747 Firefighting Airtanker
Thread Starter
Catch up time. With respect to all who have responded;
FEMA do not make desisions regarding equipment contracted to fight fires in the US. The aircraft are contracted by a variety of Federal and State agencies, in order to be eligible, they must be certified, and meet performance requirements to a standard determined by each individual agency.
The currently available Russian equipment is not certified to a standard permitting commercial operation in the US (lets not even talk JAA here).
The PB4Y and C-130A are no longer eligible to hold Federal contracts, effectively ending their careers. An AD with terminating action for the PB4Y has been issued, but it is unlikely they will ever fight fires again.
An "anti-fire" bomb is a non starter, for the reasons already stated. Some years ago (many, I guess) a serious proposal was created to turn the A-10 (Warthog) into a water-bomber. It had performance and payload coupled with handling to meet the requirement. During Gulf War 1, they suddenly realised that rather than being an obsolete piece of equipment, it was unmatched in it's military application, so that proposal died.
The lack of available amphibious fixed-wing airtankers does not limit the field to this type of operation. The most effective firefighting tool is the helicopter, and they are already the primary tool in use.
All Restricted Category aircraft require an FAA Restricted CategoryType Certificate. The Type Certificate limits operations to certain specific applications, one of which is firefighting. There is not a single commercially operated aircraft contracted on fires that does not hold an FAA approved Type Certificate. Basically, the basis of certification is that the aircraft was previously operated by the US Armed Forces, and adequate data exists to permit it to be operated and maintained in an airworthy condition.
All aircraft, irrespective of basic certification basis, that drop retardent (or any chemical) are operated under FAR Part 137, and are automatically operating under Restricted Category. All aircraft contracted at a Federal, State or other Government entity are automatically operated as Public Aircraft, essentially bypassing all this. However, to be eligible to meet the contract requirement, they must meet the certification and contracting requirements. For tanks installed in helicopters and fixed-wing tankers, they must be performance certified by the tanker board.
The Canadian tankers operating in the US are eligible for certification by virtue of the bilateral agreements and are standard category.
The Russian aircraft are ineligible for certification in Restricted Category, on the basis that step one, that they must have been operated by the US military to be eligible. Additionally, only individual aircraft that have operated by the US military are eligible for certification. If the aircraft you are intending to certify has been operated by a foreign military operator, they are ineligible. (There are a number of aircraft currently operating that do not meet this requirement, but are grandfathered - sort of).
Plane Truth talks the truth. The mess in the US forests is a result of individuals trying to "save" the forest. Instead they are left with a charred mess, or a forest killed by bugs and rot (just ripe for fire).
The first time anyone puts 100,000 tons of water in a 747, gimme a call, I'd hate to miss it!
There is certainly a place for fixed-wing airtankers on fires. The Forest Service (and other agencies) are really concentrating their efforts on Initial Attack, and the ability to respond rapidly to a fire some distance away is the realm of this piece of equipment. The 747 tanker is actually an intruiging expansion on this capability.
Once a fire is established, helicopters are the most effective tool, subject to availabilty of adequate water sources. Their are a variety of helicopter resources available, of all sizes, utilising tanks and buckets. Of course, the helicopters additionally offer the ability to move personnel and other essential firefighting equipment. Helicopters set up right on the fire site and offer unbeatable flexibility and utilisation.
The reality of firefighting involves working around terrain, smoke (limited visibility) and ambient conditions. This often limits the options available for ariel application of water - again favouring helicopters.
It must always be remebered that fires are not put out by aircraft dropping water. Fires are extinguished, or at least managed, by providing water to the personnel on the ground fighting the fire. Fires are put out by incredibly hard work by the people on the ground, water makes mud, mud smothers fire. If you ever saw the ground capabilities for moving water and how these people work, you would be amazed.
The logistics of fire fighting are incredible.
Imagine that you go to work tommorow and are told with no notice that you are going to have to, provide food, water, housing, laundry facilites, medical capabilities, communications, transportation, vehicles and administration for 500 people in a place 50 miles from the closest town of any size; 200 miles from the nearest large airport, rising to 3000 people (or more) within 7 days, providing everything from sunscreen to 1000 AA batteries a day! Then add (say) 30 helicopters to that mix, at 3 helibases!
