It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why isn't Colorado's big 747 SuperTanker helping fight the Australian fires?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

They use either straight fire retardant or a retardant/ water mix. Straight water dropped from a fixed wing aircraft tends to evaporate before reaching the fire.




posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Notoneofyou

But with slight modification it could be very effective in peace keeping. Drop water on a crowd that is just above freezing and no one will bother continuing the protest or attack, terribly cold rain. What about a little itching powder added to that water just for fun.



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Waterglass
I hope she will do a documentary of the amount of CO2 that out-gasses from concrete is bad for masonry and earth and must be stopped now.


I'm sure you'll do a few threads on it if she does.



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Waterglass
So use aluminum. Its lightweight and strong and will resist saltwater. Military use it for warship hulls and aluminum boats have been around for decades.


Did you ever stop and think that maybe your idea is a total waste of money?

Probably not, you're too focused on that Swedish kid.



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 02:15 PM
link   


Why isn't Colorado's big 747 SuperTanker helping fight the Australian fires?


It probably comes down to how much it costs to transport, maintain and lease. One way or another some ones got to pay for it and as impressive as this waterbomber appears, it still wouldn't be a magic bullet for getting all these fires under control.



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

They usually put firefighting aircraft under maintenance before and after the fire season. They've lost more than a few aircraft to maintenance related causes, a couple quite spectacularly, and quite visibly. So once the North American season ends, it's off to maintenance, which takes a couple months depending on aircraft type.



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 02:26 PM
link   
My friend is a crew member on the DC10 that does the same thing...




posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: Waterglass

You still can't dump tons of saltwater on land, fire or no fire.

I think I'll have to reach out to the representative of Georgia's 4th district, Hank Johnson, on this. Australia is just a really big island you know. Dropping all that salt water could make it tip over. or sink altogether.



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Two more are heading down as they come out of maintenance. The first on the 15th, the second by the 25th.



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yeah, I suppose it may just be down to availability. But still, general government incompetence and the reluctance to just fork out for these high capacity water bombers must still have a lot to do with it.

I mean, Australia's prone to extremely intense bush fires, probably more than any other continent on earth and its not like we're some impoverished broke country either... So why wouldn't we have our own fleet of water bombers that have a 35,000 to 70,000 litre capacity? Why are we still relying on the US to supply these type of aircraft every time the SHTF?

Its just something that's never made sense to me.



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

It always plays a role. The problem is there are only so many aircraft that can make a decent conversion into a water bomber. There are dozens in storage, but most of those are at the end of their life and would require extensive work. The reason they go to the US all the time is because the largest fleet of water bombers in the world is in North America.

There are only 4 DC-10s, with a 12,000 gallon capacity (the 5th was retired), and only one 747, with a capacity of 19,600 gallons. They definitely should have at least CL-415s on standby, and a yearly contract in place with some of the LATs at minimum though.
edit on 1/12/2020 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 03:56 PM
link   
The 747 isn’t even approved by the US forest service, it doesn’t lay down a thick enough coverage level. It’s only used on state contracts. Basically a big Airshow. It’s effective with large grass fires. The BAE 146, Convairs smaller LATs etc are more effective in dense and heavy timber, those are USFS approved.



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: 38181

I wouldn't trust the Forest Service to manage a camp fire. They released a Call As Needed RFP, and limited responses to tanks no larger than 5,000 gallons. That eliminated everything larger than an MD-87.



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Atsbhct
a reply to: Waterglass

You still can't dump tons of saltwater on land, fire or no fire.


I'm pretty sure we have a "desalination" process for salt water. While it may be costly to do, what's stopping an empty tanker from filling up with fresh water from another location closer to Australia?



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

Because water sucks for fighting fires from aircraft. They have to release higher than helicopters, traveling much faster, so most of the water evaporates and never reaches the fire.



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 04:17 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Deetermined

Because water sucks for fighting fires from aircraft. They have to release higher than helicopters, traveling much faster, so most of the water evaporates and never reaches the fire.


Depends, you get a line of 2,3,4,5,Or 6 Firebosses on and they will put a world of hurt on a fire, you can operate 4 Firebosses for the price of one CL-515. And put out twice as much water.

They also have foam, Gel, or iso Polymer injections which reduces the amount of evaporation.



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Deetermined

Because water sucks for fighting fires from aircraft. They have to release higher than helicopters, traveling much faster, so most of the water evaporates and never reaches the fire.


I'm just going by the information that's in the OP's link...


The Global SuperTanker, a Boeing 747-400 jet retrofitted to haul up to 20,000 gallons of water and fire retardant, has been contracted by the Bolivian government to help fight fires in the Amazon.

The massive plane landed in Bolivia on Tuesday.

The SuperTanker can sweep as low as 200 to 250 feet above the ground to douse the flames, and, in the case of Bolivia’s fires, it has been dropping more than 19,000 gallons of water during each flight.



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

For the large aircraft, water gets mixed with something else if they aren't using just retardant of some kind.



posted on Jan, 12 2020 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: 38181

They might as well count as helicopters in terms of getting down into the fire, unlike the larger aircraft.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join