Satellite possibly but with 3/4/5g?

A continuous link would be nice, but just not having to try and turn pages and navigate in a bouncing truck would be great for some of our “navigationally challenged” colleagues.

Our esteemed Premier could not help herself about Federal funding. Surely she knows that the States fund emergency equipment.

601.
Are you saying that funding for LFAs in Queensland is different to the rest of the States and Territories?

For the rest of us the LFAs are funded through the NAFC, the "N" standing for NATIONAL, which seems to indicate its a Federal body?

There is a good article about some of the conditions of that funding in this Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald and I assume the Mebourne Age.

Wunwing

NAFC is a business unit .... About NAFC | NAFC

1 July 2018, NAFC transitioned to become a business unit of the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFAC). Under the transition plan, NAFC retains its trading name, profile, staff and functions. NAFC will continue to to provide the same level of engagement with the industry and partners to deliver aerial firefighting services.

Members under the NAFC Resource Management Agreement
Australian Capital Territory
Northern Territory
State of New South Wales
State of Queensland
State of South Australia
State of Tasmania
State of Victoria
State of Western Australia

NAFC is the Federal overarching body for contracting aerial assets on behalf of Members, who happen to be all the States and the NT. But I understand that the individual Member pays for the aerial asset that they contract through NAFC. The Feds can fund the NAFC and co-ordinate the use of aerial assets. No use having aircraft sitting on the ground in Qld if there are fires in Vic.

601

Its seems to be a bit more complicated than that.

The extra DC10s and MD80s, according to press at the time, were Federally funded. There were numerous reports when the firestorm broke out that the Feds had taken $11,000,000 out of the budget for LFA aircraft this year. Last Saturdays SMH article discusses when the Federal funding can be used for LFA aircraft.

As usual in this country the whole thing seems a mess but certainly there is joint funding of LFA activities.

Wunwing

So she buys an aircraft that can only deliver about 110 tonnes a day like the NSW 737. That is the 737s historic performance.
Using Morton Bay (Greece and other nations use the Med) a Canadair doing just 6 rotations (drops) per hour (the average in North America) with 6 tonnes per drop for 12+ hours delivers some 400+ tonnes of water/foam on a normal day.
The record for drops per day done by a single Canadair and 2 crews alternating in sorties was 207 drops, hence delivering over 1200 tonnes on that day, Italy July 8th, 2018.

And before you say but Australian fires are different because Aus is hotter and dryer look at Spain. Eucalyptus in the bad fire areas around Pamplona and the same average annual temperatures as the Blue Mountains. The Blue Mountains have 40% MORE rain than Pamplona so the fire risk is worse in Spain.

Spain has 21 Canadairs and uses them intelligently - they, like other countries, use them the moment a fire starts and hit it hard Go to youtube and search for Canadair CL-415 water bombers, and idiots with boats and you will see they are spaced 20 seconds apart - 18 tonnes an hour and 15,120 tonnes per 14 hour day sure beats the hell out of 110 tonnes a day with two hours between drops (so that the fire can dry out the drop zone and start it burning again) and waiting for the fire to be out of control before bringing in the heavy hitters..

OOOPPPS
That should have been 18 tonnes a minute, not hour. In other words, the Croatian Canadair fleet delivers more water in a minute than the 737 historically delivers in two hours. The 146 will have a similar delivery rate to the 737 and, like the 737 can only load as fast as the local water mains can supply the water. To speed that up will cost millions in installing large diameter water pipes to an apron on each airport and having suitable pumps to load at the maximum rate the aircraft can accept. All up she could get two Canadairs for our taxes and have a potent fire fighting asset.
And Canadairs can carry people and supplies, like the 737, though not as many/much. I do not know what the 146 can carry but I suspect it cannot carry people..

You’re forgetting right tool for the right job. you don’t use a ball peen hammer when a sledge hammer is needed.

i used to wonder about VLATS until one day I was bombing in a Bell 412 and was working side by side with a Coulson C130 near ballarat. It was amazing to see the effectiveness for that particular strategy that day on that particular fire and I can categorically say that that particular fire would have gone on for at least another 2-3 weeks of it weren’t for the VLAT and small machines mopping up and directing it to the VLAT lines.