Then, 9 days later, demob it and move it to the next place you never heard of before!
It is one of the most enjoyable, satisfying jobs you could ever do. Drive through town and see all those signs thanking you for your efforts, people bringing cookies to the base, strangers stopping you on the street and thanking you - now that is true job satisfaction!
We call it the Magical Mystery Tour. It takes us to the most incredible places, indeed, some of the most amazing places I have ever visited are on fires.
And the stories; - this one time at fire camp.......
FEMA do not make desisions regarding equipment contracted to fight fires in the US. The aircraft are contracted by a variety of Federal and State agencies, in order to be eligible, they must be certified, and meet performance requirements to a standard determined by each individual agency.
The currently available Russian equipment is not certified to a standard permitting commercial operation in the US (lets not even talk JAA here).
The PB4Y and C-130A are no longer eligible to hold Federal contracts, effectively ending their careers. An AD with terminating action for the PB4Y has been issued, but it is unlikely they will ever fight fires again.
An "anti-fire" bomb is a non starter, for the reasons already stated. Some years ago (many, I guess) a serious proposal was created to turn the A-10 (Warthog) into a water-bomber. It had performance and payload coupled with handling to meet the requirement. During Gulf War 1, they suddenly realised that rather than being an obsolete piece of equipment, it was unmatched in it's military application, so that proposal died.
The lack of available amphibious fixed-wing airtankers does not limit the field to this type of operation. The most effective firefighting tool is the helicopter, and they are already the primary tool in use.
All Restricted Category aircraft require an FAA Restricted CategoryType Certificate. The Type Certificate limits operations to certain specific applications, one of which is firefighting. There is not a single commercially operated aircraft contracted on fires that does not hold an FAA approved Type Certificate. Basically, the basis of certification is that the aircraft was previously operated by the US Armed Forces, and adequate data exists to permit it to be operated and maintained in an airworthy condition.
All aircraft, irrespective of basic certification basis, that drop retardent (or any chemical) are operated under FAR Part 137, and are automatically operating under Restricted Category. All aircraft contracted at a Federal, State or other Government entity are automatically operated as Public Aircraft, essentially bypassing all this. However, to be eligible to meet the contract requirement, they must meet the certification and contracting requirements. For tanks installed in helicopters and fixed-wing tankers, they must be performance certified by the tanker board.
The Canadian tankers operating in the US are eligible for certification by virtue of the bilateral agreements and are standard category.
The Russian aircraft are ineligible for certification in Restricted Category, on the basis that step one, that they must have been operated by the US military to be eligible. Additionally, only individual aircraft that have operated by the US military are eligible for certification. If the aircraft you are intending to certify has been operated by a foreign military operator, they are ineligible. (There are a number of aircraft currently operating that do not meet this requirement, but are grandfathered - sort of).
Plane Truth talks the truth. The mess in the US forests is a result of individuals trying to "save" the forest. Instead they are left with a charred mess, or a forest killed by bugs and rot (just ripe for fire).
The first time anyone puts 100,000 tons of water in a 747, gimme a call, I'd hate to miss it!
There is certainly a place for fixed-wing airtankers on fires. The Forest Service (and other agencies) are really concentrating their efforts on Initial Attack, and the ability to respond rapidly to a fire some distance away is the realm of this piece of equipment. The 747 tanker is actually an intruiging expansion on this capability.
Once a fire is established, helicopters are the most effective tool, subject to availabilty of adequate water sources. Their are a variety of helicopter resources available, of all sizes, utilising tanks and buckets. Of course, the helicopters additionally offer the ability to move personnel and other essential firefighting equipment. Helicopters set up right on the fire site and offer unbeatable flexibility and utilisation.
The reality of firefighting involves working around terrain, smoke (limited visibility) and ambient conditions. This often limits the options available for ariel application of water - again favouring helicopters.
It must always be remebered that fires are not put out by aircraft dropping water. Fires are extinguished, or at least managed, by providing water to the personnel on the ground fighting the fire. Fires are put out by incredibly hard work by the people on the ground, water makes mud, mud smothers fire. If you ever saw the ground capabilities for moving water and how these people work, you would be amazed.
