18 million a year to have fire fighter aircraft on STANDBY (and then heaps extra once they are called out).... much better to have a RAAFie on a salary, on fire fighting duties, who can also get some more stick time... and then when it is not fire season.. it can just be a regular old C130 lumping stuff around... in an hour or so.

But it's not just about money at the end of the day... there is something far more important which this system could save.

[havick]

Victoria alone, $18 million a year to have fire fighter aircraft on STANDBY (and then heaps extra once they are called out).... much better to have a RAAFie on a salary, on fire fighting duties, who can also get some more stick time... and then when it is not fire season.. it can just be a regular old C130 lumping stuff around... in an hour or so.

Do you have any idea the cost to the taxpayer to staff those proposed RAAF C130's? I think you'll find that your numbers won't add up.

[Sbaker]

Havick. Yes, get the defence force to do it.. we as a taxpayer pay them the same amount in salary wether they fly or wether they sit around.. so just utilising the resources we already have without adding too much cost (in comparison). So it would not be a civilian operation - but more like how the USA do it as an extension of the air force reserves.

That was the point I was making sorry if it didn't come across clear.

[Wunwing]

This topic seems to come up on this site every year about now.
The problem is that there seems to be no perfect "fire bomber".
Each fire is different and the final cost of each fire is different.
The final cost of a fire may or may not justify the large cost of a large or very large aircraft kept on standby for a season in an area.

I was at the site of the NSW Springwood fire a few years ago. My parent lived in the adjacent retirement village and I was taking them home when it started in a nearby paddock. When I first saw it, it was a small grass fire.
The cost of that fire was huge and despite denials, people died as a result. The problem was that they were old and died as a result of being moved off site into sub standard accommodation. Was the cost of their deaths factored in to the cost? Not that I saw.

The problem of that fire was that early on the resulting traffic jam stopped ground based fire vehicles arriving and the fire got away. Early this year I watched the DC10 drop retardant on a fire north of Wollongong. I have no doubt after watching that drop that the Springwood fire would have been out within minutes if the DC10 had been available. So I have no hesitation in saying in the Springwood fire the DC10 was the perfect aircraft for THAT fire.

As far as the criticism of old airframes, the CV580s, C13os and L188s seem to be working well elsewhere. The newer Bae 146 etc still have to prove themselves. The fact is that low utilisation vehicles and aircraft cost wise will always be leftovers. The economics aren't there for new equipment. The trick here is to pick good solid, reliable aircraft and the CV580 is just that.

Wunwing

[Lancair70]

NSW Rural Fire Service were dropping salt water on a fire at south Ballina a few weeks ago. One local chopper and one of Pays Air Service Air Tractors with floats filling up in the Richmond River. The air tractor was doing approx 120 sec turn arounds the fire was so close to the river.

[havick]

SBAKER, have you personally flown in both Australia and the US on fires? Your posts indicate that you haven't.

[Sbaker]

SBAKER, have you personally flown in both Australia and the US on fires? Your posts indicate that you haven't.

Nope. I was just suggesting that we utilise assets we already have. - and not have to pay extra for personel when you have ADF members that can be trained to do the task... You know we are already paying the RAAF for the C130 and crew wether it flies or not.. surely it would not be hard to buy 2 modules and have one on standby/alert during fire season...

You know why go and spend a crap load to get private overseas companies for the large water bombers when you could do the same here in-house without that much ADDED cost (compared to overseas large water bomber contractors).

[havick]

What you're not accounting for is that the RAAF are already utilising their C130's for what they were intended for in scope. You would essentially be taking a large chunk of the current fleet out of service to be on standby for a separate tasking. If you simply have the current aircraft sitting on standby, then they would not really be dedicated for the task as they could disappear elsewhere at a moments notice for other RAAF tasking.

To add firefighting would realistically need more airframes and more crew and all the infrastructure and knock on effect that would entail.

Once you factor everything in it's still far cheaper to have contractor aircraft and crews for the summer, and then they disappear for the winter. Not to mention you have crews with years of experience of firebombing as opposed to RAAF crews cycling in and out on various postings and duty cycles.

I'm not saying the RAAF guys can't do it, I'm simply saying it's far more expensive than you think it is for them to do it, along with the fact that you won't truly have dedicated availability like contractor aircraft.

Also, in the US when you're flying on the fireline and you see the integration of the guard machines, I think you'll find the effectiveness of their machines vs contractor operated machines vary greatly (as it's not a secondary duty for contractors so to speak). Just ask the USFS, Dept of interior, BLM (for the USA) if they prefer to have contractor or guard/military machines on the line. It's not uncommon to see contractor pilots flying a UH1H with a longline bucket put out 3-4 times the amount of water (accurately) than a Guard Blackhawk crew with 3x the lift capacity simply due to the proficiency of the contractor pilot doing it day in and day out. The military crews that are only doing it part time often hinder the contractor crews as they screw up the pattern/timing of the dips for everyone else because they're so slow. It's not their fault and I know they're doing a good job for the training and experience that they have, but it's just not what they do all day everyday.

**Note; I'm not knocking military pilots, they're great at what they do but firefighting isn't something that you just do 2-3 drops and you become expert level at, just like any other type of niche flying.

Hope this helps.

[Stanwell]

The MAFF System was trialled by the RAAF (using a C-130H) in January of 1983 during the Grampians fires in Victoria.
After all aspects were considered, the decision was made to use private contractors for the task in the future.

