​​​​​​In NSW, that's what Forestry Corporation and NPWS firefighters used to do before most of them were made redundant a few years ago.

Hazard reduction burning isn't a magic bullet. It helps, but the suggestion that if you HR burn everything all the time you're not going to have massive bushfires is pure idiocy. It's not going to burn all the fuel, even if you did have perfect weather and infinite manpower to safely burn everything every year (which we don't.)

When you get a bunch of wet years, followed by a bunch of dry years, this is what's going to happen. And it's going to happen more frequently with a changing climate and a warming planet.

I've been fighting fires down the south coast for much of the past two months.
​​​​​​
We've had fire rip through spots we had back burned two days before, and the answer for this is simple physics. A crowning eucalyptus fire at 70000kW/m2 is going to burn a lot of fuel that a mild 500W/m2 backburn or HR burn isn't going to consume.

We've also had cases where burning roots and stumps left in the ground have ignited leaf matter and bark that has fallen to the ground after the previous fire has gone through, starting another one.

​​​​​There was a running grass fire where fire went through the same spot twice in five days. The top of the grass burned, leaving the grass below exposed to dry out. That grass too eventually went up.
​​​

Then don’t. Let the RAAF have them.

There isn't a single fact in this post. There is, however, a lot of Alex Jones conspiracy theory type stuff. I won't try and address any but the most ignorant points.

That figure is a fabrication, and you know it. 24 arsonists have been charged this year, and none of the large campaign fires going at the moment we're started by arson.

For a party that's never been in power anywhere, ever, those greens are pretty powerful eh?

Bushfire abatement works are effectively exempt from environmental legislation. Always have been. Safety wins every time.

Open nation parks up for grazing? You'd never see your sheep again and your cows would starve. You'd also destroy the ecosystems that places like Canberra rely on for their water supplies.

In my old brigade, about 30% of our callouts every year were illegal burns lit by idiot farmers that had gotten away.

No reason they couldn't be full timers. We pay the AMSA crews year round and they fly what, 150 hours a year?

With the bombers flying non stop during fire season and doing a bit of training in the off season, over a year they'd probably average the same sort of utilisation.

After a season like this one the B737 bomber crews might even find more hours in their logbook at the end of the year than the AMSA guys.

The heart of the issue is that any solution (more waterbombers, more permanent fire staff, more hazard reduction, volunteer incentives, maybe even relocation of people out of high risk fire areas?) is going to cost a lot of money (it’ll be half a billion dollars for the hazard reduction burns advised by experts in NSW alone).

It’s a complicated problem and there’s no real answer to it except for large increases in spending, are we as a nation prepared to do it?

I don't have pictures at hand (and I am not sure they are releasable but I will check) but the combination MAAFS systems and C-130 is a VERY bad combination for the C-130. A user of this combination back in the mid 80's ended up grounding one or two C-130 (carrying MAAFSbecause of the corrosion.

Australia will make much better use of those Beriev Be-200 Altair with their water scooping ability and higher speed.

LIGHTNING starts most major fires. The CFA doesn’t do fuel reduction burns, the professionals do. The Greens haven’t been in power because labor and liberal governments have pandered to their supporters by adopting the greens nutty environmental policies.

Our CFA station is also an NSP. it’s surrounded by dead killer trees and the council won’t let us remove them because they are habitat trees - until the next fire.

We already have a system that could form the basis of scheme. The reserves, it would take a federal govt that wants to stand up and want to get involved (both politically and financially) and of course legislation change. But it has all the fundamental required for both a full time and an as required force

Purchase of some 737 tankers, they are common plane, ground crew, aircrew spare parts are easily available. The airframes themselves are at a premium atm due to max grounding but that will solves itself soonish, they could be based anywhere in australia due to being such a common aircraft in mainline airlines. Obvious first choice is they base out of where ever the P-8's will be and a RAAF / could be responsible for storage / maintainence during non a fire fighting periods

On the smaller end there have been good results from these float attached 802's

I dont think Cl are the answer unless you get some of the new ones being designed and then multi role them, maybe get some for amsa for a rescue and they can be called up into firebombing roles if and when required

I would imagine there would be enough full time work for local assets. Indonesia is not far away and regularly uses some form of aircraft.