The logistics of fire fighting are incredible.
Imagine that you go to work tommorow and are told with no notice that you are going to have to, provide food, water, housing, laundry facilites, medical capabilities, communications, transportation, vehicles and administration for 500 people in a place 50 miles from the closest town of any size; 200 miles from the nearest large airport, rising to 3000 people (or more) within 7 days, providing everything from sunscreen to 1000 AA batteries a day! Then add (say) 30 helicopters to that mix, at 3 helibases!
Then, 9 days later, demob it and move it to the next place you never heard of before!
It is one of the most enjoyable, satisfying jobs you could ever do. Drive through town and see all those signs thanking you for your efforts, people bringing cookies to the base, strangers stopping you on the street and thanking you - now that is true job satisfaction!
We call it the Magical Mystery Tour. It takes us to the most incredible places, indeed, some of the most amazing places I have ever visited are on fires.
And the stories; - this one time at fire camp.......
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best Fire-Tanker
I do not agree with the opinion that the helicopter is the most effective fire-fighting aircraft.
Mainly because of the limited payload.
My favourite is the Martin Mars Flying Boat which can drop 27 tons in one pass and fill up again very quickly.
Maybe the blueprints are still somewhere and one can build them again? At least it is a still certified and proven concept.
Nice page here:
http://www.martinmars.com
Enjoy the pictures and video clips!!!
Mainly because of the limited payload.
My favourite is the Martin Mars Flying Boat which can drop 27 tons in one pass and fill up again very quickly.
Maybe the blueprints are still somewhere and one can build them again? At least it is a still certified and proven concept.
Nice page here:
http://www.martinmars.com
Enjoy the pictures and video clips!!!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Shoreline
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wish I could be there in that Flying Boat. It's the stuff kids dream about, being a firefighter AND a pilot at the same time. But I still think helicopters are better suited for the job. Now, if we could just combine the best of both worlds and come up with.......tadaaa!! A V-22 Osprey or derivative!!!Yahoo!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: over here
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A-10 firefighter website is still running, although it doesn't appear to have been updated recently.....
http://www.firehogs.com/index.shtml
http://www.firehogs.com/index.shtml
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Scottsdale, AZ USA
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Skycrane has been used with good success in the Northwest US where they reside for logging operations. Again, if water is close by, their high recycle rate makes up for their low capacity. They are much more accurate and that makes up for some of their lack of capacity. In the Southwest US, the lakes are few and far between.
After cogitating the 747 overnight, it must be an engineering challenge considering the weight and balance issues of offloading tons of water. The C-130 used to experience transient CG out of limits during LAPES drops. The 747 will have to be configured with dump nozzles fro the forward tanks and the aft tanks so the CG doesn't wander too far off the chart. As Cyclic pointed out, if they pull it off, it WILL be impressive.
Can't wait!
PT
PS -Ever hear of the urban legend that recounts the story of the two guys scuba diving near the surface off the coast of Oregon? Supposedly they were swimming along one minute and the next minute the one diver looks around and his buddy is gone. Days later mop-up firefighters find a charred body of a fully equipped scuba diver in the blackened forest area that had just experienced a fire.
---A skycrane was supposed to be involved with that one.
After cogitating the 747 overnight, it must be an engineering challenge considering the weight and balance issues of offloading tons of water. The C-130 used to experience transient CG out of limits during LAPES drops. The 747 will have to be configured with dump nozzles fro the forward tanks and the aft tanks so the CG doesn't wander too far off the chart. As Cyclic pointed out, if they pull it off, it WILL be impressive.
Can't wait!
PT
PS -Ever hear of the urban legend that recounts the story of the two guys scuba diving near the surface off the coast of Oregon? Supposedly they were swimming along one minute and the next minute the one diver looks around and his buddy is gone. Days later mop-up firefighters find a charred body of a fully equipped scuba diver in the blackened forest area that had just experienced a fire.
---A skycrane was supposed to be involved with that one.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: A cold country
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no experience nor knowledge about firefighting - I wished I did and it would be a thrill to do it someday - also having it on ones CV ..