[Dropthegear]

Thinking that using military crewed C-130's for firefighting is cheaper than contractors is not correct. You don't just ask a mil crew to quickly do a few water drops in between their normal job. Operating firefighting aircraft is a totally different flying skill than you can imagine. Crews must be trained, then skills maintained, to operate safely. Military crews are extraordinary at what they do, but they don't fight fires. If you want to add it to their to-do list, you need to equip them, then train them, then maintain all the skills = LOTS of money. Plus, you are going to eat into the life of the a/c like you won't believe.

Every nation, everywhere, seem to look at firefighting costs the same way. Governments budget an unrealistically low number, hoping the fire season will be small. Fire seasons are increasingly becoming longer and more intense. There is no cost once a fire starts destroying property or lives, especially when it starts into a town or city.

Also, the CL-415 is not just a water scooper. It is a very rugged short field a/c that can land anywhere and be reloaded on the ground in minutes. I'm not trying to sell any airplanes, just pointing out what I think the best all-round medium water bomber is.

DC

[Sbaker]

Ah ok, thanks for the insight.. I don't have any experience in these sorts of things! :)

[Sunfish]

Please understand that the objective criteria is litres per hour on the target under operational conditions.

B747, Dc10, amphibians have more difficult to satisfy operational requirements than those for a Helo with a bucket.

[gerry111]

I think military aircraft are more about starting fires than putting them out.. :O

[havick]

Please understand that the objective criteria is litres per hour on the target under operational conditions.

B747, Dc10, amphibians have more difficult to satisfy operational requirements than those for a Helo with a bucket.

Actually the LAT's and VLAT's aren't really used for direct attack at all, they're used for putting retardant lines down as part of the overall strategy of containing the fire. They are very good at that effort, but direct attack they are not very good at all.

The Coulson C130 on the other hand works well at both direct attack (if necessary) AND retardant lines. From sitting in my B412 or 212 helo I've seen the Coulson C130 do an awesome job getting into the same tight spaces that 802 air tractors get into and put lines down in valleys with great precision.

It's all about the right tool for the task on hand at the time. For example on open terrain and fast moving fires, the VLATS can put down retardant lines that can significantly slow down the advance of a fire (while using helo's and 802's to hit to spots jumping over the retardant lines) and buy the ground crews enough time to get in place with the overall attack strategy.

[BPA]

Looks like Buffalo are going with smaller firebombers.

Buffalo Airways awarded contract to operate N.W.T.'s new water bomber fleet - North - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/buffalo-airways-contract-fireboss-water-bombers-1.3879534)

[chimbu warrior]

CL-415... Purpose built. Any modified or converted aircraft come with issues, one of which is old outdated airframes.

The Buffalo Airways contract that BPA mentions above is on behalf of the NWT government, who are buying AT-802's to replace CL-215's. If the Canadians consider the 802's (which we already have lots of in Australia) a better tool, why consider CL-215' or -415's?

[A Squared]

What you're not accounting for is that the RAAF are already utilising their C130's for what they were intended for in scope. You would essentially be taking a large chunk of the current fleet out of service to be on standby for a separate tasking. If you simply have the current aircraft sitting on standby, then they would not really be dedicated for the task as they could disappear elsewhere at a moments notice for other RAAF tasking.

To add firefighting would realistically need more airframes and more crew and all the infrastructure and knock on effect that would entail.


This. Not only is the plane dedicated to fire standby, to the exclusion of any other activity, but also when it is on contract, during the day, the crew is sitting there at the airplane, or very close, pretty much doing nothing but waiting for a request and ready to start running the before start checklist.

Certainly it is technically feasible for the RAAF to *also* provide this service, *in addition* to what they already do, but the notion that thy could provide this service at no additional cost is silly fantasy.

[Sunfish]

Very glad to see such informed comment. I've hopefully learned a lot. Two of Coulsons Sea Kings are on standby here at Mansfield.

[A Squared]

Very glad to see such informed comment. I've hopefully learned a lot. Two of Coulsons Sea Kings are on standby here at Mansfield.

One of those is actually an L382. T131 is a C-130Q and T-132 is an L382G If you see them on the same ramp, you'll probably notice that T-132 is significantly longer than T-131.

[Duck Pilot]

Is Coulson associated with Lynden Air by any chance? Lynden Air is an Alaskan based C130 operator, they had a couple of C130s operating out of Nadzab in PNG a few years ago.

[A Squared]

Is Coulson associated with Lynden Air by any chance? Lynden Air is an Alaskan based C130 operator, they had a couple of C130s operating out of Nadzab in PNG a few years ago.

Yes. T-132 is a Lynden L382 on lease to Coulson and partially crewed by Lynden aircrew.

[SnowFella]

Dropping salt water at the Patonga, NSW fire right now. RFS just put up a videoclip showing a Skycrane refilling using the scoop offshore and then heading into Brisbane waters NP to offload.

[Duck Pilot]

Thanks A Squared, thought that may have been the case.

[Flying Binghi]

Hmmm… I wonder how much money will be wasted on overblown heavy tankers this ‘fire season’ ? Can the country afford them ?

[Pinky the pilot]

Hmmm… I wonder how much money will be wasted on overblown heavy tankers this ‘fire season’ ? Can the country afford them ?


The perennial question, FB. :hmm:

AFAIK, no-one 'in Authority' has ever answered sufficiently as to whether or not Australia should ever have its own dedicated Fire fighting aircraft.

Others here may know.