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.

 

#49 out of 50 Reasons Why Russia Still Matters

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 09:03 AM
link   
The Ilyushin-76

These giant forest-fire-fighting planes can hold 11,000 gallons... that's over 4 times more water than any other firefighting aircraft. That's enough to put out a four-acre blaze in one run. [Edited to remove potentially offensive content]. Whatever. The point is, they're sure to come in handy when global warming turns even the once lush Pacific Northwest into a tinderbox. www.exile.ru...

Thanks to the www.forestcircus.com..., the BC Forest Service,
now under wildfire seige in the Pacific Northwest, is provided with
a full set of bureaucratic excuses why 1000s of people are getting
run off the land in British Columbia.


[edit on 6/22/2004 by Shadow]




posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   
...And the water-bomber version is just one facet of usefullness for this interesting Russian aircraft. It's not a new aircraft. The Il-76 was used by the Soviet military for AWACS, troop and tank transport, and many other uses. I don't really know much about this aircraft, but from what I do know, it seems to be a reliable, stable airframe.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Canada, among others, uses it for military transport.

It's a zero-gravtiy vomit comet for space training too.

India has set up a missile defence system manufactured
in Israel on its IL-76s.

It's in use everyday around the world but limitations had
been set up around noisy engines. The noise factor is not
a consideration in civil defence. These engines are no
noisier than those of the 33 tankers the US Forest Circus
has grounded.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 11:11 AM
link   
edited to remove potentially offensive content eh?

edited to remove potentially offensive content.

hmmmmm......I had to think about that.

I'll tell you where the offensive content is:

It's in the
North American firefighting bureaucracy, which, having taken
a stand against the world's foremost disaster-mitigating firefighting
device, is aligned in a Stalinesque Pravda-speak defence of
the preposterous notion that liquids volume doesn't count in fighting
wildfire while deploying, at great cost to the taxpayer, swarms of
mosquito-like bambi-bucketed appliances in an effort to show
that they are doing something with the fire they can show the
folks on TV.

There's the offensive content.

Pogo said I have seen the enemy and he, is us.

edit that.

[edit on 22-6-2004 by JohnA]



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Russia matters because they have an aircraft that puts out fires

and if you want to talk about military aircraft putting out fires than the US has the C-130 do u know how much water that holds.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Russia matters because the U.S. still needs a country to fly over on our way to clean up their mess left from Afghanistan.



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   
The C-130, whilst a competent a/c, holds
1/4 the payload of the IL-76. We're not
sure we like that MAFFS spray-bomb delivery system and MAFFS is the only
C-130 in service now as the rest (private
contractor a/c) are considered too iffy.

(long and technical piece dictating to you
why that is: articles.findarticles.com...)

Hey speedbump crmanager? You still cranking
out that Cold War dogma? Atta go, man.

You just carry on in your little world.

Other people have moved on. You got any friends
who buy what you're selling in 2004?

If so. how many?

[edit on 22-6-2004 by JohnA]



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Hmmm. It was a Hawkins & Powers C-130 that had both wings snap off during a water-bombing run.

The venerable C-130 is an excellent airframe, but it is dated. The Il-76 isn't exactly new, either, but it's larger capacity make it a better option than the C-130, in my opinion, anyway.

Perhaps a C-141?



posted on Jun, 22 2004 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Thank you, Quizel, for your most civilized and
educated response. Indeed, the C-130 which
went down was H&P and is pictured here:
www.ruudleeuw.com...

This season, with the grounding of the 33
large air tankers, the MAFFS system incorporated
in 8-9 of the the Guard's C-130s is onhand.

The Forest Service is defying logic by saying the
array of very small aircraft they intend to deploy
against wildifires will be adequate while bowing to
political pressure, offering hope that some of the
grounded can be airborne again before the season
is out. In AZ and NM, risk should abate for a time with
the expected advent of July monsoons.

The shifting pattern of US wildfire risk can be found
here:wildfirenews.com...

I won't comment on the C-141 (almost a twin of the Il-76).
Nobody is proposing it. What is proposed is the 747,
but most in the know remain skeptical while the Il-76 is
a proven performer.



posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   
well we will see how good the 747 is



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 07:48 AM
link   
[North American firefighting bureaucracy, which, having taken
a stand against the world's foremost disaster-mitigating firefighting
device, is aligned in a Stalinesque Pravda-speak defence of
the preposterous notion that liquids volume doesn't count in fighting
wildfire while deploying, at great cost to the taxpayer, swarms of
mosquito-like bambi-bucketed appliances in an effort to show
that they are doing something with the fire they can show the
folks on TV.

Actually it may be the FAA. Evergreen Aviation (I Think) has a modified 747 that is waiting FAA approval. It is supposed to be able to delive a massive amount ot water / retardant on a fire. Why should we go to the bother of buying IL-76 when 747-400's are starting to be parked in the desert. Also with Boeing winning the MMA contract, how many P-3 Orions are going to be avalible soon? What is the safety record of the IL -76?



posted on Jun, 27 2004 @ 08:18 PM
link   
This is like the third topic about this JohnA. People do not care about the Russian tanker. The US is never going to use it. Thats the way it is. Get over it and try to produce some topics that people actually care about.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   
so you dont want an airframe that can fit a boing 747 into it?
right i can see the sense there totaly
sersioly if u packed this baby with bombs then you would have a first class bomber.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Why not use a C-5 galaxy for a fire fighting platform its a monster of a plane. Or for that matter why not make a spectre gunship out of one of things that would be sweet


C-5 galaxy



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   
the Ilyushin-76
is bigger than the galaxy and also big planes are called missile magnets.



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Dimensions of Ilyushin IL-76:

Wing Span 165ft 8in
Length 152ft 10.25 in
Height 48ft 5in
Payload 110,230 lb

Dimensions of C-5:

Wing Span 222ft 8.5in
Length 247ft 10in
Height 65ft 1.5in
Payload 261,000 lb

Ok which is bigger again? By the looks if it the C-5



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Also;

Ilyushin 76 statistics
Hull-loss Accidents: 30 with a total of 678 fatalities
Other occurrences (hull-loss): 9 with a total of 20 fatalities
Unfiled occurrences (hull-loss): 9 with a total of 0 fatalities
Hijackings: 1 with a total of 0 fatalities
Selection of incidents: 1 with a total of 7 fatalities



number of aircraft damaged beyond repair as a result of accidents, per year



posted on Jun, 29 2004 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetsetter
Dimensions of Ilyushin IL-76:

Wing Span 165ft 8in
Length 152ft 10.25 in
Height 48ft 5in
Payload 110,230 lb

Dimensions of C-5:

Wing Span 222ft 8.5in
Length 247ft 10in
Height 65ft 1.5in
Payload 261,000 lb

Ok which is bigger again? By the looks if it the C-5



Yeah I would have to say the C-5 is bigger I mean over twice the payload of the IL-76 that thing is a monster. The wright brothers could have made the first flight inside the dam thing.That thing could fly with a battle loaded M1A1 inside



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   
da,mm i hate thos lying sob's on tv



posted on Jun, 30 2004 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnA
Canada, among others, uses it for military transport.

It's a zero-gravtiy vomit comet for space training too.

India has set up a missile defence system manufactured
in Israel on its IL-76s.

It's in use everyday around the world but limitations had
been set up around noisy engines. The noise factor is not
a consideration in civil defence. These engines are no
noisier than those of the 33 tankers the US Forest Circus
has grounded.


Canada has a military???


I kid I kid....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join