But why is nobody here talking about the Air Tractor - it's very succesfull here in Spain at Avialsa doing firefighting in the forest areas, in the mountains ..
Instead of one or a few big hummerbee's that makes one big splash, they have A LOT of smaller hummerbee's here that takes up to 820 US Gallons (depending on version) per trip to fight the fires ..
And it's even an American Aircraft
..
Link: http://www.airtractor.com/
..But why is nobody here talking about the Air Tractor - it's very succesfull here in Spain at Avialsa doing firefighting in the forest areas, in the mountains ..
Instead of one or a few big hummerbee's that makes one big splash, they have A LOT of smaller hummerbee's here that takes up to 820 US Gallons (depending on version) per trip to fight the fires ..
And it's even an American Aircraft
..Link: http://www.airtractor.com/
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of Air Tractors in use in the US. They are known by the acronym SEAT (Single Engine Air Tanker), first since the TBMs were banned 30+ years ago. AT offer a model on floats for lake scooping but I don't think there have been any takers as yet.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That suggestion regarding using the Lockheed P3 aircraft sounds like the most promising one to date.
A very strong airframe, designed for low level operations, ( though for over water ops), four engined reliability, carries a Flight Engineer, can go up to 135,000 lbs AUW.
Able to cruise quite fast, for a turbo prop, some 360ktas, and slow quite appreciably for dropping.
Sounds like something to be taken seriously.
Few ex-US Navy ones around too!
Cheers.
A very strong airframe, designed for low level operations, ( though for over water ops), four engined reliability, carries a Flight Engineer, can go up to 135,000 lbs AUW.
Able to cruise quite fast, for a turbo prop, some 360ktas, and slow quite appreciably for dropping.
Sounds like something to be taken seriously.
Few ex-US Navy ones around too!
Cheers.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a 747 or B-52 considered how about all the KC-135s to be replaced with the rental fleet of converted Boeing airliners? Tanks are already installed, though it is probably not the most efficient aircraft to operate the capital investment would be low.
With respect to certification that could also be the least of your problems with a foreign owned aircraft. Presuming the fire fighting operations are done for money (i.e. are commercial operations) there is some special specific permissions for a foreign registered aircraft to conduct the operation in the U.S.
Doubt the P-3 would be very useful, though it is a good airplane. As has been pointed out waterbombing is a game of volume as well as weight and P-3s differ from commercial Electras by having a plug of fuselage removed behind the wing. This reduces volume, and also alters the handling qualities and I do not know that a P-3 could be civilly certified. With the way P-3 wings are glued together and withtheir high wing loading I'm not sure that I would want to fly such an aircraft into a firefighting situation. Now a P2V is of course another animal.
With respect to certification that could also be the least of your problems with a foreign owned aircraft. Presuming the fire fighting operations are done for money (i.e. are commercial operations) there is some special specific permissions for a foreign registered aircraft to conduct the operation in the U.S.
Doubt the P-3 would be very useful, though it is a good airplane. As has been pointed out waterbombing is a game of volume as well as weight and P-3s differ from commercial Electras by having a plug of fuselage removed behind the wing. This reduces volume, and also alters the handling qualities and I do not know that a P-3 could be civilly certified. With the way P-3 wings are glued together and withtheir high wing loading I'm not sure that I would want to fly such an aircraft into a firefighting situation. Now a P2V is of course another animal.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aero Union has been operating P3 tankers for several years.
http://www.aerounion.com/www/a3.htm
http://www.aerounion.com/www/a3.htm
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Area 52
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plane Truth said: "After cogitating the 747 overnight, it must be an engineering challenge considering the weight and balance issues of offloading tons of water. The C-130 used to experience transient CG out of limits during LAPES drops. The 747 will have to be configured with dump nozzles fro the forward tanks and the aft tanks so the CG doesn't wander too far off the chart. As Cyclic pointed out, if they pull it off, it WILL be impressive."
Last time I spoke with the guys working on this project the plan was to use the center fuel tank(as a water tank) and a new tank mounted on the main deck just slightly forward of the center fuel tank and use high speed pumps to push the water down. Numerous test flights have been done in the simulator all looks well for clean drops without CG problems.
