Fire bombing question

[DBII]

Watching the latest round of wildfires, I was wondering if the B52 or A10 would make a good fire fighter.

 

[Snautzer01]

for 1 sortie the will but refilling with water seems a bit of a problem.

 

[DBII]

for 1 sortie the will but refilling with water seems a bit of a problem.

It would take a while. A firetruck would have to fill it or a heard of water buffalos

 

[Frog]

If you fight fire with fire, they can pack a good napalm load.

 

[cvairwerks]

A-10 doesn't have the needed capacity and the B-52 has problems down that low. A DC-10 was converted to a water bomber but is expensive to operate and has quite a few limitations on when it's a effective platform. A big drop capability is best used when you are fighting a fire on flat ground with a long front. If I remember correctly, the DC-10 needs something like a 5 mile lead in path with 3 miles on the exit.

 

[GrauGeist]

The B-52 is not agile enough to fight Forest Fires.

*maybe* wildland fires, where the topography is flatter, but then it's mission would be confined only to that role, where supertankers can multi-role (and have).

In regards to "supertanker", they have used 747s and 737s which carry a substantial amount of retardant.

 

[Snautzer01]

The B-52 is not agile enough to fight Forest Fires.

*maybe* wildland fires, where the topography is flatter, but then it's mission would be confined only to that role, where supertankers can multi-role (and have).

In regards to "supertanker", they have used 747s and 737s which carry a substantial amount of retardant.

It got me thinking. How about plenty plenty plenty of bombs as in water containers. In the shape of said bombs. The general ord. stuff bombs, but the for killing fire.
Carpet bomb the shit out of it. Must be a something to see.

I think it is a win win. Fire gets fought, crew gets to bomb a precision target. Thankfull people still having a home.

It will be a thing that goes global.

In my mind (yes i am 14) i see three of them. Abrest formation. Dumping a shit load of anti forrest fire things.

Now that is fighting fire with fire.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

A-10? Nope.

A B-52? Perhaps, with the caveats noted above. It wouldn't take so long to refill if you used a decent pump. We could refill our 5,000-gal P-15 crash truck in about 7 minutes with our second-run (750 gpm) pumper. A B-52 wouldn't carry more than 10,000 gallons tops, judging by bomb-bay volume. Indicates it could be refilled in 15 or so minutes.

 

[SaparotRob]

Are C-130s being used?

 

[Frog]

Are C-130s being used?

Yes.

 

[cvairwerks]

The big birds don't carry as much slurry as you think. The DC-10's only can carry about a 9,000 gallon load, and the 747, a little over 11,000 gallons. It's not the total weight that is a limiting factor, but the rapid change in CG as the load is dumped.

 

[GTX]

Something that was apparently actually proposed:

 

[GrauGeist]

After the war, P-61s, TBM/Fs, B-26s and several other types were used for pin-point fire bombing.

These were eventually replaced by types such as the S-2 and P-2V.

For larger attack platforms, the B-17 and a variety of transports were used, like the DC-2, DC-3/C-47.

 

[GrauGeist]

The big birds don't carry as much slurry as you think. The DC-10's only can carry about a 9,000 gallon load, and the 747, a little over 11,000 gallons. It's not the total weight that is a limiting factor, but the rapid change in CG as the load is dumped.

The 747 supertankers carry over 19,000 gallons.

The IL-76 tanker carries 11,000 gallons.

The DC-10 tanker carries 12,000 gallons and the JRM-3 carried 7,200 gallons.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Are C-130s being used?

Yes, and have been for at least 25 years that I know of. A California ANG unit flying Hercs
out of Pt Mugu NAS has modular fuselage tanks for rapid deployment for big fires, and has had this capability since at least 1995 if not earlier.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Are C-130s being used?

Heya Rob, for further reading: Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System

 

[SaparotRob]

Way cool. Now I know why the stuff is red. Fertilizer too!

 

[GrauGeist]

It got me thinking. How about plenty plenty plenty of bombs as in water containers. In the shape of said bombs. The general ord. stuff bombs, but the for killing fire.
Carpet bomb the shit out of it. Must be a something to see.

I think it is a win win. Fire gets fought, crew gets to bomb a precision target. Thankfull people still having a home.

It will be a thing that goes global.

In my mind (yes i am 14) i see three of them. Abrest formation. Dumping a shit load of anti forrest fire things.

Now that is fighting fire with fire.

Back in 2018, we had a terrible fire that wiped out a few nearby towns and threatened the city of Redding. It actually burned into the city limits, killing a Fire Chief and several others.
The nearby town of Lewiston was threatened and the fire hand crews did the best they could to stop the approach of the fire, but the line on the ridge, which was their last hope, was starting to fail.
The fire was relentless and cresting, literally minutes away from entering Lewiston.

Suddenly, there was a roar of jet engines heard over the tumult of the fire and a red and white 737 appeared just over the treetops, laying a massive swath of phoscheck across the line of the fire on the ridge, snuffing the fire instantly.

The town was saved.

No need for bombs, the computer controlled systems aboard the supertankers adjust the pattern and output of the retardant amd it works perfectly.

 

[GreenKnight121]

Videos of a DC-10 dropping retardant on hilly terrain:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPDcJd0SSIo


The newest tanker conversion, planned to replace all of the P-2 and P-3 tankers is the BAe 146 (capacity 3,000 gallons, the same as the P-3).
Designed for 3rd-world airfields and flight crews, it was intended to be flown into airfields with surrounding terrain, and to handle higher g-forces than most airliners.
Note the extended speed brakes aft::

 

[Token]

I was recently watching them work on a small wildfire. The teamwork and tactical considerations were actually impressive.

A smaller aircraft (Beech 200 Super King Air, N741JR) was "Lead 55". He stayed on scene for hours, and performed the task of pathfinder and coordinator for most / all of the fixed wing assets. As the bigger aircraft came on scene (after refilling) he briefed them on where to lay the retardant and what dispersion setting to select, and it appeared that they then flew off his wing and he lead them all the way to the drop and off. It appeared to be common that the first pass of the day for a new asset that showed up on scene was a dry run, to get the lay of the land and get used to playing with Lead 55.

Lead 55 was only involved with the fixed wing assets, someone else was coordinating the rotary wing stuff. As you can imagine, there were significant deconfliction efforts.

The below are not complete listings, just a few notes I jotted down while observing.

Other supervisor / Air Attack aircraft appeared to be:
Rockwell Turbo Commander 690 / N690RA
Beech 200 Super King Air / N463DF

The fixed wing fire fighting assets included:
McDonnell Douglas MD-87 (DC-9) / N296EA
Boeing 737-2H4 / N138CG
BAE 146-200 / N476NA
BAE 146-200 / N475NA
Grumman S2F-1 / N436DF
Grumman S2F3AT / N431DF

Rotary wing:
Sikorsky CH-54A Skycrane / N7095B
Sikorsky S-61A (HSS-2A Sea King) / N3173U
Boing CH-47D Chinook / N238PJ
Bell 212 / N212HP
Bell 407 / N555AS


T!