ADF Fire fighting
Undoubted the ADF should be 'defending' the country though - what could be more priority!
How much have they spent in the sandpit and for what?
But while aircraft are of useful value in fire fighting, they are far from a silver bullet. - and become less so as the climate changes, fires get bigger and the ground drier.
A few more aircraft will be useful but a drop in the ocean when you consider what the forecasted environment has in store for us...
Having been evacuated early this year with a bushfire, aircraft were pretty impotent in aggressive conditions.
Seeing Scott Morrison's denials just make me think we are doomed. I do wonder how far down this road we will go before the penny really drops where we are going!
Thread Starter
typerated.I am often accused of not staying on subject and jumping ahead or back and confusing the discussion. I just wanted to confirm what your point was before responding, which is, this is not a post on climate change (either start one yourself (if you have fantastic) or more than likely go to one that is running). Not a post on who or what started the fires. Not a post on finding or suggesting using ADF assets will provide a “silver bullet”. In aggressive conditions nothing we have in our arsenal will have an impact on the fire but suggest you talk to someone who’s house/home has been saved by aerial assets and get their point of view about the “drop in the ocean” of having a few more aerial assets.The sun will explode in 4 or 5 billion years, not really a discussion point for this post. The population explosion and diminishing resources is going to destroy civilisation (if we can call it that) before climate change but not a discussion point on this post.So would it be a positive drop in the ocean to have a few more aerial assets available and could we utilise the ADF assets to do so. This is the discussion point of the post.
Crewman? What crewman 
Another indication of the misunderstanding of professional aerial firefighting: no commercial operation can afford to take out 100 litres in exchange for talking ballast. The wiring for the bucket operation (many multi dump these days, not just one load) is usually integral in the cyclic or collective hence Ascend Charlie comments, which are from the knowledge base of civil operations. Not decrying the use of a crewman if power and payload are to spare, eg Chinook, but intense campaign fires don't have that luxury in the Australian heat and conditions.
I'd dearly like to see a planned military backup available for intense bushfires, but this inevitable knee jerk reaction demanding unplanned firefront support helps no-one in the short term. Best support at the moment is for Firebird/Observation use of Mil plus transport: currently KC-30 from 33 Squadron RAAF are flying support CFA firefighters from/back to Victoria to give a rest to the RFS troops in Queensland and NSW.
Long term the States need to get their act together (along with NAFC) and stop the blame game. Ultimate insult today is the Queensland Premier calling out the Federal Government to buy a C-130, in spite of the VLAT availability negotiated between States for many years. Queensland has been well known for poor investment in firefighting support, and all States have responsibility for their own fire brigades but suddenly the green eyed monster has awoken because NSW have invested in their own 737 and Queensland hasn't!!
Another indication of the misunderstanding of professional aerial firefighting: no commercial operation can afford to take out 100 litres in exchange for talking ballast. The wiring for the bucket operation (many multi dump these days, not just one load) is usually integral in the cyclic or collective hence Ascend Charlie comments, which are from the knowledge base of civil operations. Not decrying the use of a crewman if power and payload are to spare, eg Chinook, but intense campaign fires don't have that luxury in the Australian heat and conditions.
I'd dearly like to see a planned military backup available for intense bushfires, but this inevitable knee jerk reaction demanding unplanned firefront support helps no-one in the short term. Best support at the moment is for Firebird/Observation use of Mil plus transport: currently KC-30 from 33 Squadron RAAF are flying support CFA firefighters from/back to Victoria to give a rest to the RFS troops in Queensland and NSW.
Long term the States need to get their act together (along with NAFC) and stop the blame game. Ultimate insult today is the Queensland Premier calling out the Federal Government to buy a C-130, in spite of the VLAT availability negotiated between States for many years. Queensland has been well known for poor investment in firefighting support, and all States have responsibility for their own fire brigades but suddenly the green eyed monster has awoken because NSW have invested in their own 737 and Queensland hasn't!!
Thread Starter
I note that the ADF is assisting in numerous ways in supporting the fire fighting efforts although not directly able to fire fight due not being covered by OH&S. I know that training is required but do chuckle at the OH&S issue considering what the ADF actually does.
but do chuckle at the OH&S issue considering what the ADF actually does.
I was at a Firepower Display at Puckapunyal many years ago, and one of the tank rounds bounced off the target and disappeared into the grassy, bushy distance. Boom. When the fire got noticeable, all the fun and games stopped while the troops all galloped out in their APCs and put the fire out. So, the ADF does put out fires, but on that occasion it was by grunt power.
MRH-90 Taipan A40-045 active on the Blue Mt fires this afternoon Katoomba to Lithgow and the Grose Valley. Not sure if water bombing or merely observing fire fronts etc.