Last time I spoke with the guys working on this project the plan was to use the center fuel tank(as a water tank) and a new tank mounted on the main deck just slightly forward of the center fuel tank and use high speed pumps to push the water down. Numerous test flights have been done in the simulator all looks well for clean drops without CG problems.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knold, yes the proposed AT802AF "FireBoss" would be on floats. I can't remember if there were to be any tanks in the floats (à la Twin Otter), but probably not as other ATs have fuselage tanks. That would be one mother of a scoop needed though.
Interestingly, the FireBoss seems to have disappeared from the Air Tractor website
The only reference I can now find is a picture of a model (apart from some non-archived AAP posts). Maybe the lack of interest killed it.
Interestingly, the FireBoss seems to have disappeared from the Air Tractor website
The only reference I can now find is a picture of a model (apart from some non-archived AAP posts). Maybe the lack of interest killed it.
Thread Starter
Sorry for the oversized picture screwing up the page - but I don't have the means of fixing it! 
In response to the many comments on this topic.
The Martin Mars is indeed an incredible piece of equipment. I have had the opportunity to look at these amazing aircraft, they are also the only aircraft I have ever flown around in a helicopter as they sit at their moorings on Sproat Lake! The likelihood of anyone building additional aircraft is probably pretty remote, as the cost of designing and building a purpose built tanker would probably be less (especially as they would have to be re-engined with something turbine). The bone-yard will most likely continue to be the source of additional tankers. I have seen a Mars dropping on a fire - no doubt about it, it is pretty spectacular!
The Skycrane is indeed a spectacular player in the field. With a 2000 gallon payload and the ability to suck or scoop, it is extremely effective. The way that aircraft are contracted has resulted in the majority of the fleet being contracted outside the US! It has to be remembered that the helicopter resources on a fire are based upon availability and performance. You can see all kinds of helicopters on a firebase and they might include anything from Bell 206, 206L, 407, UH-1, 204, 205, 212, 214, Boeing Vertol 107, 234, Kaman K-1200 K-Max, Sikorsky S-55, 58T, 61, 62, 64/CH-54, S-70, Eurocopter Puma and Super Puma, AS 350's, AS315 Lama, plus about anything else you could imagine. Additionally sometimes buckets are more effective than tanks, plus you can get buckets that suck, just like tanks! Each fire will require different equipment, sometimes you can't get what you want. Sometimes the ability to carry a mix of pax and water is a priority. When it gets hot and high, you might be surprised which equipment comes out on top!
The 2004 season will see 4 different models of S61 tank available, so there is definite interest in this sector. Helicopters are teh equipment of choice due to their flexibility and the ability to set them up on site, often overcoming the difficulty of approching fires due to smoke. Additionally, at some point in the future we will see CH-53 tankers on the scene.
Single Engine Air Tankers (SEAT) are an effective tool and commonly used. There is a lot of interest in these aircraft currently. They are flexible and relatively inexpensive and you can go and spray with them for the rest of the year (important in firefighting).
The P3 is another very effective tanker, and has been around for quite some time. Like most of the more popular tankers, it is an easy choice because of the ability to fit an external tank system. Low wing prop tankers are easy to adapt as they have the necessary belly clearance to install external tanks. Payload is pretty limited on any tanker, as water is bulky and (relatively) heavy. The neccesity to install the water drop management systems leads to a preference for these aircraft.
It has to be remebered that the majority of tankers are land based and dropping retardent. This limits the location and positioning of tankers, as they require the facilities to load and mix retardent. Tanker bases are chosen by their effective location to hit a number of hot fire areas, this is one of the major limitations of fixed wing tankers. The 747 tanker would require quite specialised facilities.
The KC-135 is an interesting concept, for the exact reasons noted - they are already tanked. I'm sure there is some bone-yard dog already eyeing them up!
Oh well, only a couple of days to the 4th July, the traditional start of fire season as thousands of celebrating people go out to the woods and light camp-fires and shoot fireworks.
That's if the Forest Service employees haven't set the fires first!
In response to the many comments on this topic.
