Author Topic: SA watches trial of giant waterbomber  (Read 16762 times)

Offline Zippy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,540
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SA watches trial of giant waterbomber
« Reply #25 on: October 12, 2009, 06:45:30 AM »
-takeaway the skycrane
-add 4 fixed wings
-add 2 mid-sized helo's
-add a midnorth manned airbase
-add a Upper Murray manned airbase

Ta da!

Offline jaff

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SA watches trial of giant waterbomber
« Reply #26 on: October 12, 2009, 07:55:36 AM »
-takeaway the skycrane


Ta da!


BLASPHEMER.....SAY........3 Hail Marys.. and your absolved of your sin! :-D
Just Another Filtered Fireman

Offline Zippy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,540
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SA watches trial of giant waterbomber
« Reply #27 on: October 12, 2009, 08:48:45 AM »
-takeaway the skycrane


Ta da!


BLASPHEMER.....SAY........3 Hail Marys.. and your absolved of your sin! :-D

Ha...never.

Offline Burnover

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 23
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SA watches trial of giant waterbomber
« Reply #28 on: November 07, 2009, 09:15:07 AM »
From http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/state-government-to-lease-multi-million-dollar-fire-fighting-jet/story-e6frf7jo-1225795179869

A MULTI-million dollar super water-bomber capable of soaking a 1.2km bushfire in one hit will join our firefighting arsenal this summer.
The water-bombing jet will be able to reach anywhere in Victoria in just 45 minutes, and is being billed as an important weapon in heading off another Black Saturday disaster.

With forecasts of a fierce summer, Premier John Brumby moved quickly to get an Australian-first firefighting jet lease, most likely a modified DC-10 or 747 jumbo carrier.

Police and Emergency Services Minister Bob Cameron told the Herald Sun the aircraft would be one important weapon in fighting fires and protecting Victorians.

"This will be another asset as we leave no stone unturned to help deliver on our goal of making Victoria as fire safe and as fire ready as possible," he said.

Offline Alex

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SA watches trial of giant waterbomber
« Reply #29 on: November 07, 2009, 09:43:55 AM »
Mmmm i wonder if the fire service actually wanted it, and how much it will impact on there budget....

An impressive beast, but hard to think of anything more inaproppriate for Aus firefighting in my personal opinion.

Offline crashndash

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 256
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SA watches trial of giant waterbomber
« Reply #30 on: November 07, 2009, 10:41:30 AM »
as has been said before....its all about media spin, photo opportunities and marketing


pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: SA watches trial of giant waterbomber
« Reply #31 on: November 07, 2009, 01:19:34 PM »
When will the madness end, just start a backburn at Glenelg, it will stop in Darwin somewhere, could use a good cleanout....

Offline SA Firey

  • Forum Group Officer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,967
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: SA watches trial of giant waterbomber
« Reply #32 on: November 29, 2009, 09:13:06 AM »
CFS should concentrate on getting their training courses into shape rather than spending money on more air support. We have all heard the "Lets hail Elvis" our saviour too many times :-P

On a serious note more Air Tractors would be the better option, but so would supporting ground crews with better resources. 
Images are copyright

Offline BlackDog

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Dry Country Man
    • View Profile
Re: SA watches trial of giant waterbomber
« Reply #33 on: December 05, 2009, 09:38:22 PM »
Try checking some of the research done by the CSIRO back in the 80's. The concluded that one large bomber would be cost-effective, but that was based on saves on a relatively small number of fires out of the total possible.

This seems a more expensive package.

Bear in mind the drop parameters.
Supposed minimum height is 400'AGL, and the USFS Large Air Tanker project found that they shouldn't be used on country with an overall slope of more than (IIRC)  7 degrees.
Progress requires change, but not all change is progress.