During one of the cyclone clean up, no army personal where allowed to use a chainsaw unless they had military skills training in them. It turned out that virtually no one who was available had, that didn't become much of an issue because they found out that most of the chainsaws were US in the first hour. In the end the army were just extra fetch and carry hands for the a emergency services who had chainsaws that worked. So while their time and services were appreciated it goes to show you just cant throw a military force in a emergency with no training and expect them operate at the same level as those who have
Thread Starter
Rattman, totally agree. Filling sand bags (ohh for those days) does not require a lot of training. Providing food, fuel, shelter backup in transportation all good and easy things that can reduce the work load on the fighters. We provide humanitarian aid utilising the skills that the ADF have.The requirement for OH&S is real but also at times red tape, "you have to complete a chain saw course and be certified" is ??. Fair enough even though you have been using a chain saw for 20+ years. No question on training but considering the helo assets we have and the training that is done from night ops, confined spaces, under slung loads, etc its not a large stretch of the imagination that a wee bit more training in water dropping would not be an excessive task.
It was all so much easier in the old days.
During the 1974 floods we worked in 2 man hydrographic teams, a hydrographer and his assistant. The army had teams out, mainly filling sandbags and doing manual labour. A mate, an experienced assistant not long back from Vietnam, asked a Lt. if he could borrow a couple of blokes interested in doing a bit of hydrographic work. No problems. It enabled us to have two teams in action instead of one.
I guess these days it would need to go up the chain of command, and probably need ministerial approval.
During the 1974 floods we worked in 2 man hydrographic teams, a hydrographer and his assistant. The army had teams out, mainly filling sandbags and doing manual labour. A mate, an experienced assistant not long back from Vietnam, asked a Lt. if he could borrow a couple of blokes interested in doing a bit of hydrographic work. No problems. It enabled us to have two teams in action instead of one.
I guess these days it would need to go up the chain of command, and probably need ministerial approval.
No question on training but considering the helo assets we have and the training that is done from night ops, confined spaces, under slung loads, etc its not a large stretch of the imagination that a wee bit more training in water dropping would not be an excessive task.
Thats completely ignoring the cost of running a military chopper vs civilian which is 3times more expensive per flight hour
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Poway, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the San Diego area both national guard and navy have equipped some helicopters with civilian radios and trained with local fire agencies to assist during major fires
I sail with a former black hawk, now MRH90 pilot, he says they were trained in bambi bucket operation (didn't say when) because they could be called upon to quench fires on military property/ranges where could be unexploded ordenance. Every so often they re-practice it. He said in theory he could do it, has all the flight skills to do it, but know nothing about fires he would need to fly in the left seat of an experience fire fighting pilot before he thinks it would be more than a token effort on their part.
Thats completely ignoring the cost of running a military chopper vs civilian which is 3times more expensive per flight hour
Thats completely ignoring the cost of running a military chopper vs civilian which is 3times more expensive per flight hour
While RAN MRH has the capability to conduct bambi-bucket ops, not many of the crews are actually qualified in it. Without wanting to take this thread off topic, in my opinion the ADF could provide more assistance via the privision of man-power for support roles to the RFS guys and girls on the ground.
Evertonian
This might be a dumb question, but why can't the RAN deploy the LHD's to Mallacoota to evacuate by sea? 4x LCM's...could be handy.
According to press reports the LSD HMAS Choules and the multi-role aviation training vessel MV Sycamore are being sent, presumably they are the duty ships on "48 hours notice to sail"
https://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-choules
Probably because they both have their crews (except for an unlucky few) on Christmas stand-down?
According to press reports the LSD HMAS Choules and the multi-role aviation training vessel MV Sycamore are being sent, presumably they are the duty ships on "48 hours notice to sail"
According to press reports the LSD HMAS Choules and the multi-role aviation training vessel MV Sycamore are being sent, presumably they are the duty ships on "48 hours notice to sail"
I note on Wiki r/e the Herc in RAAF service:
During April 1982, a C-130H was fitted with aerial firefighting equipment acquired from the United States Forest Service for trials purposes; several Hercules later used this equipment to fight bushfires.
Purely a question; can RAAF C-130Js be fitted with the MAFFS kit, or is there some sort of incompatibility?
If so - why is this not an option - C-130 fleet too busy with other ops?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modula...ighting_System
EDIT : Hmm - a shame - from another website: The Aero Union company, after going through bankruptcy, now consists of one person who is dealing with the remaining financial issues until the doors are closed for the last time. If any new MAFFS units are manufactured, it would likely be done by another company.
https://fireaviation.com/2013/05/11/...y-air-tankers/
There's quite an interesting short report on the RAAF C-130 MAFFS trial in Victoria in 1982 here:
https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/__data/as...n-Victoria.pdf
During April 1982, a C-130H was fitted with aerial firefighting equipment acquired from the United States Forest Service for trials purposes; several Hercules later used this equipment to fight bushfires.
Purely a question; can RAAF C-130Js be fitted with the MAFFS kit, or is there some sort of incompatibility?
If so - why is this not an option - C-130 fleet too busy with other ops?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modula...ighting_System
EDIT : Hmm - a shame - from another website: The Aero Union company, after going through bankruptcy, now consists of one person who is dealing with the remaining financial issues until the doors are closed for the last time. If any new MAFFS units are manufactured, it would likely be done by another company.
https://fireaviation.com/2013/05/11/...y-air-tankers/
There's quite an interesting short report on the RAAF C-130 MAFFS trial in Victoria in 1982 here:
https://www.ffm.vic.gov.au/__data/as...n-Victoria.pdf