In a year like this there would be no chance of owning enough assets and ones would need to be brought in regardless. Having the assets year round though would allow all kinds of flexibility.

As for CASA and operations, one would not envy that CP!

People are confusing Greens with greenies.

For example, this from something other than the Murdoch press

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d5421390a2.jpg

Talking to the Navy guys in Tumut the other day. They have the ability to sling buckets. But they don't have any. Can't be an overly expensive purchase to kit out the army/Navy choppers to help out more when necessary?

Torres.
Its already been done.
Check our VH-NEP?

I think a major issue is most people think the RFS/CFA are "supplemented" with volunteers that fire fight.

The "firefighters" are the volunteers in the rural areas.

Urban firefighters get paid and work for Fire and Rescue and are responsible for fires in their boundaries. The similarity could be Fire and Rescue NSW and the airport fire service at Sydney airport, they are two completely separate things, but when things go bad they can support each other with "excess" resources but each must maintain it's minimum level of service to it's primary role. So the RFS does get some limited support during the fires but must maintain X resources to protect it's defined area and response times, leaving the RFS mostly using volunteers.

My personal opinion is RFS should have full time front line staff (equal to the number of police in that area as a start) and they are supplemented with volunteers.

As far as aircraft match the Canadian fleet and share them over the two seasons staggering if needed.

Does it?

That contention is contradicted by the findings of the only large-scale review of the causes of bushfires in the last 20 years, the Australian Institute of Criminology's 2008 analysis of some 280,000 bushfires as recorded by 18 different Australian fire and land management agencies representing all states and territories.

Some 40 percent of those fires did not have a cause assigned by the responding fire agency. However, of the 165,000-odd fires that did, the assigned causes were as follows:

Suspicious - 37%
Accidental - 35%
Deliberate - 13%
Natural - 6%
Re-ignition - 5%
Other - 4%

​​​​​​Within the 'Natural' causes category, lightning makes up about 66%.

Bankrunner - who the heck is Alex Jones? :rolleyes:
You're certainly living on a different planet than I, as just 3 days ago 2 teenagers here were caught lighting fires in the scrub in the suburbs south of the runway.
You probably gathered I don't watch "The Project" and other tripe shows alike.
Read the Commission findings on Victoria's Black Saturday 2009 and you'll start to realise what a clusterfug we're in, as it's got worse since!

Macedon 1983
 

Having flown the MAAFS system during the Ash Wednesday fires in 1983 as a trial for the FED/Vic Governments the use of one aircraft did not enable sufficient concentration of effort. During training in Boise Idaho, the aircraft would join a queue of up to ten aircraft stepped up and called in in-turn. Airports in Victoria were restricted due to the operating weights required and the runway pavement strengths (also affected by the usual high temperatures associated with fire weather). I am not sure that RAAF pilots are sitting around doing nothing and waiting for training
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....7f5b3b3d79.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....554fb42ce8.jpg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....16aa544914.jpg
and at least six C130s would be required to achieve the concentration required. In regard to the corrosion that occurred this was despite hosing the tail down each day although the latest versions have the tubes out the para doors.

I can recall that before Military assets are permitted to be called in to water bomb, that ALL contracted civilian assets must be activated and operational. From memory this was part of the agreement with civilian operators to ensure they would get called in for service and not miss a money making opportunity because the government instead used military assets. Many civilian operators relied upon the fire season to earn enough to cover the years overheads.

Made little sense watching a B206 fitted out for corporate work passengers, working with a small Bambi Bucket from NAS Nowra, whilst we had a SK-50 Seaking kitted with a Medium Bambi Bucket capable of holding double the water, and we could only use it on the Jervis Bay Range Facility fires as that was C'wealth ground.

the whole maffs report is avialable online, thing to remember is that US has 8 maffs units and hundreds of C-130 in inventory, 1 maffs was lost in crash. They dont have a lack of planes or aircrew and the ANG is the group that will do maffs operations when required. We dont have excess planes or crews to do this

There are a myriad of reasons why Australia is in the situation it is.
This is undoubtedly a large part of it.

The Evidence Brief For A Climate Trials Case Against Abbott, Turnbull, and Morrison - Situation Theatre

It was going OK up to your numbered points. Then I started to wonder if you might also write the same garbage for The Australian?