The Martin Mars is indeed an incredible piece of equipment. I have had the opportunity to look at these amazing aircraft, they are also the only aircraft I have ever flown around in a helicopter as they sit at their moorings on Sproat Lake! The likelihood of anyone building additional aircraft is probably pretty remote, as the cost of designing and building a purpose built tanker would probably be less (especially as they would have to be re-engined with something turbine). The bone-yard will most likely continue to be the source of additional tankers. I have seen a Mars dropping on a fire - no doubt about it, it is pretty spectacular!
The Skycrane is indeed a spectacular player in the field. With a 2000 gallon payload and the ability to suck or scoop, it is extremely effective. The way that aircraft are contracted has resulted in the majority of the fleet being contracted outside the US! It has to be remembered that the helicopter resources on a fire are based upon availability and performance. You can see all kinds of helicopters on a firebase and they might include anything from Bell 206, 206L, 407, UH-1, 204, 205, 212, 214, Boeing Vertol 107, 234, Kaman K-1200 K-Max, Sikorsky S-55, 58T, 61, 62, 64/CH-54, S-70, Eurocopter Puma and Super Puma, AS 350's, AS315 Lama, plus about anything else you could imagine. Additionally sometimes buckets are more effective than tanks, plus you can get buckets that suck, just like tanks! Each fire will require different equipment, sometimes you can't get what you want. Sometimes the ability to carry a mix of pax and water is a priority. When it gets hot and high, you might be surprised which equipment comes out on top!
The 2004 season will see 4 different models of S61 tank available, so there is definite interest in this sector. Helicopters are teh equipment of choice due to their flexibility and the ability to set them up on site, often overcoming the difficulty of approching fires due to smoke. Additionally, at some point in the future we will see CH-53 tankers on the scene.
Single Engine Air Tankers (SEAT) are an effective tool and commonly used. There is a lot of interest in these aircraft currently. They are flexible and relatively inexpensive and you can go and spray with them for the rest of the year (important in firefighting).
The P3 is another very effective tanker, and has been around for quite some time. Like most of the more popular tankers, it is an easy choice because of the ability to fit an external tank system. Low wing prop tankers are easy to adapt as they have the necessary belly clearance to install external tanks. Payload is pretty limited on any tanker, as water is bulky and (relatively) heavy. The neccesity to install the water drop management systems leads to a preference for these aircraft.
It has to be remebered that the majority of tankers are land based and dropping retardent. This limits the location and positioning of tankers, as they require the facilities to load and mix retardent. Tanker bases are chosen by their effective location to hit a number of hot fire areas, this is one of the major limitations of fixed wing tankers. The 747 tanker would require quite specialised facilities.
The KC-135 is an interesting concept, for the exact reasons noted - they are already tanked. I'm sure there is some bone-yard dog already eyeing them up!
Oh well, only a couple of days to the 4th July, the traditional start of fire season as thousands of celebrating people go out to the woods and light camp-fires and shoot fireworks.
That's if the Forest Service employees haven't set the fires first!
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Americans still do not get it. Aerial forest fire fighting operations work best on small fires. This is because you want to get the fire surrounded and supressed before it gets hot enough to start to burn through the retardent and/or start shooting out sparks and embers. If the fire needs a five mile line it will almost certainly be so hot it will just jump any retardent line. The US needs effective initial attack, not big tankers in IMHO
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the best (most efficient) fight from the air is to get there quickly to get retardant on the fire before it grows will the forest service contract to the Air Force, who will base all the aircraft at Whiteman AFB and fly ready alerts at various locations during the height of fire season? Hot seat alert the rest of the year. Use a mixed fleet of 500 KC-135 and KC-10 fire tankers.
For more precise application use precision guided retardant dropped on laser designated locations or to GPS positions. Imagine a great big water ballon of retardant with a laser seeker or GPS package with winglets or small guidance parachutes.
The U.S. military and contractors could build it for , oh a few billion nonrecurring and a few hundred million each. After all, shat are trees worth?
For more precise application use precision guided retardant dropped on laser designated locations or to GPS positions. Imagine a great big water ballon of retardant with a laser seeker or GPS package with winglets or small guidance parachutes.
The U.S. military and contractors could build it for , oh a few billion nonrecurring and a few hundred million each. After all, shat are trees worth?