Why not buy a fleet of Beriev Be200 amphibians? Far more sophisticated then turboprop Canadairs. Probably a lot cheaper and more reliable. Perhaps we could do with about 60.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beriev_Be-200


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....953122c17f.jpg

Because theres going to be a couple of dozen of them world, parts, maintainence will probably expensive. The manufacture has pretty much given up on it, its crazy expensive 40-50 million per plane, you can buy a 737 lat for that price.

Cl-515's would be a better cost benefit, still a few years away but think they will be a be the new thing

There is a very good costing of capability /costing of the various types on the Fire aviation site.

What is interesting is the difference between the 146 and the later RJ and the B737 v MD80 series.

Clearly at this stage the much lower purchase price is a major factor with it seems similar running costs.

The argument about filling times reflects the lack of permanent and temporary infrastructure. In North Amercia there are permanent bases with holding tanks which allow rapid fill and turnaround times. They also use air transport capable bladders for the same end. Its amazing how much water can be moved quickly with a breath of compressed air and a large hose?

It seems to me that this operation in Australian must be Federal and it must be standardised on 2 LFA types. That appears to be the B737 and the Bae 146 or RJ.
I wonder if the low LFA utilisation is a product of costs rather than ability to be far more productive?

Wunwing

The time thing is more related to total turn time


One of the main operators of the a BAE/RJ has started producing an external tank that fits to dash 400 aircraft. The official name is https://conair.ca/conair_fleet/q400-airtanker

for some reason timecodes are not quite right have to watch that for about 30 seconds


Blanco liro (youtuber) had a chat to someone from the company last year

Its worth looking at the Fire aviation site for costs of delivery on the various types. The appropriate page is dated 13/2/20.

The Dash is not listed because the only operating examples are French registered and the FA figures are based on the US contact.

The French Dash 8s are also use for general civil defense work as both freighters and pax and as such can justify newer aircraft compared to limited use fire bombers.
Wunwing

And that is what I am saying - a maximum of 1200 tonnes proven from the Canadair (under ideal conditions that almost never exist) but based on North American figures 36 tonnes per hour average versus 15 tonnes every two hours from the 737 means the Canadair is the sledge hammer with 4.8 times the 737s delivery on average in NA. Using a fleet like many European countries do they can lay down more than 15 tonnes per minute - that is a massive sledge hammer being some 120 times more than the 737 making it a plastic toy ball peen.
And I am not saying VLATs or helicopters or cropdusters do not have a place on the fire front. The VLAT are excellent for creating a chemical fire break ahead of the fire but it is tonnes per hour delivery that wins the day in Europe and VLATs cannot provide anywhere near what the Canadair does. At the other end of the scale helicopters and cropdusters can go even lower over small areas and dowse them more efficiently than larger aircraft.
The C-130 may be able to go as low as the Canadair but the only jet that can is the Bae146/RJ85, which can extend the speed brakes so that it can carry almost takeoff power while flying slowly. All other jets have long spool up times to contend with so must fly higher which results in wider dispersal of the drop -- roughly four times as much if you just double the altitude. Wider dispersal reduces the battering ram effect that the lower drops can achieve. That in turn knocks over hollow trees that if left standing keep spewing hot embers which cause relights and spotfires.
Obviously if the airport has a system that allows rapid reloading and the fire is very close the VLAT may catch up to, or even exceed, the Canadair in tonnes dropped but how many airports in Aus have the ability to load at the maximum rate the aircraft can accept?
Have a look at this years fire zones and the various dams like the Hume weir, Eildon, Thompson and other dams, plus those areas mother nature provides and with relatively long distances the Canadair can still compete with the VLATs because most require a full blown major airport to operate from and the combination of on ground time is what slows them down. The Canadair reloads in 12 seconds without dropping much below takeoff speed and can operate from smaller airports. The VLAT has to land taxi load taxi takeoff and it will never approach 12 seconds.
If the VLAT was permitted to abbreviated approach and departure more time would be saved but if the nearest airport has RPT then it must join the circuit with what ever else is out there.